. . . he’d be folk hero to gay and lesbian activists.
Not only did he risk alienating part of his party’s conservative base in the 2000 Vice Presidential debate by speaking out in favor of gay couples living openly, but in the 2004 campaign, he opposed his running mate, President Bush, on only one issue when he spoke out against a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
But, it’s not just what he has done publicly which would make him a folk hero to these activists were it not for the visceral hatred of Republicans, particularly those, like the Vice President, closely associated with President George W. Bush. Behind the scenes, he has also been a force for tolerance and acceptance of individual gay men and lesbians.
Just one anecdote from Mary Cheney’s must-read book, Now It’s My Turn shows how good a man Vice President Cheney is. After the president announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a longtime supporter of the president, just coming to terms with his sexuality, feared that he might be “outed” as part of a campaign by angry gay activists to target gays who had not yet come out and who worked for Republicans or who otherwise supported the president.
Mary told the man he should come out to his supervisor. When she mentioned this man’s concerns to her father, that good man said, “I want you to go back and tell this person that if anyone–I don’t care who it is–if anyone gives him any trouble, he is to come see me and I’ll take care of it.” When she told the man what her father, the Vice President of the United States had said, it helped relieve him of “at least some of his worries.”
The Vice President willing to go to bat for a gay man who fears that his coming out could hurt him professionally. Sounds like the kind of story gay activists would want to tell. But, of course it they told that story, it might upset their narrative about the narrow-mindedness of conservatives, particularly those close to President Bush.
Once again their narrow partisanship prevents them from telling the real story about this Administration — and the ever-improving conditions for gay people in America, even under George W. Bush’s leadership.
In other words, Dick Cheney will help people he knows, while participating in an administration that advances an anti-gay agenda. Gosh, what a hero.
Way to spin the fact that Cheney apparently doesn’t allow anti-gay discrimination in his office, John.
I’d admire your skill if it weren’t something the world needs less of.
Dick Cheney as a Democrat. That just boggles the mind.
John, you prove my point.
And what exactly is the “anti-gay agenda” this Administration has advanced — at most you could cite its support for the FMA — the one issue where the Vice President has publicly differed from the president. And if you weren’t so blinded by your hatred for the president and the GOP, you would note that, even under this Administration, the FMA hasn’t even cleared one house of Congress, yet in Clinton’s first tern alone, Congress passed — and that Democrat signed — two pieces of discriminatory legislation.
I hope you’re one of those on the left making clear the “anti-gay agenda” that Clinton advanced.
Supporting legislation and constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights is not antigay, John.
Democrats like John Kerry, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Inez Tenenbaum, and others do it all the time; in exchange, they receive unqualified endorsements, tens of millions of dollars, and the undying support of “gay rights” organizations like HRC, NGLTF and others, all of whom cheer them as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Sounds like Dick Cheney walks his talk, instead of saying one thing and then backstabbing gays like Kerry, Dean et al. do.
Typical libs…their own blind hatred of Bush makes them unable to see who their real allies are…and their real enemies.
Regards,
Peter H.
Vote tally on FMA 2006 so far: 10 Republicans FOR, 8 Democrats AGAINST. (I know it was only procedural, but only Spector is going to change his vote later.) Ms. Cheney’s dignity and silence in respect for her father, and her father’s poiniant defense of her (I’m serious) is not effecting the wing-nut base one bit. It’s not showing them the light, nor the error of their thinking. Nor will it. They think Mary Cheney is a vile disgusting abomination before God who will rightly burn in hell forever.
The wing-nuts are the problem and they run the Republican Party. They don’t run the Democratic Party. And they are out to get us girls and boys.
The point of FMA is to divest all courts- local, state and federal – of jursidiction to hear any claim for rights violations on the basis of ‘gayness’. To them there is no such thing as a naturally ocurring gay person. A ‘gay’ person is only a morally sick straight person.
