You are blowing this out of the freaking water over Cheney's Daughter, seriously it will cost Kerry because he brought up somebody's personal life in the middle of a NATION-WIDE Televised Debate that simply did not belong in his speech(especially if Alan Colmes cannot defend that action).

I wonder now, do I have to compete with Cheney's Daughter when I try and go for one of the Bush Twins?

- Grim X

Reply #8 By: CrispE - 10/14/2004 10:51:37 AM d3adzOmbie: Cheney's daughter's sexual preference first came up in 2000 in the first election campaign. It wasn't the Democrats who brought it up here.

So this makes her sexual prefrences fair game? BS!!! The remark last night was totally uncalled for. And from what I've read so far today (here and other sites) I'm not the only one who thinks so.

More from Republican Andrew Sullivan:

All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn't. What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form. Couldn't it just be that Kerry thinks of gay people as human beings like straight people - and mentioning their lives is not something we should shrink from? Isn't that the simplest interpretation? In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like president Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I'm not outing any gay person. I'm outing the double standards of straight ones. They've had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose.

Reply #28 By: blogic - 10/14/2004 2:51:00 PM More from Republican Andrew Sullivan: All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense.

I don't care how you slice this up. It *still* did not belong on a *nationally* televised debate.

Well you know somebody's logic will assert that it did belong and if you believe it did not belong you must be a homophobe.

Though how could one be a homophobe when an Uncle of his is Homosexual and bringing his boyfriend with him for this man's mother's birthday?

Illogic logic.

Somebody's personal life has no place in a debate because it does not belong there period UNLESS it is the personal life of one of the debaters.

- 'Death Hand' Grim X

In general, I would prefer to see personal lives left out of politics. However, there is a relevant point that is important and best made with this particular example.

National conservatives have this way of sending signals that they are social conservatives as well as foreign policy and economic conservatives. That is where the wedge issues are, the things that turn a large segment of the electorate towards the Republicans -- yet many of these politicians are, in truth, not very enthusiastic about many of the social conservative issues. When you examine the personal and family lives of these people, you do not find a lot of old-fashioned, God fearing behavior. These people get their social conservative votes more in symbolic ways -- and by blaming liberals for the loose behavior of the population. They would NEVER interfere with a business activity that promoted behavior offensive to the social conservatives.

It seems to me highly fair to point this out to the electorate. When a politician runs on one of these wedge issues, it seems reasonable to poke around at the sincerity of the views that are landing that conservative a whole slew of votes.

By the way, I would say the same thing about the personal lives of liberal polticians who count on minority votes, yet, in truth, are not all that concerned about real life minority human beings. Social conservatives and blacks are both taken for granted by political parties that give them little but symbolism in return.

I guess the whole family likes Bush...

If Cheney's daughter had Parkison's disease would you think it okay for Kerry to bring her up as an example of why we need to have federally funded fetal stem cell research? I would find that equally distasteful.

I guess the whole family likes Bush...

I wonder now, do I have to compete with Cheney's Daughter when I try and go for one of the Bush Twins? - Grim X

Heh heh

You obviously missed my entire point which was "don't *argue* with a woman, you WON't win"

Honestly, that is as offensive as President Bush's comment last night that the women in his family taught him to stand up straight and not to scowl. If you honestly believe the line you are touting about women I suggest you get out more and meet some of us. We aren't that bad.

What if Mary Cheney comes out (no pun intended) and says Kerry was wrong to involve her in his political commentary would you still side with Kerry talking about?

- Grim X

drmiler:

I think in 31 years (plus the 3 years of courtship (and I don't mean being a judge, hehehe) we have had plenty of debates and discussions. However, we have a rule about debating. We agree to disagree when a decision doesn't have to be made. We agree that the person most effected by the decision has the ultimate control over the decision.

It works for us.

"If Cheney's daughter had Parkison's disease would you think it okay for Kerry to bring her up as an example of why we need to have federally funded fetal stem cell research? I would find that equally distasteful."

