Here's what happens to gays who think the Democratic Party should do more for them than just take our money.
And no, I'm not saying the party we don't fund (i.e., the GOP) is better. Just that we expect more from the party we are guilted, incessantly, into opening our wallets for.
As for the GOP, Mary Cheney's story, as told to ABC's Diane Sawyer on Thursday primetime, shows that while incremental progress has been made, there's still a long, hard road ahead. Giving all of our money and labor to ungrateful Democrats won't help us get there.
Update: Well, I thought Mary Cheney did just fine with Diane on Thursday night, explaining her strong disagreement with the national GOP on gay marriage but also making clear why she would remain a Republican even if her father wasn't veep.
It was also interesting that she referred to herself as "gay" several times, while her gay-male critics called her a "lesbian." It reminded me of Ellen's famous "Yep, I'm Gay" Time magazine cover story. Yet this site has taken some heat for being the Independent Gay Forum and not the Independent LBGT&etc Forum.
I feel strongly that "gay," while far from perfect, is an inclusive term and that if lesbian feminists want to self-segregate (and often work for women's and lesbian issues in organizations dedicated to that purpose), so be it. But it doesn't turn "gay" into a male-only category. Mary Cheney, Ellen DeGeneres, and many other gay women would seem to agree.
Still more. I found Elizabeth Birch and Hilary Rosen's Washington Post op-ed a bit smug and condescending. They write:
This week we've debated each other over the wrongs we feel her family and their allies have perpetrated on the gay and lesbian community and what the impact of her current activities will be.
I'm not quite sure what wrongs the Cheney clan per se have done (the veep has distanced himself from the Federal Marriage Amendment).
Also, following on my point in the update above, Birch and Rosen insist on calling Mary Cheney a lesbian when she herself uses the term gay. Apparently, the demand to respect the nomenclature that an individual favors only works in one direction.
39 Comments for “If You Want to Attend Our Party, the Kitchen’s in the Back.”
posted by Randy R. on
Sadly, i think there is a grain of truth to your last comment. But it is also true that giving money and labor to ungrateful Republicans won’t help either. I think all gays and lesbians, of whatever their political stripe, should join and give money only to individuals who will support our policies, not to any party.
That would make the most sense, wouldn’t it?
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I’m working with a politically experienced and savvy young man who is creating a election support fund to do just that.
We will have to be very careful about who we endorse.
Note that illegal immigrants are becoming the ‘model class’, supported by all kinds of political leadership.
Even risking national identity, security and anarchy to accomodate them.
This is a group that impacts (mostly negatively) all aspects of life.
Yet, this same leadership managed to take money and votes from gay citizens and then also managed to ignore THEIR needs, obligations and contributions (which doesn’t raise taxes, crowd schools and hospitals and break down our language identity and weaken our federal structure of laws.)
Something that, in a time of war, or even perhaps natural disaster, we CANNOT afford.
So our national priorities are seriously screwed up if gay citizens have less cache to politicians than illegal aliens who can’t even vote at all, but have more impact on society in ways we can qualify as not being good for society as a whole.
Let’s just say, recognition is long overdue.
And gay identity, isn’t about promotion of sexual identity.
But recognition as a person with more investment in this country, and it’s leadership as a citizen.
posted by Lori Heine on
This shows the nitwit “Dear Mary” websites, and the milk carton, and all the rest of that crapola, for the frivolity that it really is. We have to be whole people, which means that we can’t all be expected to jettison our families, or our faith, or anything else about who we are and what made us.
Good for Mary Cheney for being who she is. A human being is always too complex to be reduced to somebody else’s stupid stereotype.
posted by Ed Brown on
If you job is helping to elect people from a political party and you publicly state that people should stop sending money to that party, that is not a bright career move.
The bottom line, when Democrats win elections, LGBT tend to benifit and when Republicans win elections, LGBT tend to get royally screwed.
posted by Ed Brown on
Mary has finally broken her long and rather embarassing silence to peddle her new book.
I was not impressed with the Primtime Interview whereby she comes off as a total and utter loon.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ed Brown wrote, “If you job is helping to elect people from a political party and you publicly state that people should stop sending money to that party, that is not a bright career move.”
