There’s something about Mary Cheney that really riles up gay leftists. My short post linking Robbie’s most excellent post asking what that good woman has to do to earn the affection of gay activists attracted well over 170 comments. It seems that each participant in the thread put more effort into his comment than I did into the post.
I think Calarato may well be right when he suggested that:
the gay left’s hatred of Mary can be explained by their envy. . . . . Mary has a father who loves and supports her. Mary is out and proud, yet gets along with her family. Mary’s decision to be out, proud and pregnant has not cost her family’s love.
And I have long said that she has done more for gays than most activists. Merely living her life openly as a lesbian, she has helped change attitudes toward gay people. And now that her pregnancy has once again brought her into the news, she helps people see the real face of gay America, a bright, normal young woman in a committed relationship who wants to have and raise a child (just like bright, normal young straight women).
But, because of her prominence, gay activists want her to be something that she is not — an activist constantly promoting their causes. And because she does not meet the expectations that they have set for her, they fail to see what she has really accomplished.
Just a few hours ago, I defended Mary to a skeptical lesbian who, like so many other gay people, faulted the Vice President’s daughter for not doing enough. I reminded her of the example she sets and noted how her father has disagreed publicly with the president on one issue only since then-GOP nominee George W. Bush tapped him as his running mate in the summer of 2000 — gay marriage. But, she had not heard that the Vice President had spoken out against the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). She said that if he had done so, she would give him credit for doing that. (Now, all I have to do if provide her the link.)
It’s too bad more gay people can’t do as this woman appears willing to do, acknowledge that the Vice President had stood up against that pernicious proposal.
It saddens me that so many gay people remain unwilling to acknowledge that while Mary Cheney has not been an activist, her very circumstances have made it possible for conservatives to have a positive image of well adjusted, mature gay person living a normal life. When Hugh Hewitt gave her a full hour on his program last June, he not only provided a forum for this opponent of the FMA, but also introduced his conservative audience to a well-spoken lesbian, thus providing a better image of the real gay American to those accustomed to seeing us as caricatures.
It’s unfortunate that gay activists have little stomach for Mary Cheney. For, without even trying, she is doing their work for them — improving the image of gay people in America. Well, that is, unless they have a different agenda, like undermining conservative politicians and principles — and promoting left-wing policies.
Well, we want her to be even-handed: if she’s going to attack Wolf Blitzer for asking her father about FOF’s homophobic response to her pregnancy, then she ought to at least strongly condemn FOF for its nasty personal attack on her and her family. But no, she and her father give the homohater base of their party a pass just like they’ve always done.
Tisk tisk Ian. You seem to have missed the rest of the sentence since you basically just proved Dan’s point.
#2: I’m not asking her to promote any cause, I’m asking her to be consistent. If she and her father are not going to take FOF to task for its personal attack, then they ought not to criticize Blitzer for commenting on FOF’s attack. But, as usual, the rule of thumb appears to be IOKIYAR so FOF gets a pass and Blitzer gets a blast.
As I stated in my post(s) to the earlier comments regarding Mary, I don’t believe that she should be either vilified, nor idolized. She should be ignored.
Read the case of Sharon Bottoms. Or, read the cases of any average gay or lesbian people who, by sheer virtue of circumstance, had to make their personal, sexual, intimate, and family lives public and political in order to secure the most basic of rights.
In an ideal world, a world of perfect equal rights for gay and lesbian people, I think it would be just fine for Mary to claim that she doesn’t want her pregnancy to be public and political. But we don’t live in that world. So for her to claim that now, given current circumstances, I view her as a parasite. She uses the political capital gained by less fortunate victims (Sharon Bottoms being just one example) in order to hide under the moniker of “privacy.”
Of course, and quite predictably, gay “conservatives” will claim that I’m simply “envious” of Mary’s social position. (Which is ridiculous cosidering that, in terms of taxes, I’m in nearly the same income bracket as she.) This is an easy-out. Mary supports a political party that has consistently, since the 1980s, demonized gay and lesbian people and their lives in order to gain votes from their religious base. She sort-of aplogized for this in her “book” (somewhat poorly written in my opinion, but that’s another story), but it’s a little too late.
Thanks for listening!
–Chet
p.s. If you’re going to write in to claim that I’m a simple leftist or a socialist in favor of radical redistributions of our country’s wealth, or that I’m a Stalinist because I don’t like Mary, save it. I’m very interested in intellectually viable conservative thought (Francis Fukoyama, Bill Kristol, Niall Ferguson, Andrew Sullivan). But I’m not interested in hearing more jingoistic rantings from a “conservative” Echo Chamber.
Thanks!
I see. So consistant is the magic word.
OK, so are you consistant in denouncing John Kerry and Edwards and Hillary and Obama and Richardson etc. in their homophobic opposition to gay marriage? Or are you content to give the homohater base of your party a pass?
Read the case of Sharon Bottoms. Or, read the cases of any average gay or lesbian people who, by sheer virtue of circumstance, had to make their personal, sexual, intimate, and family lives public and political in order to secure the most basic of rights.
Ah, yes, again with Sharon Bottoms (emphasis mine).
In the present case, the record shows a mother who, although
devoted to her son, refuses to subordinate her own desires and
priorities to the child’s welfare. For example, the mother
disappears for days without informing the child’s custodian of
her whereabouts. She moves her residence from place to place,
relying on others for support, and uses welfare funds to “do” her
fingernails before buying food for the child. She has
participated in illicit relationships with numerous men,
acquiring a disease from one, and “sleeping” with men in the same
room where the child’s crib was located. To aid in her mobility,
the mother keeps the child’s suitcase packed so he can be quickly
deposited at the grandmother’s.
The mother has difficulty controlling her temper and, out of
frustration, has struck the child when it was merely one year old
with such force as to leave her fingerprints on his person.
