‘Vice’ Distortions

by on

Matt Latimer writes:

At first, the film shows [Dick Cheney] lovingly accepting his daughter Mary as she tells him of her sexual orientation and even giving up his presidential aspirations to protect her. But later, in a scene that was clearly invented, the Mary accuses her parents of coldly throwing her under the bus on the issue of gay marriage when it suits their other daughter’s political purposes. The true backstory is this: Liz, running for office in Wyoming in 2013, was being attacked by fellow Republicans for supporting gay marriage, since she had a gay sister. Liz expressed opposition to same-sex marriage, putting her at odds with Mary’s view. While Dick Cheney himself had supported gay marriage since 2000, he issued a statement defending Liz’s differing stance. Same-sex marriage was a difficult topic for many people, so it wasn’t unusual for one daughter to have a different view of it than another and for a parent to still love them both. Not long before that, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party had opposed same-sex marriage, too. It was also perfectly understandable for a father to want to help his other daughter any way he could, and Liz was losing the race badly. This clearly painful, anguishing dilemma is not explained to viewers at all. Instead, we are shown Cheney, looking down absently, while a tearful Mary accuses him of betrayal.

11 Comments for “‘Vice’ Distortions”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    “But later, in a scene that was clearly invented, the Mary accuses her parents of coldly throwing her under the bus on the issue of gay marriage when it suits their other daughter’s political purposes.”

    I don’t think it’s an unfair distortion even if it is made up. Selma had Coretta Scott King confronting her husband over the FBI’s blackmailed accusations of his infidelity, and I don’t believe it’s known how that played out within their marriage either.

    I definitely remember some family tension between Mary and Liz (as in, statements by Mary herself) over Liz’s position on gay marriage. It’s just that it’s not known to have lasted very long. I also remember Mary writing of having some distance from Dick over gays in the military when that was an issue 25-odd years ago. So I’m not interested in questioning how the family tension was depicted at its hottest (and coldest) just because we don’t know the word for word details.

    • posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on

      1. Obama/Democratic Party (initially) supported civil unions, which was better then the GOP alternative. The GOP alternative was to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage and anything remotely like civil unions.

      2. The Green party and the Libertarian party backed marriage equality from the get go, but third political parties are not really a major player in American politics, and will not be until we change how we conduct elections.

      3. Mary was pretty useless in terms of gay rights. Granted, it is difficult to be useful in the GOP, unless you are anti-gay. Very few factions within the GOP have any room for socially liberal or moderate “RINOs”

      • posted by Jorge on

        Mary was pretty useless in terms of gay rights.

        Only a liberal would say that.

        She was the bait that was responsible for John Kerry’s defeat. That was a good thing. It drew a line in the sand–gays shall not be targeted because they happen to be Republican.

        • posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on

          Mary was pretty useless in terms of gay rights. She was unable to advance legislation or prevent bad policy. Sounds pretty useless to me.

          John Kerry as a Presidential candidate had a better platform for gay rights than the major alternative.

          She was the bait that was responsible for John Kerry’s defeat. That was a good thing. It drew a line in the sand–gays shall not be targeted because they happen to be Republican.

  2. posted by MR Bill on

    One should, by the time one is an adult, realize Hollywood movies are fictional: for entertainment and at best, an introduction to a topic. They aren’t documentaries, and should be taken as an artistic representation, having more to do with the creators’ vision. Interesting possibly, but not ever entirely factual.
    Here in the South, generations of deluded folks have pretended “Birth of a Nation” and “Gone with the Wind” were accurate history..

  3. posted by Kosh III on

    Something more relevant:
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/karen-pence-immanuel-christian-school_us_5c3e62c2e4b0922a21d99f58

    Tell me again how the GOP is becoming less bigoted?

    • posted by MR Bill on

      As is this: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/424664-evangelical-group-calls-for-lgbt-people-to-be-removed-from-anti

      • posted by Jorge on

        “The old saying is, once that camel gets the nose in the tent, you can’t stop them from coming the rest of the way in…”

        The gay rights movement got called out.

        I’d be interested in reading your explanation for this.

        • posted by MR Bill on

          I think a anti GLBT hate group that has an audience in many Republicans fears GLBT folks gaining any further civil rights protection, and gives the game away stating this, attempting to avoid having those folks viewed as a protected class. Despite Staver’s demurrer, many in their camp have little issue with lynching, in my experience.

    • posted by Jorge on

      I think the relation between the Republican party and LGBTs was more than sufficiently addressed in Mr. Miller’s last blog topic.

      What does this link have to do with the Republican party? Would you be objecting if this were Hadassah Lieberman teaching in a Jewish high school that expelled gays? (No.) What about if Teresa Heinz Kerry worked in a Catholic school? (No.)

      I think you need to check your religious privilege and keep your religious and political bigotry to yourself.

Comments are closed.