The FMA has nothing to do with defending any straight marriage. It has everything to do with depriving all gay couples of access to any and all of the courts in the land.
“The wing-nuts are the problem and they run the Republican Party. They don’t run the Democratic Party.”
ROTFLMAO!!!!!! 🙂 (sorry Donny – it’s just SUCH a far out statement; the wing-nuts are COMPLETELY in charge of the Democratic Party)
I love Dick!
The FMA was sponsored by three Republicans and three Democrats.
#4. I am SO glad the Republicans were there to make sure Clinton could not pursue his anti-gay agenda to its full potential!! Thank GOD the Republicans were protecting gays from the evil Clinton and the Democrats!! Clinton might have wound up in the rose garden asking Congress to get moving with some kind of Federal Marriage Amendment if the homo-loving (when those homos are individuals) Republicans, especially the Cheney’s, hadn’t protested and tried to stop him!!
And just exactly what was Bush’s stance on the Texas sodomy case, both when governor and as president? I think he wanted to make the physical expression of love between same sex couples a crime. So somewhere between jay walkers and murderers would have been homos. Go ahead…keep on loving the man.
Amazing how lefties can’t grasp the simple distinction between monarchy and legislative government. Bush had nothing to do with the case or the law. The legislature passed it.
Seriously, get a grip, moonbat. Take that tinfoil hat off your head, start taking your meds, and try to think rationally for a change.
Bush also made many public statements saying that he approved of the sodomy law. Thus proving in one stroke that he is only a social conservative, not a traditional “get the government out of the lives of ordinary people” kind of conservative. It should have been your first clue that this was a President who does not share traditional conservative values. Yet of course, he was greated as the modern day messiah of the GOP. Bah.
You’re right John, the VP is a hero. His support facilitates what Log Cabin was founded to do; make the two party system viable in the gay/
lesbian community and to make the Party open to concerns of our community and to our active participation within it.
I think that is revisionist, Gryph. Thinking back to 2000 and the election it seems to me that no one considered Bush very conservative. I don’t think that anyone greeted him as the modern day messiah of the GOP when he was running for President. The way primaries fall out, as often as not most of the party is left wondering what the heck happened since chances are they supported one of the other six or so candidates. The *conservative* Republicans were voting for Keyes.
Greyhawk suggested that “liberals” are a creation of Rush Limbaugh. I think that Bush as an uber-conservative is a creation of the anti-war faction… oh, there were a few “any GOP president is a militaristic madman” sorts before 9-11 but mostly I think that the Myth of Bush as a conservative… social or otherwise… is a post 9-11 creation of the opposition.
To those who say that the various amendments to restrict marriage are not about defending marriage… they are. We’re talking motivation and people see the tradition of marriage crumbling around them. They are reacting to something real even if they are wrong about how to shore it up.
This is a bit like the pro-choice factions holding as doctrine that pro-life people can’t *possibly* be concerned about unborn babies but only care about turning back the clock on women’s rights and force them to a life of servitude bearing child after child. (And that’s pretty much what someone told me recently, word-for-word… oh, and she also used the word “incubator.”)
IT’S NOT USEFUL to misrepresent the opposition. Not unless you’re *trying* to put up barriers to communication.
It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives continually buttress their arguments by saying the left ignores inconvenient facts, and then proceeds to argue things someone even casually aquainted with current events would know are false.
In this particular case, GayPatriot claims that Democrats who don’t support gays get unqualified support, whereas Republicans are reviled for doing same thing.
To the contrary, the reaction and outcry over Howard Dean’s recent comments about the DNC’s platform hardly constitute ” unqualified support”. Dean made comments that seemed driven purely by political expediency, and he suffered for it.
In any event, to compare the Bush administration, which has a clear strategy is to use the rights of gay people as a political wedge issue, to the Clinton administration seems disingenuous at best.
