Yes, folks, my initial Cheney and marriage equality post is a mess.
But, it also is a great (bad?) example of how quickly the Internet allows some concepts to spread and ever-so-quickly become reality, as well as how any nuance on the Internet leaves people open to attack.
Read on if you’d like me to explain.
I read Cheney’s comments from today and — even in my post as initially written — stated that Cheney “has, by stating that ‘People ought to get a shot at that,’ apparently come out in support of marriage equality, so long as it’s done on a state-by-state basis.” (ABC’s Jake Tapper goes a similar route, stating that Cheney “seemed to say” where I wrote apparently.) This had the wiggle-room of “apparently” because I wasn’t quite sure exactly where, if not there, everyone was getting that Cheney had announced his support for state-sanctioned marriage equality.
Then, I got PG’s insightful comment and saw the video — including Cheney’s full statement. He actually said:
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. Different states will make different decisions. But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that — and they do at present.
Obviously, people everywhere don’t at present have marriage equality. So, it is, as PG suggested, pretty clear that Cheney was talking about a “shot” at seeking marriage equality in their state, which everyone has, rather than a “shot” at marriage equality itself, which most people don’t have currently.
So, there is more to the statement than some have been suggested. It is, I believe, quite nuanced.
My revised interpretation, as stated, is:
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.
Cheney has not ever, that I can find, stated opposition to or support for state government-sanctioned marriage equality. His stated position has gone, I believe, from leaning against recognition but supporting states’ rights to come to their own decision (2000) to neutral on recognition and supporting states’ rights (2004) to leaning for recognition and supporting states’ rights (2009). (See the first post on this topic to see a more drawn out explanation.)
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5jefmsqBG8]
That is progress from the former vice president, and we should recognize and support that. But it was not a statement of his belief that states should allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
But, folks like GayPatriot, who are thrilled when I criticize liberal Dems or support some moderate position — as in when he wrote, “For sane legal & rational thought about #Prop8 head to LawDork blog by @chrisgeidner” — have no problem lashing out at me — writing today, of Cheney, “I suppose he would have been more convincing with a “D” next to his name? He is more liberal on marriage than Obama” — when I represent a position with which he, apparently, disagrees. (I’d also like to note that GOProud goes no further than me in its statement about what Cheney said today, but GayPatriot has been promoting that.)
Cheney is more progressive than Obama on marriage equality, because he does not — and has never in the past decade — said that he believes marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. Obama has. That is not a development today; that has been each man’s stated position.
I concur and have never said anything to the contrary. I have regularly criticized Obama’s position on marriage and lack of leadership on LGBT issues since taking office. That is not, however what either my post or tweets on Cheney’s statement have been about. My final tweet simply stated that I believe that Cheney’s statement did not go so far as people have been suggesting it went. If GayPatriot or others disagree, I welcome their insights.
This is, of course, the frustration of the Internet and blogging, and I’m fine with that. But let’s also be honest that people who appreciate nuance when a fellow blogger falls on their side sometimes remarkably easily lash out at folks when they fall on the other side.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Chris Geidner is the senior political writer at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
I wouldn’t feel badly about falling for what the HuffPost wanted to set up as today’s Cheney story — as you said, a lot of other people (including half my Facebook list) made the same interpretation of the most widely circulated version of Cheney’s remarks, which had the ellipsis in it. I’ve just become so used to Stupid Litigator Tricks that an ellipsis in what seems like a surprising statement immediately sets off my radar to search for the complete quote.
However, I’m less sure than GayPatriot that Cheney really is more liberal on same-sex relationship rights than Obama is. After all, Obama opposed Prop. 8 (though not putting as much into it as some wished, he certainly did more than Cheney); favors repeal of DOMA (again, haven’t seen Cheney say anything negative specifically about DOMA); and supports having all states grant civil unions that are marriage equivalent and that are recognized under federal law (Cheney’s merely OK with states coming up with different decisions on the matter). The only measure by which I could consider Cheney more liberal than Obama, is that Cheney hasn’t said he personally believes marriage is only between one man and one woman.
It seems a little internally inconsistent to say Obama’s words are empty when they’re pro-gay, but are powerful when they oppose full equality. He hasn’t taken action on either side, so words are all we have thus far. I find it implausible that someone who stated opposition to Prop. 8, which actually would have restored a status quo that might seem to fit Obama’s preference — CA domestic partnerships provide marriage in almost everything but name — and has said nothing in opposition to various court decisions and legislative moves to legalize SSM among the states, will at any point take action against legal recognition for SSM.
President Obama, though, of all people, knows that words matter. And he, through the power and position of the White House and its spokesman as recently as last week, has repeatedly said that he opposes allowing lesbians and gay men to marry.
If I saw action behind his other statements (i.e., DOMA repeal or supporting d.p. or civil unions efforts elsewhere), then I might be more charitable in my view. Empty words of support for less-than-marriage measures, though, are not nearly as powerful as are the President’s words opposing equality.
I do agree with you that it would be helpful to know, though, where Cheney stands on repeal of Sec. 3 of DOMA.
Yeah, it might be a little inconsistent. But a Democratic president opposing equality in words, I think, often is more powerful than a Democratic president supporting other, lesser equality measures. The burden of being a Democrat, I suppose.
And I think the people on the right — from Miss California to Elisabeth Hasselbeck — tend to prove me out on that.