Mary Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, has married her longtime partner, Heather Poe. Fox News reported that:
In a statement, Cheney and his wife, Lynne, said the couple got married in Washington on Friday. The Cheneys said the two had been in a committed relationship for many years and they were delighted that they could take advantage of the “opportunity to have the relationship recognized.”
A good news story that also helps extend support for marriage equality outside the left-liberal “progressive” echo chamber. Alas, that echo chamber’s denizens seem intent on alienating any potential avenue of support that isn’t part of the left-progressive scene. Example: The big gay news ricocheting around conservative media and blogs isn’t the Cheney marriage, but of gay rights activists, guests of President Obama, making obscene gestures at the portrait of President Reagan during a gay pride reception at the White House. Juvenile in the extreme. As Gay Patriot’s B. Daniel Blatt remarks, “What would the media reaction be if social conservatives had photographed themselves flipping off pictures of Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter while visiting the White House?”
More. Along somewhat similar lines, at Powerlineblog.com.
21 Comments for “Best and Worst”
posted by Mark on
The Cheneys’ praise rings a little hollow given their support for a candidate who has enthusiastically committed to a DC plebiscite to strip from the city’s gay and lesbian residents the right to marry. If Mary Cheney had waited a year, Pres. Romney might have acted to ensure that she and her wife couldn’t have gotten married in DC at all.
I also enjoy how a figure no one has ever heard of, who TWS described as a “self-taught photographer turned toast-of-the-town,” can be described as representative in any way of the views of liberals. By these standards, Peter Sprigg should be seen as representative of Stephen’s conservative views.
Along these lines, will Stephen ever fill us in on which of the “echo chamber” gay activists in NC advocated for civil unions for straights, as he claimed?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The big gay news ricocheting around conservative media and blogs isn’t the Cheney marriage, but of gay rights activists, guests of President Obama, making obscene gestures at the portrait of President Reagan during a gay pride reception at the White House.
Well, of course. The finger-flipping can be used as a hammer against gays and lesbians, not to mention “leftists” and “liberals” and President Obama; the Cheney wedding not. What else would you expect from “conservative media and blogs”?
Juvenile in the extreme.
Juvenile, pointless, Stupid, boorish and totally inappropriate. To quote the White House: “Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House.” The conservative media/blogosphere echo chamber is going nuts, with the usual commentary to the effect that this was “classless and exceedingly rude behavior typical of the left”, but it is probably worth noting that only three people, all middle-aged and from Philadelphia, were involved, out of hundreds of invited guests.
No comment about whether or not Philadelphians are “classless and exceedingly rude” as a whole — I know only one Philadelphian, formerly of the Franklin Institute, go I don’t have a basis for judgment — but I agree with Joe Lieberman’s rabbi that eating cheese steak is suicidal.
posted by Jorge on
At the White House?
Gee, I wonder what would happen if I started flipping off people at tomorrow’s NYC Gay Pride Parade?
Or at church?
posted by Houndentenor on
*yawn* More fake outrage.
posted by JohnInCA on
Tell you what, Mr. Miller.
If it’s reasonable and fair for me to be judged by someone I have never met, never heard of, never gave credence to, and have never said anything about one way or the other just because she’s gay, then it should be fair and reasonable for me to judge Tea Partiers by Michelle Bachman Rick Perry.
Or, to put it another way… until it’s acceptable for me to say “yep, that there Tea Party is awful anti-gay” based on the actions of Tea Party sponsored politicians, then trying to judge gay people by the actions of these ladies is so far out out-of-line it’s not even funny.
posted by Jorge on
The tea party is not anti-gay, and it is rather ignorant of you to say that.
Your words are “juvenile in the extreme!” “Stupid, boorish, and totally inappropriate!” To paraphrase Tom S, “Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all on the internet!”
Does this sound familiar? What? It doesn’t? Then get a thicker skin.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, the tea party is most definitely anti-gay.
Of course the organizers intended for it to be about economic and not social issues but the tea party candidates that have been elected at the state and federal level have formed a solid anti-gay voting block. Perhaps they SAY they aren’t anti-gay, but their actions show that that’s exactly what they are.
posted by JohnInCA on
Well, either I missed your sarcasm, or you missed my point.
Either way, cheers.
posted by Jorge on
My point is that I don’t see it being “unacceptable” for you to say what you have.
posted by JohnInCA on
Sarcasm then.
Cheers.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. I have mixed views about Mary Cheney in general. Not so much due to political differences, although that is probably some of it, but more based on the fact that just about every single time she come out publicly was for her own personal (financial) game.
She was pretty silent during the Bush-Cheney administration, when even a Log Cabin Republican should have upset.
‘Where was Mary?’ became a buzzword. Her father and mother were willing to put her back in the closet for the campaign.
However, when Mary wants to sell her new book, which I actually took the time to read, she comes out. So, now I have to wonder what is “in it” for Mary now? Since, she does not seem too interested in gay rights beyond her own personal pocketbook, I am a little less interested in her marriage or the idea that she has much to offer us — in terms of dealing with homophobia within the Republican Party.
I wish her well, as one human being to another. However, she has never seemed to interested in standing up for gay rights or challenging anti-gay bias within the Republican Party, unless it is in her job description.
