Dick Cheney Announces 'Support' for Gay Marriage, But Only Half Ass

Former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke out at the National Press Club on Monday, announcing his support of gay marriage, but only on the state level.

"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." [quote courtesy The Huffington Post]

Gee, thanks Cheney.  But, personally, I believe that basic human rights like marriage should not be considered on a state-by-state basis.  It only further alienates Americans in this union we call a country.  Are we Americans 1st or are we state residents first?  I'm confused.

I think I'm an American first - I just happen to reside in New York.  I can choose to live anywhere in America because I love the country and I have the basic right to move to any U.S. state as a citizen.  I should be afforded other basis human rights that my country affords me as a citizen of its union, like marriage.  If there's too much power put on the state level in terms of these rights...what's next?  States succeeding from the union?  I mean - come on already.  Thanks, Cheney, for HALF ASS standing up for your lesbian daughter.  I wonder how she'll feel if she gets married one day, but it's not recognized by other states that she visits or decides to move to....

Pushing these kinds of things back to the state is a total cop-out in my opinion, and it's a completely political thing to do.  Think about it:  if these decisions were made federally, then politicians would have to answer to the constituents who fund their programs - constituents who may disagree with politicians' decisions.  Legalizing same sex marriage on the federal level would piss off all those private sector investors who urge politicians to "move" bills through the hopper.

Legalizing marriage in Massachusetts is great.  But, not legalizing it in California only further alienates U.S. citizens as free peoples.  This divides our country; it does not bring us together.

On the other hand, I understand that some decisions should be on a state-by-state basis.  Giving ALL the power to the U.S. government would create a totalitarian structure, thus depleting democractic core values and principals.

Basic human rights, however...those should be a no-brainer for a country - these rights should be afforded to EVERY citizen of a country, not on a state-by-state basis.