Response to criticism of Cheney daughter outing

[CityHall]

In the vice-presidential debate, it was clear that Dick Cheney wanted no part of the gay marriage issue. The sum of his position was that the President makes policy for the administration, and Cheney supports the President.

The relevance of the fact that Cheney's daughter is gay is that, as soon as an issue hits close to home, Republicans start to find their own policies unconscionable. In fact, most of their views depend on a certain distance between the people presenting the views and the people affected by them.

It's easy to imagine that if Cheney had a black daughter, he wouldn't have voted against the resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. If he had a poor daughter, he might not oppose the minimum wage. If he had a daughter who had lost her job, he might have different views on outsourcing and health care. If he had a daughter in the military, he might not have been so eager to invade Iraq.

The basic point here is that it's easy for Republicans to take extremist positions when they don't know anyone who is affected by them personally.

[MercutioATC]

1. It wasn't an "outing", she's already out.

It's a complete non-issue.

[ibegurpard]

2. Exactly what I was going to say.

No one outed his daughter.

[LynnTheDem]

3. The RESPONSE is IT WASN'T AN OUTING

Where TF were the rightwingnuts when CHENEY SPOKE ABOUT HIS GAY DAUGHTER IN THE 2000 DEBATES???

[gratuitous]

4. Not only is she out

A fact that her own mother seems most uncomfortable with, but she's also a campaign operative for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Stupidhead and his surrogates have been lobbing a lot of stones from their glass house. Kerry was perfectly correct in his allusion to the vice President's daughter and retainer.

[MirrorAshes]

5. Its only offensive to straight, homophobic people. Easy response.

[Quixote1818]

11. You are EXACTLY right! This commes down to their OWN prejudicies

to those of us Democrats, we celibrate that she is gay! We think it's normal, natural and beautiful. So what if Kerry says it out loud "IT'S NOT A BAD THING YOU REPUBLICAN HATE MONGERS, ITS NORMAL AND ACCEPTED BY THOSE OF US ON THE LEFT WHO HAVE HEARTS AND BRAINS".

[Kipepeo]

15. The very same people Cheney doesn't want to know

about his daughter

[Bluerthanblue]

6. if anything....

i'd be grateful to Kerry for what he said if i was Cheney's daughter-(thank GOD i'm not)
Because he was acknowledging her right to be herself- without shame, or apology-

i believe homosexuality is NOT a choice-
and should not be a reason to discriminate, stereotype, or look-down upon someone for-

(and i'm 'straight', for what that's worth)

[The Straight Story]

7. That may well be true for any issue on either side

But some will stand on a principle - for example on gay marriage, cheney may still feel it is not right for reasons outside religion but does not want to go into it because he is personally vested in it (ie, giving tax breaks and such to couples of the same sex may be seen by him as hurting the majority of opposite sex couples who need the tax breaks to help pro-create, etc and et al).

As to sameness - those who smoke do not often see why the left wants to butt into a privately owned mom and pop business that wants to allow a legal activity to take place at their business (perhaps a poor example, but a similar ideal).

The gay folks I know (some of which are libertarian voting for bush) don't see the marriage issue as a big deal - they are happy the way things are. My best friend of nearly 30 years is in that camp. He does not see the need for the government to get involved in gay relationships and simply wants them out of the business - he prefers a broader view of things which lets individuals make choices about hospital visits, wills, and so forth without all the marriage things attach (his view - marriage and the laws around it were made to assist those who wanted to raise children which involved more money and time and so they needed tax relief, gays were not intent on making kids and could not naturally do so. Those couples which adopted kids did so knowing the 'score'.

While I may see things differently than he does, I respect his views on it all - there is something more subtle there he has expressed as well worth noting: He has had the same partner for 12 years now and allowing gay marriage would cause an immediate pressure from his lover to get married - which is not something he wants to be burdened with. He likes things as they are, the government is out of his business and committment is something between him and his lover. The more laws and regulations made the more he has to comply with them. To him, freedom is what he has now.

I know and understand the arguments of both sides, and maybe he has something of a point - keep the goverment out of personal relationships, gay or otherwise. If they want to give tax breaks to people with kids make it for anyone who has them, those that don't won't get the same ones. He has a lover, a life, and does not need it complicated by bush or anyone else. He told me a few weeks back "I don't need them to bless it, I don't them to record it or acknowledge it on paper, I simply want them to butt out of my life and let me live it as I see fit" - and strangely he and a few others I know in the community see it the same way. Screw the government, we are free and will live together as we see fit.

Others see it differently. How do we accomodate all such views? Sometimes, less government is better :)

[CityHall]

10. Interesting points

I think though, that you'd be hard pressed to find any gay people who want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which is the policy I was referring to originally.

[The Straight Story]

12. Understand

And thanks for calling my attention to that. Bush is way off on the issue IMHO, and I think even his base sees that. Sometimes the less laws they make the better for us all :)

[The Straight Story]

17. Let me add something here

I remember about a year ago talking with my friend about the gay issues as he saw them This parlayed into a discussion about being born that way and choosing it.