While in her care, she neglects to change and cleanse the child
so that, when he returns from visitation with her, he is “red”
and “can’t even sit down in the bathtub.”
Unlike Doe, 222 Va. at 747, 284 S.E.2d at 805, relied on by
the mother, there is proof in this case that the child has been
harmed, at this young age, by the conditions under which he lives
when with the mother for any extended period. For example, he
has already demonstrated some disturbing traits. He uses vile
language. He screams, holds his breath until he turns purple,
and becomes emotionally upset when he must go to visit the
mother. He appears confused about efforts at discipline,
standing himself in a corner facing the wall for no apparent
reason.
Of course, this is the individual to which Chet previously referred as a “far better representative of the gay community than Mary”.
Or, in other words, gay leftists like Chet consider an abusive, irresponsible, neglectful, welfare mother to be exemplary and deserving of praise because she’s a lesbian.
Now I think I’m beginning to see why so many people have trouble with gays adopting — and why gays like Michigan-Matt, V the K, AND Mary Cheney had to jump through a tremendous amount of hoops to prove they weren’t like gay icon Sharon Bottoms.
#4 – Chet, your representation about your earlier comments is dishonest and misleading.
For the record, here is what you really said:
And:
Umm……. in what Orwellian world would that not be “vilification”?
Also: how would the following, from multiple heated comments in the earlier thread, not be envy?
I am of the opinion that dishonest behavior needs to face accountability. Sorry, Chet old boy.
Having said all that: I do consider it a positive advance that, in this thread, you have moved from a position of gross hatred, vilification and envy toward Mary, to one of now saying:
That is a small step forward, morally and spiritually, from what you had showed us before.
#4
She should be ignored.
You’re right. GOD FORBID we have a positive role-model type that some might see and decide it ain’t so bad. Anything to keep playing the victim card. Wouldn’t want to lose that, would you?
(sorry for formatting error – my second blockquote – second sentence was supposed to be white text, i.e. mine)
Chet: I made an answer to #4. It seems to be delayed in the spamfilter. As it concentrates on your ideas and words about Mary, I am hoping Dan will approve it; look for it tomorrow.
-You’re right. GOD FORBID we have a positive role-model type that some might see and decide it ain’t so bad.-
The problem is that Mary doesn’t want to be a role model. She has said she wants her life to be private.
This is why I can’t get behind a big Mary Cheney bandwagon. In 2000, and 2002, Mary was on the campaign trail for the GOP. In 2003 and 2004, when gays were being vilified and attacked politically, Mary didn’t have a word to say. Then in 2005, she decides to go around peddling a book.
Mary really doesn’t seem to be there when gays need her. That’s not a role model.
Dan, I think you’ve hit on the most salient explanation for why the GayLeftBorgTypes have such an intense animus toward Mary Cheney…
You write: “… she is doing their work for them — improving the image of gay people in America.”
There in lies the rub of it: it’s an image the GayLeftBorgTypes don’t approve of… conservative, Republican, stable family, prominent public servants, successful and living the American Dream.
I’m not sure it’s about victimhood. I’m not sure it’s about “lying in bed with “the enemy” –ala those evil, FMA-promoting GOPers. I’m not sure it’s even about blind allegiance to the GayLeftBorg’s sworn duty to carry the Democrat Party’s waterbuckets when requested.
I think it is because the image projected by Mary and the Cheney family’s acceptance of her is what irks the GayLeftBorg.
It flies in the face of a carefully crafted, decades-long image of gays as liberal, left-leaning, progressive trough feeding failures and still outside of the American Dream.
Can’t be –say the GayLeftBorgTypes here?
Well, it’s happened before and it happens repeatedly in America. Take the MSM liberally biased reaction to the startup of FoxNews… take the continued hegemony of IvoryTower EducationElites toward conservative professors or even conservative colleges… and the examples go on.
The problem is with the image that Mary Cheney projects. As the liberals over at DailyKos are fond of saying, “She isn’t one of us.”
#8 To distill it down a bit, she’s a Flamingo, pink on the outside but white/straight on the inside. Nothing worse that a race traitor.
“she helps people see the real face of gay America, a bright, normal young woman in a committed relationship “
Mary Claire Cheney (born March 14, 1969) .
“Young” might be just a little bit of a stretch. 😉
Ouch, BoBo… I wonder of the GayLeft even understands the basis of their hate?
VdaK… and the “real face of gayAmerica” is a bit of stretch too. That face is more like Rosie than Mary.
#5:
Yes. And I will go further: any of them who express support for passage of an amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage will never get my vote. In fact anyone of any party who expresses support for such an amendment to the US Contitution will never get my vote for any office. Can you promise the same?
Since Matt brings it up and since we’re talking the face of gay America, I think the low-brow Fox comedy The War at Home is touching on the subject with awesome un-PCness. Last night, the scene with the uptight straight father discussing safe sex with the gay teenager living with him was priceless.
My favorite joke was where the teenage daughter (Hillary) brought her blind boyfriend home just as the gay teenager was going upstairs. The gay teen basically says nothing more than “Hi, Hillary” and disappears. And then the blind kid asks, “Who’s the gay guy?”
From where I stand (or sit or lie down, depending) it seems pretty simple to me: if you’re gay –or black or Hispanic– and you cross the line into the region of the Right, there’s nothing you can do that’s…right. Nothing. It’s simply a matter of treason, because, as we all know, along with the gay gene and the melatonin in the skin and the Spanish language, comes the Democrat gene. To live otherwise is unnatural, ungrateful and deeply evil…so well, you’re just wrong. The rest is just chin-music.
if you’re gay –or black or Hispanic– and you cross the line into the region of the Right, there’s nothing you can do that’s…right
Particular and especial hatred may accrue to those who leave the socialist left’s plantation, but anyone on the right is a villain to the left. The left does not see the right as people with a difference of opinion, but as evil “Rethuglicans” and “Christo-fascists” and whatever other epithet they may hurl. A quick perusal of the uncensored comments of Silky Pony’s hired Blogskanks and their supporters will amply bear this out.
