Dick Cheney: The Most Pro-Gay Vice President in History
Were Dick Cheney not a Republican and not, in the eyes of the left, the most reviled member of the most reviled administration in history, he would leave office with gay leaders and advocates singing his praises. For Dick Cheney leaves office today as the most pro-gay vice president in the history of our country.
Known as a vice president very loyal to the president, Cheney almost never disagreed with George W. Bush since Bush tapped the former defense secretary as his running mate in July 2000. On gay issues, however, Cheney frequently made public statements that went beyond the president’s official policies and, at least once, directly opposed them.
He first distinguished himself from Bush on October 5, 2000, in the vice presidential debate. While Bush had not taken a public position on state recognition of same-sex unions, his record in Texas indicated that he was not in favor.
When debate moderator Bernard Shaw asked, “Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all — all the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen,” one might thus have expected Bush’s running mate to offer an equivocal response. But Cheney did not mince words:
We live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We shouldn’t be able to choose and say you get to live free and you don’t. That means people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s no one’s business in terms of regulating behavior in that regard. The next step then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction of the relationships or if they should be treated the same as a traditional marriage. … I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. … We ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.
In this debate, he didn’t take issue with something his running mate had said or even suggested. Instead, he offered an opinion that some social conservatives, part of the president’s base, might find offensive.
Once elected, however, he would take issue with a public stand Bush had taken on a gay issue. It would be the first — and only time — he would publicly disagree with his running mate in their first term in office.
What should we expect of a movement which demonizes and bullies any opposition? Teay stand for nothing save what interests them at the moment (or what will get them the most) and woe betide any who oppose the eventuality of the “Progressives”. GW makes more difference in the fight against AIDs than any president and we hear nothing. He opposes a definition of marriage that contains non-reproductive lifestyles and he is demonized by a press so politically compromised that it feels it “owns” the election process.
“Why won’t leading gay organizations praise him?”
I think we all know the answer to that. It’s the one anomoly to all that Cheney represents. I’m sure it’s downright maddening to them. It would be like finding out that Hitler was a huge PETA advocate…and was threatening his generals and his troops with execution if they wore fur.
Because gays are mostly liberal and won’t recognize anything you do as good unless you agree with them 100%.
Thanks for the welcome and even-handed reminder. I wish the rest of the gay community were as fair in their assessment. But unfortunately, they take too much of the good in their lives for granted.
If you ask the typical gay liberal who they trusted more, Muslims or Cheney, they’d tell you Muslims everytime. Sadly, the stoning homosexuals thing doesn’t seem to register.
A better question is who do you trust more to protect American values, the gay community or the American Muslim community?
Without a doubt the American Muslim community.
Perhaps they sense that if Cheney didn’t have a gay daughter, he wouldn’t have taken any pro-gay stands at all. By that standard, it’s a shame Bush’s twins aren’t werewolves, or he might not have been so eager to de-list the wolf.
Well, libs are never ones to let the facts get in the way of their preconcieved opinions of hate.
“It would be like finding out that Hitler was a huge PETA advocate…and was threatening his generals and his troops with execution if they wore fur.”
Hitler was a vegetarian.
Because these “rights” groups are about politics (read:$$$)not about their pet issues.
Right now everything is too politicized for anyone on either side to give credit where credit is do. Sad.
Ultimately he was Bush’s vice-president. He aided a man who was staunchly against gay rights. Bush’s reelection in 2004 was significantly aided by ballot initiatives in swing states that targeted the gay community. It is important to mention that in none of these states had gay marriage been legal. So, Cheney, had been part of a very cynical political machine that played on people’s fears and discomforts in a way that targeted a minority group. This is why the gay community has little affection for Cheney.
That being said, it is important to mention that the American community as a whole has little affection for the man and his administration either.
What saddens me is that we expect extra recognition when someone plays against type. President Obama said “God Bless America” in his inaugural address, and can expect praise for it, because people don’t expect that of him.
But nobody remembers that Obama’s immediate predecessor did more for AIDS victims in Africa than all other Presidents combined, even though it’s the last thing his opponents would have expected of him. And no one seems to care that Cheney set a standard, both as a politician and as a parent, with respect to gay rights.
It’s almost as though there’s an agenda at work, or something.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Would a politician rather get a standing ovation by employing a canned applause line or get a round of uncomfortable jeers by telling the truth? Civility means weakness in this day and age. Are politicians yearning for integrity or power? Rhetorical, I know.
Chris is right.
Cheney has voiced some socially progressive ideas, but he stood to be counted with Rove, wedge issue hatred and political gain at any price. That is why GLBT people don’t like or respect him.
I say this as a transgendered woman and a life long Republican.
