Dick Cheney Supports Gay Marriage!

[sbk]

Unfortunately Youtube wont' allow the video to play in Thailand (sorry but this is such a stupid policy but anyway).

Recap is:

Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne Cheney appeared on “The View” this morning and voiced their support for gay marriage. The Cheneys have a daughter who is a lesbian and partnered with two kids. He said, “I think freedom means freedom for everybody and you ought to have the right to make whatever choice you want to make with respect to your own personal situation.”

For people who can watch it is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a35Y8C40W04

But here is another video where he does come out and say it again:

he doesn't support a federal statue as he believes it is a state issue.

[Jingthing]

he doesn't support a federal statue as he believes it is a state issue.

That's a key detail. So he DOES NOT support gay marriage!

In the US state marriage is a crumb, federal marriage is the cake.

Without federal recognized marriage, gay couples are denied equal rights in

- taxation

- immigration

- immunity from OTHER states not denying their marriages

- social security survivor benefits, etc.

To use a Rosa Park's analogy, state gay marriage is back of the bus. It's better than not being on the bus at all but people who think that's all we deserve are NOT our friends.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Jingthing

[sbk]

True, but then he would be in favor of the abolishment of the current Federal act regulating marriage then, wouldn't he?

[sbk]

Or rather, I should say, if he feels that marriage is a state issue then he should be for the abolishment of the current federal law regulating marriage, shouldn't he?

[isanbirder]

JT, you're like the beggar who refused 50c. because he wanted a dollar. Be happy with what you get, and build on that. Cheney was against, now he's mildly pro, now you think of what he may come to later.

[Jingthing]

JT, you're like the beggar who refused 50c. because he wanted a dollar. Be happy with what you get, and build on that. Cheney was against, now he's mildly pro, now you think of what he may come to later.

You're wrong. That is as far as Cheney will EVER go for right wing ideological reasons. Doesn't matter. That evil man, supporter of TORTURE, the main force behind the US war on Iraq, is on his last legs. Are you American? I think you don't understand. State gay marriages are very, very weak compared to state straight marriages. They are mostly symbolic. You'd have to be a fool with no self esteem to think they are anywhere close to good enough. For those that want federally recognized domestic partnerships with the exact same legal rights as marriages, I think that is OK. But legally probably impossible in the US legal system. I think the UK has something like that, but I think that path for the US is very unlikely. This has to be done once and for all in the supreme court. A significant majority of YOUNGER Americans support full legal gay marriage so this advance is inevitable over time. So for us older Americans, this movement was never for us personally as things move too slowly, it's for the future. Of course if Obama loses in 2012, right wing supreme court picks could delay this another 50 years.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Jingthing

[endure]

In 1967 the Sexual Offences Act was passed in the UK. This decriminalised homosexual act between men as long as they were both 21, as long as only two men were present and as long as the act was done in private.

The Criminal Justice and Disorder Bill 1994 contained an amendment which lowered the homosexual age of consent from 21 to 18.

Speaker of the House of Commons Michael Martin used the Parliament Act to force passage of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) 2000 Act to equalise the homosexual and heterosexual ages of consent at 16.

In 2004 the Civil Partnership Act was passed allowing same-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership with all the rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples although the ceremony was forbidden from being held in a place of religious worship.

The Equality Act (2010) allows for civil partnership ceremonies to be conducted in the premises of those religions that want to - notably The Society of Friends, the Unitarians and the Liberal Jews.

Sometimes sneaky is better than shouty.

Slowly slowly catchee monkey...

Edited September 14, 2011 by endure

[Ijustwannateach]

ha ha!

[Jingthing]

Slowly slowly catchee monkey...

Sometimes countries that more or less speak the same language are LESS ALIKE than most people think.

[isanbirder]

Slowly slowly catchee monkey...

Sometimes countries that more or less speak the same language are LESS ALIKE than most people think.

Being British, I agree with both of you!

[sbk]

OK then JT, compare it to the women's rights movement where women wanted to not belong to their husbands and to be able to own their own property and to be able to vote. 100 years on and women still do not make the same wages as men and yet the advances still occur. I think you expect a social revolution overnight and personally, given human nature, thats extremely unrealistic. I agree with endure and I am not British.

[LeCharivari]

For those that want federally recognized domestic partnerships with the exact same legal rights as marriages, I think that is OK. But legally probably impossible in the US legal system. I think the UK has something like that, but I think that path for the US is very unlikely.