Pardon me, Ed, but that is not what happened. Donald Hitchcock was the one who got fired, but it was Paul Yandura who stated those things.
posted by Ed Brown on
No, Donald had a job to do, and he was not doing it.
posted by Michael S on
Mary Cheney has a right to her opinion. I don’t happen to agree with her, but she loves her dad; I understand. Also, given his money, she is doubtless a very comfortable individual. I’ve just spent a week working on a memoir of my experience at the Stonewall Rebellion in June 1969, so I have a different feeling about how we have been dealt with than she does. I don’t look to her as a poster girl for gay civil rights, but I’m still proud of her for the stand she took.
posted by sacramento pete on
Sorry, its unrelated, but I’m curious about this site’s reaction to today’s Federal 9th Circuit’s non-ruling on the same sex marriage of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, of Mission Viejo. Judge Fernandez’s ruling also includes the Catch 22 that they had no grounds to sue because they haven’t tried to acquire any federal benefits of marriage, such as filing a married income tax return. Can you do that if you’re not married?
But the silver lining is that the 9th Circuit has recognized that even California’s substantial domestic partner laws are not marriage. So much for “separate but equal”.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The partisan Democratic gay sniping at Mary Cheney is beyond tiresome and hypocritical. So Cheney supported the campaign of a social conservative who supports constitutional amendments against gay marriage.
SO DID THE GAY DEMOCRATS! Oh yes, I know, they’re “state” amendments rather than “federal” ones, but it doesn’t much matter to the gay couple if they lose their right to contract as a married couple due to a federal or state law. They’ve still lost it.
Two national parties in the last federal presidential election opposed anti-gay constitutional amendments at all levels — the Libertarians and the Greens. If you were supporting Democrats or Republicans in those elections, you’ve got absolutely no leg to stand on whatsoever criticizing anyone else on a gay rights platform, period.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Note that illegal immigrants are becoming the ‘model class’, supported by all kinds of political leadership.
Even risking national identity, security and anarchy to accomodate them.
This is a group that impacts (mostly negatively) all aspects of life.”
This is nonsense in the highest degree. In fact, you could apply the exact same logic to what social conservatives say about gay people — and social conservatives do this, every day.
Rather than take the bait of the power elite’s efforts to paint people seeking opportunity as “evil” and dehumanize them with nonsense about “national identity” (what a fascist term), why not move to tear down the barriers of bureaucracy, state power and unaccountability that both encourage undocumented migration AND gay rights outrages?
posted by raj on
Ed Brown | May 5, 2006, 1:47pm
No, Donald had a job to do, and he was not doing it.
Oh, and the fact that Donald was sacked immediately after his partner bad-mouthed Dean had nothing to do with it?
Color me skeptical.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Donald had a job to do, and he was not doing it.”
Actually, apparently Donald’s last appraisal had awarded him high marks. Remember, his job was fund raising — outreach had been eliminated by Howard Dean some time before.
Dean’s claim that he wasn’t doing enough outreach is a revisionist lie — he wasn’t hired to do outreach, and in fact a Democratic gay activist even caught Dean in his lie by linking to the still-posted profile of Hitchcock and his job description — fund raiser.
In addition, the Democratic Party has claimed that Hitchcock’s firing was coming for weeks now — but when he was fired, he was told the decision had been made just days earlier, and the sudden decision by Dean to hire the former head of the GLVF away from the Stonewall Democrats also proves the DNC is lying about this aspect as well.
They have so little respect for gay people that they’re willing to tell obvious and transparent lies, with the expectation that you’re either dumb enough to believe them — or so desperate to get approval from them that you’ll pretend to believe it and rush to defend them from all the people in other parties and independents who are all rolling their eyes.
posted by Ed Brown on
“Cheney supported the campaign…[for] constitutional amendments against gay marriage.”
And you do not seem to have any problem with this?
“SO DID THE GAY DEMOCRATS!”
Yes, but at least Kerry/Edwards understood the need for equality, and supported civil unions and opposed the federal constitutional amendment.
Bush/Cheneny supported both the federal and state bans and thus did not support any legal of equity for gay couples.
“Libertarians and the Greens.”