Chris – it sounds like you think Cheney was a Democrat – he “had been part of a very cynical political machine that played on people’s fears and discomforts in a way that targeted a minority group.”
Oh wait! I get it! You think Republicans are race baiters and people haters! Ha ha! You are clever!
Perhaps you need to look up and contrast the definitions of the words “tolerance” and “acceptance”. Let me give you an example if you can’t use a dictionary. Republicans “tolerate” behavior they don’t like, even if they don’t agree with it. Democrats require “acceptance”, not just “tolerance” of their ideologies, even if you don’t agree with them.
Is this why the gay community has little affection for Cheney?
Craig, are you being sly with your Hitler/PETA analogy? If not, you might want to read up on Hitler.
There is nothing Chaney could ever do that would win any praise from any democratic coalition. yet not one peep about the Misogynistic Clinton.
Before we went into Afghanistan the Taliban had a difficult administrative issue; that is do they bury their gays alive or just throw them off a cliff? Bush’s war ended that.
Still waiting for the praise.
“Ultimately he was Bush’s vice-president. He aided a man who was staunchly against gay rights. Bush’s reelection in 2004 was significantly aided by ballot initiatives in swing states that targeted the gay community. It is important to mention that in none of these states had gay marriage been legal.”
This is a load of tripe. Two days after the election in 2004, David Brooks wrote a great column dispelling this myth [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html?_r=1]. Here is another analysis of the vote that year and the impact of the gay marriage initiatives on the outcome of the election[http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/knippenberg/04/gaymarriage.html]. Anti-gay marriage initiatives won in Oregon and Michigan which were states that Kerry won and there was no evidence that Bush’s turnout was higher because of gay marriage initiatives on various state ballots that year. Bush never wanted to have anything to do with the gay marriage issue. It was the idiot liberals in the Massachussetts Supreme court who foisted this issue on the American people by by judicial fiat in 2004. Right or wrong, gay marriage isn’t very popular. There seems to be some evidence that it is becoming more accepted, but it still isn’t supported by the majority of the american people and neither Bush or Cheney are responsible for that. After all, the messiah won California overwhelmingly and Proposition 8 received over 2 million more votes than McCain did. Obama repeatedly said he is not in favor of gay marriage, yet gays supported him. No matter how badly people (gays, liberals, the media, Democrats, etc.) want to justify their hate for Bush and Cheney, it isn’t based on facts or reality. They just hate them because they are hateful people.
Dick Cheney was also the most pro-torture, the most pro-compromising CIA agents, the most pro-lying about the connection between Saddam and bin Laden, and the most pro-illegally expanding his own powers.
So he didn’t hate gays. Big deal. He’s still a treasonous slimeball and I’m glad he’s out of the White House.
“Cheney has voiced some socially progressive ideas, but he stood to be counted with Rove, wedge issue hatred and political gain at any price. That is why GLBT people don’t like or respect him.”
And yet when I pointed out to a liberal friend that 70 percent of black Californians who voted for Obama also voted in favor of Prop 8, he answer was they’re not homophobic — they’re just “complex.”
jblog, let me go on record as saying the voters who supported Prop 8 were by and large homophobic – though that’s not incompatible with “complex”.
Dick Cheney made some remarks that were positive-sounding. The problem is that he didn’t follow them up with any obvious leadership, nor with any leadership that resulted in change. In the quote cited, he dodges. He makes full equality a “states’ rights” issue. That doesn’t make me want to leap up and applaud. What I’m looking for is someone who walks the walk, not just talks the talk.
Debbie C – how do you know they were homophobic? My motive-o-meter isn’t that sensitive, able to assay millions of anonymous people at a distance. I suppose it depends on whether you have a circular definition of that or not.
I think some of the commenters here illustrate exactly what the essay suggested: they are not interested in any balanced view, they only want to look at one side of the scale. There can’t possibly have been any good reasons for Cheney to have reached different conclusions, he must just be a pro-torture, rights-hating evil person.
How dare you interrupt their Two-Minute Hate?
Debbie C:
Cheney did “walk the walk”.
The real problem is that the leftist MSM didn’t want to tell you; you didn’t want to know; and you actively sought out the people who would feed you the steaming pile of BS that you just vomited back at us.
It couldn’t be because he’s a Republican…could it?
6. CitizenKane:
I would have to disagree with you entirely.
American values are the values of liberty and freedom. Liberty and freedom are completely vacant from Islam, while meanwhile gay people are fighting for freedom, whether me or you thinks their fight is justified or not.
Being a man with a gay child who loves his child does not equal the blanket statement “most pro-gay Vice President in History.”
Cheney may have said a few things here and there, but he did not admonish his own party for their anti-homosexual stances, their assumption of what “pro-family” means and the like.
