CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html). People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.
- VP Cheney, 2004 VP debate, claiming consistency since 2000!
I was talking about Obama finally really addressing the GLBT issue.... a lot of people were waiting on him to take some sort of a stand with multiple states granting increased rights for GLBT couples, along with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that a lot of people thought that Obama was never going to do anything about.
Cheney's thoughts on freedom for GLBT reminds me a lot of Milk, when Harvey Milk was encouraging people to "come out" because hetero citizens will recognize that they know GLBT people and that these people deserve rights and are not bad people. Cheney has a daughter, so he is exposed to the GLBT community. He knows who is daughter is as a person, and any parent would never want their child to be denied rights.
Thus, I propose adding "making one child of every politician a gay" onto the Gay Agenda. :)
Could you be more specific? In 2004 while debating Edwards he affirmed precisely the same position as stated in this article. When was his position different?
My hunch: Just the sort of "EVERYBODY KNOWS" stuff that this LJ thrives on.
To be fair, I agree on this one. Cheney is a terrible person and he's going to spend his afterlife being raped by giant insects for being Bush's VP, but he's always been solid on this issue (even if he spent some time silent on it so as not to lose Bush the election - which is sort of part of being a VP candidate, even if nobody told sarah palin).
That said, why the hell is it a state issue? See, marriage affects federal taxes and national law and that means that it should default to a national law. the law, by and large, should default to the smallest body that can cover it all. Ohio can cover their speed limit, becacuse when i'm driving in Ohio, I'm not also driving in Florida.
But if I'm married in Ohio, and I move to florida, I'm still married. And I still pay federal taxes in both places.
The reason it's a state issue is the 10th Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And there's precedent in it being a state issue in that many states had to pass laws allowing legal interracial marriage.
Now, here's the $10,000 question: If I am a resident of a state (say, Iowa) that allows same-sex marriage, and I marry another guy, can I claim marriage status on my federal taxes without having to worry about the slightest possibility of being audited on that? (Let's assume that I have no other reason to be audited.)
State taxes, sure, no problem. Iowa allows same-sex marriage. But does the fact that I (in this hypothetical case) reside in a state that allows same-sex marriage allow me to claim married status for tax purposes on my federal taxes? And if it does, does that implicit recognition of my married status on a federal level mean anything for other then tax purposes?
that's why it is a federal issue no matter what. And if the federal government is going to allow the states to define marriage, then they really have no option but to support it.
Though I'm not a huge fan of defaulting everything to the states. We don't live in a collection of states anymore. It was a very different country when the constitution was written. And while I think it's a brilliant document, I think it's time to admit that the world is smaller and states are way less important than they used to be in a lot of ways.
Well, perhaps, except for their role as amenders to the Constitution, or even as electors of the President.
I'm not sure we should say the feds "allow" states various rights, either. Those not allocated to the federal government are explicitly allocated to the states and the people. The state is more than a schooler and road-maker. Each is also one of 50 "deciders". The election of the President is still electoral college, not popular vote. The states are these little atomic pieces of American values that no federal system can stop. I'm romanticizing it but it's true.
As it stands right now that's true, but I'm not sure i think it's a useful method anymore. If it ever was. like I said, i'm all in favor of states handling things that are specific to them, but IMO, once the issue is bigger than one state, then it should fall to the next highest authority. It just makes good logical sense.
The problem is, a number of states (39 of them) have explicitly said that they do not recognize even same-sex civil unions, much less same-sex marriage. Most of the pertinent laws in those states explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
So far, no one's taken it up to SCOTUS in order to apply the Full Faith and Credit clause in this manner, but it's bound to happen, sooner or later.
Off topic but I thought you might find it interesting that Microsoft quietly added a firefox add-on (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/microsoft_update_quietly_insta.html) in a recent service pack. Apparently this was done near the beginning of the year so you might already know about it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 12:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 01:03 am (UTC)- VP Cheney, 2004 VP debate, claiming consistency since 2000!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 04:55 am (UTC)Cheney's thoughts on freedom for GLBT reminds me a lot of Milk, when Harvey Milk was encouraging people to "come out" because hetero citizens will recognize that they know GLBT people and that these people deserve rights and are not bad people. Cheney has a daughter, so he is exposed to the GLBT community. He knows who is daughter is as a person, and any parent would never want their child to be denied rights.
Thus, I propose adding "making one child of every politician a gay" onto the Gay Agenda. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 12:38 am (UTC)I don't know how Dick Cheney lived with himself - or how his daughter stood it - for such a long time
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 12:56 am (UTC)My hunch: Just the sort of "EVERYBODY KNOWS" stuff that this LJ thrives on.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 01:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 12:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 01:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 01:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 02:24 am (UTC)That said, why the hell is it a state issue? See, marriage affects federal taxes and national law and that means that it should default to a national law. the law, by and large, should default to the smallest body that can cover it all. Ohio can cover their speed limit, becacuse when i'm driving in Ohio, I'm not also driving in Florida.
But if I'm married in Ohio, and I move to florida, I'm still married. And I still pay federal taxes in both places.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 04:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 06:43 am (UTC)And there's precedent in it being a state issue in that many states had to pass laws allowing legal interracial marriage.
Now, here's the $10,000 question: If I am a resident of a state (say, Iowa) that allows same-sex marriage, and I marry another guy, can I claim marriage status on my federal taxes without having to worry about the slightest possibility of being audited on that? (Let's assume that I have no other reason to be audited.)
State taxes, sure, no problem. Iowa allows same-sex marriage. But does the fact that I (in this hypothetical case) reside in a state that allows same-sex marriage allow me to claim married status for tax purposes on my federal taxes? And if it does, does that implicit recognition of my married status on a federal level mean anything for other then tax purposes?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 12:10 pm (UTC)Though I'm not a huge fan of defaulting everything to the states. We don't live in a collection of states anymore. It was a very different country when the constitution was written. And while I think it's a brilliant document, I think it's time to admit that the world is smaller and states are way less important than they used to be in a lot of ways.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 03:46 pm (UTC)I'm not sure we should say the feds "allow" states various rights, either. Those not allocated to the federal government are explicitly allocated to the states and the people. The state is more than a schooler and road-maker. Each is also one of 50 "deciders". The election of the President is still electoral college, not popular vote. The states are these little atomic pieces of American values that no federal system can stop. I'm romanticizing it but it's true.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-04 12:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-07 11:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-07 02:39 pm (UTC)So far, no one's taken it up to SCOTUS in order to apply the Full Faith and Credit clause in this manner, but it's bound to happen, sooner or later.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 04:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 06:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-04 04:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 11:38 am (UTC)Dick Cheney asks himself WWJD and then does the opposite.
It's not perfect but it made sense at 5am.
Mr. Consistency
Date: 2009-06-03 12:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-03 03:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-04 12:44 am (UTC)