Such political parties will not become viable alternatives until we have real campaign law reform.
posted by Ed Brown on
Donald had a job to do, and he was not doing it. If his job is to raise money, telling people to stop send his employer money is not great career move.
They have so little respect for gay people that they’re willing to tell obvious and transparent lies, with the expectation that you’re either dumb enough to believe them — or so desperate to get approval from them that you’ll pretend to believe it and rush to defend them from all the people in other parties and independents who are all rolling their eyes.
.
posted by Lori Heine on
I guess I’m just not clear on what those who criticize Mary Cheney expected her to do. She could have been less careful in expressing her dissent, I suppose. But she’s the friggin’ Vice President’s daughter, not a crown princess.
Those angry at her seem to hold her accountable for not having changed her father’s mind. Hello…what planet are these people from? If the veep is like most dads, he’s not going to change his mind just to suit his daughter, no matter how much he loves her. Mary Cheney’s critics seem to think all parents have wills as pliable as Play-Doh. Didn’t they have parents of their own?
Whether he should have or not, it simply wasn’t very realistic to imagine he would. And people simply don’t have that much influence over their parents, even in the closest of families.
Whenever Dianne Sawyer asked her one of those potential-zinger questions, the look in Cheney’s eyes spoke quite clearly. It said, “Whoa, lady…I’ve got to live with the answers I give a lot longer than you do!” I can’t bring myself to hate her for loving her family.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Donald had a job to do, and he was not doing it.”
That’s funny. The Dems were raising money from gays for a long time without doing anything for them. This fellow’s partner points out that isn’t a good strategy, the guy gets canned, and they continue to not do anything for gay people but expect the money to keep rolling in.
Something tells me that’s not going to happen.
“Those angry at her seem to hold her accountable for not having changed her father’s mind.”
Well, she was, in their minds, supposed to walk away from her family and into the loving arms of the Democratic party, apparently. You know, the one that treated Dave Hitchcock and Candace Gingrich (remember her?) so well.
Funnily enough, she decided it wasn’t the best option. 😉
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Kerry/Edwards understood the need for equality”
If you call supporting anti-gay constitutional amendments “understanding the need for equality,” I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you, cheap.
Goodness, Republicrats really have to tie themselves up in knots to remain party-loyal.
posted by Bruce on
Of course, the Democrats do seem to keep the many Conqresscritters rumored to be qay, from Barbara Mikulski to Patrick Kennedy, very much in the closet (and in their cups?)!
posted by Anthony on
I am a gay man. I am a Republican. I am an American. I am a Christian. I am many things. Congratulations to Mary Cheney for being HERSELF. Shame on those who criticize for being utterly judgmental and hypocritical.
posted by Anthony on
I am a gay man. I am a Republican. I am an American. I am a Christian. I am many things. Congratulations to Mary Cheney for being HERSELF. Shame on those who criticize for being utterly judgmental and hypocritical.
posted by Anthony on
Okay, one more thought. When gay people (and yes that includes lesbians) spend all their time focusing solely on their sexual orientation and embrace the “whoa is me” self-victimization trumpeted by so-called “progressives” like Jesse Jackson (a racist in every sense of the word) and Nancy Pelosi (tax happy and a genuine socialist on many, many issues), we lose who and what we are as INDIVIDUALS. When was the last time any leading gay organization promoted the notion of being yourself and embracing who and what YOU are? Log Cabin does to a degree, but that’s it. I grow weary and tired of hearing the same whiny complaints about how hard life is for gays when it is clear we enjoy a multitude of freedoms not bestowed to all peoples in much of the rest of the world. If Mary Cheney chooses to chart her own course in life and not expect government to either affirm or condemn her, I say go for it. When I look at the two parties, I see one determined to defeat fundamentalist extremists bent on destroying ALL of America. I see the other mired in defeatist, leftist tactics that should have been shelved long ago. I vote Republican because national security matters a great deal more than whether I can marry my loving, devoted partner (who is also a Republican). Let’s remember that freedom means more than being able to strap yourself to a Pride float half-naked and pronouncing all your sexual fantasies. It means being responsible and being self reliant. Find me a Democrat (especially a gay one) who believes that.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“When I look at the two parties, I see one determined to defeat fundamentalist extremists bent on destroying ALL of America. I see the other mired in defeatist, leftist tactics that should have been shelved long ago”
The irony is that Democrats probably see it the same way, they’d just swap the parties — the religious extremists being Falwell, and the defeatist leftist tactics being Bush’s penchant for deficit spending, increasing the size and scope of government, and massive budget increases that make the Great Society look like a walk in the park.
