Vice President Cheney: Best (Famous*) Father of a Gay Person
On Father’s Day this year, we have decided to pay tribute to a Republican leader who, by loving and accepting his lesbian daughter for who she is and welcoming her life-partner into his family, has become a role model for all parents of gay children, indeed, has helped define what it means to be a good father.
When we read in his daughter Mary’s most excellent book, Now It’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life about his paternal qualities, the Vice President reminds us of our own Dads. Thus, in honoring Dick Cheney on Father’s Day this year, we are also honoring all fathers who are devoted to their children, those good men who take seriously their parental responsibilities and through their affection and even their goofiness, have earned places in our hearts.
On an Instapundit podcast last month, Mary said she was “so incredibly fortunate to have the parents I do,” adding that the Vice President “is a great Dad!!“** The anecdotes she provides in her book provide further evidence of his qualities as a man — and a father. When his daughter came out to him, he responded exactly as she had hoped he would, telling Mary he loved her and wanted her to be happy. A few years later, he was concerned how his nomination as the GOP Vice Presidential candidate in 2000 might affect her.
By continuing to love his daughter after she came out as he had before, the Vice President showed a quality that all fathers should have, even those without gay children — that of accepting and loving their offspring as they are.
But, it’s not just his acceptance of his younger daughter’s difference that defines the Vice President as an exemplary father. It’s also that even after his daughters have grown up, he continues to spend time with them, whether for hunting and fishing trips or for such traditional family gatherings as Thanksgiving dinners — which Mary’s Dad cooks (almost) every year. A picture from Mary’s book of her and her sister Liz on a fishing trip with their father reminds me of one of my favorite pictures of me and my Dad (on a hike in Colorado).
It’s not just in his personal life where the Vice President has distinguished himself as a father. He has both welcomed Mary’s partner Heather into his family and included her in public events. Heather joined Mary on stage when the president declared victory after the 2004 election, causing even then-HRC President Cheryl Jacques to take heart. And Heather sat beside Mary when George W. Bush was sworn in for a second term as president. The Vice President promised to go to bat for a man if his supervisors gave him trouble for coming out.
As I’ve noted repeatedly on the blog, since taking office in 2001, the Vice President has distanced himself from the President on only one issue, Bush’s support of the Federal Marriage Amendment (now called the Marriage Protection Amendment), a constitutional amendment which would have precluded state recognition of same-sex marriage (and possibly same-sex unions as well).
And the Vice President’s outspoken opposition to this amendment — and his acceptance of his gay daughter — has not cost him the respect of conservatives. In 2004, social conservatives voted for the Bush-Cheney ticket even as they knew about Mary. The Vice President continues to enjoy strong support among the GOP’s conservative base, with some activists even saying they would prefer him as president to the man who tapped him in 2000 to be his running mate.
When gay and lesbian children come out to their conservative parents, those parents may now have an easier time dealing with might be difficult situation for them, aware that that prominent conservative accepts and embraces his gay child. Just by the example he provides, the Vice President promotes tolerance and acceptance of gay people to communities which might otherwise be deaf to such understanding. For that alone, gay leaders who are serious about promoting acceptance of gay people should overlook their policy differences and join us in praising Richard B. Cheney.
Retaining his conservative principles while embracing his lesbian daughter, Vice President Cheney has earned a special place in the hearts of your humble GayPatriot bloggers — as well as among countless other gay and lesbian conservatives.
He is a true role model for parents of gay children and he reminds us of our own loving fathers. Thus, it is entirely fitting that, on Father’s Day, this blog pays tribute to the Vice President of the United States, a gifted leader, a good Republican, a good man and, in his own daughter’s words, “a great Dad!”
Happy Father’s Day, Mr. Vice President. Thank you for your service to our nation — and your family.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
*Without this qualifier, I believe the title belongs to the PatriotFatherWest.
** Emphasis interpreted.
90 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
uplifting post… the spite of the gay liberals is coming, ignore it
Comment by anonymous — June 18, 2006 @ 9:18 am - June 18, 2006
Yeah, he is a great and courageoug fatherly figure (five deferrments) for thousands of americns and iraqis killed and wounded in the last 3 years
Comment by Donn — June 18, 2006 @ 10:27 am - June 18, 2006
The devilization of Cheney by the left and the gay left in particular strikes me as one of the best examples of their hypocrisy- proclaiming themselves as the progressive and tolerant ones while sweepingly categorizing any and all members of this administration as intolerant simply by association, even when he openly disagrees! This one always struck me as odd.
But then, he’s truly conservative, unlike Bush, and I think that’s why they consider him such a threat, maybe more of a threat because he’s bucking the intolerant stereotype of Republicans. No matter how accepting he is, it will not make up for the fact that he’s conservative because we know full well that the gay left will sacrifice or postpone gay rights for the greater Socialist agenda.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — June 18, 2006 @ 11:36 am - June 18, 2006
I remember when Cheney debated Lieberman in 2000 and people were saying they wished that was the ticket (depending on your party, who’d be on top). The devolution of respect for this man over the time he has served W as VP speaks volumes of the hypocracy and general negativity of the Left. To me, he’s still the same gentleman (and gentle man) from that debate.
For me, Dick Cheney is the standard-bearer of diversity within the Conservative movement: humble, soft-spoken, tolerant, and (yes) truly conservative. He’s Barry Goldwater without the nuttiness, he’s Reagan without the flash. He’s W with better conservative bona fides. He’s a throwback to a warmer time. The Left hates him because he shows in his deeds that “Compassionate Conservative” is redundant.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — June 18, 2006 @ 11:45 am - June 18, 2006
Dan, Thanks for a great tribute to a good Father. So often in our society, success is how you appear to the outside world. Not what you accomplish in the privacy of your family.
Dick Cheney should be an example of fatherhood not only to parents of gay children, but to parents in general.
And to all the Dads our there who aren’t in the public eye, but who love and support thier children, Happy Fathers Day!!
Comment by Leah — June 18, 2006 @ 12:13 pm - June 18, 2006
You have repeatedly referred to Cheney’s ‘outspoken opposition’ to the anti-gay marriage amendment. It seems to me the word ‘outspoken’ implies actually speaking out. Something Cheney has rarely done. You were right to chastise Democrats and the leaders of HRC for not engaging in debate on this subject. Cheney has a unique, important voice on this issue and yet he was silent. How come?
Comment by inLA — June 18, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - June 18, 2006
I’ve been reading this site for a few weeks now but this is my first post. I guess I’d be characterized as one of those “gay leftists.” But I do agree with GPW that recognizing and praising positive steps that conservatives and/or Republicans take towards accepting gay people can only help us in the long run.
I’ve also come to realize that (gasp!) gay conservatives can be great message bearers for gay rights and should have a more prominent role in getting our message out. Of course, we won’t always agree on everything but hey that’s life.
Anyway, you’ve helped to give me a different perspective on our “struggle” and I look forward to participating in the discussions here.
Comment by Stinger — June 18, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - June 18, 2006
One small remark in the 2004 election cycle look all that “oustoken” to me. I still have seen no evidence of his taking this position publically or in an official capacity.
Perhaps he’s outspoken behind closed doors in the VP’s office? After all, outspoken doesn’t necessarily mean effective.
Comment by alex — June 18, 2006 @ 1:43 pm - June 18, 2006
Alex, outspoken means “frank in stating one’s positions, esp. if they are critical or controversial.” And the amendment was defeated.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 18, 2006 @ 1:57 pm - June 18, 2006
I read Mary Cheney’s book and also came away thinking Dick Cheney is a great dad. I learned more about him in the book than Mary Cheney.
