GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Mary Cheney: American Icon

by

**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. 

Mary Cheney: Poster Child of the GOP’s “Big Tent” – Oct. 15, 2004 – GayPatriot

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.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. “As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we’ll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship.” Sen. James Inhofe on the floor of the United States Senate, 6/6/06. This is why I’m NOT a gay Republican, although I have voted for Republicans twice (Bill Weld in MA, Michael Bloomberg in NY). Inhofe comments are rank, insulting, unjustified bigotry against a group of people who have done nothing bad to him, nor to anyone in his family.
    The current Republican gay-bashing extravaganza is really quite mad and sad. Fortunately, when Mr. Inhofe’s bigoted generation dies out, the generations coming up behind him — the very people in the photograph of his family he is talking about — are not so bigoted against gays. A clear majority of straight people under 40 don’t oppose gay marriage. When that generation becomes the majority then we can all move on to other things. But you know what? If the FMA has done anything, it has united all gays in opposition, from far left and to far right and everyone in between. That’s cool in a way. No?

  2. I just bought the book and hope to read it this weekend. The rest of you GP readers should pluck down the $17 at Target and get a copy too! Doesn’t Mary deserve to be on the Bestseller’s list?

  3. You know, I’ve voted Republican since I was aware enough of the world around me to rationalize the difference.
    Sadly the difference between the two parties has evaporated over the past few years. Now comes the fact that my 15 year monogamous relationship is being used as a “lever” to “energize the conservative base”.

    Straw, meet Camel’s back.

    I’ve lost any remaining respect I may have had for the Republicans. They no longer stand for virtually *anything* I believe in. It’s time for them to be voted out- at least for one term- to teach them they need to listen to the people who put them there.

    As for myself, I’ll be voting Libertarian.

  4. You know, it’s because I’m not a single issue – it’s because I’m concerned about terrorism, the country’s finances, our safety, our economic competitiveness, our constitutional freedoms – that I think Bush is one of the most disastrous presidents ever.

    The idea that all non-Bush-supporting gay people are single issue voters is just silly.

  5. Bruce, another good post.

    I guess some of the commenters failed to gather that this post is about being a single issue gay voter and basing everything on the FMA.

    At the risk of being stoned, I don’t care if the FMA –as written– passes or not. I don’t see it as a part of “our” agenda. I don’t think it is a polarizing issue beyond the gay community –and only for those 41% of us gays who get off our butts on Election Day and vote. It is a wedge issue but so was Katrina and Iraq and illegal aliens –Hell, it’s what the politicians do.

    I do support same-sex unions (no farm yard animals, children or multiples in excess of two though NDXXX) on a state-by-state basis if voted upon; not judicially mandated.

    I know I am married right now –without any official recognition because what matters, beyond the legal protections we’ve arranged, is our family and our relationship.

    I think of myself as a Dad & partner first, an American and Michigander second, a GOPer third, an Irish Catholic fourth, and somewhere around soccer player and robotics enthusiast I think of myself equally as gay.

    But I am, blessedly, not a single issue voter. I don’t even hold a broadly defined gay agenda in my head for calculation and comparison when electing people to office, voting for schools bonds, deciding initiatives.

    I’m glad to read I’m not alone in thinking that being a single issue gay voter is stupid (my word choice, not yours) and counterproductive.

  7. Here’s the problem, Donny:

    Inhofe comments are rank, insulting, unjustified bigotry against a group of people who have done nothing bad to him, nor to anyone in his family.

    Of course, we know that the gay leftists and HRC have always referred to Senator Inhofe in deferential, respectful tones, never once making insults or insinuations about him, his family, or anything else. Nor have they ever sponsored rallies, protests, or namecalling activities against him referring to his personal and family life in less than pleasant terms.

    And if you believe that one, as Michigan-Matt well puts it, “Bridge for sale, line forms to the left”.

    I’d say compared to what Inhofe has been called by people like you, his statement is mild. Why shouldn’t he be proud that no one in his family has had a divorce in forty years, much less a homosexual relationship? Why does that threaten you so? It’s not YOUR family.

  8. When are you all going to get to the real problems? Interracial marriage. I mean, come on! Let’s re-instate slavery! That is what you cons would like isn’t it. lets really be re-constructionists.

  9. (shrug) If somebody wants to raise a ballot petition or referendum, or wants to propose an amendment to the Constitution to ban interracial marriage, reinstitute slavery, or whatever, let them.

    Have a little faith in the process and the American voter — and that black Americans, unlike gay Americans, have shown by and large that being black is not incompatible with the things in which most Americans believe.

  11. “If somebody wants to raise a ballot petition or referendum, or wants to propose an amendment to the Constitution to ban interracial marriage, reinstitute slavery, or whatever, let them.”

    And this is the type of statement us “libtards” are suppose take as an attempt at serious debate?