If one of the pieces of “anti-gay” legislation GayPatriot seeks to lay at Clinton’s door is “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, then it’s clear that once again conservative fact-twisting is at work. What Clinton originally proposed was a ground-breaking(at least in this country) change, comparable to Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces. What we ended up with was an odious compromise, forced upon CLinton by conservatives and reactionary forces in the military that continued the legacy of discrimination in the armed forces.
In defense of the Bush administration, GayPatriot claims that Bush detractors have created an anti-gay agenda out of one piece of legislation, the FMA. Given that the FMA seems to be trotted out every time the conservative troops need to be rallied, I can certainly understand why the approach has been termed an “agenda”.
Finally, GayPatriot’s characterization of Cheney’s position on FMA as a “disagreement” with Bush strikes me as more misdirection. The disagreement as I understand it is procedural, not substantive. Cheney feels that each state should be free to define marriage as it wants, not that gays and lesbians should have an unqualified right to marry the people that they love.
Of course Dick Cheney is against the FMA – he has a lesbian daughter. I’m just interested if Mary Cheney is making headway with other GOP members. Incidentally, the FMA doesn’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell of passing; the people who are trying to pass this thing must be gluttons for punishment. I’d say 3 strikes & you’re out; the 3rd attempt should be the last.
Demetrius in #19, did you even read this post?
Its point is that unwilling to counter the left-wing narrative of the Vice President as a demon, gay organizations and activists are ignoring his positive record on gays. You prove my point by ranting on by whatever you’re ranting on about and not addressing the Vice President until the final paragraph where you don’t even acknowledge the anecdote which is at the hear to the post. And use some fancy-sounding academic mumbo-jumbo to attempt to explain away that good man’s outspoken opposition to the FMA.
You refuse to give the guy credit. And that, I repeat, is the point of the post.
Well said, Jimbo on 3 strikes. If the FMA keeps failing, why keep bringing it up?
When dick and his lovely bride put out a statement that calls for the defeat of FMA and for GLBT citizens everywhere to be treated as First Class citizens — then, and only then can he be praised for his pro-gay activities!
When He encourages legislation that seeks to protect ALL GLBT from discrimination in the work place … then, and only then can he be praised for his pro-gay activities!
So far ducking the issue and playing the States Rights card is BS – both for dick and any other politician whether they be dem or repug.
All we’ve seen from dick and his lovely bride is the ol bob and weave to avoid directly coming out supporting GLBT rights.
Mary is as spineless as her parents.
MLK once said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”
Mary has squandered a lifetime opportunity – how sad for her.
#14 and #15. Did his administration not submit a brief? Thanks for the Saturday morning laugh.
Whoop-dee-crap. VP Cheney says he’ll go to bat for a gay man, so long as the man works on his campaign staff. That’s real courage right there.
Not to belittle the “Cheney effect” may have on the marriage equality debate, but I think you’re getting excited over nothing, and it kind of reduces your credibility.
I think the vice president and his daughter Mary should be appaluded for taking a principled stand, but I really think the minds that could be changed as a result have already been changed. Everyone’s known for years what VP Cheney’s position is and why, yet the conservatives who are determined to ban gay marriage will continue to do so.
#17 – 3 words for you, Synova: Abortion, abortion and abortion. No matter how liberal Bush is (on so many things), the simple fact that he doesn’t favor unrestricted abortion rights marks him as “conservative” (cue evil music – Dat-dat-dooooooooh!) for many people.
If Bush had been in favor of unrestricted abortion rights, all these years, I guarantee you the press’s view / treatment of him would be 180 degrees different. For them, the domestic abortion war is rather more important than struggle against Islamo-fascism.
#18 – agree.
To the contrary, the reaction and outcry over Howard Dean’s recent comments about the DNC’s platform hardly constitute ” unqualified support”. Dean made comments that seemed driven purely by political expediency, and he suffered for it.
Bullshit.