Which is, frankly, the greatest proof of the “both old parties haven’t a dime’s worth of difference” maxim I can think of.
posted by Ed Brown on
In the 2004 Presidentail election LGBT Americans had two choices; Bush who opposed all LGBT equal rights and Kerry who supported many LGBT equal rights.
In the political marketplace of ideas; Bush wanted to take America backwards and Kerry wanted to take America forward. That is why roughly 70% of gay and lesbian Americans voted for Kerry.
Until we have real campaign law reform in America, independent and third political party candidates, especially at the federal level, are spoilers or knick-knacks.
posted by Anthony on
Yes, 70 percent of gay Americans voted for Kerry. About 23 percent supported Pres. Bush. Does that mean 23 percent of gays aren’t concerned about issues like marriage, etc.? No, it just means that we’re more worried about the threats posed by Islamic extremists than those posed by Christian fundamentalists. If I had a choice between being denied marital rights versus being stoned to death or hanged (or worse) simply for being gay I’d pick not the former every time. We seem to quickly forget that 9-11 happened on AMERICAN SOIL. Terrorists care not if we are gay, straight, black, white, etc. They only care that we are Americans. Of course, should they ever gain control of this country or even a toehold of political power, watch out. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson will look like preschoolers by comparison. It’s interesting – the same folks who decry our war on terror (and somehow equate gay rights with abortion rights, the struggles of blacks at one time, etc.) seem unfazed by the horrific atrocities committed against gays and women in one Muslim nation after another. To be sure America has its own issues, but mass terror against gays and women is not one of them. I, for one, still believe in the two-party system. I am a Republican for a whole host of reasons and none of them have changed because of my sexual orientation. We spend entirely too much time looking for reasons to be upset about this, that or the other thing. When gays can’t even live peacefully without the constant threat of violence then we’ll have something to be worried about internally. At this point, the greatest enemy we have is the radical terrorist, NOT the president of our own country.
posted by Mark on
Please do not change the name of this site to the “LGBTQ Independent Forum”
posted by Ed Brown on
“About 23 percent supported Pres. Bush.”
Sadly, yes.
“Does that mean 23 percent of gays aren’t concerned about issues like marriage, etc?”
Not as much as they care about a man that will present the style of being safe at the expense of actually being safe from terrorists.
Terrorists of the religious wacko varity will not gain control of America, they just elect kinder, more gentler wackos to office.
“It’s interesting – the same folks who decry our war on terror”
Wait, let me guess, you are next going to say that anyone that disagrees with Bush must hate him and love terrorists, right?
“seem unfazed by the horrific atrocities committed against gays and women in one Muslim nation after another.”
Honey, I actually grew up in the Middle East. Trust me, their “war on terrorism” is not doing that much for gays or women in the Muslim world.
“still believe in the two-party system.”
A two-party system is a good idea, perhaps it will catch on in America.
posted by Ed Brown on
Oh, come on! It really does not matter if we call some one a gay woman or a lesbian. Both terms are valid and polite. If that is the “proof” of the “left-wing” conspiracy, Stevey needs to get a life.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, well written piece, well said. I saw the Mary Cheney interview also and thought she did a good job putting a humanizing face to the name that the GayLeft has attacked and attacked with senseless, ceaseless partisan devotion.
And let’s remember, despite what the hardcore Democrat partisans commenting here have been saying, “values” as an issue to voters was number 4 (four) in importance to Election Day voters in 2004… behind the WOT in Iraq, terrorism in general, and the economy. By being number 4 in importance to voters, that puts the issue in single digits… and it’s very, very hard (except for spinsters) to argue gay marriage was a wedge issue.