I like Mary Cheney, but honestly the book was pretty boring. I wanted to hear a more intelligent discussion of the FMA.
Comment by James — June 18, 2006 @ 3:29 pm - June 18, 2006
I just bought Mary’s book and am enjoying every chapter & I concur, Mr. Cheney is untouchable as a role model for any youth.
God Bless VP Cheney & the entire Bush Administration…
I bet that statement makes all the Liberals sick to their stomach, just knowing that conservatism is alive & well in the gay community! LOL
Comment by Ed of Tampa — June 18, 2006 @ 10:42 pm - June 18, 2006
He doesn’t harp on it, but he has made clear his position. I thought he was brilliant in his debate with Edwards. Remember when Edwards Responded about the FMA? He started off by paying a “compliment” to Cheney about his acceptance of his lesbian daughter (Got that everyone? He’s got a LESBIAN daughter! Republicans, his daughter’s a DYKE!) His remarks about the amendment were basically true, though. He went off about the amendment and Bush’s support of it. Then when they let Cheney respond, he said “I’d like to thank the senator for his kind remarks about my family.” That’s it! He didn’t say a word in defense of Bush’s stance on the amendment. The silence was awkward and deafening and clearly very purposeful. It was brilliant. Cheney rox.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — June 18, 2006 @ 10:54 pm - June 18, 2006
My vote would have been for Dick Gephardt and his lesbian daughter Chrissy. A supportive daughter of a supportive father. You don’t hear about them because there is no controversy. Just nice people doing the right thing.
-
Comment by chandler in hollywood — June 19, 2006 @ 12:39 am - June 19, 2006
Yup, sure was nice to see Chrissy and Dick Gephardt yelling “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” as John Kerry praised Missouri’s antigay constitutional amendment stripping her of rights, now wasn’t it?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2006 @ 12:52 am - June 19, 2006
The relationship between a child and his/her father is for them to determine. Mary Cheney says she is ‘incredibly fortunate to have the parents she has” and her father feels the same about his daughter. That is enough for me and I agree with the tribute. Political posturing on that love is unnecessary IMO.
Comment by Benj — June 19, 2006 @ 5:29 am - June 19, 2006
As far as I can tell, Ms. Cheney is a cypher–lauded by some and condemned by others–and her father isn’t going anywhere at the end of this term. I find it amusing that so many keystrokes have been devoted to her here.
Comment by raj — June 19, 2006 @ 8:55 am - June 19, 2006
chandler writes “My vote would have been for Dick Gephardt and his lesbian daughter Chrissy. A supportive daughter of a supportive father. You don’t hear about them because there is no controversy…”
No chandler, we don’t hear about them because Dick Gephardt failed as Dem House leader, failed as a Democrat prez candidate and then, when most gayLefties thought he at least had the #2 Veep spot sewed up with John Kerry, Kerry turned his back on a pro-gay candidate 9despite those failures) with a demonstrated record of hiring gays in chief policy positions… working closely with gays on national fundraising efforts… selecting gays to serve as Co Chairs of Gephardt’s Prez Campaign… elevating gay personnel into the rare world of prez campaign politics.
Nawh, chandler, we don’t hear about the Gephardts anymore because they’re on that great slag heap of has been political actors still out of touch with America… along with Pat Schroeder, Geo McGovern, Mikey Dukasis, Wally Mondale’s mafia veep, Mario Cuomo, etc.
Gephardt stood up repeatedly for gays and it earned him a stab in the ack from BigLabor, BigTeachers, Kerry and the Democrat establishment.
Gotta love those allies of “ours”; with friends like that…
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 19, 2006 @ 9:10 am - June 19, 2006
“And the Vice President’s outspoken opposition to this amendment”
Sure it’s great that Cheney privately supports his daughter’s sexuality, but where is this “outspoken opposition”? It doesn’t exist. There have been no headlines, magazine covers, or Drudge Report story titles along these lines. You are either trying to fool your readers, or worse, fool yourself.
Furthermore, yes, the amendment was defeated. That is not the point and shouldn’t be considered a victory for homosexuals. The amendment itself was so cleary a red herring (much like the national debate of this issue itself). Everyone knew the amendment would be easily defeated before it hit the floor. The proposal of the amendment served to force the members of the senate to lay claim their stance before midterm election campaigns begin (at which point, a down-vote becomes a time-honored spark to ignite anti homosexual voters to vote through afternoon/evening TV commercials etc.).
One issue does not make a party and while you may cherish many things about yours, you can stop pretending the right (and to less extent, the left) will sincerely fight for your homosexual rights.
Comment by Bastian — June 19, 2006 @ 9:35 am - June 19, 2006
Reading these posts are reminding me of when my father died suddenly last year. 2 of his tenants showed up at the funeral home to pay their respects. They were a gay couple. It made me so proud that my Dad didn’t discriminate against them & he was as conservative as they come.
Now for an uncomfortable truth: even though I loved Mary Cheney’s book, it’s tanking. Only 6,000 or so copies have been sold since its release 5 weeks ago. I hope she’s not discouraged about writing again.
Comment by jimbo — June 19, 2006 @ 10:14 am - June 19, 2006
The fact that anyone who does not support same-sex marriage is labeled anti-homosexual by the gay left is exactly why there has been so little useful dialogue and/or progress on the issue. GPW has explained that very well MANY times. I hate to be redundant, but the lefties here continue to oversimplify the issue. Over half of the country doesn’t support same-sex marriage and they’re all bigots! Please. This myth continues even though over half of the country supports civil unions and many other rights for us.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — June 19, 2006 @ 11:28 am - June 19, 2006
The fact that anyone who does not support same-sex marriage is labeled anti-homosexual by the gay left is exactly why there has been so little useful dialogue and/or progress on the issue.
And actually, Dale, what exacerbates the point is that these gay leftists praise people who oppose same-sex marriage and give them unlimited cash and endorsements — as long as said people are Democrats.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - June 19, 2006
I can over look any disgusting thing my father has said and done because I am set to inherit the best trailer in the park!
Mary
Comment by blah blah — June 19, 2006 @ 12:38 pm - June 19, 2006
Elliot Gould?
Comment by chandler in hollywood — June 19, 2006 @ 3:21 pm - June 19, 2006
Bastian wrote: \”Everyone knew the amendment would be easily defeated before it hit the floor.\”
Oh yea? Tell that to the lemmings who were being (and continue to be) shaken down by Leftist gay goups on a weekly basis for their cash under the guise that \”PANIC!!! WE\’RE ABOUT TO LOSE ALL OUR RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THE EVIL REPUBLICANS!!! WE MUST DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO THWART THIS VERY REAL THREAT!!\”
Please.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — June 19, 2006 @ 3:28 pm - June 19, 2006
Nick, I’m not even a GayLeftDemocrat (wait, that was redundant) and I rec’d 9 emails prior to the Senate beginning debate on the FMA. Each one a call for money… my choice as to whether it would be $100, $250, $500 or $1000. 4 of the 9– all different– from the HRC. 2 of the 9 from Michigan based gay activist groups.
When did these leeches move up the contribution ladder to warrant beginning with $100. Gheez.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 19, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - June 19, 2006
Dick Cheney should not be lauded for simply failing to disown his daughter. As Republicans go, Jack Danforth has been more outspoken in his support of gay rights than Cheney and he doesn’t even have a gay daughter. Guiliani, too.
Comment by Erik — June 19, 2006 @ 4:52 pm - June 19, 2006
And as famous people go, Betty Degeneres has written a book, works with PFLAG and also partners with HRC. She is much more active than the Vice-President with not even a fraction of the power he has.