Dean said the same thing in the 2004 elections, as did Kerry, and you and your fellow liberals like Chapeau called it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. HRC, NGLTF, Stonewall, and others endorsed these people and gave them tens of millions of dollars.
Pure, stinking, rampant hypocrisy — and proof, Demetrius, that you and yours are nothing but shills for the Dems, regardless of what they do.
Chapeau, Mary squandered nothing. She only failed to be the activist you (& your narrow-minded allies on the gay left) want her to be.
She has succeeded in so many things, primarily being true to herself. And for that, she is a true heroine.
It’s great reading all these comments from such critics because they prove the point of my post. Thanks for weighing in.
I did indeed read the post, and attempted to respond to as much of your scattered disjointed,argumentation as I could. I had to pick the aspects that I found most annoying, as I really didn’t feel like taking the time necessary to respond completely to the wide variety of things you said.
I’m not terribly surprised that you would dismiss it as academic mumbo jumbo, as that’s a common tactic of the right when there’s no reasoned response available.
As for North Dallas Thirty’s claim I and others who think like me are hypocritical, unthinking shills for Democrats, sometimes one has to pick the lesser of two evils. I think there was a time when gay people were reluctant to call allies on their missteps, but those days are passing. Another prominant Dem, Hillary Clinton, recently found out that her glbt supporters weren’t going to stand silently by when she made comments that weren’t supportive of their interests.
The reality is that no matter how progressive a politician is, the state of public opinion will make people feel that they have to ride the fence somewhat to be politically viable. Politics is about opinion polls and percentage points, but Dems are realizing that they will have to account for their overtly antigay statements in ways that they might not have before.
Demetrius, what I dismissed as “mumbo jumbo” was this comment you made in #19: “GayPatriot’s characterization of Cheney’s position on FMA as a “disagreement” with Bush strikes me as more misdirection. The disagreement as I understand it is procedural, not substantive.”
The fact is that the Vice President has distinguished his position on the FMA from the president. How could it be “misdirection” to report that fact?
I have no clue what you mean by describing that disagreement as “procedural, not substantive.”
You seem to be the only one finding my post “scattered and disjointed” probably because you just don’t like what I have to say.
The fact remains that the Vice President has made clear his position on gays and you — and so many other critics of this Administration — choose to ignore it.
As for North Dallas Thirty’s claim I and others who think like me are hypocritical, unthinking shills for Democrats, sometimes one has to pick the lesser of two evils.
Absolutely.
You can choose to pump tens of millions of dollars into fighting state and Federal laws and constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights, or you can take that same amount of money and turn it over to homophobic candidates who support these laws and amendments — because they’re Democrats.
The gay community chose the latter.
Be honest, Demetrius. The choice was between supporting homophobic Democrats and fighting antigay initiatives.
You chose to support the homophobes.
I think the only way to settle the debate over who’s a homophobe would be to actually look at voting records. I don’t think too many conservatives would fare especially well, North Dallas Thirty
And Gay Patriot, if Dick Cheney has been so crystal clear in his position on glbt people, what is it? I don’t think I’ve ever heard one statement outlining a “position”. One anecdote does not say anything about how Cheney feels glbt folks should be treated as a matter of public policy.
Thanks for the post. I admire the VP more than ever. He’s a genuine and good man. Does anyone recall that the Cheneys gave over 6 mil I believe to charity in ’05? I remember the year the Gores gave $500.
Gene, What in the %%4#@ does the Cheneys (generous) contibution to charity have to do with this issue? Do you know if any of that money went to gay causes? I don’t – but I doubt it did.
Mary Cheney says she is waiting for the law to catch up with her relationship. That is, to recognize her relaionship. If she disagrees with this administration but supports its adgenda – which will never support her relationship – how will the law catch up??
Federalism. Look it up. Learn something about how this nation is supposed to work.
So only “gay causes” count, eh?
Demetrius, the Vice President said in the 2000 debate that he believes gay couples should be able to live freely and, in the 2004 campaign, that he opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
No, he would not be. He would be just another Democrat.
