Was the liason for Coors. Now she is working as the chief campaign manager for the Cheney campaign. She put herself into the public eye.
Ah, I wasn’t paying attention again. I wasn’t aware of that, and missed the several mentions of that in this very same thread.
In that case, then, I’ll change my position. (Or, as conservatives would put it, “flip-flop.”) She’s fair game.
I think Mary would be out of bounds if being a lesbian were something shameful. But the fact that Mary toured with Mr. Leather 1999 in order to promote Coors to gay people suggests she isn’t ashamed. The fact that Dick said, in speaking of daughter’s sexual orientation, that he and his wife both had enormous pride in Mary suggests that Dick and Lynne aren’t ashamed. So, I don’t see anything wrong with Kerry stating a fact that everyone who matters is aware of and is comfortable with.
Can someone explain what the bolded part has to do with marriage?
Those are rights that are automatically given upon marriage in the US.
The second half of your bolded part that is.
Okay, so he was thinking on his feet. I forgive him!
And of course, the implication that anyone who is gay cannot be any of those things looms over this sentence, unspoken but perfectly clear. I know why Mrs Cheney is so upset – she’s fine with her lesbian daughter, provided no one actually reminds her that she is a lesbian.
You see, BC04 does drag her into the spotlight as their “Gay People love us too!” token. Of course, after I wrote a small diatribe about this, I noticed on preview you were unaware she was campaigning for them; now that you know, you agree with me on it, so I can keep quiet.
I don’t know if people who aren’t in this with us can really understand, but many of us queers (like me) think of people like Mary Cheney as collaborators – sleeping with the enemy because it’s more comfortable or profitable there. As jayjay points out, if these people stay closeted (or maintain the appearance thereof) for reasons of safety or security, then it’s OK, but when they use their position to fight against my rights and my security, the gloves come off.
Gays and lesbians are so close to being legally accepted and recognized as first-class citizens. If we don’t grab at this opportunity, it may be a generation before we get another chance – and I’ll be damned if I let some turncoat like Mary Cheney help keep me down.
Made me think of Margaret Cho. She has a bit where she says the only way she’s gonna get a man is to cover her vagina with leaves and hope one falls in. Screamingly funny.
Well, it is reminiscent of Maggie Cho, so I can see how you got confused… but it must be credited to stpauler. steps aside, does the little extended-arm gesture
Well, according to johnkerry.com, Bush:
Whoops. The lesbian in the leaves must have tripped me.
Thank you. That was exactly my take on the Cheneys’ reaction, but I couldn’t quite put it into words.
Posted by SolGrundy:
Good post, Sol, but for God’s sake, the word is segue. What you wrote would be pronounced “segwayway”. I blame that goddamned scooter.
Do we have to have a truly ridiculous, anti-civil-rights amendment proposed every election year? I guess it’s a sign of progress that what’s being debated is gay people’s right to marry instead of their right to simply exist.
(And what’s all this “sanctity of marriage” crap, anyway? I was married, and trust me, there was nothing sacred about it.)
See, this bothers me.
How can he say this? How can he support DOMA when he just said, in reference to anti-abortion legislation, that he cannot legislate an article of his faith? What is the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman based on if not faith?
If he supports providing legal rights to same sex partners then what difference does it make if you call it ‘civil union’ or ‘marriage’?
Dammit, Kerry. Either set your faith aside and do what’s right in all instances or at least acknowledge the fact that your faith has an effect on what you’ll politically support. Fucking semantics. I hate fucking semantics. :mad:
And I’d like to go on record that politicians spouting off about their faith and going so far as witnessing to pander to voters is, to me, profoundly offensive. I realize I’m in the minority here, but I really don’t think any of it speaks at all to character.
So, Kerry, don’t just recite Kennedy quotations. Put down your bible and try to explain to me what the damn difference is supposed to be between marriage and civil union other than religion.
And as for you Bush, take your sleazy homophobic brand of compassion and kindly shove it up your ass.
Here, here. I forgot about that specifically. Is it just a Bushism or is Kerry fond of that phrase as well? Just what is the “sanctity” of marriage? Seems to me that keeping the government can’t actually keep the sanctity of a marriage --barring the outlaw of divorce (yeah…right)-- only the couple can.
Let’s see, judging by divorce rates, including those of various faiths, heterosexual religious types haven’t all fully grasped what sanctity of marriage means either.
Well, damn. I’m not going to start any more threads, I think, because they just end up making me look even stupider than I do normally. But hey, fighting ignorance and all that: I’ve learned two new things from this thread.
Well, I wish all you queers the best. (You do know that I’m a homo, right? Like, a lot? All over the boards?)
And I agree with the sentiment, to a point. But I’ve got some problems with the way you describe the situation. First of all, Mary Cheney hasn’t “stayed closeted,” as far as I can tell. She’s been open about her sexuality, but hasn’t made it the driving topic of the campaign. I still say it’s hypocritical for a homosexual person to support a campaign that is actively working to deny other homosexuals their rights. But this isn’t quite as clear-cut as y’all are making it sound. She’s got a bigger personal stake in this campaign than just her sexual orientation – whether you want to call that nepotism and a gravy train, or family loyalty, it could still be a stronger bond than whatever “bond” she feels towards other homosexuals.
