It’s a real pity I’ve never run into Mary Cheney in the elevators here–I’d love to ask her WTF she’s thinking by working against gay people’s rights.
And I wonder if there are other gay turncoats here (I work in the same building as Bush-Cheney national campaign HQ). My, but there is a high level of pulchritude among the male Pubbies.
I don’t get where Mother Cheney has the nerve to get pissed off about Kerry’s mentioning her daughter’s sexuality. She’s acting like Mary’s lesbianism is a dirty little secret. She has her own homophobia to deal with.
To paraphrase Simon & Garfunkel:
Lynne is just appalled that Kerry had the baldfaced effrontery to bring up the Family Shame. “But what will the neighbors think!” I can hear her wail.
I consider the gay community’s (such as it is) relations with Mary Cheney to be functionally identical to the same community’s relations with closeted gay government officials who use their power to further homophobic legislation and policies.
There’s an implicit agreement between those who hide their orientation and those of us who don’t and who actually, you know, CARE about how we’re treated by society. As long as you’re closeted because of personal fear and danger to your career, we’ll keep quiet. If you use your position as an apparent straight person to harm us, the deal is off.
In the same way, your orientation is no big deal to us if you choose not to make a fuss about it. If you work to harm us (and yourself, btw…good thinking, duh) by actively working for the retention of an administration that would throw us to the wolves for $10 and a player to be named later, then we’re calling you out.
This idea that Mary Cheney should be sacrosanct because she doesn’t want publicity is stupid. Y’know what, Mary? TOO DAMN BAD! Maybe you should have thought twice about working for such backward people. I mean, I love my mother and all, but if she were running for dogcatcher under the campaign promise of removing all pets from gay households for their own protection from gerbil-sex, I would not only not be working for her campaign, but actively working against it.
(Bolding mine)
Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if the moderator has asked Bush to explain exactly what might happen to threaten marriage between men and women? What could an “activist judge” do, precisely, that might threaten heterosexual marriages?
Has Bush EVER been called on this tired piece of shit meaningless rhetoric?
As you and Otto have pointed out, Lynne appears less than proud (i.e. shameful) of her homosexual daughter. However, I believe Kerry and Edwards have made pointed notice of that fact in an attempt to score points with bigots, or at the least, alienate the bigots in Bush’s Republican voter base.
It’s sleazy politics, and I’m sure if Kerry or Edwards had a lesbian daughter, Karl Rove would have Bush doing the same thing.
If one of them had a lesbian daughter and fought to keep gays as second-class citizens, I would expect Bush to bring it up.
Not to pick on you ZipperJJ, just quoting you as a starting point.
I had this discussion at work after the vice-presidential debate. Co-worker insists that Edwards remarks about Cheney’s daughter are a cheap shot. I say it’s not a cheap shot because Edwards didn’t bring up Cheney’s family–the moderator did. Plus, voters either already know that Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian or, if this is news to them, they haven’t been paying attention and this may be incentive to start getting informed. I left unsaid my belief that the only people who would think that it was a cheap shot are people who think that being homosexual is wrong; that mentioning Cheney’s daughter is just reminding people that he is tolerant of homosexuals to the degree that he hasn’t publically denounced his daughter. And by extension, Bush doesn’t hate homesexuals to the degree he espouses to his base because he is letting Cheney’s daugher work for the campaign.
I’m not at work today to re-start this discussion, but I am sure that co-worker will consider Kerry’s bringing Cheney’s daugher into this debate, out of the blue, a cheap shot as well. I will not be able to argue against this veiwpoint as easily this time, because I believe that Kerry was making a point this time to appeal to some voters’ baser natures–specifically trying to remind voters that Cheney has one of them evil homos for a daughter–an immediate family member :eek: --and therefore maybe these guys aren’t the gay-haters that they are looking for; maybe they should just stay home and not vote for those homo lovers. I do agree that, as a member of the campaign, Cheney’s daughter is fair game so I don’t consider this a cheap shot; I just wish that Kerry hadn’t felt the need to go there.
So on the one hand, I’d prefer if Kerry hadn’t had to sink to that level. On the other hand, whatever keeps uninformed voters away from the polls is a good thing. If people aren’t going to vote because a candidate has a gay person working for his campaign, that’s all for the better in my opinion because I don’t think that is a reasonable make-or-break issue.
On the whole activist judges thing: Judges are expected to interpret the law without regard to their personal biases. I believe most judges strive to do just that. As mr.stretch reminded me last night, many of our judges are elected or appointed by elected officials. So in many cases, the voting public has had the opportunity to decide if these judges do interpret the law without personal bias or not; in cases where they are appointed, the voting public has had to opportunity to elect someone whose judgment they can trust (in a perfect world) to appoint judges who interpret without personal bias. In either case, the voting public is involved in the process of putting judges in the position of interpreting laws–shouldn’t we allow them to do so?
