August 25, 2004
The Power of a Personal Connection
Vice President Cheney, who many of us in the Democratic camp now see as one of the more intractable ideologues in the Administration, at least with respect to foreign policy, surprised many yesterday when he distanced himself from Bush’s support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
"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. "Hmm! Forgive me if I suspect that the reason our leaders are so out of touch with regular folks is that there is an unnatural dearth of connection between them and, for example, American wage earners who punch a clock and struggle to feed their families, scientists who understand that global warming is a reality the world needs to reckon with, Iraqi civilians whose health is being compromised by the depleted uranium peppering their communities, families struggling with mentally ill relatives whose treatments are denied by insurers who stand to benefit from the stigma that mental illness is somehow the sufferer's fault, relatives of lifers in prison whose third strike, like their first two was a non-violent felony, and the list goes on.
If you fill your administration with friends and colleagues from the corporate boardroom, it's hardly any wonder that the needs you will relate to will be the needs of corporate America. In fact it seems that gaining access to this administration, or even to Bush's campaign appearances, requires one to be fully vetted as not belonging to the class of individuals that may cause discomfort. It's as if the Administration seems to realize at a subconscious level that exposure to these sorts might cause their ideologies to fall like a house of cards. Dissenters may be dangerous subversives and therefore must be seen as a security risk.
But Cheney's daughter is gay, so he 'gets it' on that issue. How sweet.
Posted by Walker Willingham at August 25, 2004 06:31 PMI was working in Massachusetts when the same sex partner issue came up. I was opposed to it, but then I gave it more thought. Now I am a firm supporter of the idea of gay marriage. It is the right thing to do. Besides marriage is really a better solution than the various domestic partner proposals. People will be more serious if they have to get married to get on someone’s insurance policy.
I suspect, however, that few people on either side have thought it through. When they do you might see some flip-flops. Gay men are a natural Republican constituency if you look at incomes and educations. They are pushed away by society’s rejection. Marriage would go a long way to normalizing their place in society and married folks, men and women, tend to vote Republican. So conservatives should flip to support
On the other hand, liberals might flop into opposition for the mirror image of the above. They might come to see legal gay marriage as a co-opting an opposition group. America has a way of doing that. Just look at what happened to Ozzy Ozboure. The Prince of Darkness is now a tired old man who can’t control his pets or his children.
Three cheers for Cheney’s love for his daughter.
Sadly, though (and ironically), today the rest of the Republican party wasn’t so compassionate. Not happy with simply opposing gay marriage, they have added opposition to civil unions of any sort (well, of the same-sex sort at least) to their official party platform:
A panel made up largely of conservative delegates approved platform language that calls for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and opposes legal recognition of any sort for gay civil unions.…
Christopher Barron of Log Cabin Republicans, a GOP gay-rights group, was livid after the panel endorsed the first-ever call for a constitutional gay-marriage ban in a GOP platform and went beyond that to oppose legal recognition of any same-sex unions.“You can’t craft a vicious, mean-spirited platform and then try to put lipstick on the pig by putting Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger on in prime time,” he said in an interview. (AP)
Okay, so the gay Republicans are livid. But guess what? The right wing core of the GOP is livid, too… at Cheney!
Gary Bauer (American Values): [Cheney’s statement is] “just the sort of thing that discourages and demoralizes voters the administration desperately needs.”
Andrea Lafferty (Traditional Values Coalition): “Don’t be distracted by Schwarzenegger or Giuliani or even the vice president… It is what George Bush says that counts and he has been faithful and fearless on this important issue.”
Make no mistake, folks. No matter what Cheney says, the GOP hates gay people. And now it’s official.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 25, 2004 08:31 PMDon’t be distracted by Schwarzenegger or Giuliani or even the vice president…
Ha, I love it! The Traditional Values Coalition knows the score. Now I feel better about skipping the Republican convention coverage. ;)
Posted by: Woody Mena at August 25, 2004 11:20 PMJack believes:
Gay men are a natural Republican constituency if you look at incomes and educations.I suspect your implication to be a popular Republican myth. Wealth and education empower gay people from those groups to be more candid about their preference. Even if you could show me a poll suggesting that gay men tend to be wealthier than the average American man I’d be skeptical; working class gay men are more likely to be closeted. Your statement, Jack, also betrays an admission that the Republican party really should be a party of the wealthy.
Nonetheless, I’m glad to see you’re on board that
marriage is really a better solution than the various domestic partner proposals. People will be more serious if they have to get married to get on someone’s insurance policy.Committed relationships are the bedrock of society. It’s awfully convenient to damn everyone who engages in intimacy outside of wedlock while barring marriage as an option to two people who happen to be of the same sex. Posted by: Walker Willingham at August 26, 2004 01:58 AM
Haha! Cheney cracks me up. Before the last election he was playing up his daughter to certain demographics looking for votes. Then when it counted, he was totally silent on the issue. It looks like the GOP decided they need the Log Cabin Republicans again, so once again it’s time for Cheney to start sucking up. Ahem.
I love how the Bush administration is trying to swing both ways on this one. :)
I love how the Bush administration is trying to swing both ways on this one. :)
Pun intended, I presume.
They’ll take any gays who will dress up as Republicans and call George “big daddy”. :>
Posted by: Woody Mena at August 26, 2004 08:15 AMWalker
Demographically Republicans are more a party of the wealthy. So what? I would prefer being rich to being poor (I personally am neither, by the way. Although I was poor long enough to realize that I didn’t like it and hope to be rich someday.) Many some stereotypical “Republican attitudes” (self reliance, interest in business etc) are correlated with success and support for the Republican Party rises with income and education except at the very top income levels (where inherited wealth allows for idleness) where it drifts back toward the Democrats. There is no shame in being wealthy. It depends on how you got that way and what you do with what you’ve got.
