Cheney's Marriage Equality Evolution

[UPDATE & SUMMARY: Welcome, ATLers!  Please note that this, unfortunately, has turned into quite the sh*t-show of a post (attempted, frustrated "take 2" here) due to, well, the reality of the nuance in Cheney's statements that were the initial point of this post.

The bottom line is that I think that Cheney's position, as suggested by the ATL link, is ever-evolving -- but I also think, after watching the video, that folks are reading too much into Cheney's statement.  He has not affirmatively stated a belief in government-recognized marriage equality, even at a state level.  He has affirmatively stated a belief that each state, regardless of its decision, should be able to choose marriage equality if it wishes to do so.  The rest is all nuance and implications.

Please, though, read on if you dare, and watch the video of today's statement. Thanks, as always, for visiting!]

Former Vice President Cheney’s statement today represented the third of four [or, per the update, five?] steps in an evolution toward full marriage equality.  He has, remarkably, used almost the same statement each time, first in the 2000 vice presidential debate, then in a 2004 town hall and now at the National Press Club.  Each time though, the statement has been tweaked slightly, with a shift toward marriage equality each time.

First, 2000:

This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the matter is 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. That’s a tougher problem. That’s not a slam dunk. The fact of the matter is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe, I’m also wrestling with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.

Note that marriage equality is “a tougher problem” and “not a slam dunk.”  He is trying to be “open minded” and “tolerant,” but is “wrestling with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction” of gay relationships at all.  This was a no federal policy is needed, but an implied opposition to marriage equality or, given the most generous interpretation, an implied statement that he hadn’t yet reached a decision on the question.

Then, 2004:

At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone,” when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. … People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

“The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that’s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage,” he said.

Note that, rather than saying marriage is “no slam dunk,” he neuters any implied opposition or questioning and instead fully supports a states’ right to make its own determination.  He shows support for people entering into any relationship they want but stays consciously agnostic on what decision the states should reach when determining “official sanction or approval.”

Finally, today:

“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” replied the former V.P. “As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.“

At this point, Cheney has, by stating that “People ought to get a shot at that,” apparently come out [as leaning] in support of marriage equality [even if he's not affirmatively saying it], so long as it’s done on a state-by-state basis. [See update. -Ed.]

This is a careful evolution of his statements, especially when one considers that he has used, basically, the same exact statement for the past decade, with ever-so-slight changes in the direction of full marriage equality each time he has restated it.  Of course, it is easier out of office for Cheney to make his first affirmative statement on marriage equality, and Cheney can be criticized — as I have done this afternoon — for holding his 2004 view while freely running on a ticket with President Bush, who supported the Federal Marriage Amendment and had no problem winning votes on the backs of state anti-equality marriage amendments.

But, all that notwithstanding, Cheney’s statements themselves have represented a consistently evolving opinion in favor of marriage equality, and for that we should be happy.

Of course, there is one more step [or two, per the update] toward affirming full equality that Cheney could take, but it’s one that is still controversial even within more traditionally progressive circles:  Marriage can be regulated at the state level while being informed by national constitutional protections, as was done in Loving v. Virginia.

[Thanks to @jf329 for prompting me to look into this.]

[UPDATE: I do think PG is right, per comments, after reviewing the video, that Cheney's "that" in "People ought to get a shot at that," is more a statement of "people ought to get a chance to define marriage as they wish" with a nod in favor of recognition.  The full sentence, per the video is: "People ought to get a shot at that -- and, uh, they do at present."

Obviously, people everywhere don't at present have marriage equality.  So, it's clear that PG's interpretation is the correct one:  Cheney believes the "people of the several states [should have] ‘a shot at’ making their different decisions.”  He has not yet made any affirmative statement, that I can find, that he believes that states should decide in favor of marriage equality. (I’m not the only one who initially read more into this.)

It does still appear to me, though, as a progression.  I view the “shot at” comment as the rhetorical opposite of the “no slam dunk” comment.  In 2000, by that analysis, he was calling it a state decision but leaning against marriage equality.  In 2004, he was completely neutral on it.  Today, he still wants it to be a state-by-state issue, but appears to be leaning toward marriage equality.

So, he could still outright call for marriage equality, and then call for constitutional protections to inform those state decisions before being for full marriage equality in all cases, but this is still — as with the vast majority of America — an evolutionary process, and each step counts for something.

Here’s the video:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5jefmsqBG8]

Thoughts?]

Popularity: 1% [?]