The relevant comparison would be if Cheney's daughter were black and open about having a white husband -- but the campaign kept him hidden away (which was true until a little over a week ago) -- and Bush supported a constitutional ban on interracial marriage. Also, if Mary Cheney were an active campaigner for Bush/Cheney (which she is), while the Republican National Committee sent out leaflets warning people that a Democratic victory would mean blacks could marry whites.

landen81: Thank you for the apology, you are obviously a stand-up blogger who deserves respect. //salute

Blogic: Mary Cheney has not been hidden away from the public. I, as part of the public, have been aware that Cheney had a daughter named Mary for some time. Who cares which way she swings? It's her business, and Kerry bringing this point up is crass.
The relevance of this issue is that it shows how Kerry will grasp at anything to divide America. A constitutional amendment upholding marriage being defined as a hetrosexual union does not prevent homosexual couples from achieving the same legal status as a married couple by establishing a similar institution for homosexuals. Its the difference between off white paint and eggshell white paint. The two are different yet essentially the same.

Where the division comes in that many (but not all) liberals feel it is unfair that homosexuals cannot have a union called marriage. Call it anything else many conservatives say, take all the rights of a married couple, just call it something else. You have to ask, why does it matter, what a thing is called?
It matters because of tradition and spiritual belief for many people. It is critical that while people are free to believe whatever they want, that whatever a person believes should be respected, within reason, by the law. This is not carte blanche for school teachers to start having affairs with students because they believe it is right, but it is critical when understanding respect that must be held for both the homosexual community and the traditional marriage community. Each MUST respect the others beliefs, or everyone loses.

Some would say that tradition is overrated, that Judeo-Christian beliefs are outdated. Yet this country was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles of law, rooted deeply upon Greecian philosphy. These traditions of law are reflected in cultures world wide, and can be argued as the basis for civilized society. They must be upheld, yet they must also evolve to meet the changing needs of an advanced society.: Give same sex couplestheir own form of marriage, equal under law, but seperate from the tradition. Respect, not division is the answer.

Obviously Kerry has no respect for the privacy of the individual, and uses one womans personal views to divide.

Hi d3adz0mbie,

First of all, I respect your support for civil unions, but the Federal Marriage Amendment supported by George Bush does not.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

The "legal incidents" clause is there to ensure that gays will never have any right to form civil unions. So much for "equal under the law". I agree with you that "respect, not division is the answer," but George Bush doesn't.

Second, I don't want to get into a debate about civil unions vs gay marriage. I'd oppose "separate but equal" forms of marriage if that logic were applied to same race and mixed raced marriages; so I oppose it here. That said, I do respect your willingness to support civil unions.

Second, Mary Cheney actively campaigns for Cheney and Bush. She has been active both in this election and the last. She is a public participant in a political campaign where gay marriage is an important enough issue that it's been brought up by the moderators in two debates.

Third, I never said Mary Cheney had been hidden. I did say the campaign had hidden her partner, until last week. Since Mary Cheney is open about being gay, it's seems likely the campaign made that decision. I think it's relevant that the campaign is downplaying that one of its campaigners -- Mary Cheney -- has a female partner even as Bush supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- and ensuring there's no right to form civil unions -- and the RNC mails out leaflets warning people that the Democrats will legalize gay marriage.

What Kerry said is the average stuff he spouts. What I thought was over-the-top was what Edwards wife said in an interview today:

""I think that it indicates a certain amount of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences.""

Generally tactless, ugly people, I think. I've met so many people like that, who think their beliefs are so universal that they aren't capable of being sensitive to anyone else's. Every now and then people like this get just a little too loud, forget who they are, and start droning on without much regard. They forget that if people really knew what they think they wouldn't have a prayer of being elected. They need to keep their mouths shut and keep up appearances so all the people near the flaps of thier "big tent" don't see what kind of freaks they really are and bolt...

It's exactly what Gore does. He'd say something totally nuts, totally out of step with the average American, then when people gasped he'd look around like "what'd I say?". It lost Dems the 2000 election, and maybe if they can't muzzle Kerry we'll get lucky again.

I think a lot of the discussion here, even from Andrew Sullivan, largely misses the point.

In answering the question posed, Kerry could have chosen any number of gay/lesbian individuals in public life to use as a representative example (if any example were needed at all to answer that question & I would pose that no such example was remotely needed), but he chose to talk about Mary Cheney. Of all the examples of fine human beings who happen to be gay or lesbian, the first one that just popped into his mind was Mary Cheney? Not Barney Frank? Not Ellen Degeneres? Not any other well-known person - take Andrew Sullivan, for instance?

