Dick Cheney Outs Himself

Last week, the State Legislature in New Jersey passed a bill allowing gay marriage.  It passed by barely a majority, and, the Governor vetoed.  There will be a public vote.

Two Republicans voted with the majority.  At least one of the two said he received a call from former Vice President, Dick Cheney, urging him to vote to allow gay marriage.  It is well known  Cheney’s have a daughter who is lesbian and, with her partner, have a Cheney granddaughter.  Other high level Republicans made calls on behalf of the bill as well.

In every state where gay marriage has been voted on, it has been defeated.  It remains in effect in states that have not had such votes.

Ronald Reagan once said, “Politics is a place where the unexpected often happens.”  Polls show more and more acceptance of gays and gay marriage.  Yet, it loses in state-wide votes.

My thinking is gay marriage will begin to win these state votes.  A couple to watch are coming up in New Jersey and Minnesota.  The New Jersey situation has the elements of an upset.

The Cheney endorsement is perhaps the highest level Republican Party defection from its orthodoxy and Platform we have seen.  Add to that, New Jersey’s proximity to New York City and you have something different than all the other state votes.

Every year is an exciting one in the march toward equity for gay and lesbian citizens.  This one will be exciting as well.


Profile photo of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Dick Cheney Outs Himself

  1. Profile photo of S. L. S. L. says:

    Put marriage back into the Church and have a civil committment available to all. Those who want a RELIGIOUS ceremony and to blessed by the Church can move on to that level [but there will be no legal differences as far as taxes, responsibities, divorces, etc. as all will have the civil committment]. Problem solved [and it is so easy].

  2. Henry says:

    “Every year is an exciting one in the march toward equity for gay and lesbian citizens.”

    Homosexual citizens currently have equity that heterosexual citizens have. A gay citizen can currently go to the courthouse and get a license to marry the opposite sex. Similarily, if a heterosexual wants to be gay, they can go live with a member of the same sex. Homosexuals can currently have what heterosexuals have and vice versa.

    • entech says:

      except, perhaps, your acceptance as human beings.

    • Profile photo of Grandma Grandma says:

      Oh Henry, you got it wrong. Gay folks, some of whom have been together for decades, can be barred from their partner’s hospital room because they aren’t considered “family.” That doesn’t seem equitable to me. Also, men and women are not “opposite” sexes since we have much more in common with each other than with chimps, our closest living relatives. Lastly, people do NOT decide they want to be gay any more than people can “decide” to be tall.

      • Henry says:

        They could still legally make the choice to be married to a member of the opposite sex.

        The homosexual crowd is still looking for the smoking gun gay gene. The APA is diligently searching with all the new-fangled technology. I can assure you they would like to discover a gay gene. It appears the assumptions of science got a little ahead of the facts with people still operating with information from the asumptions.

        • Simple says:

          Henry “They could still legally make the choice to be married to a member of the opposite sex.”

          Which would mean their marriage is a sham, which violates your sides principle of sanctity of marriage. Face it, this is only about the religious rights hatred of sex for anything but procreation and by extension their hatred of gay people.

          • Henry says:

            “Which would mean their marriage is a sham, which violates your sides principle of sanctity of marriage.”

            If marriage would be a sham to them, then they should stay single and not exercize the right to marry the opposite sex. No violation.

          • Profile photo of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 1:47 “No violation.”

            Mac’s post points out the hypocrisy of the Christian fundamentalist position. There is taxpayer money involved in marriage. Segreagationists liked to say, “Negros have the same rights as white people, they can go to a swimmimg pool. They just can’t go to ours.”

            If “marriage segregationists” want to define marriage as between a man and a woman only, they need to take away every single taxpayer benefit and all other laws that apply to marriage. Otherwise they are taking tax money unfairly and unethically from gay people.

        • grandma says:

          One gene? No. There will be a cluster of genes, which explains why the search is difficult. Already we know that there are differences in parts of the brain, between straights and gays, which do affect attractions…..

          • Henry says:

            “There will be a cluster of genes, which explains why the search is difficult.”

            There will be? You say, therefore it is.

    • Profile photo of Mac Mac says:

      Henry, if I die my partner will not have access to the 26K per year spousal survivor benefits the gajllion dollars I’ve paid in social security taxes would provide.