But what has he done beyond that? If someone attacked my daughter for who she was thru one of these inane proposals, I’d do more to work against it. Don’t Republicans always speak out vehemently on family values? Isn’t protecting your daughter from attack a family value?
Protecting your employees from discrimination is a given. It’s nothing special. If you define an “ever-improving situation” as fighting to keep anti-gay referendums off ballots, referendums sponsored in various states by the Republican party, then wonderful: Good Job!
Pointing fingers at Democrats and whining “Well, they do it, too!” is disingenuous. Unfortunately, some Democrats choose the politically expedient answer to Gay issues, but very rarely are they the instigators. That role of instigating these horrible referendums are the Republicans.
If one of the pieces of “anti-gay” legislation GayPatriot seeks to lay at Clinton’s door is “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, then it’s clear that once again conservative fact-twisting is at work. What Clinton originally proposed was a ground-breaking(at least in this country) change, comparable to Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces. What we ended up with was an odious compromise, forced upon CLinton by conservatives and reactionary forces in the military that continued the legacy of discrimination in the armed forces.
I find it curious how some liberals are speaking here about how Dick or Mary Cheney hasn’t done enough, yet turn around and defend a spineless man like Bill Clinton. Instead of acting like the Commander-in-Chief he was as POTUS and actually following Truman’s example by executive order, he caved. He barely even put up a fight when Sam Nunn — a Democrat — led the charge for DADT. “Forced upon Clinton” is a flat-out lie. The man had a choice and the one he picked was to sacrifice gays for political expediency, which is typical for Dems. The result? The ban against gays is now codified into law making it very difficult to repeal and every single servicemember who came out in 1992 believing Clinton’s word has been discharged. Thanks for nothing Bill.
I think the only way to settle the debate over who’s a homophobe would be to actually look at voting records.
So the fact that John Kerry and Howard Dean endorsed, supported, and loudly cheered for state constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights doesn’t count — because they didn’t actually vote on them.
Right-o.
Moreover, you didn’t answer my question.
Instead of pumping tens of millions of dollars and endorsements into fighting actual initiatives, you gave it away to homophobic political candidates who supported those initiatives.
Why was it more important to elect homophobic candidates than to defeat the initiatives, Demetrius?
All anti-discrimination legislation is an unconstitutional intrusion of the government into the workplace and a violation of freedom of association.
The result? The ban against gays is now codified into law making it very difficult to repeal and every single servicemember who came out in 1992 believing Clinton’s word has been discharged. Thanks for nothing Bill.
Black liberal, here, who grew up in a socialist country (Germany). A black lesbian conservative co-worker and I had many a conversation regarding our parties and gay rights.
Republicans initiated the FMA through Musgrave, and too many Democrats supported it. In addition, Bush pushes abstinence only sex education (adding the bit about “until in a committed relationship” was a stupid afterthought in this day and age); the CDC has removed instructions from pamphlets on condom use, officials have repeatedly voted against non-discrimination legislation with language pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity; and the website http://www.osc.gov has removed language that would prohibit the discrimination of government employees based on sexual orientation. I must also asume that, in support of capitalism, the GOP have not introduced any legislation that would ensure that, cost-wise, insurance companies would provide coverage equal to that of non-HIV infected persons. Clinton created “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, and too few Republicans are fighting to repeal it.
I miss Germany. A country that sent gays to concentration camps now offers gay and lesbian couples infinitely more protections under the law than the US.
Strange, huh? Will I move back to Germany? Not a chance! I’ll fight until our community can work, play, and marry just like our straight counterparts.
Mr. Cheney can be as nice as pie to GBLT folks but that does noy excuse
hi war seeking ways.
Matt: Still a step-up from what was codified in 1981 under Ronald Reagan. The policy written by his Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service…” no ifs, ands, or buts. It was designed to completely eliminate any past loopholes in the Carter Administration to retain Gay servicemen (of which I am one). This is the policy that Clinton was left to undo in 1993.
