Lord And Lady Voldemort Support Gay Marriage Now That They’re Powerless

Now that Dick Cheney is no longer Vice President, he and his wife Lynne have gone on the daytime talk show The View to announce that they’re not against marriage equality. Lynne says she’s not against gay marriage, but she doesn’t say she’s for it either.

When asked if he supports a federal law banning marriage equality, Dick says “Freedom means freedom for everybody and you oughta to have the right to make whatever choice you wanna make with respect to your own personal situation.” Note, he didn’t say he opposes a federal law either, he just thinks everyone should have “freedom,” which we assume means the freedom to vote on your right to marry.

Some people will see their words on The View as evidence of Republicans finally coming around on this issue, but when you consider the substance of what they said, it’s pretty empty. When asked by Terry Gross about gay marriage in 2004, Lynne said she thinks it should be left up to the states. In 2009, Dick said pretty much the same thing.

So the “progressive” Republican line these days is that they’re open-minded enough to let people vote on your marriage. At this rate, national Republicans will support marriage equality sometime around the year 3000.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #dickcheney #lynnecheney #marriageequality stories and more


  • randy

    And they are certiainly NOT going to lift a finger to help gays or gay marriage, despite having a daughter who is lesbian and married.

  • Pocket Otter

    Can’t pass up an opportunity to bash a Republican, even when they’re on our side? God, I’m beginning to be embarassed to be affiliated with the gay community.

  • Daniel Villarreal

    @Pocket Otter: So allowing states to vote on marriage equality now constitutes being “on our side”? Really?

  • Politically Incorrect Thug

    @Pocket Otter: Right on, brother. If someone on the right disparages us, they’re the enemy; if the same people praise us, they’re obviously scheming to attack us once we’ve let down our guard. Perhaps you and I and a handful of other posters on this site might be able to peaceably present facts in an attempt to defuse the anger coming from so many in the gay community (without being called childish names like “troll”). If not, oh well: the earth is round and the sky is blue, but there will always be a percentage of people who will never believe it.

  • Pocket Otter

    @Daniel Villarreal: Yes, I do believe the decision should be left up to individual states. Once that happens, other, less progressive states will hopefully realize it doesn’t spell out the apocalypse and therfore may follow suit. If not, we retain the right to live anywhere in the U.S. that pleases and conforms to our way of life. (and by the way, I’m familiar with the civil rights comparison, but you have to understand that half the country ignorantly believes that homosexuality is a choice, and no one believes being of a particular race is a choice, so the comparison is moot—we’re on our own, state by state)

  • Daniel Villarreal

    @Pocket Otter: we can differ about the efficacy about state-by-state voting (which I find to be an intolerably slow and unfair process). But my main point with this post is that Dick and Lynne were both saying the same thing in 2004, so why is this clip regarded as “progress”

  • Pocket Otter

    @Daniel Villarreal: I understand your POV; however, all I can say is this: People are enlightened to the human condition, whether they choose to be or not—it happens. My dad was largely an anti-gay marine . . . until he realized his son was one, and his attitudes evolved from shock to love (albeit much quicker than that of our current commander-in-chief). My dad is now so very proud of me, not for what I choose to do in my bedroom, but for my accomplishments and my moral standing as a man. My belief (and hope) is that Cheney is traveling a similar arc of enlightenment.

  • Robert in NYC

    Pocket Otter, if we had left civil rights legislation to the states during the 60s, African Americans still would not be equal and neither would women, let alone gays. Your darling Ron Paul supports DOMA by the way. How on earth can you have some states with more rights and some with less? What a fucked up country this is, hardly the world leader on social issues as it claims to be. The Cheney’s coming out in support after he’s out of power isn’t exactly an act of courage. Anyone can do that even Bill Clinton, means nothing if they’r enot prepared to do something about it. What are they doing exactly to promote it I wonder? At least Clinton allowes his name to be used in our state to get it passed. What did the Cheney’s do?

    You’re delusional if you think other states legalizing it will have a ripple effect in others. Hell will freeze over before that happens especially in 31 states that uphold DOMA. Already NOM and the Tea Party scumbags are targeting New Hampshire to overturn marriage equality, the hateful bastards. Bush once said that it’s up to the state legislatures to do it, but even that’s not good enough for the Tea Party scumbaggers who are currently trying to get it banned permanently in all 50 states. They’ve even started a lawsuit in my own state to overturn a law passed in the legislature. Tea Partyers are republicans and so are Civil Libertarians under a different name. Voting for any of them means you’re voting against us and yourself.