Comment by Erik — June 19, 2006 @ 4:54 pm - June 19, 2006
Thats the way the game is played. They are after all, simply copying the methods the GOP pioneered when it first began to court the Religious Right. And lets look at the rhetoric for fundraising from the Right:
..(therefore send us a check…)
Fear-mongering at its finest.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 19, 2006 @ 5:02 pm - June 19, 2006
Dick Cheney isn’t being “lauded for simply failing to disown his daughter.” He’s being lauded for being an excellent parent of his gay daughter.
Comment by Lynn — June 19, 2006 @ 5:11 pm - June 19, 2006
Work with HRC should disqualify anyone from earning the honor accorded the Vice President in this post.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 19, 2006 @ 5:56 pm - June 19, 2006
Lynn, I think what Erik is saying, and what I’ve sometimes thought, is that Dick Cheney is very, well, conservative with how he deals with his daughter publicly.
It’s probably just his personality and we liberals may be reading too much into things (no need for comments from the peanut gallery
). He has told the public he believes marriage is a matter for the states to decide with regard to same-sex oriented persons…and that’s basically it. No comment on the dignity of gay and lesbian Americans; no personal appeal to proponents of the amendment by reminding him that, because his daughter is lesbian, it is a subject that affects middle class families, as well as those within the Bush Administration.
My observation is that he does the bare minimum to support his daughter with regard to SSM, to appease gay conservatives who are concerned about the FMA, and to not turn off proponents of the amendment.
In contrast, a conservative family in GA with a gay son lobbied against the states constitutional ban at every turn, and tried to appeal to politicians here as fellow conservatives. I just don’t see VP Cheney doing that for his baby, but I must accept that that is his choice.
Comment by James — June 19, 2006 @ 6:07 pm - June 19, 2006
I m totally disagree with the political view of Mr Cheney, the Vice President, BUT I have a strong respect for him on the personal matter as father and tolerant behavior for gay people. I agree with your Blog in this subject!
Comment by Miguel Rodriguez — June 19, 2006 @ 9:21 pm - June 19, 2006
Yes, Dick Cheney, wasn’t he the last man in Congress to support the apartheid regime in South Africa? Oh well, Heather Poe was allowed to stand at the podium of the Republican convention–Republicans allow gay people to support platforms that condem gay people. If that’s not progree, what is! Let’s also not forget the completly unattributed story by the unbias source of his daughter who claims he prevented a gay man from losing his job. Oh, what more can one say but thank you to that good man.
Comment by Brendan Flynn — June 19, 2006 @ 10:54 pm - June 19, 2006
In response to Dale, Colorado, and North Dallas:
Not to mince words, but if you read my post, I didn’t call everyone opposed to same-sex marriage “anti-homosexual”. That being said there is something wrong here. Why would you settle for anything less than equal rights and protection under the law? You said: This myth continues even though over half of the country supports civil unions and many other rights for us. So what? Your statement suggest to me that this is OK with you. Receiving civil union rights and as you say, “many other rights”, is no big treat. Is your self-worth so low that you cannot see that you have the right to demand full and equal access to the protections and rights of heterosexual individuals and couples? If you were a member of another minority group, would it be OK to ask for anything less?
Dale and North Dallas, you merely responded with venom as if you skimmed what I originaly wrote and then assumed anyone with my position is an evil “leftie”. I am talking about one issue here, and if that makes me a pariah liberal in your views you should consider cutting back on the caffeine to reduce the chance of injuring yourself through knee-jerk reactions.
As for Colorado’s response. Yes, EVERYONE KNEW THE AMENDMENT WOULD FAIL. It was all over the news before the bill even hit the floor. If people believe the things mentioned in every HRC email are news/factual, they have their own problems.
One last thing: The fact that anyone who does not support same-sex marriage is labeled anti-homosexual by the gay left is exactly why there has been so little useful dialogue and/or progress on the issue. Yeah…. that’s exactly why there has been so little useful dialogue. Come on. That’s not why there has been so little dialogue. That’s is maybe #23 on the list of reasons.
Comment by Bastian — June 19, 2006 @ 11:55 pm - June 19, 2006
Lynn, James described precisely what my more curt response was attempting to convey.
You said the Vice-President wasn’t being lauded for simply failing to disown his daughter. Still, the entire post here is about how, because Dick Cheney is accepting of his daughter and her partner, he is a good Dad and should be admired.
I don’t really see it that way. I think anyone who disowns their child for being gay, or wouldn’t open their family to the partner of their gay child, is a horrible, disgusting, pathetic excuse for a human being.
So what I was saying is, lets not set the bar that low. Lets not praise people simply for doing what they should do in the first place.
Comment by Erik — June 20, 2006 @ 2:30 am - June 20, 2006
Erik,
You are exactly correct. The bar is set too low. Why throw kudos to Cheney for doing what every father in America should do? I also wonder if Cheney would be as accepting if his gay child was male?
Comment by Clay — June 20, 2006 @ 6:34 am - June 20, 2006
You all are very strange on here. I am amazed at the amount of times you all refer to yourselves as homosexual. That is like African Americans referring to themselves as Negro’s. No wonder the government has its head up its ass with repugnicans running the show and the American Taliban winning.
Comment by HDBiker — June 20, 2006 @ 6:37 am - June 20, 2006
HDBiker writes, slightly off topic, “… No wonder the government has its head up its ass with repugnicans running the show….”
No, the govt has GOP politicians running it because Americans have elected Republicans to office, they control the WH, the Senate, the House, the federal Courts, the SCOTUS, are poised to takeover most of the governorships, most of the state legislatures, most of the state courts and their social and political allies control the major institutions like the military, the churches, etc etc etc.
That’s why the GOP “controls” the govt –because voters elected them to do it, HDBiker. They also control society’s agenda, HDBiker; to your peril by ignoring that simple, honest fact.
You can wait for some liberal activist judge to turn that tide and overturn popular will… but it won’t happen at the election box until the GayLeft learns it can’t lead in this political environment –it has had 40 years of trying and been an utter, untimigated failure.
Time for gays to bring up the Right flank… the conservative gays… to lead our agenda toward progress. That’s a reality and message you can’t fathom… hence the bilious name calling. While the name calling works over at the DailyKos, the Democrat Underground, and in HowieDean’s Office, it don’t work in 94% of America. That’s the simple blunt truth of politics.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 20, 2006 @ 9:10 am - June 20, 2006
OK you people are extremely scary!!
I’m getting the impressions you don’t like anyone different from your ideology including yourselves.
If I understand your rant, matt, you would like to have an extremely rigid gov. like the Taliban, and Iran where religious law is the rule. Where people like yourself are hunted down and executed because you differ from the, majority agreed upon, religious law through no fault of your own.
I get the impression you want no guarantee of protections for your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. You want to be free to make as much money as you can and be able to horde it and keep “others” filthy hands off of your righteous money. Am I getting close to your view of the county and world?
If I am wrong on this, please explain your view of what the ideal country and world would be?
Comment by HDBiker — June 20, 2006 @ 9:36 am - June 20, 2006
“Time for gays to bring up the Right flank… the conservative gays… to lead our agenda toward progress. ”
I guess what I would like to know what do you mean by “lead our agenda toward progress” What is your agenda and how does it differ from what you say the “gay left’s” agenda is?
What do you people want?
Comment by HDBiker — June 20, 2006 @ 9:51 am - June 20, 2006
HDBiker writes: “If I am wrong on this, please explain your view of what the ideal country and world would be?” and “What do you people want?”