Not "something" like that, JT, but "exactly" like that.

The only difference now in the UK between a marriage and a Civil Partnership concerns that particularly "British" institution peerages - you can have a Lord and Lady Charavari, but not a Lord and Lord (or Lady and Lady) Charavari. That would simply be too confusing.

As one who has a Civil Partnership I am perfectly happy with it and actually prefer it to the idea of a "marriage". My partner is my "partner", plain and simple - if we were "married" then one of us would have be the "wife", which I have always found a bit ridiculous, and I would feel even more ridiculous introducing my partner as "my husband".

The problem with your "all or nothing" approach is that it's a bit like the "if you're not with us you're against us" argument. Yes, it forces people to say where they stand on any issue, but it can backfire all too easily and push people who were prepared to go along with the "slow and steady" approach to say "whoa, that's going too far for now" and you end up putting your own case back by another decade (or two).

One thing I will say for you, though - I thought for a horrible moment that you were saying that Cheney was a good man rather than one of the biggest hypocrites in American politics, who managed to get four draft deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam by taking 6 years to get through Yale by repeatedly failing his exams, rather than the normal 4, and then a fifth deferment when his wife became pregnant (after which, conveniently, he was too old for the draft).

[Jingthing]

The problem with your "all or nothing" approach is that it's a bit like the "if you're not with us you're against us" argument.

How ridiculous. Where did I ever say all or nothing? I clearly meant in the US, we have made a little progress but are not nearly there yet. I find it bizarre when the same suspects basically manufacture positions I have that I never had.

Many straight people see stories like New York on the news and conclude, the gays have their rights now. If WE don't tell them, nope, we don't, who will, the tooth fairy?

As far as in the US there being federal civil partnership equivalent to marriage like the UK model, anyone who has followed the particular history of this issue in the US KNOWS that is not the direction the US is going. Its complicated why, but that's the reality. I already said I would be OK with that, but that's strictly academic as that isn't even on the agenda. The debate and the law in the US is not about that; it is clearly about marriage vs. no marriage. It's starting in the states and that's psychological progress as people realize states aren't exploding because a few queers went to city hall and signed a paper.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

OK then JT, compare it to the women's rights movement where women wanted to not belong to their husbands and to be able to own their own property and to be able to vote. 100 years on and women still do not make the same wages as men and yet the advances still occur. I think you expect a social revolution overnight and personally, given human nature, thats extremely unrealistic. I agree with endure and I am not British.

This is absurd. Of course, it's a long struggle. WHEN did I say differently? I made it clear the vision is for future generations or really young people alive now at best. So did the women's rights activists who got the vote say, OK, we're done! OK, maybe some did, and that's sad.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

OK then JT, compare it to the women's rights movement where women wanted to not belong to their husbands and to be able to own their own property and to be able to vote. 100 years on and women still do not make the same wages as men and yet the advances still occur. I think you expect a social revolution overnight and personally, given human nature, thats extremely unrealistic. I agree with endure and I am not British.

I agree with IsanBirder, and I don't know what this has to do with Thailand. Or with women's rights.

Dick Cheney has a gay (lesbian) daughter. And he is a full-blooded politician. What do you expect: He can neither reject his daughter, nor can he endorse gay marriage (as he is republican). So he says the individual states should decide, while there is a law or regulation in place that a marriages performed by one state (for example in Las Vegas) will be recognized by all the other states. At the same time, he says the Federal institution should not accept it.

Why do we care about this in Thailand, I wonder.

[janverbeem]

Unfortunately Youtube wont' allow the video to play in Thailand (sorry but this is such a stupid policy but anyway).

I must be in a different Thailand then as it plays without any problems here and I'm not using a proxy server.

[Jingthing]

Why do we care about this in Thailand, I wonder.

Gay forum here is not limited to Thai topics. If you ain't interested, it's easy. Don't read it. Don't post it.

[tombkk]

Why do we care about this in Thailand, I wonder.

Gay forum here is not limited to Thai topics. If you ain't interested, it's easy. Don't read it. Don't post it.

That so? I thought this was ThaiVisa, not USVisa or AllovertheworldVisa. Let the mods decide.

[Jingthing]

That so?

It is so. Live and learn.

[LeCharivari]

The problem with your "all or nothing" approach is that it's a bit like the "if you're not with us you're against us" argument.