      That is not equal.

      We pay $5,000 per year more in Federal income taxes because we cannot legally check ‘married.’

      That is not equal.

      That is current Federal Law.

      Perhaps since you believe otherwise, you’d like to make things ‘equal’ by dropping me a check for $5K April 15 and then pay the premiums on a life insurance policy that would take care of Ricky in my demise.

      • Henry says:

        All that you have described above are choices. One could also spend more money filling their swimming pool up with sludge from the Fargo Waste Water Treatment Plant than just filling it with nice, fresh tap water. A truck would have to be rented, the sludge obtained and transported with a few trips, and the truck returned. A waste of money. Similarily, you choose the more costly route. What else can I say?

        • Profile photo of Mac Mac says:

          Whaaa? Henry, thanks for the pool care tips.

          You said the law applies equally to gay couples as it does to straight couples. I named simply two of the over 1,000 laws that provide legal protection to couples who espouse a certain religious belief and pay a fee to their state government. Some celebrate the purchase of this document with a big ol’ party in their churches. Some, like Ricky and I, celebrate the purchase of a Canadian license with a big ol’ party by our sludge free pool. :)

          Some of these people ala Newt Gingrinch revere traditional marriage so much they do it over and over and over and over . . . .

          Just because you say it or even think it does not make it true.

          • Henry says:

            The law is equal. You too can take advantage of it if you so choose.

          • Profile photo of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 6:42 We need you to rid our country of accommodations for handicapped people, “The upper level is available to all. You have a choice. Get up out of your wheelchair and walk up, or if you choose, stay here in your wheelchair.”

            Maybe the get-rid-of-handicapped-access program could have a Benny Hin at the top and bottom of every set of stair–giving them a holy shove and healing them.

            Has Benny changed the sexual orientation of anyone? Maybe it’s a new market for him.

          • Henry says:

            Jon: “Maybe the get-rid-of-handicapped-access program could have a Benny Hin at the top and bottom of every set of stair–giving them a holy shove and healing them.”

            Democrats seem fixated on pushing grandma down the stairs. Maybe Benny should take lessons from them.

  3. Michael Ross says:

    Why do we have a legal definition of marriage?

    1) Societies need babies; 2) Sex makes babies; 3) Babies need a mom and a dad; 4) Marriage is society’s attempt to insure babies have both a mom and a dad.
    Case closed.

    • Profile photo of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 5:16 “Case closed.”

      About this argument, that society needs babies and it takes a parent of each sex to have them, thus marriage must be defined as between a male and female, what about couple who choose to have no children? Should not there be some penalty for this?

      This is to say, if the public grants a license to marry, and, has as its only purpose having children, would not a couple who can have children but chooses not to have violated the intent of marriage and be subject to some penalty.

      If there is no penalty for this offense, and marriage has some other objective, or objectives, then the door is open to approve gay marriage.

      This is how it seems to me. Where have I gone wrong in thinking this way?

    • Profile photo of Grandma Grandma says:

      Many anthropologists believe that legal marriage, as we know it, was designed to protect property rights.

  4. Bob says:

    There’s always been homosexuals, always.

    Um…Jesus and his 12 really close buddies that would die for him and professed their love for him to the point he’s been famous for the last 2000 years. duh, ya think?

  5. Bob says:

    All the literary evidence points to the fact that Jesus was a homo. boy. 12 buddies, no mention of girls, 12 buddies all professing their undying love for him. He must of been good, real good, wink, wink.

    • PK says:

      “All the literary evidence points to the fact that Jesus was a homo.”

      Really? I thought there were some women friends of Jesus and that He lead a perfect Jewish life without sin. At first i thought you were joking, but now after the 10th time or so that you’ve posted this, it seems like you actually believe it.

  6. Profile photo of seaofstories seaofstories says:

    Add Maryland to your watch list. The governor just signed gay marriage rights into law. There will be an initiated measure to overturn within the year.

    • Profile photo of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      sea 5:35 You are correct, no doubt. Here’s hoping Maryland is one of those states where voters stand for equal treatment under the law and uphold rights of gays to marry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>