It seems simply amazing to me that you can ask such a banile, stupidly innocent question like that after supposedly reading this website for awhile –unless– your only purpose here is to taunt, inflame, incite.
Nope, HDBiker, I’m not going to “tell” you what my vision of America is (although you could sense it from learning about RR or Russell Kirk or Jeanne Kirkpatrick) nor what it is I want from the gay agenda… I could explain it here and it would still avoid you nonetheless.
You need to read, comprehend, learn, listen. That’s the very best I could want for you at this point. But trust that my vision of America is perfectly consistent with the values present in the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution.
Read, comprehend, learn, listen. It’s your first step off the Democrat Plantation.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 20, 2006 @ 11:30 am - June 20, 2006
Just what I thought………a bunch of bitter QUEENS!
Comment by HDBiker — June 20, 2006 @ 11:52 am - June 20, 2006
Matt, I believe the concern is what gay conservatives will do in order to ensure that all gay and lesbian Americans are treated the same as our heterosexual counterparts.
One must admit that the push for the FMA contradicts traditional conservative values, but does follow the RNC Platform per the 2004 election year (I write of excerpts in full support of the FMA and of upholding DADT). While a constitutional amendment would allow the issue to be decided by the people, the people are not well-equipped to vote fairly on the issue because too many of the people do not know our community. And even if they are only familiar with certain images or stereotypes of it (regardless of who perpetuates those images and stereotypes), a good segment of our society makes the conscious choice to not walk a mile in our shoes.
At least for this “negro” on the “Democrat Plantation”, I realize that the core, each party has its own idea of how government should run. The frustration is most likely due to the fact that we are bickering, calling each other names, yet neither side meets with the other to create a game plan. Gay liberals accuse our conservative counterparts of supporting a party that doesn’t support us, and gay conservatives deflect by commenting on how “in your face” we are when approaching opponents of SSM.
What we need is to ALL shut up, listen to each other’s ideas as to how to fight for our rights, get a game plan going, and get about the business of supporting our community regardless of political affiliation. Neither the conservative nor ultra-liberal approach works 100% of the time, nor is either approach completely ineffective in changing opinions.
Comment by James — June 20, 2006 @ 12:16 pm - June 20, 2006
So, Matt before you go bloviating about what stupid liberal demo-rats are doing to de-rail the conservatives strangle hold on the country, read this if you can read.
Joe gets up at 6:00 am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure they are safe and work as advertised.
All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
Joe walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation days because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It’s noon time, Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposits are federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.
Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards.
Joe arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark).
Joe is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
Joe turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.
by John Gray
This piece was originally published on TvNewsLies in July of 2004
I’m sure you are a self made queen just like Joe republican.
Comment by HDBiker — June 20, 2006 @ 12:26 pm - June 20, 2006
You and a couple thousand people bought this book. Must be “excellent”!
Comment by jimmy — June 20, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - June 20, 2006
#14. John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry…stripping rights, stripping rights, stripping rights… What was the vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment in committee? And what was the vote on the floor? And you are hissy-fitting about John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry as if he voted for it. Take note who did vote for it. And spew your invective, bitterness, and animosity (other keywords on this blog) in the right and Right direction.
Comment by jimmy — June 20, 2006 @ 12:59 pm - June 20, 2006
HDBiker, thanks for proving the point. I don’t know which is more frightening:
1) you citing TvNewsLies –one of the most wild-assed speculating sites on the web (and that’s saying a lot given we have AmericaBlog, BlogActive, DailyKos, the DemocratUnderground, OutSports and others contending for that “honor”)… or
2) Ian S citing Wiki “articles” like its popcorn, salt and butter for the intellectually challenged. Well, wait, I guess it is.
Nawh, it’d be you. The John Gray ficitionalized piece has been widely discredited even by folks at your side’s “Drinking Liberally” site.
Like I offered for you earlier: Read, comprehend, learn, listen. It’s your first step off the Democrat Plantation.
Honest, that first step will be the hardest for you. It always is for those leaving the comfort of VictimHood Anonymous.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 20, 2006 @ 1:42 pm - June 20, 2006
Well, thank you for your enlightenment. I honestly hope I can be as brilliant as you someday.
If I may be so bold as to ask just one more of my naive questions?
Just where did you invest your $20.00 tax break. There are some of us stupid people who just don’t have the first clue what to do with such a windfall.
BTW, When are you going to Iraq?
Comment by HDBiker — June 20, 2006 @ 1:48 pm - June 20, 2006
HDBiker, already been to Kuwait and Afghanistan –take the ChickenHawk GayLeft Democrat sloganeering elsewhere. You have a first step to take, remember? Freedom from VictimHood begins with that first step.
TVNewsLies… good God. What a sorry excuse for a feeble attempt at discussing important issues.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 20, 2006 @ 1:55 pm - June 20, 2006
James writes, after pleading for solidarity for gays: “While a constitutional amendment (FMA) would allow the issue to be decided by the people, the people are not well-equipped to vote fairly on the issue because too many of the people do not know our community.”
Gheez, James. I thought that people who don’t agree with us get to vote in elections too? I must have missed that civics class where you picked up that little arrogant jewel of voter disenfranchisement for the moral good of gays. No wonder we generally fail at the ballot box… “it’s not the message, its the idiots we let vote.” Good one.
No, James, I’ll trust in voters. I won’t trust that the GayLeft can lead our community to progress on civil unions and other issues. And I won’t trust that activist judges will deliver to us that which can’t be secured by the ballot box.
Instead of telling people to “ALL shut up”, you need to simply open your brain, ears and heart to a different and more effective approach –one that isn’t so inconsistent to argue for division while applauding solidarity. Come on, join HDBiker in taking that first step off the Democrat Plantation.
On three; 1…. 2…. 3 step now.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 20, 2006 @ 2:05 pm - June 20, 2006
Just where did you invest your $20.00 tax break. There are some of us stupid people who just don’t have the first clue what to do with such a windfall.
Given that, according to even hysterical leftist sources, even those in the bottom 20% of income (average of $16,600 per year) received a $230 tax cut, I have to wonder…..what exactly IS your income?
Meanwhile, why don’t you leftists try some honesty and say that you want to raise taxes on these people by $230 a year. You want the tax cuts gone; live up to the consequences.
And as for going to Iraq, when are you and the Cindy Sheehan Pandering Brigade leaving so that you can go love and pacify the Islamists? I’m sure they’ll be most kind to you.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - June 20, 2006
“Instead of telling people to “ALL shut up”, you need to simply open your brain, ears and heart to a different and more effective approach –one that isn’t so inconsistent to argue for division while applauding solidarity.”
No thanks Matt. I don’t care to hear the voices you hear in your head.
BTW, Is there anyone you don’t hate?
Comment by HDBiker — June 20, 2006 @ 2:20 pm - June 20, 2006
“And as for going to Iraq, when are you and the Cindy Sheehan Pandering Brigade leaving so that you can go love and pacify the Islamists? I’m sure they’ll be most kind to you. ”
I’m not even going there with you about that. You are in the major minority of the country on Iraq, and you know it.
Comment by HDBiker — June 20, 2006 @ 2:23 pm - June 20, 2006
While a constitutional amendment (FMA) would allow the issue to be decided by the people, the people are not well-equipped to vote fairly on the issue because too many of the people do not know our community.”
Oh, they know our community quite well enough.
They see our leaders out there saying that voters who have religious beliefs are superstitious idiots and spending millions of dollars on TV ads and appearances to bash religious figures.