I believe that Americans of all stripes invest too much in symbols.
People seem to be arguing that Mary Cheney is merely this bright, normal person going about the business of her life, representing average bright, normal gay folk. Others seem to think her apparent comfort with her family betrays the rebellion they and many others experience with their families and that her credentials are thus suspect.
With her writing, her interviews, her connections, Cheney is making the most of her status. I certainly don’t hold this against her, but to claim that she’s merely a private citizen being thrust into the glare of publicity by forces far beyond her control is a bit of a stretch. While she may appear to me from the two interviews I’ve seen as reasonable, I in no way can pretend to fully understand her motivations any more than those of her detractors. She doesn’t represent me.
#11 ‘Mary really doesn’t seem to be there when gays need her. That’s not a role model.’
Carl, there is a big difference between an activist and a role model. I think you are confusing the two. An activist is someone who’s mission in life is to fight for a certain cause. A role model is someone who is living a normal life, and in doing so represents the values that others should emulate.
Mary never intended to be an activist. She probably never intended to be a national role model. But due to her family circumstances, she was thrown into the limelight. And now the gay activists claim that if she doesn’t tow their line – she is a traitor.
She unwittingly became a role model, and a very good one at that. She has probably helped change the minds of many a conservative. Will they suddenly be pro gay marriage? No, but many will now have a clearer picture of the gay community. Up until now, most Americans only know the gay community through it’s worst stereotypes. Others are being introduced to their gay neighbors and realizing that they are normal honorable citizens. That is what Mary, Heather and baby now are – the new neighbor, making a favorable impression on middle America.
To me that is much more important than screaming for ‘equal rights’.
It is only through gradually changing the hearts and minds of people will real change happen. Sorry it is going to take longer than gay activists want, but that is the only way to effect real change.
Yes. And I will go further: any of them who express support for passage of an amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage will never get my vote.
Not good enough, Ian.
As BoBo put it, “homophobic opposition to gay marriage”.
That includes, in your gay leftist lexicon, supporting state or Federal laws against same-sex marriage, supporting state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, and saying publicly that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
Let’s see you denounce them and state publicly that you will never vote for or support anyone who does any of those, because you consider all of those actions to be hateful, homophobic, and bigoted.
You can’t. And that’s because you aren’t against homophobia; you’re against Republicans.
VdaK, that’s a great send-up for arguing the “gay face in America” is pretty easy for most to discern and catalogue.
The beginning of that catalogue would start with “obvious, apparent.”
I think that’s one of the reasons why out gay guys HATE closeted gay guys so much… unless they’re good looking and it’s 2AM at the bar. It’s because the closeted guy is NOT obvious or apparent to most in society and gay guys –even those swimming in the shallow end of the “I’m Gay Pool”– are apparent even to those with their gaydar turned off. Have you ever heard anyone say “I didn’t know Andie Sullivan was gay”?
The universe’s black hole would implode on us if that happened.
HH, it’s kind of hard for any group in a media-commercialized & hyped market not to invest in symbols… threats to decades of branding and identity-marking is at the heart of the GayLeftBorg’s animus toward Mary Cheney.
You may think Americans invest too much in symbols… but how does that make any less credible the plea of Cheney to keep her private life, private. How many starlets from Hollywood try the “I don’t talk about my private life” line in order to avoid some fan mused question about who is the object of love, are they screwing the lead, etc?
It seems to me that Cheney has a right to say “No. That’s off limits.” and make it stick. It’d be different if she were running a RealityTV based show out of her home… but when did politics become a place where all privacy claims are suspect?
Oh, and Chet – FYI, in addition to #7 above –
Andrew Sullivan and others on your list of “conservatives” are “conservative” the same way Hugo Chavez and the Palestinian Authority are true believers in democracy. I.e., they’re not; but Cheney-haters, such as yourself, will promote them anyway because they say things you desire to hear, so as to confirm your own bias.
You would do well to drop the unbecoming accusations of others being in a echo chamber, Chet. (You, know, people in glass houses and all that 😉 )
Personally, I couldn’t care less what Mary is – except for the fact that others trash and attack her unfairly, show irrationality (or pretty big cognitive errors) in doing so, and twist even further when challenged.
In other words, I’m out here rubbernecking: watching the car wreck, 1/3 entertained, 1/3 concerned, 1/3 appalled.
but when did politics become a place where all privacy claims are suspect?
About the time America became a nation of voyeuristic Alice Kravitzs. My momma use to say, “Smart people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, stupid people talk about other people.”
Thought experiment. Suppose you were the only gay person in the world. Would the fact that there was only one of you diminish your humanity in any way? If you believe in the integrity of the individual, of course it wouldn’t. So, why can’t we just respect people as individuals instead of asserting some kind of community right to them? This notion that a person only has rights so long as he identifies with a group that has reached some sort of political critical mass is obscene and dehumanizing.
“So, why can’t we just respect people as individuals instead of asserting some kind of community right to them?”
Because, V the K, being gay is the only thing that most gay leftists have that is even remotely positive about them.
Take Sharon Bottoms. As an individual, she’s selfish, irresponsible, abusive, destructive, and welfare-dependent. As a lesbian, though, she’s worshiped by gay leftists as a heroine, a shining example of the “community”, for “standing up for her rights”.
As a white female, she wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting custody of her child; indeed, the gay left would likely point her out as an example of how horrible and irresponsible heterosexuals are as parents. But make her a lesbian, and suddenly they’re cheering for her and demanding that the authorities hand the kid over to someone who admits to beating him and whose own partner admits she has trouble controlling her temper.