When I say marriage is a better solution that is exactly what I mean. Statistically, married people are healthier, wealthier and maybe wiser - all good things for gay and heterosexuals alike. I support gay marriage for that reason and I don’t damn anyone for not doing what they are not permitted to do. I would like to permit everyone to do what I think is best for them and society.
American Pundit is right. Cheney’s comments were only a ploy for the Bush adm. to grab a few more votes. Don’t fall for it.
Posted by: dennis mccowan at August 26, 2004 10:25 AMI would like to permit everyone to do what I think is best for them and society.
Jack, did you mean this the way it sounds, or is it just an unfortunate phrasing?
Posted by: Jarin at August 26, 2004 10:33 AMJack,
I wasn’t being sarcastic when I said I was glad you’re on board about marriage being a better solution. We really are on the same page on that one.
Also, it’s not that I have something against the wealthy. Indeed like you I have more respect for those made their own wealth as opposed to inheriting it, as long as they didn’t trample on others to make it. Again I’m skeptical that your generalization as to the party correlation among the wealthy based on the source of their wealth has any basis in fact, just as I’m more than skeptical of your earlier implication that gay men tend to fall into a wealthy demographic. What are your sources for these claims?
Finally I just don’t buy the story that the opportunity is there for anyone in America to make it regardless of their circumstances. Our land of opportunity is becoming less and less so, and the policies of the current administration appear to me to be accentuating the extent to which the havenots are denied opportunities to succeed. Liberalism at its best is about compassion for those whose circumstances are dire. Liberals and conservatives should be working together to promote the best that both have to offer, not calling each other names. I’m not saying, Jack, that you are doing any name calling, but both Bushes have played a major role in making liberal a pejorative, and frankly I resent that.
Posted by: Walker at August 26, 2004 10:55 AMJarin
I meant what I said, although maybe it is not being interpreted as what I meant. Let me elaborate. First of all, I was responding to a comment, so that colors the language. You probably have a problem with the phrase “I think is good for them and society”. It is a politically incorrect phrasing and I did it on purpose. We all judge and we all judge by what we think. We should have the courage to admit that. The only other option is revelation, which I don’t generally support. Hiding behind the word “choice” doesn’t help, since society (i.e. us) limits choice every day and everywhere. If we are responsible, we try to include what is good for society not just for ourselves at this particular time in the calculation.
I hope that laws are designed with what we think are good for individuals and society in mind. Would you support a change in the laws if you truly thought it was bad for the individuals involved and society? We don’t permit a person to sell himself into slavery, even if that is what he says he wants to do. Closer to the subject at hand, we don’t permit polygamy because we think it is bad for society. Not everyone agrees, but society as a whole has decided. Since both of these choices were available in the past, obviously we can change our minds.
Posted by: Jack at August 26, 2004 11:04 AMWalker:
I don’t know of a source that lists income in terms of sexual preference. Even at similar income levels, however, gay individuals would usually have more disposable wealth, since they more rarely support dependent children. I would be a lot richer without having to pay the tens of thousands of dollars to local universities for my kids’ educations. I look also at what the marketers are doing. Many are betting money on the demographic and they seem to think they can make money selling upscale merchandise targeted at the gay community. I tend to have more confidence in people who put their money where their mouths are.
Let’s start a party of reasonable people. I blame television for the polarization. The Cheney “revelation” is a good example. My particular profession brings me into contact with people from a variety of political persuasions. Most politicians (left-right-center) are pleasant people who believe they are working for the public good. Hatred and pettiness is not how they got elected. Yet when you see these guys on TV, the story is different. Television hosts demand conflict, and they attack any deviations from the expected response. Moderates are not invited back. The troubling development I notice is that the television personas are starting to feed back into real personas – life imitating art (if TV is art).
The fact is that America needs liberals, conservatives and moderates. Their conflict should produce synergy. This is clear when we look back at history, but less clear when we are living it. If you read some biography about the founding generation, you find that they were all flawed and often in conflict with each other. None of them got the world they wanted. It was better than any one of them could have imagined.
American Pundit is right. Cheney’s comments were only a ploy for the Bush adm. to grab a few more votes. Don’t fall for it.
Dennis, Cheney has made the same comments for years, including the 2000 VP debate. He has never once suggested or made comments suggesting that those weren’t his own beliefs.
Please make sure to research things like this before making assumptions about people and their motivations in the future, it might save you some embarassment and help everyone focus on the real issues at hand.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 26, 2004 03:05 PMRhinehold,
Funny thing is, Cheney seems to only reach for these ‘conveniently compassionate’ beliefs when he is trying to reverse abysmal approval ratings, set the tone for an uncharacteristically ‘moderate’ Convention, or meeting Joe Lieberman in the political middle.
Cheney never hesitated to impose his ‘beliefs’ when it came to Iraq and two tax cuts, but his love and acceptance of his lesbian daughter does not stop him from deferring to Bush on the Gay Marriage Ban.
By the way, images of the Kerry Heinz siblings and Edward’s kids are abundant.
Where’s Mary?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at August 27, 2004 12:13 AMI do think Cheney believes what he has said. My only question for him has been what has he done about it?
What is his politcal record on the subject? He supports platforms that are diametrically opposed to what he may believe. He is simply using this as political fodder, and it is disgusting when he acknowledges he supports policy that is destructive to America and against his won beliefs.
Posted by: Greg at August 27, 2004 07:26 AM