He NEVER walked the walk. Hence, the lack of support from the GLBT community. Tom Paine @24: Where did he walk the walk?
When was he ever out on the stump, making statements? Sure, he made some remarks in 2000 and in 2004. Then?
Be honest: Cheney used his VP power in many, many ways. But NEVER to ameliorate the anti-homosexual feelings of many within the Conservative/Christian realm.
Again, I believe the man is tolerant, loves his daughter, welcomes her partner and loves his grandchild.
But in the end, politically, he remained (and still remains) silent.
Sorry, PJM, he does not deserve such a moniker unless he is actually participating in making changes. Not snarling at anyone who dares to ask him about his gay daughter.
“Bush’s reelection in 2004 was significantly aided by ballot initiatives in swing states that targeted the gay community.”
Obama
California
2008
???
This is an excellent piece and ties very nicely with a piece I’m going to be putting up on my blog soon. The notion that democrats stand for gay rights is completely laughable. They say whatever makes them sound compassionate but will never step outside of political expediency to back up their words. A pro-gay rights position is a pro-freedom position, and it just doesn’t mix with statism. Can you imagine if this were the situation with Joe Biden? Holy crapy, we’d never hear the end of how he was so “tolerant” and “trail blazing.” I must say this is very encouraging for a pro-gay rights republican like myself.
post #8 says it all.
Do you think Bama’s goof today will hit “nucular” satus in the press? Doubt it….
Dick Cheney wasn’t anymore Pro-gay then Obama. In fact neither of them are really supporters of the gay rights movement. They aren’t proposing any idea of attempting to nationalize marriage laws. They aren’t attempting to preach about marriage equality. Cheney was simply addressing a question that he basically seems morally strong on but legislatively neutral. Yeah he doesn’t support a national gay marriage ban, but he doesn’t support pro-gay marriage legislation.
This is coming from a flaming liberal.
We don’t have very many high level pro-gay marriage politicians. And we certainly don’t have any in the Executive branch (and that includes the Obama presidency).
Debbie C
“voters who supported Prop 8 were by and large HOMOPHOBIC”
Ah yes, to old ad hominen attack.
“Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. IT IS ALSO USED WHEN AN OPPONENT IS UNBABLE TO FIND FAULT WITH AN ARGUMENT, YET FOR VARIOUS REASONS, THE OPPONENT DISAGREES WITH IT [emphasis added].”
-Wikipedia
To others: that is how you deal with the old “homophobe twist”. Discredit it. It’s a personal attack (ad hominen) and irrelevant to the argument.
I don’t believe that suggesting support of homophobic legislation implies homophobia is anything resembling an Ad Hominem.
It is 100% relevant and completely true. If you support anti-gay legislation then you are, in fact, anti-gay.
It’s very similar to supporting Jim Crow laws in the mid 20th century. You may not be an openly racist person, but supporting racist laws implies your racism.
Remember, actions speak louder then words. And prop 8 was screaming at us.
“It is 100% relevant and completely true. If you support anti-gay legislation then you are, in fact, anti-gay.”
Replace the word “gay” in the above sentence with the word “family” and you have the conservative Ad hominem.
I am in favor of gay marriage. I voted as such on our state’s ballot inniative in 2004 (which failed badly here in liberal Wisconsin). Gay marriage will pass eventually. It is a matter of time, in my opinion.
There are some significant issues that are delaying the acceptance of gay marriage in this country, though. First, labeling your opposition as evil, intollerant and homophobic. Second, attacking the personal religious beliefs of your opposition. Third, using straw men and ad homimum attacks that lack substance (emotion killing logic). Fourth, attempting to out opponents, personally embarassing them and their families. Simply put, the raw anger and disrespect for the opposition to these iniatives leads people to simply say “see, homosexuals are just too radical”.
The irony, of course, is that if supporters of same sex marriage were to use the example of Cheney and his daughter as a model for good beahvior, this might calm the fears of many in the middle and on the right. But, it’s not as fun as using Google Maps to target your opposition or marching in a parade with butless leather chaps and a leash, because that will bring them right around to your side.
Gay marriage is a far most specific term then family. You cannot simply replace that word with anything and expect to get the same results.
I mean what is pro-family legislation anyway?
If I said you supported pro-family food-stamp-aid legislation then you are pro food-aid for families. But if I said you supported pro-Iraq legislation, that doesn’t mean you are pro-Iraq. That is because there are multiple sides that claim to be pro-Iraq that have different views.
This is similar to the argument by the christian right that they were “preserving marriage.” What marriage were they preserving?
They equate anti-gay marriage with pro-marriage. Do you understand how subjectiveness cannot be a factor in that statement?