How ridiculous. Where did I ever say all or nothing? I clearly meant in the US, we have made a little progress but are not nearly there yet. I find it bizarre when the same suspects basically manufacture positions I have that I never had.

Sorry, JT, but I was going by your "This has to be done once and for all in the supreme court " statement. Two nations divided by a common language again, apparently.

As far as in the US there being federal civil partnership equivalent to marriage like the UK model, anyone who has followed the particular history of this issue in the US KNOWS that is not the direction the US is going. Its complicated why, but that's the reality. .....I already said I would be OK with that, but that's strictly academic as that isn't even on the agenda. The debate and the law in the US is not about that; it is clearly about marriage vs. no marriage. It's starting in the states and that's psychological progress as people realize states aren't exploding because a few queers went to city hall and signed a paper.

I do "KNOW" that's "not the direction the US is going" - my point was that maybe IF it were you (U.S. gays) would have made considerably more than just "psychological progress".

... and I don't think that the issue is as "complicated" as you imagine. I think the problem is that whereas in the UK the "all or nothing" group (the gay radicals, such as the GLF) have never really been seen by anyone as even remotely representative of gays and gay moderates have made all the running, in the US the radicals have taken over the asylum and have made the debate about "marriage vs. no marriage".

Here (in Thailand) a similar thing has happened. The last time the constitution was re-written there was a strong possibility that an amendment to it would be passed allowing same sex marriage and gay rights to be formally recognised, but the motion ended up being narrowly defeated after the Sexual Diversity Coalition successfully lobbied for the rights of a "third sex" to be included and recognised, which confused and polarised the issue.

[Jingthing]

Federal gay marriage has to happen in the supreme court or it will never happen. That is why some of the best lawyers in the US are working to get a case there. There is a big controversy on whether this should happen sooner or later. Too soon, and a loss, and that's a big setback. The lawyers involved are as far from leftist radicals as you could possibly imagine.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Jingthing

[sbk]

Just as an FYI, as the mod who posted this item, yes indeed outside of General there is leeway to discuss non-Thai related items. Look around and you will find it everywhere.

[Jingthing]

More good news from the US on the gay marriage issue, coming at the same time that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is finally officially over, and American gay people can now openly serve in the military.

While personally, I think only a very small percentage of Americans are even AWARE of the huge legal difference between state gay marriage and FEDERALLY recognized gay marriage, the recent spike in approval of gay marriage may indeed indicate the positive news from the state gay marriage liberalizations is swaying many people, and quickly. Also the expected trend of much more support from younger people vs. the much more conservative older people. So this seems inevitable now except for the question of how long. 5 years or 50?

For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/20/debate-should-gay-marriage-be-legal/

Edited September 21, 2011 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

From our subforum guidelines, which are in the pinned topic here:

My first addendum to the subforum guidelines here. Topics of a gay-related nature are allowed here (as are women-related topics in the lady's subforum and teaching/education-related topics in the teaching subforum) without the need to be Thai-related. Posters who only post to inquire about this will be presumed to be trolling and warned (at least). Please check subforum guidelines carefully before posting, and enjoy posting on Thaivisa.

I know you didn't ask about this simply to cause trouble, Tom, so no harm, no foul- but them are indeed the rules around here. We had to institute it as a rule because of disgruntled types who would search around the forum in search of something to complain about when they had been warned for non-Thai-related topics in the General Forum, for example.

[tombkk]

From our subforum guidelines, which are in the pinned topic here:

My first addendum to the subforum guidelines here. Topics of a gay-related nature are allowed here (as are women-related topics in the lady's subforum and teaching/education-related topics in the teaching subforum) without the need to be Thai-related. Posters who only post to inquire about this will be presumed to be trolling and warned (at least). Please check subforum guidelines carefully before posting, and enjoy posting on Thaivisa.

I know you didn't ask about this simply to cause trouble, Tom, so no harm, no foul- but them are indeed the rules around here. We had to institute it as a rule because of disgruntled types who would search around the forum in search of something to complain about when they had been warned for non-Thai-related topics in the General Forum, for example.

Thanks for your clarification and apologies for not having read that section of the pinned topic.

I did not ask to cause trouble, but merely because I wasn't aware of that rule. It's clear now.

On-topic (for a change):

Glad to hear that the "don't-ask don't tell policy" is finally replaced by a policy "we don't care whether you are straight or gay, but this is what we expect from you...", as the German Armed Forces ("Bundeswehr") has practiced for decades.