That’s why the whole thing makes me more than a little uneasy. I had no idea she was a campaign manager; I only knew her as “the Cheneys’ lesbian daughter.” None of the discussion is about whatever things she has or hasn’t done, it’s all about her being a homosexual. If the goal is to get people to treat homosexuals as “first-class citizens,” shouldn’t we be resisting attempts to reduce us all to a like-minded group with a common “agenda,” based not on our accomplishments but on our sex lives?
Note the bolded sentence above. I think in this case, making mention of her in the debate was justified and she had put herself in the public eye – not only as a campaign manager, not only as the Cheneys’ daughter, but as a lesbian (from her previous job). But at the same time, I really don’t agree with the statement that every gay person, just by virtue of being gay, is obligated to be a crusader for gay rights. You’re obligated to vote the right way and ensure that all your fellow citizens are treated fairly, but that’s true of everyone, not just gay people. Gay people should keep the right to keep their sexuality their own damn business if they choose, and they shouldn’t be condemned for doing so.
Sol, I think you’re on the money in some ways, but not in others. You often make the point that homosexual people should be treated as people first, gay second. It’s no one’s business whether they are gay or not. I think that’s right.
But expressions like “vote the right way” worry me. Where now the “their own life is their own business” attitude? If you really extend to people the right to make up their own mind about things, then there is no right way to vote.
Mary Cheney is an interesting case because it raises so many issues that cannot be decided by facts and cites and statistics. She is not only (presumably) going to “vote the wrong way” but she is also helping to promote the cause of a man and a party that represents the wrong way.
Either we put that down to the fact that blood is thicker than water, or we refuse to discuss it, or we say she’s not really a lesbian, or we say, as you have often done, there’s more to a human being than their sexuality.
At last there is an issue - more accurately and more importantly, a person - that challenges people to think more about the interplay between sexuality and power and status. If push comes to shove, would Mary Cheney place her fight for sexual rights ahead of her push to get ahead, to be associated with prominent figures and winners?
Would all other homosexuals?
I don’t see anything wrong with what Kerry said, and I think some here are misinterpreting him.
I don’t think he was trying to portray the Bush administration as gay friendly - quite the opposite! I think he was trying to show how UN-gay-friendly they are, to the point that even those in their own campaign disagree with them.
It’s the same reason Kerry brings up John McCain and Eisenhower’s son.
And, for that matter, the same reason why Zell Miller got so popular with Republicans.
It’s always nice to have an opponent (or someone who would be expected to be an opponent) who agrees with you on an issue, and citing an opponent who agrees with you is more effective than citing someone who everyone would already expect to agree.
Just for the record, my own stance here:
I cannot believe how may people seem to be posting from the apparent tacit assumption that Mary Cheney being a Lesbian is something she needs to be ashamed of. The fact that that’s evidently underscored a number of posts on both sides gobmacked me. I can see it from the pro-Bush faction, but getting it from the other side – huh?
Granted that on a different world, where the pigs are flying south to winter in Central America, Mary Cheney would have a right to keep her private life private. But she’s foregone that by the numerous public roles she’s played over the years, for Coors, for RUC, and now for her father’s campaign, in some of which her sexuality was a significant element of her role. “Dick Cheney’s daughter” would not have made a good GLBT liaison for Coors – “Dick Cheney’s Lesbian daughter” did.
So comments that address her sexuality that are not snide innuendo or overt insult do not strike me as out of line.
As for her being a “collaborator” – as several gay people have had to say, being who you are is a whole lot more than just your sexuality. Mary Cheney is a woman who loves her partner, to be sure, but she’s also a woman who loves her father, and the father she loves is running for re-election as Vice President of the United States. And he’s a man who loves his daughter enough to be willing to take a public stance contrary to the one held by his running mate as regards gay marriage, for her sake. (And don’t forget that that’s extremely contrary to the tacit rules for being Vice President.)
Lynne Cheney, on the other hand, is a bitch. Pure and simple. And this surprises whom?
I tried very hard to avoid the term “collaborator” for what Mary is doing, if only because comparisons to the Nazis are far overdone and not entirely accurate when referring to the Republicans, on ANY issue. However, I can’t avoid the gut feeling that there is something very wrong with working to actively re-elect an Administration that has threatened so many of your fellow-orientationists (flow with it, folks…I can’t really think of a better collective term right now), father or no father. Like I said above, I love my mom to pieces. I’d do just about anything for her. But I would NOT act as a campaign manager for her if her running mate was using anti-gay rhetoric to get out the Rabid Right vote, even if she were to mutter mealy-mouthed platitudes about “disagreement” with that running mate without trying actively to change the campaign’s stance.