They do, of course. But reality isn’t their strong suit anyway; glad it is YOUR strong suit, Stephen.
posted by George Applegate on
I’m astounded by the cheers from gay Republicans for Mary Cheney. Mary Cheney and her partner were not invited on stage at the end of the convention. During the debates, Sen. Edwards mentioned Mary’s sexuality and the Cheneys pounced on it as if Edward had called her a serial killer. In the conservatives mind it’s fine to be gay (some of my best friends are gay!!) but the reality is they see their gay children as a shameful reminder of their failure as parents. Mary Cheney, a sycophantic rich kid who has no values whatsoever should be condemned by anyone straight or gay for her total dishonesty. At least our known enemies believe what they say. This self-hating woman truly makes me sad. There are lots of kids with equal trust funds who fight the good fight. Now Mary will be the puppet for the right-wing and sadly some gay conservatives are falling in line.
posted by Anthony on
Now George, you surely do not believe that Mary Cheney is evil. Please tell me you’re not one of those whiny, sniveling leftist gays who actually buys into the whole self-victimization argument that so infects the gay community. If so, then you need to spend more time with the leftie blogs whose obsession with “identity” politics is growing tired and weary. I think Mary Cheney deserves to be left alone to live her life and enjoy what she has carved out for herself and her partner of 14 years. Perhaps you would be as content as she if you possessed a third of the inner peace she seems to have. Of course, I do not know you or her on a personal basis so I can only venture to guess about such things. At the same time, we know that gay lefties have made great sport of outing people, thus destroying careers, committed relationships, families, so on and so forth. They have attempted to do this to Mary Cheney but with no success and that just eats them alive. Anyone who outs another person is loathsome, at best. So go ahead and bash Mary Cheney. Bash we gay Republicans. We don’t care. Your opinions and world view aren’t of concern to us. And that is what you hate most.
posted by Anthony on
As for Ed’s comments, all I need to say is that he has a problem with ANY gay person voting his or her conscience and values. It’s the “all Democrats are good” and “all Republicans are bad” argument. Oh, he boasts of standing above the two-party fray and the like but Ed is nothing more than a liberal gay man who is angry at other gay men (and women) for daring to think for themselves and vote accordingly. Ed, you’re not the first to be so obvious in your tack and you certainly will not be the last. I am proud that my partner and I are among the 23 percent of gays who voted for Bush. We are not pleased with some of his decisions but they are not the ones you’d point to. We’re upset about the runaway spending. We’re concerned about not tightening up our borders. We worry about taxes (and no, we’re not rich). But the Democrats and their class warfare, race, gender and sexual orientation obsessed caucuses, etc. aren’t an option for us to even consider. We are Republicans and you just can’t comprehend that can you? We’re here, we’re clear about, now get used to it!
posted by Anthony on
Okay, I have to reply to something else George said in his bashing of Mary Cheney. He calls her a rich kid from a life of privilege, etc., etc. It never ceases to amaze me how lefties are so angry at Republicans for having wealth but not at their beloved Democrats. Let’s talk about the Kennedys for a moment – at least the ones who are not currently shrugging off their own problems by claiming some addiction to this, that or the other thing. Talk about a group of spoiled brats with no regard for anyone else! Ted Kennedy is the poster child for sexual harrassment, his son is now the poster child for “excuse my behavior” anonymous. Come on, fellas. Let’s use some realistic arguments when criticizing someone. Leave Mary Cheney alone. She certainly could care less what irrelevant posters like you think.
posted by Ed Brown on
“As for Ed’s comments,”
Wise and true that they are.
“I need to say is that he has a problem with ANY gay person voting his or her conscience and values.”
No. I seem to be the only person here that has been active in the U.S. movement to allow citzens to vote their conscience (Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertariran, etc) via free and fair elections.
I have also organized and spoken out for the need for LGBT Democrats and Republicans to work together.
However, I have the same right to express my opinions as does anyone else. A legal right to do something (i.e. voting) does not include a barrier from criticism about how you vote.
I have never said, “all Democrats are good.” In fact, I have stated here and on my own homepage that in terms of LGBT issues that is not the case. My comments on where each political party (or candidate) stands on LGBT issues are objective and based on the facts.
Gay Americans should be able to vote for the candidate for their choice; independent, major or minor party. Sadly, voting rights have a long way to go. Clearly, 23% of gay Americans voted for President Bush.