No, this wasn’t Reagan’s move but that of the Carter Administration in its final days:
Continuing inconsistencies in standards, required documentation, and administrative hearings led, however, to a further review of the policy during the Carter Administration. The Department of Defense issued Directive 1332.14 on January 16, 1981, in response to court rulings that had questioned inconsistencies in the way the prior policy had been implemented (National Defense Research Institute, 1993). The purpose of Directive 1332.14 was to make clear that discharge would be mandatory for any service member who “engaged in, has attempted to engage in, or has solicited another to engage in a homosexual act” (Cited in RAND, 1993, p. 8). The new policy voided all clauses in military regulations that had permitted the retention of homosexuals (Shilts, 1993); prior to the development of the new directive, final decisions about the separation of service members had been left to the discretion of individual commanders (Korb, 1994). Directive 1332.14 also stated that, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, a gay or lesbian service member was to receive a discharge under honorable conditions.[15] The 1981 directive would remain in effect until President Clinton’s efforts to remove the ban in 1993 (Burrelli, 1994).
U.S Military Policies Concerning Homosexuals: Development, Implementation and Outcomes
Matt: I agree that Clinton should’ve tried harder, and he also acknowledges that mistake in his book.
Bully for Clinton, he seeks to undo his ‘legacy’ after the fact. I give this as much creedence as that middle class tax cut he swore he worked the hardest he ever had in his life to achieve. That doesn’t help those who believed him in 1992 only to be stabbed in the back by him for political expediency.
I’m convinced that Sam Nunn was conducting a personal vendetta against President Clinton for being passed up as Sec. of Defense for Les Aspin.
Why? Because Clinton insinuates this in his book to help clear his own failings? Or perhaps you have trouble seeing past the facade he created which was pure BS?
If this issue rankles you so much, be fair . Perhaps you should also pour your vitriol on the Reagan people?
Again that was Carter not Reagan. However in fairness to both of them, neither ran on a promise to lift the ban only to cave at the first sign of opposition like a spineless political coward.
Black liberal, I am missing something in your logic. If you miss socialist Germany and with all its legal protections for gays and lesbians it sounds like a paradise. Why would you want to spend your energy trying to achieve in the USA what you apparently enjoyed in Germany?
There has to be something holding you back. Could it be that the quality of life (other than the benefits to gays and lesbians) is better in the USA?
Bully for Clinton, he seeks to undo his ‘legacy’ after the fact. I give this as much creedence as that middle class tax cut he swore he worked the hardest he ever had in his life to achieve. That doesn’t help those who believed him in 1992 only to be stabbed in the back by him for political expediency.
Nope. I didn’t see anything about Sam Nunn in his book. It’s pure opinion on my part.
On the question of marriage, there is little difference between the parties. The Dems are just pissed that the Republicans have stolen their DOMA thunder by one upping them with FMA. Even where you have oppostion to FMA, it’s generally based on technical grounds such as McCain’s “it is a state issue.” Here in Georgia, one Dem legislator opposes FMA and reintroduction of a state marriage amendment because it will drive traditional republican voters to the polls. However, he also makes certain that you know that he shares his opponents views in opposition to gay marriage.
Pure opinion on your part. How do you know his mindset? He listened to his economic advisers that cutting the deficit was more important than a tax cut.
I don’t know anymore than you do about Nunn. This isn’t about tax cuts vs. deficits, but it was another example of a broken promise by Clinton. Now that one was annoying but tolerable. His signing DADT and DOMA into law is a different matter entirely.
okay so i haven’t read the post, i’m just excited that someone used If…were….
I don’t know anymore than you do about Nunn. This isn’t about tax cuts vs. deficits, but it was another example of a broken promise by Clinton. Now that one was annoying but tolerable. His signing DADT and DOMA into law is a different matter entirely.
Huh?