Chron to Cheney: Become Pro-Gay Activist, or It Reflects Badly on You
by Owen Courrèges · 12/11/2006 12:53 pmWhen I first heard that Mary Cheney, Vice President Cheney’s lesbian daughter, was pregnant, the first thing I thought was this:
IT IS IN POOR TASTE FOR ANYBODY TO USE THIS A POLITICAL FOOTBALL.
Why do I say this? Many reasons. First, it’s a personal, family matter. Mary Cheney has not gone out of her way to be a political spokesperson on all things homosexual. Except for appearances at events with her father and campaigning for him, she hasn’t been especially political. Unless she opts to come into the spotlight, why should either side be commenting?
Secondly, while Dick Cheney has indicated that his views on homosexuality aren’t the same as President Bush’s or much of the broader conservative movement (for example, he would leave gay marriage to the states) he does not necessarily agree with the broader gay rights movement simply by virtue of having a gay daughter. He can be a good and loving father to her without condoning her being openly gay or advocating changes in government policy to suit her sexual orientation. There’s no contradiction there.
For these reasons, I found myself plainly disgusted with the Chronicle’s editorial today on the pregnancy. It reads in part:
As it happens, in order to move closer to the vice president, Mary Cheney and her family have landed in Virginia — one of the states with the fewest legal protections for gay families like hers. Will she become an activist there to better defend her child’s rights? Will the vice president?
It would reflect badly on both if they didn’t.
This is crass. The Chronicle rightly condemns Concerned Women of America for singling out Mary Cheney, but then goes on to do the same thing itself. Mary Cheney is under no obligation whatsoever to become an “activist” and neither is her father. Indeed, either or both of them have every right to feel either 1) that changing Virginia’s laws isn’t necessary or even wrong, or 2) that being a spokesperson on an issue isn’t for them.
In short, the Chronicle should just butt out. It doesn’t reflect badly on a person to hold differing views or decline to be an activist for the views they hold.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
14 Responses to “Chron to Cheney: Become Pro-Gay Activist, or It Reflects Badly on You”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
The Crummyicle has its agenda and they are not very discreet in their publications. At least we all know it and can deal with it. There are a lot of reasons their circulation is down. But solving them is not high on their agenda. So you are free to read it or not.
At this point, I doubt the Crummycle (I like that moniker) even has any clue as to what could be done to turn the tide on their declining subscription rate. My heart really bleeds for them too.
Awe yes, But singling her out to support gay issues is ok because the Chronicle is for gay issues.
Singling her out for anti-gay issues must be condemned because the Chronicle is against anti-gay movements.
I thought it was generally a nice article, but the comment about it reflecting badly on them is just stupid. Really stupid. It seems they are handling everything in a quiet, personal way. The way Americans used to handle things, before there were so-called “activists” and “leaders.”
I applaud the Cheneys for this and many other things.
Good on you, wyatt…why everything, including people’s personal lives and leanings have to be dissected regular by the media and others annoys me greatly. It’s like vultures picking over the bones! Greedy for more!
That’s just uncalled for! Wyatt & Sunny right on.
I wish we could pick apart the media’s lives the way the pick apart everyone else. Put them under the spot light and all Heck breaks loose.
wyatt,
That’s how I felt. The article read as polite and complementary of a father who stands by his daughter, even if it read with a slightly liberal bent, and then suddenly - boom! The Chronicle makes a disgusting, thoughtless comment. Stuck out like a sore thumb.
Nos. 4,5 and 6,
You are missing the major unspoken point.
Artificial Insemmination works well for dairy cows but is bad, bad, bad public policy for lesbians —or for that matter unmarried hetrosexual females.
This issue like many, delineates the dope smoking libertarians, the professional political power seekers and economic anarchists from Christians, et al.
I think the Christians should simply wrestle for control within the Republican Party without regard to the above aforementioned nut groups.
After all, if 12 percent of the population [black] can swing the tail of the democrats, it ought to be a piece of cake for 25-30 percent of the population that is Christian to whip lash the tail of the elephant!
I am curious as to what everyone here thinks about her choice for pregnancy itself? Is it acceptable or un-acceptable in terms of moral judgement? Are gay couple pregnancies aceptable if they do not make it a political issue, or still morally and Biblically wrong?
Chron or no Chron, she had to know that such a choice would make for public debate. Is she doing something which is against the basic ideals of the party that she campaigned for, or embraced by it?
I think Mary and her partner should do whatever they want to do. Why is it necessary to make it public? Oh, yeah, because her father is the VP of the US. If it hadn’t come out now, it would have come out later. (D’oh). She is a public figure, trying to keep her private life private. Would you rather see headlines that “Mary Cheny had a baby” has lesbian lover? I think not. Getting it out in the open is the right thing to do. Let it die down and no one will question it when the “time” comes for delivery.
#10 -
But do you feel she is morally correct or morally wrong for her relationship and pregnancy?
I would agree with this rather whiny commentray had the Republicans not used gay marriage as a wedge issue in the last two elections. By using what is an important civil rights issue to pander to their far-right base, they have made themselves fair game for accusations of hypocrisy such as this one, and the Mark Foley affair, and the James West affair. But don’t worry. Mary won’t stay in the spotlight long. There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Mitt Romney, for example, is currently in free fall for gay supportive letters and speeches he penned while running for the senate against Ted Kennedy. Now a presidential hopeful, he has taken up the Republican sport of fag-bashing with a gusto. Sounds a little like hypocrisy, don’t you think?
Mike S
I do not normally condone a homosexual relationship; however, if gays want to live their lives, I have no problem with that. The only problem I have is their labeling of each other as gay! I’m gay, look at me! Rainbows forever!
I have a close relative who is gay and has been gay all her life. What do I say to her? Stop it this minute. I am talking about people who understand they are gay at early ages. She doesn’t advertise her “gayness” and I don’t bother with it. What people do in a relationship is of no business of mine.
Neocon,
Your philosophy, be-as-gay-as-you-want-just-don’t-talk-about-it works fine, as long as you’re straight. But from your “close-relative’s” perspective, how does she go a’cortin? Your assumption is that everyone’s straight, so it’s no problem finding a mate. But if you’re gay, you can’t assume that everyone else is too…unless you want to get killed.