On June 1, 2009, conservative former Vice President Dick Cheney gave his secular blessing to same-sex marriage. Cheney is the father of a partnered gay daughter. Mary Cheney was a visible presence in the vice president's 2000 and 2004 campaigns. In a National Press Club appearance, Cheney declared: "I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."
Cheney added. "I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis," he said. "Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."
DICK CHENEY'S CHILD AND MINEby Elise Cooper
As it appears in New Majority.com
Monday, June 29, 2009 6:29 AM
Recently our older son told us he was gay. I have to be perfectly honest that my aspirations for my son did not include him turning out to be gay. However, as a mother who loves him dearly I want people to accept him for being a person who is gay -- not a gay person. He has now confided in me that he voted for Obama because he views the Democratic Party as being more compassionate regarding social issues. I light-heartedly told him that I could live with him being gay but not being an Obama Democrat. We continued our discussion and he asked me to write this article because as a Republican I stand with former Vice-President Cheney who stated, “people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish… I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level.”
Why do I believe in gay marriage? On a personal note, as a mother,I want my son to find someone who he can spend the rest of his days with in a loving, long lasting relationship. After informing some of my Republican friends about my support of gay marriage, I got the gamut of reactions from “so what” to “gay marriage is simply not right.” There were numerous reasons given by my Republican friends for being against gay marriage which I hope to counter in this article.
Some Republicans believe that civil unions should reinforce the rights of gay and lesbian couples. They told me “if a person got sick, they should be allowed to have visitors close to them.” Some went further, stating “there are those who should be allowed to make health care decisions for each other or be allowed to be put on each other’s insurance policy.” My response to them was that by accepting civil unions you are recognizing gay couples (except if you happen to live in Iran.) By being in support of civil unions there is the undeniable recognition of domestic partnerships. Therefore, civil unions promote “gay families.” Then why not call it marriage?
Other Republicans pointed out that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity and does not accept it as a lifestyle. I cannot accept that premise considering the fact that the Bible talks about other archaic practices such as stoning and polygamy. It seems to me that people choose to follow certain parts of the Bible while ignoring others. I want my son to continue to be a part of our religion and not to be turned away because of his beliefs or lifestyle. For me, the reality of religions is that everyone chooses to pick what they will follow from the Sacred Text.
There are those Republicans I spoke with who felt that marriage as a sacred institution would be destroyed. Which is more sacred: Britney Spears drunkenly marrying someone in Vegas and divorcing 24 hours later or my son marrying the person he loves for the rest of their lives? Personally, I think marriage is an individual choice, making it a states rights issue. This is why I believe that state laws should include a provision spelling out that any religious person or judge should not be forced to officiate a gay marriage if they believe it goes against their freedom of religion or civil liberty. I think it is a myth to believe that gay marriage weakens society because gay partners support and sustain each other no differently than heterosexual couples. The Supreme Court has made it clear that each state should be allowed to enforce its own rules regarding marriage. For example some states have different age requirements for marriage. Just recently there was a poll where Los Angeles voters supported the right of same sex couples to legally marry with 58% in favor and 37% opposed. For me, this means that eventually more states will legalize it and hopefully in my son’s time it will be a non-issue.
What do I want for my son regarding this issue? I would have wished he felt that the Republicans could make him feel comfortable, to be more open minded and compassionate about this issue. I want him to find someone who he is committed to and who is committed to him. I want him to have a relationship that is loving and sustainable. I want him to have the maximum liberty possible, especially in whom he chooses to marry. Finally, I don’t want his homosexuality to define who he is or is not. I wish for my son what the Vice-President’s daughter Mary Cheney so eloquently stated to NewMajority.com, “my responsibility is to be the best person I can be - including living my life openly and honestly. That’s what I have done.”
Thank you! Your information has been submitted successfully.
There was an error submitting the form.
COMMENTS:
Well put, sinz54. I'd add in that the main objection that killed Prop 8 was what the heck the public schools were supposed to say about SSM. Parents don't want their schools teaching their kids that they are bigots, or standing in the way of Progress, if they oppose SSM. And there are plenty of activist teachers that want to teach exactly that. - J.M.
mpolito: "Slippery slope" is a well-known fallacy....When we gave the vote to women (women suffrage), it didn't lead to a slippery slope of giving the vote to convicted felons or children under 18.
sinz54
6:56 AM
There definitely is an issue with gay marriage (or even civil unions), that comes up when these couples deal with charitable institutions that are run by the Church.