They see our national groups out there supporting unlimited abortion and repeal of parental notification laws.
They see our “rights organizations” supporting Hamas and other terrorist organizations because they’re anti-Israel.
They see the groups that claim to represent us spew vicious hate against all Republicans, calling them “Nazis” and “Bush=Hitler”.
They see these same groups pushing and providing staffers to support harassment campaigns and public insults against gay Republicans and conservatives like Mary Cheney.
And, ironically, they see our gay leaders calling it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats endorse, sign, and praise legislation and constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights — including the FMA, MPA, DOMA, and state constitutional amendments.
This is why voters on the state level regularly rack up supermajority support for such legislation — and why even the vast majority of people who oppose the FMA do so because, as they claim, state laws make it unnecessary.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - June 20, 2006
I’m not even going there with you about that. You are in the major minority of the country on Iraq, and you know it.
LOL…what’s the matter? Aren’t the insurgents that you and your fellow leftists pay to kill American troops going to be nice to you?
Get your ass over to Afghanistan or Iraq with your fellow pacifists and love the Islamists into turning themselves over to a court of law to be punished. You claim it can be done, go prove it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2006 @ 2:29 pm - June 20, 2006
Not to mince words, but if you read my post, I didn’t call everyone opposed to same-sex marriage “anti-homosexual”.
Great. Now can you prove that the differentiator between who is and who isn’t anti-homosexual in that is something other than party affiliation?
Receiving civil union rights and as you say, “many other rights”, is no big treat. Is your self-worth so low that you cannot see that you have the right to demand full and equal access to the protections and rights of heterosexual individuals and couples?If you were a member of another minority group, would it be OK to ask for anything less?
On the contrary, Bastian; my self-worth is high enough to admit that there is a difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples, and that marriage is designed for the former and not the latter.
If my partner and I were married, we’d be disadvantaged in almost every respect. Our taxes would rise, our Social Security benefits would be cut (the household limit is lower than what our two separate benefits would be), and the implications of a breakup or a death (because of California’s arcane property and inheritance laws) would be immense. Instead, we’ve constructed simple legal arrangements that do exactly the same thing without involving the tax person — and we’ve made sure to cultivate relationships with our families, even when it’s hard to do so, to be certain our wishes would be respected in the case of a problem.
Now, you can get me to support making the legal instruments we did easier to create, because there would be widespread support among heterosexuals to do that. You can even get me to support funding legal assistance and aid for gays who aren’t owed as many favors by lawyers as we are.
But you can’t get me to ram marriage down heterosexuals’ throats.
Worse yet, you imply that my not doing so makes me self-loathing. Having grown up close to a city where women believed that marriage was the only thing that made a person whole, I can tell you that, not only do I find that attitude personally distasteful, but also how many horrid and disgusting messes it creates.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2006 @ 2:49 pm - June 20, 2006
Those voters that you don’t trust aren’t getting much enlightenment from liberals that just call them names. If you want to see real progress amongst the people who don’t understand us, it’s going to take some conservative gays that are willing and able to truly communicate with them.
As for the self-esteem thing, AGAIN, geez… I have to re-explain this so often. It’s like the liberal gene is connected to the short-memory span gene. It continues to blow my mind the kind of bass-ackward thinking necessary to question my self-esteem because I’m conservative. My happiness doesn’t hinge on the acceptance of and approval of others of my relationships. I don’t need a government stamp of approval to believe I’m valid. I’ve never had trouble finding work and I don’t live in constant fear that someone… some day, just MIGHT discriminate against me because I’m gay. Gay people on average tend to do quite well financially. I’m optimistic. I’m a self-sufficient person and I want to stay that way and I’m more concerned about liberals that perfer that I be dependant upon the state for my livelyhood. And when you are dependant on someone, they have power over you. That frightens me more than waiting a few more years for state approval of my relationships.
Gay people- If you were called names in high school, it’s not because of Republicans. If you can’t find a boyfriend or the pretty boys in the bar won’t have sex with you, it’s not because of Republicans. If your mother and/or father rejected you, it’s not because of Republicans. Go beat a pillow with a tennis racket and shout out the names of the kids that made fun of you. Go see a therapist. Do something constructive to deal with YOUR self-esteem issues because bringing them into your politics is not helping any of us.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — June 20, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - June 20, 2006
11: If you think a guy who was at the helm of a corproration (Haliburton) that created dummy companies so they could do business in a country that is the sworn enemy of the US (Iran) is a great role model, then I have to disaree with your definition of a role model.
Also, I don’t think a guy who says “fuck you” to a Senator of the United States in public is exactly a good role model either.
Comment by Kevin — June 20, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - June 20, 2006
It’s pretty sad that you conservatives are so “step and fetch” to the Republican power structure with regard to gay marriage. You so easily blame “left wing” gay groups for the issues in getting marriage to apply to all citizens, but none of you seem to take the responsibility of how you would handle it with the Republicans you so ardently support.
I think the implosions at the Log Cabin Republicans are very telling - these folks are leaving because some of them have actually come to realize that the Republican power structure doesn’t care about them, doesn’t want to hear from them and wants them to go away.
So Mary Cheney and her father have a close relationship; big deal. Victoria Gotti loved her father, John Gotti just as much and that guy was a convicted thieving, murderer. As someone pointed out here, Cheney went on record that he would support president on the anti-gay marriage ammendment, so frankly, the fact he has a close relationship with his lesbian daughter seems to mean diddly-squat with regard to the issue on a public / national level. Ms. Cheney lives a rich, priviliged, queen-bee existence, so having “equal rights” is something that doesn’t seem to be important to her or her father.
Comment by Kevin — June 20, 2006 @ 5:59 pm - June 20, 2006
North Dallas Thirty: Of course there are “anti-homosexual” sentiments on both sides of the party line. But don’t fool yourself, which party is in bed with the FRC? Which party spear-headed the FMA? You seem so ready to play the part of Republican cheerleader, but is it so wrong to disagree with party policy in part while supporting a majority of positions on other issues? Does that make you a *bad* republican? I hope I’m reading you wrong; otherwise, it’s just blind-faith in the party line.
Your arguments for pseudo-marriage rights are your own and that’s your business; however, they all sound like rationalizations to me. Your basic argument is that gay marriage is a bad idea for gays to support because it affects your bottom-line. How selfish. My voting record isn’t dictated by my wallet and though it is fully within your right for the american dollar to be your moral adn civic compass, it’s ultimately pathetic. If you consider saving a couple of bucks and jumping through legal loopholes as equal rights, I’m afraid you just don’t get the point of civil equality.
Also, you said you don’t want *ram* homosexual marriage down the throats of heterosexual people. How polite. I apologize if you take offense to this, but that IS self-loathing. Do you consider yourself an abberation? A defect? Why else would you see the issue in this manner? A low-hanging analogy: What if Rosa Parks had decided not to refuse her seat because she didn’t want to *cram* her race down the throat of the white man? Self-loathing, self-loathing, self-loathing.
As for your wild leap to the conclusion that I endorse marriage as a means to make one feel whole, it’s quite ludicrous. This isn’t about getting married, it’s about having the right.
Dale: You’re making excuses. No one cares that you’re a gay conservative. No one blames Republicans for the death of Matthew Sheppard. Embrace your conservative side all you want. This issue isn’t about liberals vs. conservatives. It’s not about a stamp of approval or validation, it’s about equal protection under the law for me and my family. That’s it. That desire shouldn’t be owned by one party or another.
