Mary Cheney has quite rightly blasted her sister Liz (who is challenging incumbent Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi in a GOP primary) for attacking same-sex marriages, such as Mary’s.
Liz declared “I am not pro-gay marriage,” and that even same-sex marriage approved by state legislatures would not be valid in her eyes. Only if voters approve marriage equality by referendum would she concede that a state could recognize the marriages of gay couples (which she would still oppose).
Liz’s stance would invalidate the marriage of her sister Mary, who was wed in the District of Columbia (where same-sex marriage was passed by the city council and signed into law by the mayor), and make illegitimate the two children of Mary and her wife, Heather Poe. Which makes Liz a very bad aunt.
This sort of bigotry is increasingly going to be hard for GOP candidates to defend. But that won’t stop them from trying. And LGBT activists will continue to oppose those Republicans who do support same-marriage, as I’ve frequently pointed out (because it’s important to note their hypocrisy as well).
33 Comments for “Trouble in the House of Cheney”
posted by Houndentenor on
Just when you thought you couldn’t think less of the Cheneys, there’s this. And for what? She has no chance of winning of unseating Enzi. Why make such a desperate, despicable and pathetic ploy with no hope of getting anything out of it?
posted by Doug on
“Why make such a desperate, despicable and pathetic ploy with no hope of getting anything out of it?” Because she is a ‘Cheney’ who is hungry for power and willing to do anything, including throwing her family under a bus, to achieve that power.
posted by Houndentenor on
I still remember the 2000 morning show interview in which Lynne Cheney flat out denied that Mary was a lesbian in spite of her having been out (and even working for Coors which was facing a boycott by gay bars) for years. What a loathesome bunch.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What a loathesome bunch.
You get the impression that the Cheney family is deeply troubled. It appears that Dick and Mary are allied (she was the daughter who enjoyed hunting and fishing with him, and they seem to have a very close relationship) in ways that he was not allied with Liz, and there seems to have been considerable tension between the two sisters over the years. Lynne appears to have had a lot of difficulty accepting Mary for who she is (she denied Mary’s sexual orientation long after she was out publicly) and has an odd history with respect to lesbians in general (she wrote a lesbian-themed Western and later denied writing it). Dick expressed support for marriage equality and Mary qualifies as an “LGBT activist” (she was party to an amicus in Perry), while Lynne is silent and Liz’s latest statement puts her on the rabid anti-gay right.
The family sounds like a mess. I feel sorry for them.
posted by Doug on
Don’t forget that it was Dick who threw Scooter Libby under the bus too. This family would do anything to get and hold power. They have a history of throwing anyone under the bus who gets in their way.
posted by Houndentenor on
That analysis makes sense. It even sounds like about half the families I know (although in most of them the split includes a divorce or separation). I will say what I said about Dick Cheney in 2004 about Liz in 2014: if you won’t stand up for your own family, why should anyone trust you to stand up for them?
posted by Mike in Houston on
I’m just glad that Mary has found her voice and is stepping up… She was pretty much MIA during the Bush-Cheney tears (and before).
I would guess that being legally married and a parent has made her less tolerant of attacks on her family.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And LGBT activists will continue to oppose those Republicans who do support same-marriage, as I’ve frequently pointed out (because it’s important to note their hypocrisy as well).
Yup. We are evil. When are you going to get off this nonsense?
LGBT activists who are Democrats support Democrats. Why shouldn’t we?
posted by Houndentenor on
It was a bizarre comment indeed. What does it have to do with a race in which neither Cheney nor Enzi supports gay rights? Neither deserves any gay support. Will Democrats in Wyoming nominate someone better on gay issues? The bar is set so low at this point that it shouldn’t be difficult. Will Stephen support that candidate or does his plea for support for pro-gay candidates only work one way?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The relevant questions for Republicans on this list are:
(1) When did you last vote for a solidly pro-equality Republican candidate for State Assembly, State Senate, Congress, US Senate or President?
(2) If the answer to the first question is “I don’t remember ever being able to do that …”, then the question is what are you doing to change the party?
It is that latter question that is the issue, when you get right down to it.
Most Republicans have never had the opportunity to vote for a solid pro-equality Republican candidate.
In contrast, in 2012 I was able to vote for a solid pro-equality Democrat in each of the races, top of the ticket to bottom. That’s the first time in my lifetime that every Democrat running for state or federal office in my district was on record as supporting marriage equality without qualifications.
It felt good.
I realize that not every Democrat is in my fortunate situation. Roughly 70% of the Democrats in Wisconsin are, but 30% or so live in districts where one or more of the Democratic candidates still haven’t gone on record. The situation is worse in “red” states, and in some areas of both “blue” and “red” states, anti-equality Democrats are still running.
We need to change that … But we are working on it, as we have been for three decades, and it is getting better.
