op-ed
Christian Grantham was a student activist in the late 90s and later was a consultant to domestic policy forums for the Clinton Administration as well as events for HRC and GLAAD.
	latest posts   Has the Rainbow Flag Become Too Gay?   Five Years Ago Today   'Hate Crimes' Justice   'Ex-Gay' in San Francisco   Concerned Women for America: God's Army?

July 12, 2004

Despite widespread reports today that Lynne Cheney disagrees with her husband on "gay marriage," a more discerning look at her comments this weekend shows Lynne agrees with her husband.

In the full transcript of her comments on CNN's Late Edition July 11, 2004, Cheney indeed specifically states that her husband's position in 2000 "was very good" and "that people should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose."

Since those comments, however, the Cheneys and other conservatives argue "judicial activists" have changed everything, and that a new solution is required to protect states rights from these "judicial activists."

Lynne Cheney clearly asserts what lazy mainstream journalists left out of today's story, that the "ability of the states to do that has been called into some question by the actions of the court in Massachusetts."

So, what does she and other conservatives now believe will preserve the right of states to decide on equal marriage rights? Cheney never says, and then refuses to say when CNN's Wolf Blitzer openly asks if he's missing something.

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice, shares Cheney's desire for states to decide and wasn't at all shy in answering this question for Lynne Cheney. This morning, in a debate on CSPAN's Washington Journal with Cheryl Jacques, Executive Director, Human Rights Campaign, Sekulow argued that the only way to preserve the right of states to decide on this issue was to protect that right from "judicial activists" with nothing other than a constitutional amendment.

Were you missing something in your discussion with Lynne Cheney, Wolfe? Try the answer to your question. Leave it to lazy American journalists, though, to make it up for you.

Late Edition, July 11, 2004 - TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT

CHENEY: Well, I thought that the formulation he used in 2000 was very good. And first of all, to be clear that people should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose. And, secondly, to recognize what's historically been the situation, that when it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states.

Of course, what's happened is we're in a situation now where the ability of the states to do that has been called into some question by the actions of the court in Massachusetts.

BLITZER: So you heard Olympia Snowe and Dianne Feinstein say it is a bad idea, even though they both said it's not a good idea to have same-sex marriage, to codify it into law, it's a bad idea to have a constitutional amendment, that's the nuance right there. That's the difference between the Kerry-Edwards position and the Bush-Cheney position.

CHENEY: I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact.

BLITZER: Well, and maybe I'm missing something.

CHENEY: No, I've answered the question twice, Wolf.