Religions have worked for social justice for many years, running various charities--but in ways consistent with their religious beliefs.
Some years ago, in Massachusetts where I live, a gay couple had tried to adopt an orphan child from an adoption agency run by Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities had run the oldest, most successful child adoption service in Massachusetts.
But Catholic Charities refused, saying that to place a child with a gay couple violated their Catholic beliefs. They even offered to help the gay couple adopt a child from some other agency.
The courts ruled that CC had to do it anyway.
So rather than violate their own religious beliefs, CC had no choice: They shut down their adoption service altogether, rather than place children with gay couples.
It was the intransigence of gay activists on this point that destroyed the hope of hundreds of orphan children. Even the late David Brudnoy, a local talk-show host who was gay, objected to this.
So there is an issue here: If a Church runs a charity, is that charity to be considered "secular" for purposes like working with gay couples? If so, that could destroy the charitable functions of many churches. The Vermont legislature, in approving gay marriage, had to put this exemption into the bill to avoid a repetition of the disastrous Catholic Charities experience in Massachusetts.
But gay activists were furious at this compromise. They want nothing less than for churches to treat them as equals for purposes of child adoption, etc.--even if that violates the churches' religious beliefs.
If gay activists have their way, churches may be forced to give up charity work and retreat inside themselves. That would be disastrous for America, since half of all charity is done by the Church here.
4:21 AM
V. G.
11:45 PM
"It is a cultural and religious institution central to Western civilization that is premised on "two flesh made one," the union of a man and a woman. It has been the accumulated wisdom of a hundred generations that this is the meaning of marriage,"
12:54 AM
Mrs. Cooper,
Wonderful article. As a former Republican fundraiser, who happens to be gay, I can understand your Son's dilemma and your angst. Kudos to you and your family for supporting him at this time.
As one whose family did not initially react the same way (we were separated for some time) I can confidently say that your reaction and behavior will only bring your family closer together.
Best regards to you and your family.
Shawn
11:45 PM
"By being in support of civil unions there is the undeniable recognition of domestic partnerships. Therefore, civil unions promote “gay families.” Then why not call it marriage?"
Because marriage is not merely the recognition of a domestic partnership. It is a cultural and religious institution central to Western civilization that is premised on "two flesh made one," the union of a man and a woman. It has been the accumulated wisdom of a hundred generations that this is the meaning of marriage, that it is a special state, and worthy of special recognition. The question, therefore, turns back to you: what is so dreadful about domestic partnerships that you would upset the collected wisdom of a hundred generations and one of Western man's most prized traditions to make them into something that they are not?
"Other Republicans pointed out that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity and does not accept it as a lifestyle. I cannot accept that premise considering the fact that the Bible talks about other archaic practices such as stoning and polygamy. It seems to me that people choose to follow certain parts of the Bible while ignoring others."
Which is somehow not what you are doing? But there is a distinction -whereas the "archaic" practices you point out are found in the Old Testament and were applicable under the Old Covenant, the condemnation of homosexuality is found not only in the OT but also in the New Testament and under the New Covenant between Christ and His Church, which replaces the Old Covenant law.
"There are those Republicans I spoke with who felt that marriage as a sacred institution would be destroyed. Which is more sacred: Britney Spears drunkenly marrying someone in Vegas and divorcing 24 hours later or my son marrying the person he loves for the rest of their lives?"
The answer is that neither is sacred, because marital love, as understood from a Christian and traditional perspective, can only exist between one man and one woman, joined together in a sacred union. The joining of man to man in this union is a mockery of the Christian and Western tradition.
In a sense, this piece is touching, as it appeals to personal experience and emotions. But no appeal to pathos can override the fundamental of this issue, which is that what is being discussed here is granting government the authority to redefine one of the most sacred institutions of our culture because certain people, to whom that institution has never and never shall apply, desire to feel more "comfortable." We should not be uncharitable, but nor should we be so compassionate as to compromise foundational principles.
Yours,
V. G
11:41 PM
Nice post, Elise -- and don't worry: you will get used to this in no time.
---
As for the GOP, I would say that there is "a false choice" between religious conservatives and gay rights voters. If the GOP is about individual freedom/responsibility and localism rather than about having one bloc (christian conservatives) imposing their moral standards onto the rest of the nation, the Republican party will do just fine. There is no need to become "the party of gay rights" -- a policy of neutral indifference might be enough to keep more gay/lesbian voters in the party.
M