I am not violating your rights by being critical of how you vote. It seems that gay conservatives often play the “victim” whenever some one is intelligently critical of the Republican Party or gay Republicans. But then attack other people who they claim are playing the “victim card.”
The fact that 23% of gay Americans voted for a candidate that opposed most (if not all) notions of equity and freedom for is telling. It likely means that 23% of gay Americans do not place a high saliency on LGBT issues.
In the case of Anthony, it would seem that he and his partner voted for a man that felt that they should both be locked up because (1) thing government spends “too much.” (2) hate Mexicans, are “worried” about taxes (a federal code that benifits the elite).
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“it would seem that he and his partner voted for a man that felt that they should both be locked up”
Ridiculous hyperbole.
As one of the few gay people who voted for one of the two non-homophobic national candidates for President (the Libertarian and the Green), I find opportunist Democrats’ hyperbole on gay issues vis-a-vis Republicans (or anyone else) to be a bit rich.
After all, “gay equality” candidate John Kerry’s first press conference after losing the election was called in Louisiana where he disowned his party’s “immoral” stance in Massachusetts which. . . supported gay marriage.
And John Kerry supports an anti-gay constitutional amendment which would forever ban gay marriage — just like George W. Bush. He just supports it on a state level, and believes that gays should get their own specially-labelled entrance to the marriage theater, with their own “separate but equal” seats.
Pretending otherwise just makes Democrats look silly.
Were Bush and Cheney homophobic? No doubt. But the demogoguery around Mary Cheney is idiotic. There can be little doubt that the same Democrats trying to make Mary’s life hellish for not campaigning against her father would turn VICIOUSLY on one of Kerry’s daughters if she came out as a lesbian and announced she would campaign against Kerry and for Badnarick or Cobb because of Kerry’s own position favoring anti-gay constitutional amendments.
That’s called hypocrisy, folks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nicely put, NL.
posted by Ed Brown on
President Bush supported the Texas Homosexual Conduct Legal Prohibition, the one that the USSC struck down.
“Ridiculous hyperbole.”
No, the name of the case is Lawrence v. Texas and you can download the case online.
Voting for a third party presidential candidate is essentially tossing your vote away. The system is set up so that they can not win. Don’t like it? Change the system.
John Kerry supported civil unions, this is not perfectt but it far better then what Bush offered. Kerry opposed the federal marriage amendment, Bush supports it.
Civil unions are not perfect, but would be a life-saver to many gay families across the nation.
“Mary Cheney is idiotic.”
Agreed. She is a spoiled little rich girl. She stayed on her dad’s campaign to get a nice, fat paycheck.
posted by Anthony on
Oh Ed – you are too much! I just love your usage of self-flattery. You are the prototype of arrogant, elitist gays who think they and they alone speak for the entire community. You suggested that my partner voted for a president who would have us put in jail for some silly reason you came up with – no, but we’d be happy to give your contact information to the NSA. You then stated that we hate Mexicans. How ignorant can you be? Not all Hispanics are from Mexico nor are all illegal aliens. Come to think of it – do you have your papers in order? Hmmmmm. As for taxes, yes, we are concerned about them and anyone who works and pays their own way in life (which includes 99.9 percent of wealthy folks and those of us in the middle class). Apparently you’re not working and earning your way. Just a guess on my part. Oh yeah – this claim of yours to be some great uniting force on behalf of gays is laughable on its face. Tell it to someone who is impressed with your self-importance. Now, on to Mary Cheney’s appearance on Larry King. I thought she was excellent and shot down every single stereotype certain people have claimed about her. She is anything but an idiot. Of course, those who claim she is are holding up life-size mirrors in front of themselves. I was especially pleased with her defense of her father and the way she talked about being a strong supporter of the war on terrorism. Take that Ed! Of course, Ed, you always have the nutcake in Iran to champion your point of view.
posted by Anthony on
Here’s the bottom line for me: Democrats are overwhelmingly tax-happy, anti-military (and therefore anti-national defense), pro-victimization, pro-class warfare, etc. They represent the whoas is me crowd. Ed, no wonder you love ’em so much, in spite of your claims to the contrary!