  • Pocket Otter

    @Robert in NYC: Hmm, seems you’re not exactly familiar with the Libertarian doctrine. We are 100% pro-gay-marriage, pro-gay-union, pro-gay-anything. Libertarians are not Republicans in sheep’s clothing—that’s just something your liberals pals have tried convincing you of to turn you aginast us, since we are in fact fiscal conservatives. But look at the record: We Libertarians are all for social rights, i.e., gay marriage, pro-life, anything that doesn’t impede an individual’s ability to pursue their own happiness. My position is I support all issues pro-gay, but moreso I support all issue that are pro-American, and if that means state-by-state approval of gay marriage, then I’m all for it. Baby steps, Bob, baby steps.

  • WillBFair

    This is just a Republican tactic to win gay votes by having reps that are out of power pretend to support us. They’ve been at it for a while. Remember John McCain’s daughter coming out for us. It works too, but only with gay republicans. It’ll may also work with the less careful among us? Because it doesn’t cost them any politial capital with their base, who know it’s a total fraud, it’s a cunning strategy.
    On another note:
    Daniel, though sometimes you make too light of serious issues, here you’ve hit just the right note. ‘Useless People’? ‘Lords Voldemort’? That’s hysterical.

  • Alex

    @Politically Incorrect Thug:

    Please! So what if Dick Cheney supports gay rights now. When he was VP, he did nothing to support gays while his party used anti-gay measures to win votes. He had the power of office to speak out but he did nothing. It’s great for you to ignore the facts of complicity to the pain and misery of gays around the country.

    That said, why are you so shocked that a site that is obviously liberal/progressive says something that is liberal/progressive? Aren’t there conservative gay sites out there? There is such a thing as the “free market of ideas.” Why not explore the market for a site where you won’t be so easily offended by liberal/progressive ideas that offend you so much?

  • christopher di spirito

    It’s truly fascinating. Dick Cheney supports gay marriage but President Obama does not. I feel like I’ve stepped through the looking glass into another dimension.

  • the crustybastard

    Marriage IS a state issue. But marriage is also a fundamental right.

    And any law excluding a minority with a history of political discrimination from enjoying their fundamental right is subject to strict judicial scrutiny.

    Strict judicial scrutiny obligates the state prove the law is essential to the public security or safety, and the law has been drafted in the most narrow and unrestrictive manner possible.

    So the state can either argue that gays have no fundamental rights (the Bowers v. Hardwick “gay antimatter” theory), or the state can deny that gays have a history of political discrimination (by simply ignoring the reality that the law at bar and dozens of other similar laws were written purposefully to discriminate against gays).

    Not saying we’re guaranteed a win at the state level, just saying there is a better chance to win there than at the federal level, where Congress will write an unconstitutional law, the feckless executive will enforce it knowing it’s unconstitutional and the craven SCOTUS will just fucking abdicate as usual.

  • Robert in NYC

    Pocket Otter, tell me why Ron Paul supports DOMA? By the way, being Liberal isn’t a dirty word, maybe in your party it is, but I’m proud to be a progressive, the civil libertarians are hardly that. They can support marriage equality all they want, but having its leader supporting DOMA is fucked up. Paul will NEVER be president and in November 2012, you and your party will vote for whoever is running on the republican ticket to make sure no democrat wins. You’re still republicans. Ron Paul has NEVER declared support or actively promoted marriage equality in my state now that we have it,or in any other for that matter. Its all words no action to lure oxymoronic gay republican into your camp. Opposing a woman’s right to choose should be hers alone, and not the bailiwick of men. It’s nobody’s damn business what a woman does with her body in that respect, certainly not a man’s decision. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean you should oppose the rights of those who want it. Why isn’t your party going after Ron Paul for supporting DOMA by the way, why the silence?

    As for fiscal conservancy. Please…..let me enlighten you. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, Bill Clinton left office with a net surplus in excess of $267 billion when taxes were at their HIGHEST. His administration in 8 years created over 22 million jobs and unemployment was at 3.9%. Enter Bush 43, 8 years of huge tax cuts, no regulation of the financial services industry, no oversight, only 4.4 million jobs created, most manufacturing jobs shipped overseas at their highest level ever and two unpaid wars that weren’t even included in the deficit. We didn’t hear a word from the GOP or Ron Paul. Enter Obama, the GOP, Civil Libertarians and Tea Party scumbaggers dump it on the Democrats as if they created the mess to begin with and mouthing off about Obama with all that hateful, despicable rhetoric. No government can create jobs by cutting taxes, it’s been proven over and over if you look at the economic history of the world’s economies. FDR inherited the depression which happened under the aegis of an republican administration. Look what he did. He instituted big government spending on infrastucture and investment in homegrown manufacturing and the US emerged as the largest robust economy in history and took us out of the depression and gave the US economic dominance. You spend your way out of a recession, not by cutting which takes money out of the hands of the people’s ability to spend and buy things, supply and demand, simple as that. Ron Paul will NEVER be president, thankfully.