He pointed out that he could spot a gay person a mile away (gaydar he called it...) and that he was having a hard time with the 'clique gays' - people who 'became' gay because it was akin to a fashion trend. Gay was in. To him this was a slam against people like him who had been gay all their life (I met him when I was 13 or so and he knew he was gay in the 2nd grade). We both knew people who said they were gay then later decided they were not (? go figure ?).

I don't know what to think of all that, but I know he has been a little ticked off from time to time with people who take the fashion road to it - they represent a different idealism than he himself feels. The gay groups he has associated with are like many other groups of people - fractured and all over the place. He goes to all the marches and parades we have here in central ohio, but is turned off by the queens, whereas they see folks like him as being too tame and uncaring about the cause. He sees it as a personal freedom issue, they see it as that and political. He keeps it personal and does not broadcast it to those at work while others he knows makes sure people they work with know their sexual preference.

Perhaps it, like anything else, is something wide open with a diverse group surrounding it. And like any group has a fracture at certain levels. I try to understand best I can (He and his lover at one time were the god parents to my daughter - but his lover blew it all, and he regrets that - such is life) but sometimes I get lost in the whole thing.

Easy to see, to some extent, why outsiders with no exposure to it might be confused. I have been around gays and straights my whole life and sometimes neither make sense to me :)

[Kipepeo]

18. A couple of comments

You say you know some gay libertarians voting for Bush. Because of my work, so do I! And I also know some asian american folk, some black folk, some middle eastern folk, and some women folk who are voting for Bush. And sometimes they fit one or more of those categories. They are the few and far between, of course, and because of that I DO wonder about why they vote against their own interests.

But so do a lot of Americans. Look at poor Southern whites (of whence I come). The explanation against voting for one's own best interests is fucking long and complicated. A good book I've read recently that addresses the issue is "Don't think of an elephant" by Lackoff (sp?).

In any case, the other point you make is that your friend does not personally wish to get married (or might not wish to)...and that translates to the RIGHT to do so HOW exactly?

I'm not a marrying sort myself, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the right to do so if I happen to want to do so ONLY WITH SOMEONE OF OPPOSITE GENDER. Compare that to the anti-interracial marriage laws. Hmmm...I guess we should just all hope really hard that NO interracial couple or gay couple would want to get married and have equal marriage rights to others?

I'm not trying to be hard on you...just on your position...which I see as uninterested in those who might be having a hard time because of unequal treatment under the law. Like this woman: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/stateofmarriage/2002010602_gaymarriage20m.html

Please read her story. Thank you.

[The Straight Story]

19. Read it

Marriage is not the solution, government getting out of people's private lives, to me, is.

Government makes a zillion laws which deal with this, that, and the other - but I think what many would like is that they get out of the business altogether. From same sex domestic partners to gay partners the government needs to simply honor the status people choose to live by - marriage is not their business. People want to be married because of this right or that right which they inherit from the government regulations.

Those regulations curtail the freedom of all people to make choices - they cloak such things into a relationship they themselves sanction as marriage. They cannot possibly plug all the holes they have created. The more they regulate things the worse it becomes for someone who has a lifetsyle that does not fit into their views.

Marriage oversimplifies things for them. It cannot, does not, cover things in a blanket way that benefits all who pay taxes and live a lifetstyle different from the 'norm'. The idea is to get them out of defining and regulating all together. And what is it all based around? Money, taxes, benefits. They make the rules, they change the rules, they define the rules - they control.

Take away that control. If my friend wants to live with another man and share bills, that should not be subject to what the feds decide - they should get out of the business altogether. The more the government gets involved the less freedom we all have in our personal choices - ie, they define x,y,z and you have to fight for t,u,v. The system needs an overhaul from top to bottom. - we don't need the government to step in and accept gay marriage, we need them to get out of marriage and personal relationships/sex lives.

This is not just about gay rights, it is about the rights of citizens to live their lives how they see fit, not how a bunch of rich white guys see fit. I might choose to spend my life living with my folks and taking care of them when they get older, that is not their business one way or the other. I might be the only friend of a person with no relatives who needs to visit them when they are ill or help with their estate, the government needs to stay our of private affairs.

We should not be asking them for rights, they should be self evident. We should not have to ask them at all. To do so gives them power over us in personal matters. A better tax code which is not dependent on our life choices, keeping them out of saying who can do what when. This is bigger than gay rights, this goes to the core of rights for all people. Why are we marching and asking them to give us something??? Our rights are inherent, gay, straight, other, makes no difference. If we break it down to gay rights we are allowing them to define rights and who gets what - it is bigger than that.

I bought the home next door to my parents, so that when they are older I can help them out. Why should I have to beg the government to change laws and rules to suit me? They should not have that power in the first place to dictate such things. Corporations can deduct all kinds of things from taxes, I (and others) should be able to as well.

