Why Dick Cheney is an Asshole

Originally posted October 10, 2003:

What follows is a response to a poster on Heidi�s journal, who thinks that Dick Cheney�s refusing to grant his daughter a legal marriage is just tough love, really.

I really like my response so I am putting it here, on my own journal, for convenient access whenever I run across the next person with the �why do they have to have a marriage, for christ�s sake, why can�t they just be content with a ceremony?� mentality.

They wrote:

If I accepted your and folk's definition of love, then I would have to conclude that all my atheist, agnostic, and otherwise non-Christian friends hate my guts, and that all their apparent kindnesses toward me are false and hypocritical. Because if they really loved me, they would agree with my beliefs and support my lifestyle,

Yes, but what if your friends not only refused to support your lifestyle, but went out of their way to see to it that you couldn't live your life as you wished to, even though you weren't infringing upon anyone else's rights, even though you weren't doing anything but being yourself? What if all your friends, on the grounds that they didn't "agree with" or "support" your lifestyle, barred you from participating in or being a part of certain social activities or rituals, because they thought that your personal lifestyle choices just didn't fit in with that particular habit?

What if you had a Jewish friend who was holding a bar mitzvah, and when you went you were told you couldn't attend the ceremony because you weren't Jewish?

What if that Jewish friend was slated to be the best man at your wedding, but when you went to the church the pastor refused to perform the ceremony because your best man's lifestyle was against his religion?

That would never happen, though, would it? Because the fact that your friend is a practicing Jew is not directly infringing upon you, your pastor's, or your church's religious values. That is, his state of being Jewish is in no way linked to your personal right to practice Christianity, and have a Christian wedding.

Do you understand?

Now. Under what reading of the Constitution of the United States, which states in the 9th Amendment that all rights not explicitly delegated to the states are retained by the people, does it make any sense to say that one man's right to be a practicing Christian overrules another man's right to be a practicing homosexual? --not to mention another man's right to be a practicing *gasp* Christian homosexual?

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that all rights not explicitly delegated to the states are retained by the people except for those rights which infringe upon someone else's sense of morality. Do you know why there is nothing in the Constitution that says that? Because the Constitution was designed to respect the rights of every American citizen--not just the moral majority.

Please notice that I did not use the phrase "to protect the rights." I said to respect the rights. The word "protect" implies that there is something to be protected from, that there is a power imbalance--that someone is doing the persecuting and someone is else is being victimized, all but for that word, "protect."

You talk about how it's possible to be respectful of someone else's beliefs, someone else's lifestyles, while disagreeing with them. Yes, of course it is. "Respect" implies that you acknowledge their right to live that lifestyle, that you acknowledge their basic humanity, their basic freedom to live and be what they want to be. The word "respect" implies equality. The word "protect" implies an inequality, an imbalance of power.

The Constitution was established to empower citizens, to respect their rights. Not to protect them. The reason I say this is because the Declaration of Independence specifically states that "all men are created equal."

You can argue all day about the connotations of that phrase, but the hard truth is that the laws of this country are designed around that idea of basic equality.

You said you fail to see how Dick Cheney's "unwillingness to give verbal approval and legal validation to his daughter's lifestyle" is an issue. You then said that "the same thing might be true if his daughter had a relationship with a man Cheney believed to be unsuitable."

The two issues are not the same. Cheney's daughter can be legally married to any man of her choosing, whether or not her dad likes it.

Cheney's daughter can not be legally married to any woman of her choosing. And right now her dad, in the capacity of lawmaker, is deliberately controlling her ability to do so--deliberately hindering her from having the same basic rights that he does.

That is a power imbalance. Pure and Simple. That is inequality under the law. That is unconstitutional.

That is not respect.

There is no way, no possible way, under any literal reading of the laws of this country, that denying anyone in this country their right to the pursuit of happiness is authorized by the constitution--whether that means the right to marry or simply the right to go about their lives in peace. It was wrong when we did it to African Americans. It was wrong when we did it to Japanese Americans. It is wrong when our government does it to American immigrants and American citizens of foreign descent today under the guises of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. And it is wrong when we do it to gays and lesbians. Period.

It is not respect to deny someone a basic human right. There is no possible way it can be considered respect, by any definition of the word.

It is disrespectful. It is inhumane. It is wrong.