  13. “Have a little faith in the process and the American voter — and that black Americans, unlike gay Americans, have shown by and large that being black is not incompatible with the things in which most Americans believe.”

    then explain this. How have gay americans shown that being black (gay i guss should be) is not incompatible with the things in which most americans believe.

  15. HDBiker, now that you bring it up… I am beginning to wonder that as well if, indeed, NDXXX is a real gay. Smart question! Is he?

    Let’s recap just the past few weeks… first, he’s been thinking that Kerry/Edwards weren’t (that’s “were NOT”) the best thing for gays in America since silicon based lube… then he was clearly thinking outside the box when he suggested Bush might not be wrong about something (where’s he get off thinking independently of the GayBorg?)… and now, now he thinks that American voters are speaking with their ballots against gay marriage by passing all these statutes and amendments which preclude gay marriage! He’s seeing the emperor without clothes and, while that’s usually attractive, as gays we’re not supposed to do that on the broader issue of whether voters support gay marriage or not –we’re just supposed to scream, rage, play the GayCard, yell bigot and hope no one notices the truth. Right? He’s telling everyone the truth! Damn him.

    Plus, get a load of this, he doesn’t seem to get it that gays have to carry the water for a while for pro-choice feminists, the affirmative action blacks, the wanna vote felons, the illegal aliens and the money-grabbing teacher unions if we, as gays, are ever going to get anywhere beyond the bookstore booths. Our fellow Democrat victims NEED us. They do, they do. They love us, too.

    Why is North Dallas 30 trying to break that up.

    What’s more, it’s clear from his earlier statements that he thought speaking out against HowardDean –our own movement’s personal physician– for going on the 700 Club is ok. OK! How dare he support a minority of whacked out gays who think to question Dr Dean is OK on anything. Dean’s the doctor; we’re supposed to listen and obey. Take our meds.

    Wow, I think you’re on to something BIG here, heavydutybiker… this North Dallas 30 guy isn’t probably a real gay in the first place– he’s one of them twisted men who act all gay and then go home to the wife and kids at the end of the business day.

    We need to frisk him and see if he’s illegally carrying a GayCard. Rip it up quick I say; rip it up.

    I can’t help you with that –bears intimidate me.

  17. “Why wouldn’t you, Brendan?”

    To be honest you don’t seem to have any understanding of the role courts are meant to perform under a constitutional system. Regardlesss of one’s political beliefs, there should be a shared belief that all issues regarding individual rights can’t be decided by majoritarian votes. I really don’t think what I am saying is a controversial statement and it is not meant as an attack on gay republicans.

    What I really don’t understand is why conservatives (gay or straight) are not extremely angry with Bush’s completely gratutious attack on the Massachusetts’ court decision on gay marriage. Here was have a state court interpreting a state constitution and deciding the rights of Massachusett state residents. I am sorry but to have the federal goverment to come in and try to overturn this decision is a far cry from traditional conservative thinking.

  18. Brendan-

    Of course we are upset. Why the hell do you think I oppose MPA? Not just on “gay rights” issue (debatable merit there), but more on the Federal government mandating state behavior — a key REPUBLICAN principle. It would have been nice if Log Cabin had made Federalism one of their core arguments against MPA instead of the nastgram talking points of the Bash Bush Gay Left. But that would mean Log Cabin was actually still a REPUBLICAN organization!!

    I hate to repeat myself, but do you lefties actually read our postings…or just the headlines????

    Your comments are so ignorant of the positions of the bloggers here that it is quite embarassing and laughable!

  19. Matt (#6) –

    *clapping*

    Thank you for actually reading and comprehending this post!!!

    I bet you scored better on the comprehension part of the SAT than all of the knee-jerk moonbats here!!!

    Ughhhhhh!

  20. “Your comments are so ignorant of the positions of the bloggers here that it is quite embarassing and laughable! ”

    You really are a buffoon. You so obviously do not have the intellectual ability to have a serious discussion that you have no other possible way of responding to any critic other than nasty and mindless attacking and then sending in your puppies to call people “fucktards”, “libtards” or moonbats. Perhaps you have a history of being a bully where calling people stupid and illiterate has made me you feel smart and better than your opponent. Quite frankly from reading your posts and, even more so, your inane and often nasty responses to people, I can assure you nothing you have ever written is in the least intellectually intimidating. I suspect you know that and that your explains your blustering manner.

  22. And, Brendan #17 – #20 steps off the cliff.

    Re-read the posts / comments in order… Try to figure out:

    (a) whether Brendan has said anything responsive to Bruce’s points in #0;

    (b) whether Brendan was right to assume Bruce supports President Bush on the MPA;

    (c) who is blustering or bullying whom. Let’s check.
    – In #17, Brendan makes a mistake (in his assumptions).
    – Bruce, correcting that, rubs it in slightly by calling the mistaken comments “laughable” and “embarassing”.
    – Brendan’s comeback: attacking Bruce’s person as a “buffoon”, “nasty”, “mindless”, “attacking”, “inane”, etc.

