Bringing up Cheney's daughter's sexuality- Page 4

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/14/04 at 5:13pm

PJ,

Just as an FYI, two different couples that I'm friends with split up in the last couple of years because the husband was gay. It's not just something that happened in the 70's.

EDITED to say: does this post sound snippy? I really don't mean it to be. Just to state that his example isn't as outdated as some of us would hope.

Updated On: 10/14/04 at 05:13 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/14/04 at 5:16pm

"my partner and I are entitled to EVERY SINGLE RIGHT a heterosexual couple has."

BUT if you get a marriage license, then you have all that stuff.

So, why ISN'T the word important?

Under current laws, if you (anybody) gets married in one state then other states recognize that just like they recognize your driver's license from out of state.

Now if you get a "partnership" license from a state and go to another state then they can ignore it.

SO... I thought the whole point of the issue WAS the word "marriage"

Like I've said before, you wanna get married, then get married.

[BT]

Posted: 10/14/04 at 5:17pm

I agree PalJoey - in fact, tomorrow my partner and I celebrate 10 years together. We are registered as domestic partners here in DC, not that it does much good, but I have a nice certificate. I know some folks on the Kerry campaign and they assure me that he does really believe in giving gay couples rights, it is not just rhetoric. I'm looking forward to the day when my certificate means a bit more.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/14/04 at 5:17pm

robbie, you f***ing homewrecker!

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/14/04 at 5:18pm

Never let it be said that I don't do my bit for the Gay Agenda:

CONVERSION

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/14/04 at 5:20pm

Rodney - quite honestly, that's the reason we are staying in California for the forseeable future. What we have may only be good here, but it is available to us as long as we stay - so here we are.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/14/04 at 5:54pm

Rodney, all I can say is it's much more complicated than your simplification, which I'm guessing is just an attempt to drive a wedge between "the gays" and John Kerry. The institution of marriage--and the sanctity of it--are simply not my agenda.

The right to tell my bf's alcoholic bitch of a mother that he wants ME in the hospital room with him and not HER--THAT's my agenda. The tax benefits that married couples have--THOSE are my agenda. Rights of survivorship, parenting rights--THOSE are my agenda.

That's why I'm comfortable with Kerry's support. Plus I think he would be open to a dialogue if the next generation of gays decided they wanted the word marriage. George Bush is so far from "open for dialogue" that he's promising bigots a bogus constitutional amendment.

And hey, BT! Congrats on 10 years! We just passed ours in April.

Updated On: 10/14/04 at 05:54 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/14/04 at 6:01pm

BUT

If you were MARRIED you'd have all those things.

It just seems simplier to me.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/14/04 at 6:30pm

When I watched it last night I was not aware that Cheney's daughter was a lesbian, not that it matters to me... but I'm suprised that Cheney is still in the race w/ Bush who's anti-gay marriage and all. It seems that Cheney's completely dropping all of his family love and possibly morals (if he is accepting to his daughter) to be in this election. It's repulsive to think that he would want to continue to try to fight against gay marriage and completely push his daughter off to the side.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 9:41am

They hysteria continues. Particularly silly are the "parental" cries by wounded Lynn about Kerry not being a nice man. Suddenly, this is the litmas test for "character" -- mentioning Mary being a dyke? Pu-leeze. Of course, it's yet another distraction -- not just from Iraq and the economy, but W's lackluster performance. Even if you think the dudes tied, it's a 3rd no win for Bush. This shoves shouts of "3 out of 3" off the front page. Big (yawn) surprise.

What does surprise me is the number of gay friends who are put off by Kerry's use of Mary. One activist pal in LA told me he thought it cheesey exploitation -- the Democrats trying to play the gay card, to somehow get the right wing base to hold the lesbian daughter AGAINST the Cheney's. I dunno, that's just a strategy tucked intside a strategy--too oblique for me. How manhy people out there went "Ohmygod, the VP has a lesbian kid! He must've MADE HER THAT WAY, SO HE'S A BAD MAN!" I can't picture a Democratic strategy session comin' up with that concept.

