Dick Cheney again reiterated his (conditional) support for gay marriage and gay civil unions, something which the White House has been mum on for quite some time.
Speaking at the National Press Club for the Gerald R. Ford Foundation journalism awards, Cheney was asked about recent rulings and legislative action in Iowa and elsewhere that allowed for gay couples to legally wed.
“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” replied the former V.P. “As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. 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. … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.”
About which more power to him, though his statement on the state vs federal regulation / protection is a bit odd. Yes, states have defined the marriage within their borders — though with “full faith and credit” those marriages were generally recognized across state lines. But federal law is full of references to marriage (as defined by the states) for purposes of taxation, benefits, etc. Under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, though, the federal government doesn’t extend those references to gay couples, even if lawfully wed in their home state.
So “historically” has nothing to do with it, Mr Cheney. “Historically,” if the state of Massachusetts said a couple was married, the federal government went along with it. Under DoMA, they don’t. That’s the ahistorical aspect of gay marriage that needs to be addressed at the federal level, at a minimum.
I vaguely remember they days when marriages were not always recognized across state lines. Arkansas allowed marriages between 1st cousins, but Kansas did not recognize them, for example. I believe the case was similar with mixed race marriages. Perhaps the federal law has changed, but, if it has, why do states need to pass laws saying the recognize same-gender marriages from other states?
I suspect nobody was bringing federal lawsuits regarding the Full Faith and Credit clause ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause ), though that’s beginning to change in the present.