I believe that there are undoubtedly some things that lissener and Sol Grundy, and for that matter jthunder and Tomndebb, do in their lives, that would constitute “sin” under God’s definitions. However, I believe that it is none of my fucking business whether or not they are ‘sinning’ under my or anybody else’s definitions, so long as they are not causing objective and verifiable harm to another in doing so.
And I believe that people who think that they have a license to regulate the living of other people’s lives – with obvious and clear exceptions relating to force and coercion – are violating the principles of responsible freedom on which this country was founded.
I’m seeing the Cheney family caught in a bind, and doing their best to work their way through it, given the public attitudes that are so polarized at present.
And I refuse to judge what Sol or apos or Lib ought to be doing in their lives, as if I had some great authority or insight not vouchsafed to them – and I extend the same refusal to judge to Dick, Lynne, Liz, and Mary Cheney.
First off I’d like to thank Poycarp for his kind remark.
Secondly I’d like to respond to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer link that Poly offered regarding Mary Cheney
I take issue with the suggestion that Mary’s support of her father borders on betrayal towards the gay community. In fact, the way I see it (as I touched on before) the Cheneys will have provided a positive impact for gay rights by behaving just as they are. Please bear with me for a moment.
The gay community has made major advancements in the past towards recognition as legitimate citizens deserving full equality. This has largely been accomplished by activism and education and has been quite succesful . But the success has been limited towards those who are inclined towards pluralism or have an open mind like the young. It has made very little impact on the conservative mind.
There are still a lot of social conservatives in the US, and if there is one thing I think that can be said of conservatives is that they have a greater inability to put themselves in the shoes of others. Not until the issue gets close enough to them such as the impact on a family member or a friend are they able and willing to reconsider their views and position.
Assuming that many of you believe that if Mary did the right thing by speaking out against her father, or believe that if Dick would do the right thing by resigning all that would be accomplished is a “cleansing” of the party, and a forgotten issue. But this issue will not go away for conservatives, because while they campaign against gays, they will be constantly reminded that one of their revered leaders is intimately connected to homosexuality, has accepted it and has spoken against their desired amendment. One of there very own. And that has and will have an enduring low intensity positive effect that will influence the whole conservative community. If Chelsea Clinton came out as gay and denounced Cheney, she would be roundly cheered by liberals and the like-minded yet would have only hardened the hearts of conservatives.
If I were the leader of all gays and focusing on gay issues alone I would be holding rallies with huge portraits of Cheney and constantly reminding the public that amongst the executive leadership of the ruling party is a man who supports gays. That would really put the conservatives in a tizzy wouldn’t it?
It’s one thing not to judge a sinner. But it’s quite another, in the eyes of conservatives, to be unwilling to identify or condemn sin. Keyes was asked about his views on homosexuality: he gave an answer that is a stock and trade description of what many consider to be the sin of homosexuality. The interviewer asked if that applied to Mary Cheney, and Keyes replied that, yes, no one gets special permission to sin.
Which is part of my point. Here we have a man who does claim the right to regulate such things on a variety of other social issues. He makes an exception for homosexuality, but is unwilling to explain why, or grant the same unspoken exception to those other issues. He gives himself a special exemption on having to deal with the issue, just like it’s wrong to trade with terrorist nations, unless of course it’s my own company.
That may be. But the point is that they are weaseling out of the very sorts of tricky questions that most people on such issues DO have to deal with. Families of pot smokers or with a brain-dead wife that has expressed the wish not be forced to stay alive don’t have the luxury of simply declaring it a special issue they are familiar with and claiming that the government shouldn’t regulate. That argument doesn’t fly, and it doesn’t fly in particular with people like Cheney himself.
That’s very generous of you. But it’s not something that, in general, social conservatives are willing to extend to people or policies. Nor really is it something I think you seem to mean in as general a sense as you say it here. You judge right and wrongs everyday, and so do they, so does everyone. That’s how we can even have a debate over whether homosexuality is a scourge to our society or something that can become a happy, functional part of it.
This is my point. Why is Dick Cheney even considering a break from the Bush administration’s anti-gay rhetoric? Because he loves Mary. Is it admirable or praiseworthy to choose not to condemn the lifestyle of a loved one? No. It creates a “do as I say, not as I do” vibe, which is what folks are objecting to. The Cheneys can be as hateful and judgemental about any number of personal lifestyle choices, making exceptions only for those issues that would disrupt the family harmony at Thanksgiving dinner. To me, that makes them hypocrites.
Do you see how obnoxious this is, on so many levels? (not you, the attitude you describe) If Chelsea Clinton were gay and Mary were not, Cheney would have no compunction about promoting the DOMA, maybe even implying that Chelsea’s gayness is an indication of the Clintons’ moral bankrupcy (good thing Kerry’s daughters are straight). Only because his own flesh and blood is gay does Cheney show any flexibility on this issue. How perfectly horrid. It is this attitude that pervades the Bush administration: we didn’t go to war, and none of our children will have to, but it’s fine for us to send other people’s kids. We want drug abusers behind bars, no in treatment, unless it’s Rush Limbaugh we’re talking about. It’s this sense that the rules of life do not apply to them that makes me despise them.
I think it’s likely to have little effect. Dubya obviously doesn’t give a rat’s ass that Cheney’s daughter is gay; he’s still just as homophobic as ever. Add to that the fact that Cheney has not in fact spoken in favor of civil unions or gay marriage; all he’s done is not support the DOMA and not publicly decried the sinfulness, wrongness, or socially hazardous nature of gay unions. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement. It’s a hedge of the issue, and one that the Cheneys are indulging in solely for the sake of familial peace, not out of any embrace of the gay community.
It is good to see the calm and rational remarks of Poly and Grienspace nullify the inexplicable and irrational hysteria of Apos and a couple of others. It is good that Poly and Grienspace have not made any issue of Apos’ rather conspicuous absence from the thread bashing AP for its slimy reporter. We would not want to make the hasty and unfounded assumption that Apos supports slimy reporting. Perhaps the weakest part of his now thoroughly debunked argument was the assertion that there being a few loonies in the Repubican Party who hate gays personally brought anything whatsoever to bear on Mary’s action or inaction. Both parties have idiots. The Democrats have their PETA terrorists, feminazi handstabbers, and yes, homophobic morons. Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat.
But Cheney doesn’t support “gays.” He supports his daughter, who happens to be gay. But he doesn’t support her enough to want her and her spouse to have the same rights, protections and responsibilities of a legally sanctioned marital relationship. He didn’t support her enough to refrain from publicly standing behind Bush’s call for an anti-gay amendment. After the FMA failed in the Senate, it became politically safe for Cheney to go back to his originally stated position so in an attempt to appear “moderate” he did. Amazingly, people who ought to know better continue to give him credit for it.
Thank you! This is exactly what I’ve been saying. He only supports gays inasmuch as he supports his own daughter, nothing more. All that does is make him human (which was something of a surprise, for me at least) and somewhat of a hypocrite. Further evidence of the double standard the Republicans have in their attitude towards public policy.
Arnold or other Moderator seeing this – I would have no problem with having that edited to a small snippet plus a summary of other contents, if a staff member wishes to do so, or on instruction I will write a new post replacing the objectionable one to do so. (My e-mail is temporarily dysfunctional, so open board message telling me to do so if this is dealt with in the next 24 hours or so would be preferred.) Stupidly, I assumed the TOS to apply to subscribing to their paper/site, not to copyright, so didn’t read it.