Matt,
Last night, there was a vigil here in Seattle for Anna Nicole Smith. Yes, I actually believe that too many Americans invest way too much of their limited time and energy into representations of those individuals the media deem important or those who use the media to inflate their own importance.
There is a kind of gentleman’s agreement between the children of high-ranking politicians and the media, one that I support: While I’m in office, stay away from my kids. I can understand defending someone against unwarranted/unfair attack (and I agree that some of the attacks against Cheney I’ve read fit that description) and I am in firm agreement with her family for defending whatever privacy she claims commensurate with her own behavior (I believe this is an obligation of her family as well as a manifestation of their love for her). If Mary Cheney were trying to live a truly private life, I believe she would cut a very sympathetic figure. However, this is not what she is doing. She herself has contributed to the literal public discourse her life engenders; once she deliberately places herself directly in this discourse, she is no longer off-limits, however painful the slings and arrows of her enemies.
You say it’s hard for any group not to invest in symbols. I think that’s true for those who identify far too strongly with a group, however that group is defined. Such people are shallow. While I understand your use of the term ‘GayLeftBorg’ to describe leftist group-think amongst many (far too many) gay people, let’s not lose our objectivity and the individuality that is so important to conservatism. Let’s not create a GayRightBorg.
So which is it? Is Mary too gay and out? Or not out / not gay enough? Which?
You don’t leap to mind here, HardHobbit, as the worst offender in terms of trying to have it both ways. I’m asking in a general way. The contradiction would be more evident in the comments of some others.
Having said that: Your position is still appalling. Newsflash: The occasions of all this discussion is a woman’s pregnancy. I don’t care how “public” the woman has allegedly “chosen” to make herself: attacking a grownup woman on the occasion of her pregnancy is out of bounds, period. And that is what Focus on the Family has done. And, in effect, what the Gay Left has done. (They repeat FotF’s trash and make it clear that, for different reasons, they join FotF in disapproving of Mary.) And you have NOT done it, that I’ve seen. But, there you are justifying it implicitly.
(#28 – i.e., excusing or allowing for it)
Calarato — You are right about Sharon Bottoms. I’ve been writing the wrong name all along. She was an awful mother. The case I was thinking about is the case of Sharon Kowalski. She was disabled in (as I recall) a car accident, and her parents took her out of the custody of her partner of more than 10 years, claiming that being a lesbian made her an unfit caretaker. Her partner tried to regain custody of her in court but (again, as I recall) lost. Sorry I confused the names. I’ve read so many of these cases they are sometimes a jumble in my memory.
But, point being, there are a lot of other “role models” (the term someone used) out there besides Mary Cheney, who wants “privacy” for her and her baby and who, I suspect, would rather be a “role model” for jingoistic conservatives far more than a RM for the gay community. The gay couples of Baker v. Nelson, Baehr v. Lewin, Lawrence v. Texas, Singer v. Hara, DeSanto v. Barnsley, Coon v. Joseph, and I could go on — those people are my role models…average, everyday gay people who when faced with discrimination and inequality chose to stand up vocally, publicly, and politically to fight not only for their rights, but mine (and yours, and Mary’s).
That’s why Mary and others like her who scoff at “political” gays and lesbians and who enable a party that demonizes us are, as I stated, parasites. A parasite is simply someone who uses the hard work of others for their benefit, usually without any acknowledgment. I’d say that fits Mary Cheney perfectly, and if that “vilifies” her, so be it. But she’s the last person on earth I’m envy of or think of as a role model.
Sorry again about the mistaken reference.
–Chet
And I’d add to C’s comments the forced outing of GayGOP staffers on the Hill by men on the GayLeft… for simple partisan gain. Their privacy wasn’t revoked when they decided not to bow in allegiance to MikeRogers and the DNC.
I appreciate your points, HH. I don’t agree and I think, like C and others here –but mostly because of Veep and Mary’s comments– her pregnancy is no business of the FOF or Wolf or the GayLeft.
And, frankly, there is little chance of creating a GayRightBorg… as anyone who reads this blog regularly can attest. We often disagree with DannieBoi and that purse slinging Bruce and even between commenters of conservative persuasion.
The GayLeftBorg is real. It’s symbols are strong. Mary Cheney, like all gay conservatives or free thinkers, are a threat to the Borg because compliance, assimilation and watercarrying for the Democrats is required in order for the Borg to continue to spin and advance.
#26 – V da K, small correction. Her name was GLADYS Kravitz, not Alice. You’re probably thinking of her screen husband, Abner Kravitz.
You know: “AAAAAABNER! Mrs. Stephens is making the furniture float in the air! Come and see! Come and see!”
Abner: “Gladys, go take your pills.”
Which, incidentally, is the same advice I give to lower-case-libtrolls on this board. But I digress.
Don’t mess with a serious devotee of “Bewitched” like yours truly. I can still twich my nose if I have to.
Of course, if it really worked, it would have sent SanFranNan back to her home district and filled the Congress with 535 Republicans.
Regards,
Peter H.
I was actually thinking of Lenny Kravitz.
-It’s because the closeted guy is NOT obvious or apparent to most in society and gay guys –
Many closeted gay men are very apparent to society. Just look at how many people actually believed Liberace was straight. The reason for the resentment may be that if you stay in the closet, then people will always assume you are straight, even if you’re like that guy in Waiting for Guffman whose wife is never seen and you’re drooling over hot guys in your local theater production. If you’re openly gay, you are usually automatically condemned even if you do live a chaste, normal life. There are also times when closeted gay men feel a very strong need to put down gay men just to try to “prove” they aren’t gay. And yet when these men come out, suddenly they just love gays and want to be accepted.
