Two columns on Mary Cheney

| 5 Comments

I'm sick of reading people say it's offensive to mention that Mary Cheney is a lesbian. She is openly gay, she brought her partner onto the stage after the VP debate, and she was gay for pay as a liaison to the gay/lesbian community for Coors.

First, from Hank Stuever in the Washington Post -- it's scary when Andrew Sullivan and I agree on something.

"How incredibly sad for Mary Cheney, the lesbian in question. And not for the reasons that her parents and the pundits have been screaming about," journalist Dave Cullen wrote on Salon.com, deftly describing his own offense at the latest chapter in the quiet saga of Mary. "It is not an insult to call a proudly public lesbian a lesbian. It's an insult to gasp when someone calls her a lesbian. . . . You're embarrassed for us. And it's infuriating."

...

Andrew Sullivan, the gay conservative pundit and obsessive blogger, takes a stab at the elusive Meaning of Mary:

"The Cheneys didn't respond to . . . [Republican senatorial candidate] Alan Keyes' direct insult of their own daughter in Illinois. They have not voiced objections to a single right-wing piece of homophobia in this campaign," Sullivan posted Saturday.

"But they are outraged that Kerry mentioned the simple fact of their daughter's openly gay identity. What complete b.s. . . . The GOP is run, in part, by gay men and women, its families are full of gay people, and yet it is institutionally opposed to even the most basic protections for gay couples. You can keep up a policy based on rank hypocrisy for only so long. And then it tumbles like a house of cards. Kerry just pulled one card from out of the bottom of the heap. Watch the edifice of double standards slowly implode. Gay people and their supporters will no longer acquiesce in this charade. Why on earth should we?"

...

Before she became a public enigma, she used to earn a nice living as a corporate liaison for Coors Brewing Co., going into gay bars (sometimes with Mr. International Leather 1999, who would wear his chaps and straps, according to the Advocate) to convince everyone that Coors had changed. For a long time, gay people were implored by activists to boycott Coors, based on its funding of anti-gay causes. Mary got in there, talked about Coors's new domestic-partner benefits for employees. Mary said, here, try a Coors. She was good at that, and the boycott wafted away, and you didn't see as much Bud Light in gay bars.

Mary is mythic, perhaps tragic, and don't forget sapphic. The conundrum for the liberal-hearted, stereotypical homo voter is this: She likes being Republican. She is a lesbian Republican.

One day, years from now, Mary may explain it to us. For now it's a tale about a woman trapped in a tower circled by bats. This is a common gay conceit, a misconception: Mary needs to be freed from all this. But just when you think she's rescued, she's back in that fortress again.

Finally you realize that she returns there voluntarily, that she is not trapped, that she was born and raised in the tower. Absent any words from Mary herself, you can only assume that she would be the first to tell you she belongs there.

The second is from Margaret Carlson, and appeared locally in Newsday. I had to link to it as soon as I read this wonderful section:

Republicans know they have to be careful how they strike back for fear of alienating their moderates. For the first time, Log Cabin Republicans are not supporting the GOP. The constitutional amendment on gay marriage was too far to go for a tax cut.

5 Comments

Regardless of whether Mary Cheney was already out, or whether Dick Cheney brought her up in a previous debate is irrelevent. It is simply inappropriate to bring up an opponent's CHILDREN to make a political point...unless it was some overt compliment, like congratulating them on winning an Olympics medal or something. What would you think if Dick Cheney spoke of the problems with obesity in America and brought up John Edward's wife. Or spoke about people at retirement age and mentions that Theresa Heinz-Kerry is 66. It's just simply inappropriate to bring someone's family up out of left field. If Bush or Cheney brought Mary Cheney up first, in the same debate, then the reference is more "fair game." Kerry could very easily have substituted a more well-known lesbians like Rosie O'Donnell or Ellen Degeneres when making his point. When arguing your point, please think what your reaction would have been if the sides were reversed and if Bush had made the comment about Kerry's daughter(s).

You are still implying it is an insult to refer to her as a lesbian. That's bullshit. It's like saying she has blonde hair as far as I'm concerned. Only homophobes say it's wrong to mention her being gay.

She didn't have a problem with being gay when she was getting paid by Coors. She isn't only part of his family. She is part of the official paid campaign staff.

P.S. Your email won't appear on the site, so you can put a real one in if you wish. I dislike anonymous comments.

Sorry, I wish to remain anonymous. However, I'm not implying that it is an insult to refer to her as a lesbian. As to your point, if he mentioned her "blonde hair," well, that would have been kind of creepy. But that aside, that would have been equally inappropriate. I'll say it again: As a show of good manners, no politico should bring up their opponent's children to make a point. It's just not a reference that should be made. It's not their place to do so, in any capacity. The issue isn't her being gay, or working for Coors or whatever; it was not Kerry's place to bring her up, or the Bush daughters, or any of Bush's family members in a question that was not specifically asking about them. That's all. 65% of all Americans polled thought it was wrong, and that obviously includes Kerry supporters, too. This issue goes beyond party lines. Don't let your political idealogy blind you to basic tenets of right and wrong behavior.

She is not just "an opponent's child!" She is working for the campaign!

If the GOP has chosen to make its disapproval of homosexuality one of its campaign points, we have every right to point out the hypocrisy of having an openly gay daughter getting paid to advance the GOP agenda.

The Republicans are using anti-gay rhetoric to get people to vote for them. The party platform says that same-sex relationships should have NO recognition from the state. Mary Cheney is an adult, not a child, getting paid to help elect an administration that believes she is less of an American because she is not heterosexual.

Dick Cheney has said he doesn't agree with the President or with the party platform when it comes to gay relationships. Damn right we should be talking about this!

If I had my way we would be talking about what a despicable human being she is, more concerned about keeping her father and the GOP in power that what the party is doing to homosexuals. She's privileged. She doesn't give a fuck what happens to gay people without her connections and money.

Not only is she working for the campaign, she is her father's chief campaign manager. Perhaps "anonymous" would have preferred for Kerry to clarify that Cheney's campaign manager is a lesbian. We wouldn't want to be impolite to hatemongers.

Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 5.2.13

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by published on October 19, 2004 9:21 PM.

Sending good thoughts to Marc Almond was the previous entry in this blog.

Linkage is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.