2. People, even gay people, are capable of doing stupid things at public events. Civility and tact are not gifts that everyone seems to have. The right-wing press no doubt took this incident as further “evidence” that most gay people are evil, green-blooded monsters and that the President is really a radical-socialist-right-wing Islamic fundamentalist born in Kenya.
posted by Houndentenor on
1. It goes back a lot further than that with Mary Cheney. She took a position with Coors back in the early 90s (or late 80s) when the company was facing boycotts by gay bars due to heavy donation to conservative politicians (who were then as now usually also strongly anti-gay). So in 2000 when her mother denied she was a lesbian on the Today show it was surreal. Mary had been out for well over a decade. The same goes for the fake outrage at John Kerry “outing” her in the 2004 debate. You can out someone who has been out for that long. It wasn’t a secret that she was gay. It was just inconvenient for the Bush campaign to acknowledge that. So she was happy to take a job using her connections to the gay community for profit, but did nothing about the anti-gay tone of two consecutive campaigns by her father. But that’s water under the bridge. I don’t much care what she does. I don’t wish her any ill will but I also don’t really appreciate her showing up expecting a ticker tape parade as if she has been a gay rights activist all this time either.
2. While I don’t think it was appropriate for anyone to behave that way in the White House, I find it hard to believe that no conservative has ever taken a similar picture flipping off the portrait of Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. People have a right to be assholes. And you can tell how big an asshole is by how big a shitfit they have over someone else doing the exact kind of thing they’d do (usually in reverse) if they had the chance. As I said before, more fake outrage.
posted by Jorge on
1. Dick Cheney himself had acknowledged she was gay within the previous six months. The point about the “outing” by John Kerry was that it was a naked political stunt that seemed designed to say to conservatives, “Boogie! Boogie! Boogie! The Bush’s Vice President’s daughter is gay! Don’t vote for them you hypocrites!” And because it reached into the personal life of a member of the family whom they considered to be not a public figure (there are some arguments that this was not a reasonable perception), Mama was upset.
And Mary Cheney became infamous as a result. What do infamous people do? They write books.
2. Conservatives never tire of contrasting how the anti-Scott Walker and the Occupy Wall Street protesters trash the areas they go to with the pristine condition the Tea Partiers left the National Monument. If there were evidence of a double-standard they would have been shut up by now, but in fact, liberal-progressive types are boors. Religious-conservative types are not.
posted by Houndentenor on
1. Mary Cheney has as much right to write a book as anyone else. If it had been successful I don’t doubt there would have been more. I have no problem with that. I just find it odd that so many homocons live and take advantage of the benefits of gay rights legislation enacted by the very people they voted against.
2. The difference is that the Occupy movement doesn’t run the Democratic Party. The Tea Party now seems to have veto power over any idea proposed by a Republican. Harry Reid doesn’t cow-tow to the Occupiers. Boehner on the other hand has to bow and scrap before the Tea Partiers. There’s a world of difference between the two and their relationship to the respective party. And again, since I see such boorish behavior aimed at Obama almost every day, I don’t think the offense at flipping off a portrait of a dead president all that offensive.
posted by Houndentenor on
P.S. I am against littering. I don’t litter and I don’t approve of others doing it either. But I wasn’t there so no one asked me. What Occupiers did NOT do, however, was wave firearms around and make veiled threats towards a sitting president. Not that the two are equivalent or that either is acceptable. That’s what’s wrong with our current politics: too much rationalization of one side’s behavior and hypocritical attacks on the other. Sometimes everyone is wrong. Actually, that’s the case these days more often than not.
posted by Jorge on
What Occupiers did NOT do, however, was wave firearms around and make veiled threats towards a sitting president.
Is that an actual pattern, or an isolated incident?
I barely even know what you’re talking about. Did anyone arrest or even investigate them?
That’s what’s wrong with our current politics: too much rationalization of one side’s behavior and hypocritical attacks on the other.
There’s not a lot of integrity going around, either. The people with integrity go far, but lately they haven’t reached the top.
posted by Carl on
So gay conservative blogs are endorsing a man who does not support gay marriage or civil unions, does not support gay adoption, does not support gays openly serving in the military…and the big issue is Ronald Reagan’s portrait?
posted by Houndentenor on
Meanwhile the Texas State GOP platform includes the following language:
We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.
http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/2012-Platform-Final.pdf?docID=3201
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Ah, a harbinger of moderation in the Republican Party — this year’s platform dropped the demand that sodomy be re-criminalized. God Bless Texas and God’s Own Party!
posted by Houndentenor on
Ah. I was told this was an improvement. I couldn’t imagine what was improved. It makes sense. Texas after all is the state where police officers made the bogus arrest that led to the Lawrence decision. The Texas sodomy law was basically used to threaten and intimidate gay people (who would usually plead to any misdemeanor to avoid this being on their record).
posted by tomjeffersoniii on
1. Again, I wish Mary and her wife happiness and plenty of children. But, time and time again she has made it clear that she really does not care too much what vicious, anti-gay politicians do, she will even agree to be silent and work for them, as long as the check has lots of zeros on it and does not bounce.
I am not saying that she needed to live a life of poverty and chastity. Heck, I am not even saying that she needed to become a liberal or Democrat.
Time and time again she could have made different choices, while still being a financially successful Republican. Choices that would have stood up for her dignity and the dignity of gay Americans everywhere.