-Mary never intended to be an activist. She probably never intended to be a national role model. But due to her family circumstances, she was thrown into the limelight. And now the gay activists claim that if she doesn’t tow their line – she is a traitor. –
Yes, but Mary campaigned in 2000 and 2002 as someone who wanted gays to join the GOP. Who said the GOP was inclusive. She helped form the Republican Unity Coalition. Then in 2003, when the attacks against gays started getting bad (during the “man on dog” era), she resigned from the RUC and vanished from the limelight. Then she comes back in 2005 with her book.
If she had maintained a private life all along, just a daughter in the shadows, then she probably wouldn’t be as disliked by some gays.
Carl, did you at least slow down to 45 mph on that drive-by?
You wrote: “how many people actually believed Liberace was straight.” Maybe 2… at best.
I am amazed at the number of str8 acting out gay guys who think no one knows they are gay… it’s a fiction. Most do know; it ain’t that hard. And, besides, the point was that OUT gay guys usually distain or outright loathe closeted gay guys because they aren’t apparent on the gaydar screen… something many in the OUT community wish they had access to… or at least the decoder ring.
You write: “If you’re openly gay, you are usually automatically condemned even if you do live a chaste, normal life.” Right; keep dreaming on the “usually”. As a gay male, partnered and a Dad to two boys, a conservative and GOPer, the only people who condemn me –usually– are the GayLeftBorgTypes.
For str8 couples, I am of no consequence.
In my church, as a gay male head of household, I am no different to those we interact with on Sunday and during the week at school than other parents.
Granted, I live in a liberal, progressive city that makes SF look provincial… but still, the only hatemongers I’ve run into lately are at PrideParades.
Nice try, but it don’t wash, Carl. OUT gay guys are, first and foremost, apparent. The shock value and drama can’t be underestimated for them as motivation.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I don’t understand the criticism against Mary Cheney. I’ll leave it up to her and her family to decide the amount of privacy she wants. When more Republicans, moderates, or even center left public gay people come out, only helps gay right, in my opinion. It dispels the myth that either all gays are extreme leftists who dance half-naked on pride parades, or that the only good gay person is the one who toes the religious right line, and quietly accepts second class citizenship.
So Cheney is certainly entitled to the privacy she desires. I do admit though it would help gay rights if she, and others in a similar position, speak out against groups like FoF to simply say they are wrong on gay parenting, and that Republicans should support gay couples who want children, as well as other gay rights. In a couple of months, though, the story will be on the backburner, and the myth that I described above will continue. But Cheney did her part, and if others like her continue to come out, it will continue to marginalize those who hold the views that FoF does.
And for the record, Carl… the issue of Mary Cheney’s privacy about her pregnancy isn’t related to her professional activities in the political arena… those activities are her profession. It doesn’t mean she has to open up all aspects of her personal life to inspection by drooling journalists like Wolf Blitzer… just so he can bait and sell his show?
Come on.
Save the outrage for the pass that your brethen on the GayLeft give to Anderson Cooper –Mr 180 degrees… question about being gay, turn and run in the opposite directions. Mr 180 degrees.
#39:
Well, I think she pretty much decided that when she published her autobiographical book that discusses her family including her partner, wouldn’t you say? Writing that book in which she attacks Kerry and Edwards for daring to refer to her as a lesbian and then subsequently donning the mantle of privacy when questioned would seem to me to be the epitome of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Very good point, Ian.
–Chet
“It’s unfortunate that gay activists have little stomach for Mary Cheney.”
LOL. I think it is more unfortunate that the Cheney’s have done so little for gay folks in general. Of course they love their duaghter/sister. That means nothing for the movement. Absolutely nothing.
And I don’t hate here–I just think she is pathetic. But I will be having a yearly birthday party for her kid starting on the day she or he is born and each year afterwards. We’ll read passages from Lynne Cheney’s fabulous novels, shoot each other in the face, and say “that’s completely out of line” all evening. It will be the beginning of a cult of Cheney. God bless all of them.
The shock value and drama can’t be underestimated for them as motivation.
True that.
41, I don’t deny that Cheney is “having her cake and eating it too.” If that’s the case, then I guess I really don’t care. I didn’t read her book, but I think her criticism of Kerry and Edwards was not that they referred to her as a lesbian, but that bringing it up was a political ploy, and in my opinion, it was. I have stated in the past that both sides played politics with the gay issue, and that I thought the Cheneys’ response on this issue was hypocritical and one-sided, and still feel that way. Nonetheless, there is no shortage of hypocricy on both sides of the aisle.
I sometimes view Mary Cheney as an ‘Uncle Tom’. Sacrificing her own rights to perpetuate the plantation existence of gays in America. Simply existing is not enough. If simply being out and proud were enough, gays would have had equal rights a long time ago.
Please tell us, Elais, how she is sacrificing her rights? And how she is an ‘Uncle Tom’? When has she defended discrimination against gays? And note how her father has spoken out against the FMA. But, when those on the left are evaluating conservatives, facts don’t really matter, it’s only your prejudices against us which count. –Ed.
Pat, on that very point about Kerry/Edwards bringing up Mary’s sexual preference as a way to stoke some fire under the religious right and social conservatives and possibly cause disaffections from the Bush/Cheney camp… none of the GayLefties here –like Ian, Chet or keogh– thought it untoward for one of their heroes to use being gay as a badge of dishonor.
It was sly, mean spirited, and turned on all gays as ones who should be ashamed… while uttering words that wouldn’t betray Kerry/Edwards’ true conviction: that gays are a tool for partisan manipulation.
With friends like that… do we really need enemies?
#47:
The only people who regard “being gay as a badge of dishonor” are those in control of the Republick party to which you continue to give your vote and your money.
-Granted, I live in a liberal, progressive city that makes SF look provincial… but still, the only hatemongers I’ve run into lately are at PrideParades.-
I think this says it all. You live in a very liberal city. The dreaded, horrible “gay left” helped to make that city a place where people can tolerate you. Many gays are not as lucky. Many straight people continue to assume someone is straight unless that person is out there in public toilets (see Clay Aiken). To them, homosexuality is something so uncomfortable that they just don’t want to ever admit anyone they might know or be close to is that way, or is around people they know. You mention being a father. All the time we hear about gay parents who are shunned or treated poorly by the other parents when they find out the child has gay parents.