We enable the government by asking them for rights for gays to marry, when we should be telling them none of it is their concern. If they want to give tax breaks to certain groups which they see as benefitting society (like couples with kids) it should not matter who the parents are. Why should any group, gays or otherwise, have to go begging and hoping to get laws passed to 'recognize' their choices?

Create a better tax system, a legal system which sees things in a broad context and not just case law, and we will be one step closer to freedom from the goverment granting us the rights we see as natural to all people. They focus on gay marriage, I prefer to focus on getting them out of the business of defining things in general.

Build roads, defend us, tax us fairly, keep corporations on a leash, and don't punish people using tax laws (et al) based on how they choose to live. Equality for all is not gotten by allowing them to define who is what. Take the power from them, don't give it to them by asking them to bless something and sanction it. I don't trust them with that power - especially when bush is in office :)

[Kipepeo]

20. Thank you for reading it

I also read your post and I will say that I agree with you in some part ideologically.

Let's say that I don't see any benefit to two people (irrespective of gender or race) deciding to make a partnership and pool their resources and raise kids. Let's say I'm one of those people who is like "so what?" (and actually I am not one or the other...but for the purpose of this debate):

Does that mean I should fight for absolute repeal of (or erasure of) marriage rights for all? Because that is what I understood from your post.

So let's take this from the standpoint of someone who believes all that I've stated here: that marriage shouldn't exist/entail any rights to 2 people who decide to partake of it (because it wouldn't exist in terms of legal rights)...BUT in our society it already DOES exist for people who are straight. So if I want to see equality under the law I think you are arguing (again, I *think*) that I should fight to get rid of "marriage" all together to make the playing field equal for gays and lesbians.

But I think that's Unrealistic for someone who wants to fight for equal rights, regardless of gender. You are never going to get rid of marriage rights. At least not in my day 'n age. You can, however, fight for the right of ALL people (regardless of gender or race or sexuality) to have access to those marriage rights which have already been granted to other privileged groups.

If you want to, down the road, strike marriage rights from our society all together then so be it. But while they EXIST they should be open to all and not just one race or one gender.

Edited to add: I LOVE David Lynch. No I don't think you understand how much I LOVE david lynch. :) So, without saying, I love your screen name. Cheers.

-K

[CityHall]

8. Of course she's "out," we still need talking points (nt)

[sr_pacifica]

9. I actually don't think it matters if the issue hits close to home

I know republicans where the issues of health care, glbt rights, unemployment,etc. are right on their doorstep. The republican world view trumps all that. And the world view includes fear of "the other," belief in the superiority of the U.S., and black-and-white thinking---good/evil. These kinds of republicans buy the bullshit that their leader is taking care of them. They are in denial that the leader they've put their trust in is the same one robbing them to keep corporate America flourishing.

[debatepro]

13. Read the quote

SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?

KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, 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 choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

[Bread and Circus]

14. Nice summary. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[zmdem]

16. You misstate Cheney's position on the issue

Cheney's position is that regulation of marriage laws is a matter for the states, not the federal government. He disagrees with the president on the issue, and of course soft peddles that disagreement.

IMHO, neither Kerry, Bush, Edwards, or Cheney really want to address the issue. No matter which side one comes down on, one tends to lose about half the electorate. No politician wants to risk that, hence they tend to soft soap the issue.

[tsuki]

21. Marriage

I am sorry, but I have a different opinion. Marriage is a sacrament regulated by religion. And the state has no biz in religion. All the licenses and crap the state makes you do is for a civil union which gives you protection under the law.

Kerry had it right; he just didn't push it.

Thousands of people a year get married in the US without a civil union. Your church of whatever gives you the sacrament, not Dubya.

[ThePhilosopher04]

22. Totally fair game IMO...

first of all, she's already out and has appeared at campaign functions with the VP. I'm sure the Cheney's are bitter (embarrassed is probably more appropriate) that Mary Cheney was mentioned by name, but they could have easily avoided it by taking a stronger stand against Bush and not appearing so hypocritical on this issue. Additionally, Cheney didn't seem to take issue with John Edwards when he brought her name up at the VP debate. He actually THANKED Edwards for his kind words!!!

Gay marriage is an issue the Republicans have put front and center, and for them to cry foul is "TOUGH TITTIES" as they say!!!

[The Magistrate]

23. There Is Another Point, Sir

Cheney is a leading stalwart of the Republican Party. That Party seeks to make political hay by assaulting homosexuals, and Cheney is perfectly willing to profit by and assist in the doing. In doing so, he is assaulting his own child, and revealing himself not just to be a hypocrite, but to be the worst imaginable father, and farthest thing imaginable from a real man. It is his duty, as a father and as a man, to protect his children, and if he were even minimally competent as a father and a man, he would spend a great deal of time denouncing the Republican Party's assault on his own child's liberty and hapiness. Instead, he lends it countenance and profits by it: in short, his relation to his daughter is not that of a father but of a pimp, and it is quite fair to say he is more than willing to pimp out his own children for a few votes, because that puts money in his own and his friends' pockets. A damned odd way to vindicate one's attachment to family values, in my view, but there you are....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"