My favorite, far more compelling view of all this was a letter in the Times today, which basically said how DARE a President who wants to change the constitution over gay issues not have an opinion on whether homosexuality is a choice? He came at it from a different entirely ethical issue -- i.e. that a consttution-altering policy deserves some powerful THINKING.
Forget homophobia -- this whole matter is just further proof that this president makes decisions and takes action without bothering to ponder the very core issues that impact it. Invading Iraq or blocking gay marriage -- both decisions were made without being adequately explored.

[rlbgbc]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 9:50am

I haven't seen so much smokescreen-blowing since the opening night of PHANTOM. It's ridiculous -- and the funny thing is, why are the Repubs wasting so much time promoting this purported "outrage"? I think the majority of the country could care less. Mary Matalin's appearance on CNN was pretty funny this morning -- she was doing her best to try to summon up moral outrage -- but it came across like Susan Lucci trying to cry in a scene. Despite her best efforts, it just wasn't happenin'.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 10:01am

Rodney - I'll take what I can get. Personally, I want and need the rights of marriage, not the word. If I can get it all under civil unions , I'll take it. Kerry supports gay civil unions.

Bush on the other hand not only wants the word marriage "protected" by raping the Constitution, he is also against gay civil unions.


On a side note I also want to add my congrats on 10 years to BT and PalJoey.

This coming April 1st (Isn't that a great anniversary day, April Fools! Very appropriate) my partner and I will celebrate our 20th.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 10:06am

i'm kinda partial to the video clip shown in the following. wonder if he'll do a follow up on the final debate. you can just ignore the text if you like and skip down to the video link.

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/damning-with-faint-praise.html

[rlbgbc]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 10:12am

Papa, that IS hilarious.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 10:16am

I still feel that as long as the Republicans want to tout their bigoted viewpoint, it is useful to point out that they are willing to take that stand at the expense of their own family members. It speaks to the priority system they have, and shows it as hypocritical, considering the 'family values' they like to scream about.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 10:17am

off-site link didn't work for me, I'll try again at home this evening if I remember.

"...but I'm suprised that Cheney is still in the race w/ Bush who's anti-gay marriage and all. It seems that Cheney's completely dropping all of his family love and possibly morals..."

Again, one doesn't have to agree with EVERYTHING the candidate stands for. I'm for Bush and I don't care about the marriage issue and I'm FOR stem-cell research. So that answers that question

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 10:23am

This is a total non-issue. The Republicans are just annoyed that the Democrats brought up Mary's homosexuality as a POSITIVE, when for decades the Republicans have been using it as a negative.

DID YOU KNOW THAT: During the McCarthy era, more people lost their jobs for being homosexual than for being Communist?

Well, suck it in, Republicans. From now on, you ain't gonna even be able to be NOMINATED unless you haul at least ONE queer relative onstage with you!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 10:27am

"During the McCarthy era, more people lost their jobs for being homosexual than for being Communist?"

That's an interesting statistic and I belive it to be true. Where'd ya get it? (not attacking, just curious)

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 11:10am

from CNN QuickVotes last night:

Do you think Sen. John Kerry went too far when he mentioned VP Dick Cheney's gay daughter in Wednesday's debate?

Yes -- 36% -- 3805 votes

No -- 64% -- 6694 votes

Total: 10499 votes

This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein.

===

And Rodney, if you're REALLY interested in the horrible things that happened to gay and lesbian Americans during the McCarthy era, I recommend historian David K. Johnson's THE LAVENDER SCARE: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government, published by the University of Chicago Press.

Updated On: 10/15/04 at 11:10 AM

[ckeaton]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 11:29am

The Republicans are just annoyed that the Democrats brought up Mary's homosexuality as a POSITIVE

I just saw it brought up. He didn't say anything positive about Miss Cheney, just that she WAS. It was neither positive OR negative.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 11:53am

Well, maybe if you were gay or lesbian, you would see that what Kerry did was HIGHLY positive. I quote from the SF Gate article:

====

The fuss began when Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney during Wednesday night's debate in his reply to a question, "Do you think homosexuality is a choice?"