-And, besides, the point was that OUT gay guys usually distain or outright loathe closeted gay guys because they aren’t apparent on the gaydar screen-
I think that’s wishful thinking. You claim that straight-acting gay guys are hard to buy once they’re out. Yet you think that they’re easier to buy as long as they stay in the closet. Is Sean Hayes believable as a straight man because he’s not out?
The reason that many openly gay men resent closeted gay men is because closeted gay men often enable bigotry and punish homosexuals to try to hide their own shame. Do you think that the gays and lesbians who were persecuted in the 50’s were jealous of Roy Cohn because he was so believable as a heterosexual stud? I doubt it.
-It doesn’t mean she has to open up all aspects of her personal life to inspection by drooling journalists like Wolf Blitzer… just so he can bait and sell his show?-
You mean “inspection” like congratulating her father on the pregnancy? If she didn’t want such horrible treatment, then publicly announcing the pregnancy was sort of a mistake, wasn’t it? Why is this considered shameful?
-Save the outrage for the pass that your brethen on the GayLeft give to Anderson Cooper –
I haven’t exactly seen the gay right being all that critical of him either.
Clay Aiken got busted in a public toilet? When?
That’s news to me. The only other “seemingly straight to the American public” (yeah, right) star caught “inflagrante delecto” in the john was George Michael.
Regards,
Peter H.
47, Michigan-Matt, although I’m convinced that Kerry used the Mary Cheney comment as a political ploy, I don’t know if he meant it as being gay as a badge of dishonor. He definitely wanted to put Bush on the spot to either say that being homosexual was okay, and then anger the religious right, or say that it wasn’t okay, and make the Republicans look like anti-family, or what he probably predicted was that they would try to ignore it to avoid either of the above, but get it out there for everyone to see. It kind of reminded me of Absence of Malice. Paul Newman pulls a stunt, that on its face was totally innocent. But he knew it would set off a firestorm. And what he predicted would happen, did happen.
Kerry’s statement was, if you throw away the political and any other external meanings, was complimentary towards Mary Cheney. But he knew how people would react, and so he saw it as a situation that would make Republicans uncomfortable, partly because it involved Cheney, but more so that they do not want to address how gay persons should be treated in the country, and in the Republican Party. I wouldn’t have had any issue with Kerry’s point if he didn’t use Cheney as a pawn. I think he had every right to bring the issue of gay rights, and attitude towards gay persons to Bush.
We also did see during the debate how Bush sidestepped the issue by pulling the “we are all sinners” crap. Although no one that I know was bothered by it, I was much more offended by that than by Kerry’s statement. To me Bush’s answer was as bad as saying “we all have our crosses to bear” in response to “do you believe ethnic group X is inferior?” And it got him out of taking a real stand on the issue. I am also convinced that Bush personally does not believe that homosexuality is a sin, that sexual orientation is not chosen, and that gay persons are wrongly and unfairly denigrated by the religious right. But he chose not to say so. So gay people are pawns to both political parties, in my view.
-Clay Aiken got busted in a public toilet? When?-
I meant to type George Michael there, thanks. As for Clay, there have been a series of webcam photos released of him talking to people; the people say they talked to him at gay sex websites. His fans just say the whole thing is a lie. Over and over.
Ian (48), you missed the central point and that is you and your pals overlooked the use of an individual’s gayness by your own Party’s hero/leader and it doesn’t bother you at all… I wonder if you really can see past the GayLeftBorg’s mandate: What is good for the Democrats is good for gays?
You’ve made the point repeatedly that GOPers view homosexuals as evil, bad, sinners, abnormal, etc. We can disagree on that uninformed opinion but the truth you jumped over is that Kerry and Edwards used Mary Cheney’s sexual preference as a tool to divide GOPers because they think there’s something inherently wrong with being gay. Just like, despite all the nonsense about supporting the troops, they dislike and distrust and (in Kerry’s case, clearly despise) the military.
I think it’s more telling that you can’t get beyond the GayLeftBorg spin on this issue. Pull away from the tubes, detach and think on your own… you can do it Ian. The Borg will continue to spin without your blind loyalty and submission.
Carl (49), you write: “You mention being a father. All the time we hear about gay parents who are shunned or treated poorly by the other parents when they find out the child has gay parents”
Actually Carl, the people that I’ve been mostly shunned by are GayLeft single men and politically radical gay couples who see the family my partner and I are building and nuturing as a sell-out to their sense of true gay identity. Like I wrote, most str8 parents I interact with don’t see any consequence to us being Dads or raising a family… so you’ll have to rework your fallacious reasoning a tad. Sorry.
On the point about Blitzer bringing up Mary Cheney’s pregnancy as some sensitive, caring moment amongst Dads taking delight in a new grandchild… Right. If you think that was the motive of Blitzer’s stunt, then Blitzer should have been apologetic when Veep Cheney said the matter was outside of bounds… in fact, Blitzer used the FOF perception as a link to his “congratulations on being a grandfather”… come on, Carl, get real. It was another example of a stunt by the very liberal drive-by journalists at CNN to snark the Veep… and it didn’t matter to them if they had to use a gay couple’s children to do it.
I think what really pisses off the GayLeftBorg is that Veep Cheney had the balls to determine and say what was and wasn’t appropriate… instead of caving to the liberal MSM and fluffing a response.
#52 – So Carl, you must either (a) believe in guilt before proven innocence or (b) because Clay is considered less lefty than other Hollywood types, he needs to be outed?
Enlighten me on your thinking, please.
Regards,
Peter H.
LOL. (Matt, thanks for who you are!)
