Today’s news is that Mary Cheney has given birth to a baby, which will be raised by her together with her partner Heather Poe. So – congratulations to the two new mothers, and even congratulations to grandparents Dick and Lynne Cheney for treating this as a normal family event.
Here’s hoping that this will make it more acceptable for same-sex couples to raise children together in the country, without others claiming that it’s the end of marriage and family.
Congratulations and felicitations to the happy parents and grandparents, and blessings on the baby boy. What’s the debate here?
I never followed the logic. Additional opportunities for love and families were a threat to…love and families?
I guess the idea is that homosexuality is so attractive that having it legally recognized and accepted by the population at large would lead to a mass conversion to the gay lifestyle (since it’s a choice and all), whereby the birth rate would plummet and our society would crumble; ipso facto abracadabra, Nazis on dinosaurs.
Actually…maybe they’re right. Has anyone heard any news from the Netherlands lately? Anything at all? It might be too late!!
At ease, soldier; I was over there just a couple weeks ago, and they’re fine. The foundations of Dutch society remain stable, and the tulips are looking great. Deactivate alert mode.
I join BG in wondering what this is supposed to be a debate about.
I can see a debate from two sides:
(1) The Cheneys have not done enough for gay rights by just accepting that their daughter is gay.
(2) The Cheneys should have dissociated themselves from Mary once she came out, and cetainly not accepted that their grandson will be raised by two women.
I lean more to the side (1), myself, but I can understand that Dick Cheney can only go so far in a direction which will not be accepted by his religious-right base.
And I should add, just in case there’s any ambiguity, that I don’t go for side (2) in any way. I just thought that some might want to take that side.
Dick Cheney will never again be a candidate for public office.
More babies! Less bullshit!
I read Mary Cheney’s book, which was quite interesting. She says that her parents never had a problem with her, and that her father is more libertarian in his opinions of these kinds of social issues. She was working on the campaign, and when she realized the way the wind was blowing, she was very upset, and wanted to quit. She decided not to, because she is a very strong backer of her father’s brand of politics. Guess she figured he could do the administration some good.
I bet a lot of pols are more tolerant of homosexuality than they let on.
For example: I bet Bush isn’t as fearful of SSM as he puts on, and I bet Hillary would come out in favor of SSM if she thought it wouldn’t be political suicide.
Right. The babies will be fulfilling all our shit needs for the foreseeable future.
Yeah, I agree on both counts.
I do not think Bush gives a whit about most social conservative issues. You can see it in how he tries to mollify the issue by allowing for “Gay Civil Unions” instead of marriages and creating a “Guest Worker Program” to allow immigrants to be here legally but temporarily.
This administration is probably one of the most liberal administrations we’ve ever had. They have a liberal foreign policy (Nothing new for Republicans in the White House) and they don’t seem to care much about these social issues. They are fiscally conservative domestically with their ‘privatize everything’ spin, but they cozy up to the Christian Right in terms of the actual real alliances they have.
This is a whoosh, right?
No I’m serious. Worldwide globalization and the advance of secular democracies is known as ‘Neo-Liberalism’.
There is some common ground between neoliberalism and neoconservatism, but there is a difference and what this Admin practices is mostly the latter. You can tell by the corpses and the refugees.
And this Admin is “fiscally conservative” like a drunken sailor.
But accomplishing those goals as stupidly as humanly possible, ah, that’s traditional conservatism at its best!
Keith Olbermann was quite good on announcing the birth :
That’d be relevant if children were actually affected by the official status of their caregivers on a day-to-day basis. If two people are interested and dedicated to raising a child, they are its parents, a piece of paper doesn’t change that. (One can assume pre-civilization humans engaged in parenting without such official documents, too.)
Admittedly it most certainly does matter if the legal parent dies, leaving the other parent with no legal rights of guardianship. However, that’s not really what Olbermann was saying, he was insinuating somehow this kid is going to suffer the negatives of being raised by a single parent because the commonwealth doesn’t recognize same sex marriage; that isn’t the case.
It also isn’t the case that just because a same sex partner can’t legally adopt that they have no rights whatsoever. Even in states where the other partner can’t legally adopt, courts have still shown a willingness to award guardianship and et cetera in spite of that. For example the State Supreme Court, one state over in West Virginia ruled awhile ago that in a case where the non-legal partner in a same sex relationship was entitled to guardianship of the legal partner’s legal and biological child after the legal partner died.
If the kid gets sick, a “relatives only” hospital will not allow Poe to visit him.
Some schools will not accept a “note from Mom” written by Poe. Some locations will give shit to any school that accepts a “note from Mom” written by Poe.
Neither of those scenarios is exactly life-or-death.