Comment by Bastian — June 20, 2006 @ 6:26 pm - June 20, 2006
It’s pretty sad that you conservatives are so “step and fetch” to the Republican power structure with regard to gay marriage.
Pot, meet kettle.
You see, Kevin, we’re well aware of the fact that leftists like you are complete hypocrites when it comes to gay marriage. You have never offered a single unqualified criticism of Democrats who support banning gay marriage; it’s always with a “well, it was wrong, but it’s OK, because Republicans want to put gays in concentration camps”.
You so easily blame “left wing” gay groups for the issues in getting marriage to apply to all citizens, but none of you seem to take the responsibility of how you would handle it with the Republicans you so ardently support.
That’s easy.
First off, we make it clear that leftists like you are hypocrites who use “gay rights” as an excuse for Democratic and leftist partisanship.
Second, we make it clear that the beliefs pushed by leftists like yourself that anyone who is pro-life, religious, pro-military, or Republican cannot be gay are false.
Fix those two problems and we’re well on our way.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - June 20, 2006
Just as I thought.
Of course there are “anti-homosexual” sentiments on both sides of the party line. But don’t fool yourself, which party is in bed with the FRC? Which party spear-headed the FMA?
Ah, it’s that “but” again — the “but” you always hear when Democrats try to rationalize why it’s not antigay to oppose gay marriage when Democrats do it, but it ALWAYS is when Republicans do it.
Given that Howard Dean just publicly climbed into bed with the FRC crowd by claiming The 700 Club that the Democratic Party shares their values, I fail to see your point; however, I have enough experience in these matters to realize that your type are really nothing more than Democratic partisans trying to come up with rationalizations for why we should do your masters’ bidding.
Next:
Also, you said you don’t want *ram* homosexual marriage down the throats of heterosexual people. How polite. I apologize if you take offense to this, but that IS self-loathing. Do you consider yourself an abberation? A defect? Why else would you see the issue in this manner?
Because, unlike you, I am comfortable with acknowledging that gay couples are different than straight couples.
Your Rosa Parks analogy would only apply if being black versus being white was the same difference as being male versus female. It is an established fact that men vary from women genetically, physically, and psychologically. Thus, it should be patently obvious that a relationship between two people of the same gender would be significantly different than that of one between two people of the opposite gender.
Second, from a procreation standpoint, only a male-female coupling can produce a child that is biologically related to both parties in the relationship, and do so in the vast majority of cases perfectly naturally and without additional legal intervention and agreement. That in and of itself is an ENORMOUS difference, both legally and philosophically, and an excellent reason to differentiate between gay and straight relationships in a legal sense.
Finally, the voters, by the Constitution, hold the ultimate right to shape fundamental law. Deal with it.
Your basic argument is that gay marriage is a bad idea for gays to support because it affects your bottom-line. How selfish.
Actually, if you looked, it would likely affect your bottom line as well. Very few gay people have actually done any sort of analysis to see what their life would be like if they were to actually get married, and it shows.
Hence my point — since marriage was built for heterosexuals, and primarily for procreating heterosexuals, it’s at best an incomplete structure and at worst totally unsuited for homosexual relationships.
Again, why does that threaten you so?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2006 @ 7:04 pm - June 20, 2006
Politicans of all stripes are against gay marriage because right now the Amercian people aren’t ready for it. It is the nature of politicians to pander to voters to keep their jobs. Therefore, it behooves us to enlighten the people who don’t understand us. When the people support gay marriage, I guarantee the politicians will follow suite so they can stay in power. The mistake of the gay left is emotionalizing this issue, i.e. taking it very personally. This is where their self-esteem issues are muddling their politics. Calling people bigots and being generally dismissive of them is stifling the discussions that would be leading to some progress on the issue. And what the left in general is doing is spinning this issue, which isn’t as partisan as they want people to believe, in order to demonize their enemies and that’s not helping gay people. It’s just great propoganda for Democrats. At least in theory it is. Rather, it seems to be fueling animosity towards what seems to some as a bunch of smug and self-rightous people who will gladly bypass the Democratic process and impose their view of what’s right on everyone. Republicans are wrong on FMA and I won’t apologize for them, but Democrats provided the fuel for that movement. *cough* Newsom *cough*
That’s not idealistic, but it’s the practical reality. Deal with it or live in denial. If we want to make progress, we have to deal with the reality. Otherwise all the ranting and name-calling amounts to no more than mental masturbation. It may make you feel better about yourself, but it’s not getting us anywhere.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — June 20, 2006 @ 7:23 pm - June 20, 2006
North Dallas:
1. “… the “but” you always hear when Democrats try to rationalize why it’s not antigay to oppose gay marriage when Democrats do it, but it ALWAYS is when Republicans do it.” You keep trying to bring this up. Not once have I defended the Democratic party in my comments. You don’t even know what my party representation is. I’ll say it again, this thread is about an ISSUE, not a platform. And as much as both sides are imperfect in the maturity I would prefer to see, I claim the republican party is slightly worse off with democrats trailing not too far behind. Don’t be so offended, I’m not asking you to vote for democratic candidates as you presuppose.
2. Any moron knows that a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship. Your claims to gender and procreation issue are broken arguments. Marriage isn’t a contract to have 2.5 kids and live in the suburbs for the rest of your life.
3. You missed my point. I don’t care if marriage affects my bottom line. My wallet isn’t my moral and civic compass. I also don’t mind paying taxes when they are spent wisely and in return for many of the great benefits, protections, and services I receive as a citizen of the United States.
What “threatens” me so are gay men like yourself who are so willing to lay down and play sycophant on this issue. Do I expect the American people to support gay marriage tomorrow? this year? this decade? No. But I won’t compromise my dignity and fundamental rights to get some half-baked consolation liberties.
Comment by Bastian — June 20, 2006 @ 11:40 pm - June 20, 2006
I found that to be distasteful and somewhat judgemental. I read this blog because I am open to views different from my own. I’ve acknowledged that my liberal peers do engage needless name-calling, and that we need to phrase our message in a way that make opponents more receptive to it. I do apologize for using “shut up” in my post.
Comment by James — June 21, 2006 @ 12:21 am - June 21, 2006
You speak of monetary disadvantages for a bit. What about legal protections for couples with children?
Comment by James — June 21, 2006 @ 12:24 am - June 21, 2006
Dick may in fact love his daughter, but I seriously doubt that he respect her. The 2004 GOP campaign was all about fueling the fan of anti-gay hysteria and bigotry.
Mary has chosen to be silent throughout most of the Bimbo-Dick teams, except to publish a book (on the hells of midterm elections) that tries to paint Republicans as being ‘moderate’.
Comment by Edward TJ Brown — June 21, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - June 21, 2006
Not once have I defended the Democratic party in my comments. You don’t even know what my party representation is.Any moron knows that a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship.
Let me give you a word of advice, using one of your own quotes:
Your claims to gender and procreation issue are broken arguments.
Don’t say the first statement, then claim that the primary points that MAKE these relationships different — gender and potential for procreation — are “broken arguments”. You’re contradicting yourself.
Marriage isn’t a contract to have 2.5 kids and live in the suburbs for the rest of your life.
That is what it is built to effectively support, however.
I don’t care if marriage affects my bottom line. My wallet isn’t my moral and civic compass.
Then stop whining about how being denied benefits and legal protections is harmful to you, and be honest that you require the government to validate and control your relationships.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 12:41 pm - June 21, 2006
You speak of monetary disadvantages for a bit. What about legal protections for couples with children?
Adoption laws.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 12:42 pm - June 21, 2006
Ed writes: “The 2004 GOP campaign was all about fueling the fan of anti-gay hysteria and bigotry….”
