**UPDATE** – Link to transcript finally fixed!!
Wow. I just read the full transcript of Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Mary Cheney (thanks Dan for posting it!), and I felt it was so powerful that I wanted to do my own posting about it.
Ladies and gentlemen, read this transcript and you will understand a lot more about why I am a gay Republican, proud of it, and secure enough in who I am to continue participating in Republican politics and try to make change.
Mary Cheney is truly a game-changing individual. In Hugh’s interview (and in her book), Mary describes the John Kerry/John Edwards sneering debate references to her being a “lezzzzzbian” (the tone of Kerry saying the word that night is, ahem, seared into my memory).
I remember thinking after that debate that it would be ironic if Mary Cheney (an “out” lesbian) helped Bush win re-election because of how stupidly exploitative the Kerry and Edwards campaign handled her relationship with her family.
Hey look….I actually wrote those exact words back at the time! Maybe I should start measuring all the times I am right about things, though I doubt I could reach Rush Limbaugh’s 98.5% threshold.
Wouldn’t be ironic and quite delicious if the disrespect that Kerry and Edwards both showed to Mary Cheney and the belittling of her family’s love and personal acceptance becomes the final nail in the Democrats’ shrill coffin of the 2004 campaign?
But what I found most striking about her interview with Hewitt is how not a lot of time is spent on the “controversy” of Mary being a lesbian. In fact, it is just accepted by Hugh. Instead, much more interesting behind-the-campaign stories are told that having nothing to do with Mary’s sexual orientation.
Could it be that conservatives accept gays and lesbians for who they are inside their hearts and minds, and don’t care who they sleep with? (*brain starting to hurt as this conflicts with my Gay Doctrine Handbook*) Frankly, it is refreshing but not surprising to me. Character still counts with Americans (and conservatives) no matter what your sexual preference.
It is also quite refreshing that a strong supporter of the MPA (Hewitt) can have a rational and sensible debate with an MPA opponent (Cheney). Patrick, Joe, Matt — maybe you could learn something from Mr. Hewitt?
I want to close with this exchange between Hugh and Mary:
HH: It was also interesting to me that you made the argument that while the FMA was a big issue for you, and one on which you deeply disagree with President Bush, it was not as important as the War On Terror, and that therefore, it could not trump, even in your eyes. Now I support the federal marriage amendment, but have you changed in your way of thinking about that at all, in terms of what is the priority issue?
MC: No, I don’t see how I could. We are still a nation at war. There are still people in the world who want to hurt this country, and there are still terrorists in the world. All you have to do is look at what happened in Canada over this past weekend. And when you live in that kind of a world, you don’t have the option, I don’t think, of being a single issue voter on the issue of same sex marriage, whatever your position on it is. And when push came to shove, I didn’t have the luxury of voting solely on that issue, or of working on a campaign solely based on that issue.
Unfortunately for most gay Americans… the Gay Street Lobby has made our community “the new abortion” in America — a highly divisive political football that only has extremists on either side battling forever to neither of their satisfaction.
I’m firmly in the middle, and am not (nor ever have been) a one-issue gay voter. I am an American voter above all else.