LOL again. 🙂 Yup. All the dads I know quote FOCUS ON THE FAMILY ATTACK PIECES when sharing those special, caring and sensitive moments with the other dads.
In my view, an Uncle Tom used to be a term for a person who behaves subserviently to whites. In one sense, Mary Cheney was subservient to the Republican party when she helped to get Bush and Cheney elected and re-elected. Betraying the cause of equality for gays and lesbians. What, exactly, has Mary Cheney gained as far as rights? Nothing as far as I can tell. She appears to live in some kind of bubble, protected from the harsh realities of millions of gays/lesbians because she has the protection of her father.
Her father has spoken out against the FMA, but does anyone believe him? What rights does Cheney want for his daugher? Why isn’t he advocating civil unions? Doesn’t he want his daughter to have the same protections as he and his wife enjoy as a married couple? All he talks about his how wonderful it is to have a new grandchild. His joy is all about HIM, not Mary or her partner.
It’s not enough to say you oppose something, and then sit on your hands and do nothing. It seems to me Mary Cheney thinks that her mere existence as a lesbian is enough to turn the tide of Gay-hating Republicans into giving her basic rights that everyone else has. If that worked, then African-American’s would have gotten equal rights a long time ago. Women would have gotten equal rights a long time ago. It is not merely enough to simple exist as a member of a minority and speak. You actually have to DO something otherwise you will never get it. You can’t get equality sitting on your ass. What as Mary Cheney actually done besides bleat that she doesn’t like FMA or other anti-gay legislation? What policies, bills has she actively encouraged the Republican party to adopt? What is she doing to change of the thinking that leads to Sen. ‘Man On Dog’ Santorum or Sen. ‘Box Turtle’ Cornyn?
How can Gay Republicans fight effectively if the Republican Party doesn’t lift a finger to help one of their own?
Elais,
We all have a role to play in attaining equality. Some are activists. Some are politicians. Some protest in the streets. Some rant and rave on blogs, in publications, and on the air. Some throw themselves into political parties and whatever promise that holds.
But most people just live their lives, demonstrating that we’re more alike than different, and that, in time, over generations, is what will win us equality in the end … far more than all of the efforts of us politicians, activists, and talkers.
Dave K.
In my view, an Uncle Tom used to be a term for a person who behaves subserviently to whites. In one sense, Mary Cheney was subservient to the Republican party when she helped to get Bush and Cheney elected and re-elected. Betraying the cause of equality for gays and lesbians.
Don’t make me laugh.
Do you know what John Kerry said about his position on gay “equality” in the 2004 election?
The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position.
Which he proved, again and again, with his pushing to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts, his support of state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and his repeatedly saying that gay marriage was wrong and that bans on it were justified.
Meanwhile, as I pointed out elsewhere, gay leftist Democrats were running Kerry’s campaign and pumping tens of millions of dollars into it, money taken away from campaigns fighting the antigay intiatives that Kerry supported, all while screaming that Kerry was “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Now watch as Elias starts to spin, explaining why bans on gay marriage, supporting constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights, and whatnot are not homophobic when Democrats do it – and that gay staffers of Democrats who are against gay equality are not “Uncle Toms”, even though they support homophobes.
Dave K Would that have worked for women? That by simply living their lives, that would have won over men and men would have granted women the right to vote? Don’t make me laugh. Women would still not have the right to vote today if that was what all it took. I don’t want to wait until my great-grandchildren are born before a smigden of rights are bestowed on gays/lesbians. It shouldn’t take GENERATIONS for all of us to be given equal rights.
North Dallas Thirty So that’s your response? Demonize ‘gay leftist Democrats’. Mary Cheney was campaigning on behalf of her father. She specificially said in her book, I believe, that she sacrificed pushing gay rights for other issues. When will Mary get a chance to advance her own rights? Once she made herself subservient to the right-wing homophobic agenda, she made it that much harder for herself, her child and her partner.
Homophobic is homophobic, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum. Now try to spin all that Republicans have done to advance gay rights. As I recall Republicans are the primary movers and shakers with all the banning and whatnot, or do you bury your head in the sand and ignore what Republicans are doing to ensure gays/lesbians don’t exist legally? A version of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’? Don’t ask what your Reublican leaders are doing for gay rights and they won’t tell you they are doing squat?
Are you just gonna spew right-wing bigotry against Democrats? You’re not a self-hating gay are you?
NDXXX, you need to be more careful… when guys like Elias write: “Are you just gonna spew right-wing bigotry against Democrats? You’re not a self-hating gay are you?” I’ve found they’re only seconds away from knocking you down, rifling your wallet, grabbing your GayCard and tearing it up in front of the crowd of onlookers.
You need to be afraid; be very afraid.
Elais, I’m more in the middle when it comes to the issue of supporting candidates for gay rights with votes and money. Some people will blindly support one party because they are generally apparently better on gay rights then the other. The others will say that both parties have at least one anti-gay stance, so they are equally bad, and neither worthy of support.
My view has been that the Democrats are, in general, better than the Republicans on gay issues. There are exceptions, like Robert Byrd, who is probably worse than Bush on gay issues. Further, most Democrats do have at least one anti-gay stance, such as opposing gay marriage or failing to endorse some comparable non-separate but equal form of legal relationship status. In subsequent elections, the Democratic candidate for President have steadily moved towards gay equality. Even Clinton, despite signing DADT and DOMA was more pro-gay than his predecessors. Bush, wanted to go further than DOMA, and certainly has not proposed dropping discrimination totally from the military. Kerry voted against both, and has endorsed civil unions. Whether or not you call Kerry pro-gay or not is semantics at this stage. But he was clearly less anti-gay than Bush.