Umm, no, Ed. You’re wrong again. In subsequent polling of those who voted on Election Day, “values” was rated #4 in issues that led voters to the polls. Iraq, security, the economy came before values… which was tied with unemployment, btw.
So, no Ed. It’s a nice myth to build and spin but the truth doesn’t support it. It’s also a nice myth to whip up some $$$ donated to the GayLeft groups –but you wouldn’t be parroting the talking points of those guys, right? Nawh.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 21, 2006 @ 12:44 pm - June 21, 2006
And, relative to this:
What “threatens” me so are gay men like yourself who are so willing to lay down and play sycophant on this issue. Do I expect the American people to support gay marriage tomorrow? this year? this decade? No. But I won’t compromise my dignity and fundamental rights to get some half-baked consolation liberties.
So, in other words, unless the government validates your relationships, you have no dignity.
Right-o.
And I re-emphasize; since you don’t care about getting benefits, then stop whining about the fact that you don’t have them. It’s like a spoiled child who throws a fit and won’t eat his dinner because he doesn’t get unlimited candy afterwards. Suit yourself, but quit whining about how hungry you are.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - June 21, 2006
“So, in other words, unless the government validates your relationships, you have no dignity.”
No, jumping through legal loopholes, paying lawyer fees, and settling for half-rights like you advocate is having no dignity.
Additionally, with your statement about marriage contracts, you are confusing design with common use. Intention and use are not identical. Also, I hate to delve into the so obvious, but since you don’t think it’s broken, explain to me how the childless couples play into your procreation arugment for marriage? Is something wrong with these people? And what about married couples who do so only for the benefits without sharing love or committment? Should they not be allowed to marry? It’s none of your business what two people want to do in the confines of their marriage.
Finally, I do care about “getting benefits”. However, the only benefits you continue to acknowledge are those that are monetary. These, in my opinion, have some importance but are secondary to other non-monetary protections that marriage provides.
You want me to be honest and admit I have no dignity with a government stamp. That’s not the case. I want you to be honest and admit that you are an apologist and have a skewed appreciation for freedom and liberty. I imagine you disagree. We’re both entitled to our opinions. I wouldn’t call it whining.
Comment by Bastian — June 21, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - June 21, 2006
Also, I hate to delve into the so obvious, but since you don’t think it’s broken, explain to me how the childless couples play into your procreation arugment for marriage?
Simple.
Whether or not a couple chooses to have children is one thing.
The fact that a heterosexual couple is in most cases capable of producing children that are biologically of both parents in the normal process of enjoying marital sexual relations, or even artificially, while a homosexual couple is not, is a fundamental difference relative to procreation.
Furthermore, the primary arguments against incestuous relationships involve the potential genetic defects of the offspring. Removing procreation as a relevant factor in legal recognition of relationships is a shortsighted tactic by gay leftists that ignores the obvious and opens the door to allowing incest.
These, in my opinion, have some importance but are secondary to other non-monetary protections that marriage provides.
The vast majority of which can be provided under existing law.
However, that then runs into this:
No, jumping through legal loopholes, paying lawyer fees, and settling for half-rights like you advocate is having no dignity.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 1:55 pm - June 21, 2006
Continued…..
The fact that the government chooses not to provide shortcuts does not in the least affect my dignity. You might as well argue that it’s demeaning to old people for them to not be able to instantly give their caregiver power of attorney, or to do it for free, or to have to have witnesses.
Then again, I’ve never hated myself because I don’t have those shortcuts. I’ve always accepted it as the decision of society to make one form of relationship, which does have societal benefits and is the largest means by which society perpetuates, simpler and easier than another.
In short, I don’t resent straight people because their relationships are easier to enter. But I don’t think that’s a sentiment shared by the vast majority of gay people.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - June 21, 2006
Dallas, we shall continue to disagree but will you still complain if gays are bestowed marriage rights one day far into the future?
I am curious about your opinion of the legislation in Virginia that would likely void and nullify some, if not all, of the arcane contracts you have in place to protect you and your partner (and your wallet).
Comment by Bastian — June 21, 2006 @ 2:44 pm - June 21, 2006
The 2004 GOP campaign was all about fueling the fan of anti-gay hysteria and bigotry. Mary admitted as much in her book (and publicity interview) where she talked about how she considered quitting the campaign.
The GOP, through Karl Rove, pushed the issue at the federal and state level. They are trying to do it again this year. Subsequent polling is not important. Why? I did not comment on the public response to the bigoted GOP campaign plan.
We can debate how effective or successful this GOP camapign of homophobia was (or is) but that is another debate. Mary C worked to help eleect a President and a political party that used homophobia as a central campaign point.
Comment by Edward TJ Brown — June 21, 2006 @ 7:27 pm - June 21, 2006
But of course, Ed, you had no problem with Democrats like John Kerry supporting and praising homophobic state constitutional amendments. Indeed, you and your fellow leftists gave them tens of millions of dollars and called their actions “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
This is why we don’t particularly care about your opinions; we know leftists like yourself have no problems whatsoever with homophobia when it is used for political advantage by Democrats.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 7:41 pm - June 21, 2006
The point is that the Vice President has a lesbian daughter. He may love her, but given the role that homophobia played in the 2004 GOP campaign, it is questionable how much respect he has for his daughther if she came second to his career.
None of John Kerry’s children are (to the best of our knowledge) gay. That is the point of this thread. Dick chose his career before his own daughter, and Mary seemed content to sacrifice respect for a nice campaign paycheck.
In the 2004 Presidential election, gay Americans only had two viable choices (I believe that we should have more, but that is a topic for another time). Neither candidate was perfect, but Kerry did have a better platform on gay rights then Bush did. The state anti-gay constitutional amendments came from conservative, GOP activists.
I do not give money (let alone millions) to any political party or candidate.
Comment by Edward TJ Brown — June 21, 2006 @ 7:56 pm - June 21, 2006
75: Answer the topic from 74 instead of your usual bullshit of trying to turn it around. 74 is right, but you so called gay conservatives are so step and fetch on the issue, that you might as well put black makeup on your face and do a minstrel show at the next republican convention so you can beg and plead for forgiveness from the Republican leaders for being something so nasty as being gay.
Comment by Kevin — June 21, 2006 @ 9:11 pm - June 21, 2006
Answer the topic from 74 instead of your usual bullshit of trying to turn it around.
Oh, now you’re making me laugh.
You and your fellow Democrats made it clear during the 2004 campaign that it’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and not playing on homophobia or bigotry to support stripping gays of rights via state constitutional amendment and the FMA.
Unlike you, I can call them as I see them — and have.
So keep making your accusations. Just remember….those tears of rage are smearing your charcoal-covered face.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 10:33 pm - June 21, 2006
Re. Comment 68…So, NDT, how would adoption laws help the gay parent whose ex-spouse sues for sole custody simply because his/her ex-spouse is gay? What of continued failed attempts to legalize gay adoption in FL? What of the ban on gay adoption in MS and other states?
Re. Comment 73…Cheryl Jacques was in Atlanta in 2004. Regardless of what one thinks of her, she did illustrate an interesting point by asking the following question: What would life be like for African Americans today if Rosa Parks decided to sit in the middle of the bus?
Gender is a difference between gay and straight relationships; the ease of procreation is a difference between gay and straight relationships. If either type of couple commits to stay together for a lifetime, is that commitment not the same?
You and I have both used legal documents to ensure our partners can carry out our wishes, and vice versa. We’re very fortunate to have that option. Gay and lesbian couples other than us might have greater difficulty, depending on socio-economic status.