  • Little Kiwi

    great news. too bad we didn’t hear this a decade ago. for real.

  • Cinesnatch

    You are only for marriage equality if it includes repealing DOMA. “Leaving it up to the states” carries zero meaning otherwise.


  • Little Kiwi

    I’m still puzzled as to why Pocket Otter is so proud of his libertarian stance. The fact that your father didn’t have compassion or empathy for LGBT people only proves us Liberals right.

    Conservatives dont’ have empathy or compassion or care for others. Only when it suddenly “affects them.”

    Congrats to your dad no longer being anti-gay once he realized he had a gay son. My Dad? My Dad was never anti-gay because he’s an intelligent, compassionate liberal thinker.

    And going state-by-state is stupid and useless. What about all the bi-national couples? Marriage Equality needs to be FEDERAL in order for it to be Equal. I can’t marry the love of my life because the USA is grinding its heels on this.

    State by State? Yay. So we’ll have “legally homophobic” States the way there were once “Legally Racist” ones?

    You think it’ll work? Heck, it was not too long ago that Arizona refused to acknowledge MLK Day, dudes…..

  • Adam

    Can I say bravo on the “Lord and Lady Voldemort,” that’s exactly how I feel about that man.

  • jacked

    i miss the old queerty. these new bafoons are a joke.

  • Jim Hlavac

    Egad, Queerty; the whole nation is “evolving” on this issue. Bill and Hilary are, and they’re “our friends,” Obama is, he’s “our buddy,” Nancy Pelosi is unsure, and she represents San Francisco for heaven’s sake. And so are more and more Republicans. We have gone from total oppression in 1970 to near 1/2 the nation saying “who cares” in 40 years, precisely because we got people to “evolve.” So now comes Dick and Lynn.

    Would you kindly take any single plus as a good; and let those people evolve?

    Meanwhile, Oregon’s Republicans dropped their more virulent anti-gay stuff, while the Republican fundies are already facing a tough fight at the polls even if not the legislature. And National Review Magazine, a highly conservative rag has more or less concluded, “you know, what is the issue? let’s see what happens in NY,” meanwhile Mitch Daniel, Alan Simpson and Gary Johnson, are all saying to their fellow Republicans: “stop harassing gay folks.”

    I find it amazing, that so many gay guys, and not just you youthful ones around here, are forgetful that gay sex wasn’t even legal in half the states when Cheney was vice-pres – -how on earth can you have a “marriage” or be for it, when the sex itself within the marriage would be illegal and a felony to boot?

    Let those people evolve, and welcome them with cookies and something to drink for heaven’s sake, so they might evolve a little more.

  • the crustybastard

    @Robert in NYC:

    According to the US Treasury:

    National Debt / Deficit
    FY94 $4.692749 trillion / $281.26 billion
    FY95 $4.973982 trillion / $281.23 billion
    FY96 $5.224810 trillion / $250.83 billion
    FY97 $5.413146 trillion / $188.34 billion
    FY98 $5.526193 trillion / $113.05 billion
    FY99 $5.656270 trillion / $130.08 billion
    FY00 $5.674178 trillion / $17.91 billion
    FY01 $5.807463 trillion / $133.29 billion

    There’s no surplus there. That shows an ongoing deficit, although I grant that it does trend toward reduction. Regardless, there’s lots and lots of billions borrowed every year. Any “surplus” came not from the Clinton administration tax or monetary policy, but because in the mid-’80s, Social Security’s collections started grotesquely exceeding its expenditures. By the ’90s, it was runaway.

    FY93 46.8 billion ($.9 billion excess every week)
    FY94 56.8 billion
    FY95 60.4 billion
    FY96 66.4 billion
    FY97 81.3 billion
    FY98 99.4 billion
    FY99 124.7 billion
    FY00 151.8 billion
    FY01 163.0 billion ($3.13 billion excess every week)

    Remember, SSA is required by law to invest excess receipts in US government securities. So while the government was selling obscene quantities of securities to the SSA, it didn’t need to sell as many to the public, effectively reducing the debt the government owed the public (a/k/a “the public debt.”) So if you choose to say that Clinton was responsible for reducing the public debt, that would be marginally more accurate, except that Clinton really had nothing to do with it, other than being president while this phenomenon occurred.