This was a premeditated act. I watched closely as he hesitated before responding and you could practically read it in his face: "Hmm, I know they've told me I should do this, but I'm not so sure." Then he dove in.

So, whatever one's opinion regarding gay marriage or alternative lifestyles, the things that trouble me about his comments are:

1) they were gratuitous, not central to answering the question at all, and
2) they were specifically targeted at an individual for a reason.

You have to ask yourself, "Why." And the answer isn't very pretty.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I guess the whole family likes Bush...

I made this joke because, well...WHO GIVES A SHIT? Why aren't these clowns (or the public) worrying about the economy, our going to hell in a hand basket health care system, and wasting our $$$$ overseas on various give-a-way ventures. Good Lord, folks!!!!! I could care less what his daughter does...

Thank goodness, no one dignified the "joke."

Cheers,
Daiwa

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

This is a perfect example of why lawyers will be the first to to be shot (and that includes Congress) when the revolution comes. I see how this could be read that NOBODY will ever have the same privileges as a married couple. The truth is that if a Civil Union for any couple was enacted into law, it would acquire its own set of priviledges and legal incidents specific to its legal status. These priviledges and legal incidents could be equal or identical to those conferred upon the marriage status, but will never acquire those rights as married.

Maybe this analogy will help: Under law, a man cannot legally be a woman and a woman cannot be a man. While we strive for equality for both sexes, the truth is the two are legally seperate definitions. A man cannot have rights as a woman, and a woman cannot have rights AS A MAN. But they can both have the same rights.

Sorry if Im drawing this out... A civil union could confer the legal right upon two men to be recognised as inheritors of property under the laws that govern civil unions. They could not acquire this same right under the laws that govern marriage. Vise versa, a man and a woman married would become inheritors of one anothers property through the laws that govern marriage, not the laws that govern civil union.

Are we all confused yet?

The bottom line is that this does not EXCLUDE, but does not confer or address other similar potential legal definitions of relationships. Instead of fighting over this, the fight should be for the creation of civil unions, seperate but equal to marriage (but legally governing within its own rights). Now excuse me while I go find a gun, Ive got some lawyers to talk to...

Reply #45 By: d3adz0mbie - 10/14/2004 7:28:11 PM "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." This is a perfect example of why lawyers will be the first to to be shot (and that includes Congress) when the revolution comes. I see how this could be read that NOBODY will ever have the same privileges as a married couple. The truth is that if a Civil Union for any couple was enacted into law, it would acquire its own set of priviledges and legal incidents specific to its legal status. These priviledges and legal incidents could be equal or identical to those conferred upon the marriage status, but will never acquire those rights as married. Maybe this analogy will help: Under law, a man cannot legally be a woman and a woman cannot be a man. While we strive for equality for both sexes, the truth is the two are legally seperate definitions. A man cannot have rights as a woman, and a woman cannot have rights AS A MAN. But they can both have the same rights. Sorry if Im drawing this out... A civil union could confer the legal right upon two men to be recognised as inheritors of property under the laws that govern civil unions. They could not acquire this same right under the laws that govern marriage. Vise versa, a man and a woman married would become inheritors of one anothers property through the laws that govern marriage, not the laws that govern civil union. Are we all confused yet? The bottom line is that this does not EXCLUDE, but does not confer or address other similar potential legal definitions of relationships. Instead of fighting over this, the fight should be for the creation of civil unions, seperate but equal to marriage (but legally governing within its own rights). Now excuse me while I go find a gun, Ive got some lawyers to talk to...

Wait for me! I wanna go too! Can I bring the ammo?

To d3adz0mbie, I am very sorry and I did not mean to overgeneralize everyone in the south as being an idiot. However, from my own personal experience, many of the Southern Baptists I've met still refer to African Americans as niggers and are vastly homophobic. When asked why they hate them, they respond "Well that's the way the good Lord intended."

Yea, and it was them southern baptist in boston that rioted to stop bussing.

Your gneralizations are bigotted. I would say racist, but you did qualify a subset of a race instead of an entire race. So you are just a bigot.