After Bush replied, "I don't know. I just don't know," and urged the need for tolerance, Kerry replied that "we're all God's children."

"And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian," Kerry continued, "she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

Neither [Cheney] parent explained what Kerry did that was offensive -- Mary Cheney has long been out as a lesbian, has been a member of a Republican gay-straight alliance, and reportedly earns $100,000 for being a top adviser to her father's campaign.

Their reactions prompted Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards, to say that Lynne Cheney "overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences."

====

That article also quotes the openly lesbian daughter of Dick Gebhardt, who proudly spoke of her many times during his campaign:

=====

"I'm not angry at Mary Cheney, I'm angry with the way they've handled her," said Chrissy Gephardt, the 31-year-old daughter of Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., an unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic nomination. Out since 2001, she called Mary Cheney last summer, as one gay political daughter to another. Cheney never called back.

"You never hear Bush or Cheney even say the word 'lesbian,' " Gephardt said. "It's like it's a dirty word. When John Kerry said the word 'lesbian' in the debate, it probably made their toes curl."

====
Debate flap: Kerry hit for mentioning Cheney's gay child

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 12:00pm

But Christopher,

To say that someone just IS, and not made by a domineering mother or child molester or, as many people wish to believe, not chosen, is a positive.

Do you have any idea how many Americans still believe it is a choice? He was saying that God (who everyone believes just hates us queers) actually took the time to create human beings with the capacity to love another person of the same gender. It's not only positive, it's practically sanctifying it.

I think what they're most pissed about it they took this notion of 'Aren't the Cheney's wonderful people. They actually LOVE their daughter!' and took the fangs out of it. Kerry made it seem that loving your gay or lesbian child is just the right thing to do, instead of some noble cross to bear.

Can you believe that in 2004, this is a subversive idea???

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 12:03pm

I don't think that the Cheney's are especially embarrassed OR proud of their daughter. I think the whole thing is a political smoke-screen. An attempt to divert attention away from how well Kerry did in the debates, and the fact that most polls show him having won all three. It's nothing more than an attempt to DISTRACT. Look at what went on in Iraq just yesterday. But here we are talking about Kerry's mention of Cheney's lesbian daughter during the debate. What other issue, by it's mere mention, would create this much controversy? It's not like he said anything negative about her or her lifestyle. On the contrary, his comments were positive. He just mentioned matter of factly that she was a lesbian. What is there to be upset, ashamed, embarrassed, or angry about? What a load of horsesh*t!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 12:46pm

Robbiej rather more succinctly states here what I've been blathering about for 2 days. The Cheneys are acting like the beleagured parents of a "problem" child, whom only they have permission to exploit (when they want "sympathy" for thier supposed plight). It's what I meant about the Laura Wingfield approach -- they get to be loving parents of a "cripple".

Elizabeth Edwards nailed this angle, but as Robbie painfully notices, Bush exploited the narrow fundamentalist take. Why isn't the country more appalled that the leader of the free world is about 50 years behind in terms of basic knowledge of human behavior? Why don't some prominent psychiatrists come out and DENOUNCE Bush's dangerous remarks for the shamefully uninformed position that they represent?!. Folks, if he'd said he didn't know if the world really had been created in 7 days -- mythology from the same mindset -- we'd be more united in our outrage.

The only "choice" is the big one in this damned election. I've never seen people exploit ignorance and narrowness as its been done here.

Updated On: 10/15/04 at 12:46 PM

[ckeaton]

Posted: 10/15/04 at 1:39pm

Can you believe that in 2004, this is a subversive idea???

(I realize that I asked the initial question... mainly to spark constructive dialogue...BUT)

I think that the fact that this is even an issue in a "modern" society is quite indicitive of where we are in history. There will be a time in the future, soon I imagine, where our children look back on this period much akin to the way we now look back at racial segregation of the 50s and 60s. A sort of "head shaking sorrow", that our predecessors couldn't see the light of equality. We've discussed it before, but I can feel that evolution happening right beneath us, through us... in fact.