Republican gays and lesbians could improve their party if they wanted to do so. That’s where Stephen ought to focus, rather than worrying about why gay and lesbian Democrats aren’t flocking to the other party.
posted by John D on
I am a registered Democrat. However, I would happily cross party lines to vote for the candidate that was more supportive of equality for gay people.
Were I still in my home state of Massachusetts, that might be tough. (During their last gubernatorial election, I noted that one candidate was pro-choice and pro-equality, and the other was pro-choice, pro-equality, and a Democrat. The pro-choice guy with the lesbian daughter won.) In my California district, I’m part of a tiny bit of blue in a sea of red. I vote for the pro-equality candidate. We keep sending the other guy to Congress.
The Democrats don’t own my vote. They just keep earning it every time. And this is true across the country. I doubt there is any race in which the Republican candidate is more pro-gay rights than the Democrat. I would be happy to learn of any case where this was true.
posted by Don on
It seems like a pretty good choice to have to make. Most of us have a choice between the candidate that is only so-so supportive and the other candidate that wants to burn my house to the ground for crimes against humanity. Luckily, there is a smaller and smaller portion of the country where the choices are between two candidates who want to burn our houses to the ground.
The “lower my taxes” gay GOP crowd has never gotten anywhere with me. Sure, lower taxes are great. But taxed spousal health insurance, higher taxes for permanent single status, higher insurance rates and expensive legal documents to protect each other when a $25 marriage license could do. Just can’t imagine how much they will cut my taxes to save me the money I have to spend to be treated equally. And even if they did, heteros get the same tax break on offer plus all the marriage bonuses, so its never gonna make up for their personal stance. It makes no economic sense for gays to support the GOP. And that never enters these discussions.
posted by JohnInCA on
Ironically, the more gay democrats manage to change the law to be more “equal means equal”, the easier it will be to support the GOP.
That is to say… with time any individual politicians stance on LGBT rights will matter less and less, impotent as they are to fight the tide. Meaning it would be easier to justify to oneself a vote for an anti-lgbt politician knowing that the practical effect will be close to nil. It’s easier to overlook someone’s flaws when their flaws are merely annoying, not actually destructive.
posted by Thom Watson on
I always find this assertion that marriage equality must be left to plebiscite, and not considered legitimate even when duly elected legislatures enact it, an especially hypocritical one for a politician to hold. Essentially the politician is saying to the electorate, “Hire me and pay me, but don’t expect me to do my constitutionally defined job, i.e., make law.”
posted by Jorge on
I happen to like Liz Cheney greatly for the way she pulls no punches in advocating what’s usually Dick Cheney-style neoconservatism. She always goes farther than I would, though.
Frankly, this is much ado about nothing.
And as for Liz Cheney being a “bad aunt”, I think it’s a poor example of family values if people aren’t able to disagree amicably about major political and social issues.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s one thing for the family to disagree about what the top income tax rate should be. It’s quite another to disagree about whether your own sister’s marriage should be recognized under federal law. I understand that reasonable people can disagree about important topics. Jefferson and Adams had strong disagreements and never could resolve most of them. As either was smarter and more articulate than anyone I can think of discussing or writing about politics today, I think it’s fair to say that some issues will just not be resolved (as much as some people would like to think that one side of a political issue is “settled”). I don’t think it’s the same to look someone in the eye and tell them that they aren’t entitled to equal treatment under the law. I don’t know why that concept is so hard to explain to conservatives.
posted by Jorge on
It’s one thing for the family to disagree about what the top income tax rate should be. It’s quite another to disagree about whether your own sister’s marriage should be recognized under federal law.
Sorry, I cannot agree.
posted by Doug on
So every form of rank discrimination is ok as long as it’s done under the banner of religion.
posted by Jorge on
“rank” discrimination? Methinks you need to wash your tongue.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Income tax rates are about property rights. For most of history, marriages were about property rights also, but today they are about human rights. It never fails to astound me when I encounter gay people willing to negate their own human rights in favor of their property rights.
posted by JohnInCA on
What can I say? I demand to be just as free to negate my human rights in favor of property rights by marrying a man as my sister.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This is a complete sidetrack, but if anyone doubts that the anti-gay movement is becoming a parody of itself, check out this page at Mass Resistance.
I was particularly entertained by the photo “It fits perfectly on your car between your “Impeach Obama” and “NRA” stickers!”
posted by Throbert McGee on
I found the boldfaced phrasing a bit odd, since historically “legitimacy” has been so interwoven with the question of paternity! Biological parenting by same-sex couples will ALWAYS involve a third party to donate the opposite-sex gamete — and, obviously, “homosexual cuckoldry” cannot result in bouncing baby bastards who can be passed off as “the father’s own.”
So ancient notions of “legitimacy” vs. “illegitimacy” do not have a clear application for gay couples. (Not that such terms, nowadays, have any legal significance for heterosexual couples, either — except possibly in countries with hereditary aristocracy.)
posted by Clayton on
I think the Cheney family dynamics will be just fine, with everyone sitting around the table at Thanksgiving. After all, Mary supported her father in 2004, when he gave lip service to marriage equality, but was part of a presidential campaign that turned out the base by putting “marriage protection” amendments on dozens of ballots around the country.