If you can find someone who is against family then I would be surprised. That is why it is not a suitable comparison. No one is against families in the entirety of the word. They simply have different definitions and actions for them.
Some people are against gay families. Some people are against single parent families.
If labeling our opposition what they really are is delaying the advancement of gay rights, then it is the oppositions fault, not ours. We are not going to appease the other side simply because we want to trick them into supporting us.
If you are a homophobe, I’m going to call you a homophobe. If you are embarrassed or angered by that fact then maybe you should stop being homophobic.
I never intentionally embarrass anyone. My goal is not to humiliate the opposition. I mean for gods sake I want to change their mind. But I’m not willing to dilute my message because they suffer from an Allegory of the Cave complex.
The point of the Gay rights movement isn’t necessarily to change peoples minds about gay people. We know that there will always be anti-gay people out there. The point of the Gay rights movement is the advancement of gay rights. And if that means going around the mentally crippled anti-gay rights fools, then we will.
If we can’t convert you, we will defeat you. End of story.
“The point of the Gay rights movement isn’t necessarily to change peoples minds about gay people. We know that there will always be anti-gay people out there. The point of the Gay rights movement is the advancement of gay rights. And if that means going around the mentally crippled anti-gay rights fools, then we will.”
Winning an argument is about talking to people and telling them you are right, then telling them why you are right. If you have better ideas and are right, civil conflict is not something to be afraid of. The purpose is to changing their minds. Realize, though, that your opposition has rational arguments too. Until you can deal with those rational arguments in a rational way (not calling people homophobes or religous nuts or google-mapping their houses) you cannot win. You need 50% +1 of the voters to agree with you, or a majority of the state house. Strong arm tactics, hate mongering, ignorance of rational arguments and anti-religous bigotry will not bring people to you. It will only push them away and make your goals much harder to accomplish.
All I’m saying is that if “the movement” were to embrace Cheney and his daughter and uphold their example, then it would have a very powerful argument against conservatives that are fearful. And a potential ally that is a formidible and tough bastard.
Right now the biggest barrier to same-sex marriage rights is homosexuals that behave very badly. Until “the movement” can develop good leadership which is capable of controling the radicals, the fear mongering and hate on both sides will continue.
Fantastic article…thank you. I’ll be forwarding it to some of my liberal pals. And Milton, your comment (#36) really says it all. Thanks.
‘If we can’t convert you, we will defeat you. End of story.”
I’ll bet we’ll outbreed you.
#35 Michael Karger: “If you are a homophobe, I’m going to call you a homophobe. If you are embarrassed or angered by that fact then maybe you should stop being homophobic.”
I know this may astonish you, Michael, but conservative homophobes are far more likely to be amused than “angered” or “embarrassed” when you call them homophobes, since in their minds the very concept of “homophobia” is ridiculous.
On the other hand, non-homophobic conservatives possibly WILL get angry if you think it’s appropriate to call them homophobes simply because they think same-sex couples should have “civil unions” rather than “marriage,” or because they think that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should remain in place, or because in some other way they disagree with the policy positions of gay orgs like HRC and GLAAD. And they’re right to get angry, because in some cases they’ve gone to a certain amount of trouble and taken grief from other conservatives for taking a gay-friendly stance, only to be told that they’re “homophobic” at heart because they took a political position that left-wing gays don’t like.
If you REALLY want to anger or embarrass someone with the charge of “Homophobe!”, say it to a self-professed liberal.
It’s all about choices….and what is right for each individual! I find it amazing that liberals insist on a woman’s “right to choose” but when Sarah Palin’s daughter ‘chose’ to keep her baby, the liberal MSM wondered outloud why she didn’t kill it like they would have! Likewise, people exercised at the ballot box (twice in California) of their “right to choose” about gays getting married. California voters want to keep marriage to be between a man and a woman but that does not mean they wish to deny gays the ‘right to choose’ to be a family. We, as Americans can (well, we USED to)be able to live our lives without the government or special interests forcing their agendas on others. We all need to return to just taking care of our own beeswax!
President Reagan was once asked to support some truly homophobic policy positions. He pointed out that he had spent a lot of time in Hollywood, and that there were a lot of homosexuals in the film business.
There is a difference between making special rights for homosexuals, and being opposed to equal rights for homosexual. And homosexuals have long been able to marry, they just have had to follow the common rules for marriage: marry a person of the opposite sex. Such an arrangement gives the benefits of lower health insurance, lower life insurance that would be provided by an heterosexual marriage.
dear jdgjtr:
Your point would make since except for the fact that straight couple don’t solely raise straight children.
So no, you won’t out-breed us. You actually will be breeding us. Thanks for the help.