    As for those trillions in government securities now owned by the SSA? They’ll be cashed in when expenditures begin to exceed collections. Maybe a decade or so. Regardless, this enormous transaction was Social Security providing the government a gargantuan loan; however, Congress imputed all that Social Security cash as “income,” rather than a liability.

    That’s like having $50K in income and $60K in expenses, then taking out a $20K loan to claim you’ve got a $10K “surplus.” Nope. You have a $10K deficit and a $20K debt. You’re down $30K.

  • CBRad

    @Pocket Otter: My dad is now so very proud of me, not for what I choose to do in my bedroom, but for my accomplishments and my moral standing as a man. My belief (and hope) is that Cheney is traveling a similar arc of enlightenment./////////////////////////////////////////////////////////That’s the only reason to be proud of someone. (Or, conversely, for non-achievers and/or criminals, ashamed of someone). The sexuality should be beside the point.

  • Pocket Otter

    @Jim Hlavac: Thanks for underscoring my point. Like I said: baby steps. In the meantime, let’s praise those who come around to our side rather than berate them for having been against us once upon a time.

  • Thom Freeheart

    Sometimes Queerty forgets its own tagline.

  • Steve

    @Pocket Otter: You still don’t get it.
    “States Rights” is a code word. It was code for “let each state decide if people can own slaves in that state.” It was code for “let each state decide if blacks can vote.” Basically, it was code for “Do not enforce the Bill of Rights.”

    Now, “States Rights” is still a code word, and it still means the same thing. Only now, the Rights that need to be enforced belong to gay people.

  • Pocket Otter

    @Steve: One word, my friend: Therapy. If you honestly believe there are certain states plotting to enslave gays, or blacks, or women, or any other minority you believe to be oppressed to the point of extinction, then you need to seek immediate and intense psychological treatment. Holy guacamole.

  • darkskin bttms R survivors

    Pleeeease honey………

  • 30/Male

    In fairness to Dick Cheney, this has been his public position for many years…even when he was vice president. He even mentioned this position (and the fact that it differed from George W. Bush) in his 2004 debate against John Edwards. So it’s truly unfair (and incorrect) to say that Cheney was silent about his position when in power.

  • Red Meat

    @randy: When you are rich and republican, it doesn’t really matter if you can marry or not.

  • CJ

    This is old news. We’ve known BEFORE he left office that he supported gay marriage. He, along with GWB’s wife, never pushed their views in public while GWB was president. The entire idea that a wife or VP would publicly disagree with the president is ridiculous. We’ve known for a long time that there are several pro-LGBT right republicans. However, like many conservative democrats, they generally are silence because they want to be re-elected.

    I find it funny that the LGBT community is so happy with Democrats and anti-Republicans. Republicans are just 10 – 20 years behind Democrats on this topic. Let’s not forget that the reverse has been true with other civil rights issues. It’s not like Democrats are free from discrimination. 20 years ago you’d be hard pressed to find many Democrats that would openly support gay marriage. Heck, our current DEMOCRATIC president doesn’t!!

  • Mark

    I do not blame Cheney for not coming out in support of gay marriage while he was VP. The fact is, all political parties need to play a balancing act when courting the support of the many constituencies that make up their base vote.

    Republicans do this, and democrats do this too. For example, the environmental wing of the democratic party does not support the Keystone pipeline, but the organized labor wing certainly does. . . . all politicians play a balancing act. . . including the democrats.

    I do believe gay marriage is best fought at the state level. As my generation (30 and younger) ages, we will continue to vote in more socially liberal politicians whom support it. If this case is fought at the supreme court level or through amending the constitution, this will remain a lightning rod issue for decades to come, similar to how abortion has divided america in the 40 years since Roe v. Wade. However, if this issue emerges from the bottom up and organically at the state level, it will not become a cultural lighting rod. If it is a top down ruling from washington, then it is something we will be fighting over 40 years from now, just like is happening with abortion.

    I also think that gay marriage is as much of a cultural issue as it is a rights issue. I do not think that culturally conservative people are necessarily bigots and homophobic if they dont believe in gay marriage. Gay marriage is a concept that has only recieved mainstream attention in the last 10 years, whereas heterosexual marriage is a precedent that was set more that 2,000 years ago. Now it is clear that some opponents are complete douches and homophobes, but I do not find it inherently homophobic for someone to rely on a cultural precedent set millennia ago when deciding on this issue.

    So in short, time will bring change. but both sides of the issue also need to bring civility and respect to the debate.

Comments are closed.