In fact, people keep talking about how Dick Cheyney supports marriage equality–but has he ever used his considerable wealth, fame and power to actually do anything that might help to bring equality about? I don’t think so.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Stephen Says: LGBT activists will continue to oppose those Republicans– OK! WTF? Well, if someone is a LGBT and member of the Democratic Party, they are probably going to vote for the Democratic Party. Frankly, I can think of very few — if any cases — in a recent federal election where the Republican was in favor of marriage equality and the Democrat was not. Heck, I cannot think of too many recently in the context of a statewide partisan race.
I suppose the more interesting question — would maybe be how many gay swingers — swing voters mind you — exist and how many of them would be willing to vote for a marriage equality Republican (no matter what they overall political ideas might be).
Very little about the Cheney family — in terms of ethics or political views — has impressed me at all. Dick was probably personally western Republican ‘live and let live’, but was willing to oppose gay rights (and peddle anti-gay bills) as long as it played well with ‘Bible thumbers’.
Mary seemed to be all but MIA during much of the Bush-Cheney administration. I can appreciate the need for a certain amount of tact and she may indeed have very neo-conservative policy viewpoints (outside of gay rights), but their were many moments where she could have — as a gay Republicans — been a leader and helped move her party forward. She choose not to.
posted by Jorge on
The eldest Second Daughter of the United States is not a leadership position.
posted by Doug on
You don’t have to be elected to show leadership. Sometimes non elected ‘everyday folks’ turn out to be the best leader and the most effective.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I would agree — to some extent.
However, she did take an active role helping a major beer company develop a better relationship with gay consumers…
She certainly did take an active role in her father’s VP campaign and she certainly had opportunities to try and change the policy direction of an administration that her father was a part of and that she had helped to get him into that position.
Again, maybe she really does have very neo-conservative views (beyond gay rights), and felt that ‘disagreement’ over this ‘one issue’ could be set aside in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and other red-state shenanigans.
She had tactful opportunities (which might have been helpful) and generally chose to ignore them. Designated leader or not, she had chances and ignored them.
Basically, I have little interest in the Cheney family or their offspring.
posted by Jorge on
Better.
It is not for an outsider to demand how and when a leader shall act.
I will give a personal example. I’m gay. And it’s something I think about quite often. I would like to do something to make the world a better place for young gay people in my city. I’m sure whatever I try will fail to accomplish my potential, but I’d like to make some positive difference.
One thing I am absolutely not willing to do or try is start or take part in any GLBT center for youth in my community, much as I think my neighborhood needs one. Not on your life. There would be situations involving serious crisis intervention, it would involve dealing with anti-gay harassment and bigotry, it would involve working with youth who are designed farther out of the mainstream than I am, there would be the discomfort of being significantly to the right politically compared to most other gays. Any one of those I could handle gladly, but not all of them. I refuse to acknowledge that anyone else might have anything relevant to say on my decision, or on any other decision I choose to make by consulting with my moral compass and personal attributes. It is either right or wrong, and it is not up for debate or discussion.
I wish you would take your lack of interest in the Cheney family to its logical conclusion and refrain from judging them.
posted by Houndentenor on
You should do whatever you want to do so long as it doesn’t inflict any harm on other people. The problem with Liz Cheney is that she is in favor of laws and policies that DO inflict harm on gay people. the fact that her sister is gay means she knows exactly what harm that would be. She can’t claim ignorance. People have every right to criticize the Cheneys or me or anyone else. That’s what you get for going public with your views. You have the right to speak and so do others. The issue is whether or not you care. If you don’t care what I think there’s no reason to worry about it. No matter what you do, someone somewhere isn’t going to like it. That’s part of life. You shouldn’t let people pressure you into things you think or wrong or allow them to pressure you out of doing things you think you should. But they will try. There’s no way around that. Your freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism.
posted by Jorge on
The problem with Liz Cheney…
You’re changing the subject from Mary Cheney to Liz Cheney.
…is that she is in favor of laws and policies that DO inflict harm on gay people. the fact that her sister is gay means she knows exactly what harm that would be.
No. Even if the first statement were true, which I do not agree with you on, the second does not follow from the first.
Your freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism.
That is true. And as criticism is also speech, foolish criticism shall draw ridicule.
posted by Houndentenor on
That is nonsensical. You are denying that the lack of legal recognition of gay couples often causes serious problems for those couples? And that having a gay sister in a committed relationship means that you would be aware of that? Those are such obvious things that denying them is absurd.
posted by Houndentenor on
Tom, Tom, Tom,
You can’t expect homocons to do anything so mundane as lobby members of their own party for equal rights under the law. They’re far too busy freaking out about liberals destroying America and blaming Democrats for forcing the GOP to be so anti-gay.