[LeCharivari]

On-topic (for a change):

Glad to hear that the "don't-ask don't tell policy" is finally replaced by a policy "we don't care whether you are straight or gay, but this is what we expect from you...", as the German Armed Forces ("Bundeswehr") has practiced for decades.

ONE decade actually, Tom.

Although gays have officially been allowed to serve (and to be conscripted) in the Bundeswehr since 1969 they were not allowed to serve in "leadership, training or educational positions" and there were a number of other serious restrictions placed on them which were upheld by judgements by your Federal Administrative Court in 1990; it wasn't until 2000 that this policy was reversed, detailed in Anlage B 173 zu ZDv 14/3.

[tombkk]

On-topic (for a change):

Glad to hear that the "don't-ask don't tell policy" is finally replaced by a policy "we don't care whether you are straight or gay, but this is what we expect from you...", as the German Armed Forces ("Bundeswehr") has practiced for decades.

ONE decade actually, Tom.

There was never a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the Bundeswehr. There might have been discrimination about promotion as there was in all of society at the time, but you are missing the point. At conscription (and unlike the US, Germany does have a national service so it is not voluntary), I said I was gay, and the answer was: "Who cares?" And I became a soldier.

That was actually a couple of decades ago and would not have happened in the US the same way.

The US DoD has lost many many highly-qualified already-subscripted men and women (I read the figure of 30,000 somewhere some time ago) because of this policy. I hear (and I do hear things) that the language department (translators and such) lost so many people due to this non-sensicle policy at one time that they were almost unable to fulfill their task.

Again, this problem would not have happened in Germany.

[Ijustwannateach]

^ I remember that, too... and on an anecdotal basis, I would say that though I have seen many gifted straight youngsters speak foreign languages with talent and skill, the kids who were preternaturally skilled were usually gay. I have also heard some other teachers and researchers comment on this anecdotally. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot as an organisation!

Getting back to Dick 'Snarling Demonoids Are People, Too' Cheney, yeah, his daughter has him cornered on this one. But since he was always essentially unelectable on his own, he could be a 'conservative' in appointed positions and hold some unpopular positions on social issues.

[LeCharivari]

On-topic (for a change):

Glad to hear that the "don't-ask don't tell policy" is finally replaced by a policy "we don't care whether you are straight or gay, but this is what we expect from you...", as the German Armed Forces ("Bundeswehr") has practiced for decades.

ONE decade actually, Tom.

There was never a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the Bundeswehr. There might have been discrimination about promotion as there was in all of society at the time, but you are missing the point. At conscription (and unlike the US, Germany does have a national service so it is not voluntary), I said I was gay, and the answer was: "Who cares?" And I became a soldier.

That was actually a couple of decades ago and would not have happened in the US the same way.

The US DoD has lost many many highly-qualified already-subscripted men and women (I read the figure of 30,000 somewhere some time ago) because of this policy. I hear (and I do hear things) that the language department (translators and such) lost so many people due to this non-sensicle policy at one time that they were almost unable to fulfill their task.

Again, this problem would not have happened in Germany.

Tom,

you are correct on most counts but I really don't think that you can hold up Germany and the Bundeswehr's official policy on gays in the military as something to be proud of - it was studied in depth by the US in 1993 along with the policies of Canada, Israel and Sweden, who also permitted gays to serve in the military, and the policy was far more insulting to gays than an outright ban would have been or DADT ever was. In brief, gays could be conscripted into the German Army but only as long as they remained at the absolute bottom of the barrel - had you volunteered, for example, and declared that you were gay, you would not have been accepted.

"Who cares ?" Nobody, as long as you don't mind gays being treated as cannon fodder.

The actual number discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass was just over 13,500 from when it started in 1993 until it finally ended this year.

The shortage of translators may be due in some part to gays being discharged, but only a very small part. The Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, trains 80% of US government translators, with 1,000 staff and 3,800 students; the US military requires 7,000 Arabic and 2,000 Pushtu/Dari linguists for Iraq and Afghanistan. Between 1994 and 2004 a total of 55 Arabic "language specialists" were discharged from the US military for being gay - hardly a significant number. Since then virtually none have been discharged under DADT as gay translators were generally recognised as exempt under US Code 654 (e) (2) as it "would not be in the best interests of the armed forces" to discharge them. This may not be what you "hear" or want to hear, but it is the case.

[Firefish]

Wow, I didn't know that thing about Dick Cheney's Daughter. Must have really upset him, being the conservative that he is.