I’ve had no problem with gay organizations supporting Kerry on the basis of gay rights, and giving money to him. However, they should have made it clear that he was not for total equality. They should have said something like “We conditionally endorse Kerry, because we believe that gay rights will advance, and that he is much better than his opponent on gay issues. However, we are disappointed that he not only opposes gay marriage, but has actively supported state anti-gay amendments. We hope in the near future that we can endorse a major candidate who is for equality.”
What has happened as a result of the 2004 and 2006 election was that Democrats believe that they have had to regress a bit on gay rights. The Democratic candidates from the 2006 election have been less supportive of gay rights than the candidates of the 2004 election. And it looks like with the current crop of Democratic candidates for President, that they are not going to be more progressive on gay rights than Kerry, and in most cases, more anti-gay. Further, individual candidates themselves are becoming more anti-gay in their stances. This is unfortunately, also true for Republican candidates (see John McCain). So I will be more cautious in giving support to any candidate, especially if gay organizations don’t take a stand and speak out against ANY candidates anti-gay positions.
Are you just gonna spew right-wing bigotry against Democrats? You’re not a self-hating gay are you?
How, exactly, is quoting precisely what John Kerry said and what gay leftist Democrats were doing on his campaign, with links to prove it, “spewing right-wing bigotry”?
You claim to believe that “homophobic is homophobic”.
Prove it.
Say that John Kerry was homophobic and that Democrats like him who oppose gay marriage are homophobic — and that gay staffers who work for them, gay voters like yourself who support them, and gay organizations who give money to them are supporting homophobia.
I daresay that, instead of following through, you’ll just try another diversionary attack, whining about how Republicans are allegedly building and want to send every gay person to concentration camps.
North Dallas Thirty I doubt Republicans (other than Dobson and Pat Robertson) want to exterminate Gays, gays are already going to hell according to them.
Kerry stated he and Bush had the same ‘fundamental’ belief about equality. I said homophobic is homophobic, regardless if you’re a Bush-lover or a Kerry-lover. I’m no Kerry apologist. You go on about ‘gay leftist Democrats’ while nary saying word about ‘gay rightist Republicans’ who aren’t exactly good and pure and holy themselves. It’s like we’re in some kind of race to the bottom on who is the worst on gay rights. You bitch about Democrats, I do the same for Republicans.
Michigan-Matt I’m a girl, just so you know. Violence does not appeal to me, never has, never will. But on the net, even a milquetoast can become a fire-breather. I am a proud lefty, bleeding heart liberal and I do get dander up seeing a blog called ‘Gay Patriot’ attack Democrats and the blog commentors who heartily add their voices to the anger-choir. That’s why I like moderate or centrist blogs, rather than the strident left-wing/right-wing blogs., it keeps my blood pressure low.
Pat There are always those who follow the party line with blinkers, be it Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian or Communist party. I’m from South Dakota and I see that in action too often. Many people had to vote for either Bush or Kerry while holding their noses.
Of the two top Democratic contenders, Obama and Clinton, they appear to be left of Kerry on gay rights issues. Kerry just came across as pandering to me when he made that statement about marriage. I think Clinton herself has changed her view on same-sex marriage and I wouldn’t be surprised if she comes out in support of gay marriage or at least civil unions or other forms of marriage. Guiliani is the Republican front-runner so far, and he appears to be leftist when it comes to gay rights, but he might abandon that if he feels he needs support from the social conservative. Romney and Huckabee have pretty much declared their stance, but I don’t know if they will win the magic middle since they have taken pretty harsh stands. TIF all they have to offer the voter is support for ‘traditional marriages’, it doesn’t bode well for their chances outside of a certain wing of the Republican party. Either candidate might wind up being a Republican version of Kerry, not exactly winning the hearts and minds of moderates. However, all this might be pissing in the wind, and that a particular stance on gay rights will wind up at the very bottom of what issues the people will be concerned with in 2008. When it comes to the 2008 elections, every candidate will no doubt wiggle out of whatever stance they took to some degree. I see Guiliani being the one who changes his tune the fastest.
-Actually Carl, the people that I’ve been mostly shunned by are GayLeft single men and politically radical gay couples-
Considering you live in a liberal area, I’m not surprised you aren’t getting a negative reaction from conservatives. From what you said, I’m not sure there are many around there. While I’m sad that you face this reaction, that doesn’t change my point about how many times gay parents face an ugly reaction from “concerned” straight parents. You may be upset at how gays treat you, but they aren’t going to schools to complain about students finding out gays exist, or if a teacher is gay, or if a gay parent wants to participate in classroom activities.
Since you choose to live in that area, obviously the gay left doesn’t bother you all that much. This is why people sometimes have a hard time taking gay conservatives seriously, Matt. You take all the opportunities that gay liberals have given by helping to create this nice place to live, yet you act like they are just too much for you to bear.
-If you think that was the motive of Blitzer’s stunt, then Blitzer should have been apologetic when Veep Cheney said the matter was outside of bounds…-
The problem with this is that Mary Cheney publicly announced her pregnancy. There was no reason for Wolf Blitzer to be apologetic about something she wanted all of America to know about. Dick Cheney released a statement at that time saying he was happy to have another grandchild. He didn’t say “asking my opinion is out of bounds.” So for it to suddenly be out of bounds when he goes on a talk show – sorry, but that doesn’t work for me.
-because Clay is considered less lefty than other Hollywood types, he needs to be outed?-
Clay isn’t exactly a Hollywood type. He also isn’t very conservative.
Mary Cheney did no such thing.
Try reality.
Mary Cheney, the vice president’s openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are “ecstatic” about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.
In short, the WaPo gossip column broadcast the news, and the Cheney’s spokesperson responded when asked a question. Gay leftists and Democrats started spinning the lie that Mary (or the Vice President) had put out a press release announcing it as a means of backing up their whining that she and the Vice President were “hypocrites” for telling Wolf Blitzer where to stick it.
So Cheney’s spokesman did respond. In other words, he was fine with talking about the matter.