    Hmmm.

    And Brendan, FYI: Democrats put up individual rights to majoritarian votes constantly. Check your paycheck and look at the taxes there (violation of individual’s right to spend her own money). Also check your local smoking ordinances, vehicle codes, medical regulations, education codes, public speech codes, planning commissions and property restrictions, Orwellian “hate crimes” laws… on and on and on and on.

    I don’t know if you’re a Democrat, but here’s a tip if you are: don’t be giving any speeches about preserving individual rights against majoritarian votes.

    #5 – John – What’s silly is the idea in 2004 (or today) of putting John Kerry in charge of the war with the terrorists, including Iraq.

  23. Oh and finally Brendan –

    If Bruce truthfully is as bad as you claim: why come here?

    Who’s more pathetic – the buffoon, or the “intelligent person” (so-called) who, while spitting on him, clings to him?

  24. Regardlesss of one’s political beliefs, there should be a shared belief that all issues regarding individual rights can’t be decided by majoritarian votes.

    The only way in which that is possible is if the Constitution can never be amended.

    Furthermore, the power of the judiciary is clearly limited by the Constitution; judges may not rule in a manner that is contrary to fundamental law.

    Do you deny that the voters have the right to amend the Constitution?

    Do you deny that the Constitution makes the judiciary subject to the will of voters?

  25. The marriage amendment was used exactly as you described in the TODAY show interview with Ann Coulter, GP. I don’t think Matt or Ann gave a crap about it. It was just an issue that Ann could use to show how out of touch liberals are with the voting public, and an issue Matt could use to claim Bush was trying to distract people from his failures, i.e. how Bush was wrong on all the issues he DID care about. Both were probably correct to some extent, but the fact remains that the gay thing was just a ball in their game.

  26. Bruce: The portion you bolded from Cheney’s comments explains my vote in 2004 at least more than anything else. For the Dems to offer up Kerry was a bloody insult and it was difficult to take them seriously. All this talk about Cheney’s book has raised my curiosity and I’ll have to pick up a copy this weekend.

  27. When I was 17 years old, I attempted suicide because of my sexuality and landed myself in the hospital. It was a traumatic, painful experience. I don’t think any child should ever have to go through that.

    Still, even today, I think about that night a lot. When I hear men like Sam Brownback and George Allen on TV saying what a threat gay marriage is, I think to myself how that must make some child struggling with his or her sexuality feel. Are there words going to push some child to try what I did? Will that child succeed where I did not?

    It’s true, there are a lot of other issues in politics. But no one issue ever made me want to take my own life besides this one. It is the core of who I am. That is the basis for why I could never vote for an anti-gay candidate.

    So GP, if that make me stupid, then i’d rather be stupid.

  28. #18 GP FYI, this is the press release that Dallas LCR put out today. I think that it addresses at least one of your points.

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Log Cabin Republicans Dallas Thanks the Senators Who Voted for the
    Defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment

    Today the Senate gave a resounding defeat to the voices of intolerance
    who are trying to use the Constitution as a political tool.

    “Log Cabin Dallas praises the Republican Senators who recognize that
    this anti-family, divisive amendment should not happen. Republicans who
    are true to the core conservative value of federalism have put their
    opposition on record.” said Carla Halbrook, Dallas and national board
    member.

    Senators who opposed the procedural motion today include John McCain,
    Arlen Spector, John Sununu, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, Judd Gregg
    and Susan Collins.

    “While we would have liked to see our Texas senators on this list, and
    agree with them on fiscal and immigration reform issues, we will
    continue our efforts to educate them on the importance of valuing all
    American families,” Halbrook stated.

    # # #

  29. –

    Of course, we know that the gay leftists and HRC have always referred to Senator Inhofe in deferential, respectful tones, never once making insults or insinuations about him, his family, or anything else. Nor have they ever sponsored rallies, protests, or namecalling activities against him referring to his personal and family life in less than pleasant terms.

    –

    In other words, Inhofe shouldn’t be held to any standard for his comments other than gay activists weren’t polite enough? Using that logic, NDT, shouldn’t you accept all the anti-GOP, anti-conservative remarks made by gays, since many conservatives have made the same or worse remarks about gays?

  32. #27 – Erik I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: America 2006 is by no means perfect and I don’t suggest it is… but, on average, it is a large improvement over America 1976. What they said when I was a teenager, was so much worse than anything they’re saying now.

    Also, just another data point from one guy’s experience… I once thought as you did, that “being gay is the core of who I am”… As I got older, life taught me I was mistaken. It’s a very important part of my capacity to love, yes; but life forced me to notice some even more fundamental stuff at my true core.

  33. The more that I read the adulatory comments here about Mary Cheney and her book, the more I am reminded of the gay male disco queens who just adored Madonna and Cher. It really is funny.

    Of course, Madonna and Cher (and ABBA, for that matter) knew they were just entertainers. As, for that matter, is Mary Cheney.