As an aside, I now hate the word campaign because I consistently mistyped it in this response.
OMG, I love the lesbian-trap. That was wow, matt_mcl.
But I was going to ask… hasn’t it been common knowledge for the last… forever that she was gay? Being the VP’s daughter doesn’t exactly allow for much privacy, you know.
Kerry’s against same sex marriage too? 
But he’s for civil unions. And really, in this instance, considering what the alternative choice for President would be, I’ll give him a pass. At least until he gets into office.
The only thing I really need in a presidential candidate on this issue is an unwillingness to either legislate against or to advocate constitutional amendments against SSM. Anything else is gravy.
Ah. Okay. I think I see. Thanks jayjay and good luck.
hehehehe at: At least until he gets into office. 
I don’t think that Kerry mentioning Cheney’s daughter was so much a cheap shot as it was simply unnecessary: he could have made the exact same point without mentioning her – or anyone – by name. It didn’t disgust me, but it sure annoyed me a little.
As for why Mary Cheney continues to support an administration that is anti-gay, that seems like a no-brainer: perhaps there are other issues that she feels are more important. You know, in the grand scheme of things.
That’s how it works, right? People look at all of the issues, then look at where the various candidates stand on said issues, and pick whoever agrees with them on the things that matter most. Maybe she thinks that some of the other things her father and his boss stand for are more important – at least in this election – than gay rights, however huge that issue may be. I think that voting or not voting for any particular candidate because of their stand on any one issue would be rather short-sighted.
I’m kind of tired of this argument, too, actually. No. No, really. No. When the national party platform basically states that gays and lesbians are second-class citizens while oozing mealy-mouthed platitudes about tolerance (as long as they don’t get too uppity and ask for more) whenever some horrendous crime is committed to a gay man or a lesbian, there is no issue more important. I don’t care how low my taxes are if I’m going to be hiding myself away because the party in power fosters an anti-gay attitude. I don’t care how “safe” we are from terrorists (and that phrase begs an awful lot of questions) if I’m treated like I’m not a full citizen.
I can understand gays and lesbians being Republican. There are still moderate Repubs out there and the LCR and related folks are trying to take back the party. I understand that. I can’t understand or forgive working for this Administration, who are decidedly NOT moderate on this issue.
IIRC, during the 2000 campaign when someone brought up the fact that Mary is gay, Lynne Cheney said something like, “What are you talking about? Mary has never said anything like that!”
As for her working for the Bush campaign, when it’s so blatantly homophobic, she gets no pass from me. What was the name of that guy who worked for Jesse Helms, who had been one of the first black students at Ole’ Miss? That he was a part of the Civil Rights movements for so many years, then started supporting Helms, who actively fought AGAINST it…that just disgusts me.
From Wikipedia:
I hear that. While I think things at least won’t get any worse under Kerry, I’m still smarting over Clinton and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” debacle.
Hey, I’m even willing to forego a honeymoon period. January 20, on the dot…“Where’s our gay marriage?!”
The very first and most important order of business on the agenda, however, is getting Bush OUT. We’ll work on improving the guy who replaces him after that’s been taken care of.
I understand your point. Really. I just don’t believe that issues and politics are as simple as “nothing else matters until X is fixed,” even when “X” is something as significant as gay rights (or a war). Perhaps “short-sighted” wasn’t the right word, but I think maybe it was. None of the other domestic or foreign issues are as important to you as the fact that your country treats you like a second-class citizen, and I totally get that; all I’m saying is that maybe Mary Cheney doesn’t feel the same way. And if so, it’s her right to feel that way and vote/work accordingly, just as it’s your right to feel the way you do and vote/work accordingly.
Okay, that’s what I was really looking for with this thread. (It was only partly that I was too lazy to google for a transcript of the debate; it’s mostly that I wanted a chance to get all indignant).
So basically, it’s just evasion + more of the same. I guess I was being overly naive to expect any kind of enlightened commentary on the issue from a presidential debate.
As for Kerry’s (and Edwards’, and the moderator’s) bringing Cheney’s daughter into the debate, I have to side with the “not cool” crowd. Yes, she’s openly gay (IIRC, she’s in charge of gay public relations for the Coors company, right?), but she is not running for office. If she’s gay, it’s her business, and it’s just as wrong for the Kerry platform to be dragging her out into the spotlight as implied evidence of the Bush administration’s hypocrisy, as it would be for Bush & Cheney to drag her into the spotlight as evidence of “See, we’re not the hateful bigots that everyone says we are! Do a little dance for the crowd, honey, to show them what a good dyke you are.” Respect and dignity, remember.
And btw, stpauler, the “lesbian trap” was brilliant.