There seems to be a great disparity between gay and lesbian couples and straight couples with regard to the right to marry. Liberals bash Bush, and many times damage any chances of effective debate. So what’s the public’s excuse for ignoring a country like, say, Germany? Germany offers very comprehensive rights to gay and lesbian couples, even given its role in persecuting gays during the Holocaust.
It’s a two way street. Liberals need to work with conservatives to be open to constructive debate; you should care what “leftists” think, not to the point of those thoughts offending you, but in order to learn how to work with them, and the same applies on our end. And opponents of gay marriage must be open to expose themselves to something other than what they grew up believing.
Comment by James — June 21, 2006 @ 10:52 pm - June 21, 2006
Somewhat off subject…
My mother is visiting my partner and me this week, and will be attending her first Pride celebration. She’s come a long way since I came out to her in 1998, three days before my 21st birthday (dad took it much better).
Sunday night she told me about a visit to the doctor at a naval hospital. She was talking to a young sailor who worked there, and at some point, I came up as a topic of conversation. She told him I was gay.
The 19 year-old sailor looked around to make sure they were alone, then admitted to her that he, too, is gay. He told her he enlisted because he’d come out to his parents, and his father threw him out. He hasn’t seen his family since. With no money and no place to live, he joined the navy. Naturally, he can’t be open about his sexuality or it could mean a dishonorable discharge.
I truly hope that America moves past that, and learns to accept all of her children.
Comment by James — June 21, 2006 @ 10:59 pm - June 21, 2006
North Dallas: You are the only one talking about “Democrat” this and “John Kerry” that. How is that on topic at all? Are we done with discussing ideology? Let me know, because I won’t stick around to discuss rhetoric.
Comment by Bastian — June 22, 2006 @ 10:11 am - June 22, 2006
So, NDT, how would adoption laws help the gay parent whose ex-spouse sues for sole custody simply because his/her ex-spouse is gay? What of continued failed attempts to legalize gay adoption in FL? What of the ban on gay adoption in MS and other states?
First, the Supreme Court has made it clear (ironically, in Lawrence v. Texas and by letting appellate courts’ rulings to this effect stand) that states have the right to regulate adoption in this regard as they see fit.
Second, taking away ex-spouses’ right to sue for sole custody, especially when they are the biological or adoptive parent of the child in question, is patently unconstitutional. Adoption laws do not prevent that, nor should they.
In short, adoption laws will provide the necessary protections for gays with children; however, I wouldn’t suggest you try to use them against states’ will or to deprive the child’s biological parent(s) of rights against their will.
Regardless of what one thinks of her, she did illustrate an interesting point by asking the following question: What would life be like for African Americans today if Rosa Parks decided to sit in the middle of the bus?
And I have the reverse question: how is that relevant to gay people?
You see, James, as you well know, Rosa Parks was black. Rosa Parks was systematically and legally prevented from living in certain areas, performing certain jobs, drinking from certain fountains, attending certain schools, you name it. She wasn’t just discriminated against — it was MANDATORY that she be excluded.
Now how does being gay even come close to that?
The reason Jacques uses black civil rights as an example is because, drama queen that she is, she honestly doesn’t see a difference. She equates the possibility that one could be fired from a job for being gay with the certainty that, if one was black, one wouldn’t have been hired in the first place.
And what’s even funnier is that she channeled tens of millions of dollars and unqualified endorsements to a man who wanted her Massachusetts marriage to be invalidated. It’s like MLK was doing campaign work for George Wallace.
Gender is a difference between gay and straight relationships; the ease of procreation is a difference between gay and straight relationships. If either type of couple commits to stay together for a lifetime, is that commitment not the same?
Of course. But, given the constant efforts of society to erode the legal bonds around that commitment, i.e. no-fault divorce, why should it be recognized in the first place as a reason?
You and I have both used legal documents to ensure our partners can carry out our wishes, and vice versa. We’re very fortunate to have that option. Gay and lesbian couples other than us might have greater difficulty, depending on socio-economic status.
Of course. But then why are our gay legal organizations spending millions on fruitless lawsuits when they could be providing legal services at free or reduced costs to couples that need it?
There seems to be a great disparity between gay and lesbian couples and straight couples with regard to the right to marry. Liberals bash Bush, and many times damage any chances of effective debate. So what’s the public’s excuse for ignoring a country like, say, Germany? Germany offers very comprehensive rights to gay and lesbian couples, even given its role in persecuting gays during the Holocaust.
Because the US isn’t Germany.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2006 @ 1:02 pm - June 22, 2006
Matt;
The truth is that the GOP engaged in immoral gay-bashing during the 2004 election and tried to do so against for this midterm election. To suggest otherwise is totally and utter bs.
Yes, subsequent exit polling showed that gay marriage was not “the” most important issue for heterosexual Americans. But that only goes to show you how out of touch the GOP is with mainstream America on many social issues.
Mary chose to accept a well paid and important position in her father’s re-election campaign. She did not resign or protest when the people she was helping get into power, we seeking to stip away what little legal rights she had.
Comment by Edward TJ Brown — June 22, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - June 22, 2006
Unfortunately, Ed, you and yours called it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats supported both state and Federal constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights.
What were you and the rest of the Kerry supporters doing? Oh, that’s right….pumping more money into his campaign and endorsing his homophobic actions.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2006 @ 3:12 pm - June 22, 2006
Re. 84…
And I have the reverse question: how is that relevant to gay people?
Because the US isn’t Germany.
Comment by James — June 23, 2006 @ 12:23 am - June 23, 2006
While I can’t speak for every part of the country, I do know that LGBT organizations in GA, as well as LGBT attorneys themselves do offer legal guidance and services to couples are decent costs.
With Mass., I do recall reading of one of the attorneys who argued the case for marriage, who’d previously fielded legal calls from couples in an office that served the LGBT community there. Initially, she thought marriage was a nice long-term goal, but didn’t think it would happen in her lifetime. But, as she fielded more and more calls from couples, she noticed how an overwhelming number of the issues would have been resolved had the couples simply been permitted to apply for a marriage license.
Comment by James — June 23, 2006 @ 1:34 am - June 23, 2006
The way I understand the English language, “outspoken” would apply to a person characterized by speaking out. We don’t call some one outspoken on an issue if they have spoken one sentence about it a couple of times when pinned down. Cheney is a much better “friend of the wealthy” than he is “father of a gay daughter”. If he were a good father to her, he would be using some of his power to try to change the anti-gay positions that pervade the Republican party, both platform and membership, and this administration’s policies. And if you check your facts, you’ll find that Cheney has never even said he believes his daughter should have the right to marriage or civil union - he merely says the states should make that decision, and we know how 47 states are currently making it.
Comment by stan — June 23, 2006 @ 1:21 pm - June 23, 2006
spoken one sentence about it a couple of times when pinned down. Cheney is a much better “friend of the wealthy” than he is “father of a gay daughter”. If he were a good father to her, he would be using some of his power to try to change the anti-gay positions that pervade the Republican party, both platform and membership, and this administration’s policies.
You misunderstand. The “rich and famous”–which is what Mary Cheney is or most certainly will be–don’t need protections such as marriage. It is only us gay plebes who might benefit, and they have made it clear beyon peradventure that they don’t particularly care for gay plebes.
Certainly Mary Cheney doesn’t. Otherwise, why would she go to work for the Coors family, which has made it quite clear that they oppose equal rights for gay people?
Comment by raj — June 24, 2006 @ 9:30 am - June 24, 2006