It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Lynn Cheney Slams Kerry Lesbian Remark
by Doreen Brandt
Posted: October 14, 2004 11:03 am ET
(Washington) The wife of Vice President Dick Cheney is telling John Kerry to keep his nose out of her family's business, especially when it comes to Mary Cheney, her lesbian daughter.
During Wednesday night's presidential debate one of the questions asked of President George W. Bush and his Democratic rival was whether homosexuality is a matter of choice.
After Bush said he didn't know and then touted his support amending the Constitution to block same-sex marriage, Kerry said sexuality is not a matter of choice, adding: "Talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you she's being who she was."
Following the debate Lynn Cheney accused Kerry of pulling a "cheap and tawdry political trick." www.365gay.com...
Lynne Cheney blasts Kerry's remark as ‘tawdry’
Democrat invoked VP's daughter sexuality in debate
The Associated Press
Updated: 9:51 a.m. ET Oct. 14, 2004
CORAOPOLIS, Pa. - Lynne Cheney accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of pulling a “cheap and tawdry political trick,” apparently for invoking her daughter’s sexuality in his debate with President Bush.
Mrs. Cheney made clear she thought Kerry had crossed a line into family privacy when she introduced her husband to a supportive crowd of 800 after a debate-watching party in the Pittsburgh suburb of Coraopolis.
“Now, you know, I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man,” she said.
“Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.”
She was not more specific. The vice president did not raise the matter in his remarks.
Kerry Lesbian Remark Angers Cheney
By VICKIE CHACHERE
Associated Press Writer
October 14, 2004, 3:18 PM EDT
FORT MYERS, Fla. -- Vice President Dick Cheney called himself "a pretty angry father" on Thursday after Sen. John Kerry mentioned their gay daughter during the final presidential debate -- comments Kerry said were meant to be positive about families with gay children.
The vice president's wife, Lynne Cheney, called Kerry "not a good man" and his remarks about daughter Mary Cheney "a cheap and tawdry political trick." Meanwhile, Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of vice presidential candidate John Edwards, suggested in a radio interview that Mrs. Cheney might feel "a certain degree of shame" because her daughter is a lesbian.
Originally posted by deeprivergal
How many threads on this subject do we need?
Originally posted by wraith30
Yet they support a president who wants to make a constitutional change to ban the marrage of people of the same sex. They support a president who wants to prevent their daughter's private rights.
That this wrongly reasoned decision has been followed with a judicial mandate to redefine marriage to include "gay marriage" is serious on two levels.
First, redefining matrimony to include so-called "gay marriage" splits into opinions based on worldviews. Is homosexuality a behavior that an individual can -- indeed, must -- control, as moral common sense holds? Or does homosexuality convey an identity that government must recognize and force citizens who disagree to accommodate, as the politicized "gay agenda" demands? Simply put, is homosexuality properly a public matter of government policy, or is it a private matter of individual morality?
Second, who in our constitutionally-based republic properly gets to decide whether marriage ought to be redefined in this way? Is this correctly the purview of a single judge in a small state of our nation (remembering that the Massachusetts decision arrived on only a 4-3 vote)? Is it even rightly the proper role of the judiciary, under our Constitution's republican separation of powers, to institute such a massive social change? And, as our view is that the Constitution rests completely on the natural rights worldview of Our Founders, including the natural right of one man and one woman to form a natural family (that is, one that arises without state interventions), does this Massachusetts decision not overturn all our laws binding our nation together, by asserting a "positive rights" evolution of legal understandings? And thus we not come right back around to the worldviews at loggerheads....
Why, you might ask, if natural family formation occurs without state intervention, should our government recognize and support even natural rights marriage at all? A central reason is that the natural family, sharing labor and dividing tasks according to their particular needs and circumstances, acquires property rights in common, and creates assets to provide for the family's offspring. The state thus has a legitimate role, incidentally supporting the stability of that family relationship, in assuring its laws cover proper transfer of those family property rights on death of a parent or dissolution of the marriage through divorce. (Must we make explicit the obvious, that same-sex cohabitants cannot by themselves produce natural offspring? The key point is not that married couples can be infertile, so that some natural families will be childless couples; what's essential is rather that no same-sex couples can naturally conceive children.) Moreover, the family is the incubator of the next generation of citizens, who should be brought up in a culture of liberty to assure their future stewardship of our constitutional system of ordered liberty.
From Andrew Sullivan's blog
SOMETHING MORE ABOUT MARY: The Mary Cheney thing really is a fascinating Rorschach test. Many conservatives are appalled and cast their anti-Kerry opinion as a defense of Mary. Here's one:
"Last night he allowed his obsession with his own selfish desire to win a point overshadow the appropriate boundaries of taste, compassion, and kindess. Lynne Cheney has the right to call him a bad man. And woman across the nation have the right to see for themselves that he is willing to victimize THEM if it comes to padding his advantage, reputation, position, or standing."
Victimize? All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn't. What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form. Mickey Kaus, for his part, cannot see any reason for Kerry to mention Mary except as some Machiavellian scheme to pander to bigots. Again: huh? Couldn't it just be that Kerry thinks of gay people as human beings like straight people - and mentioning their lives is not something we should shrink from? Isn't that the simplest interpretation? In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like president Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I'm not outing any gay person. I'm outing the double standards of straight ones. They've had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose.
DOUBLE STANDARDS: Let me give you an example of the double standards here. I remember once being driven around by a charming woman on a stop on a book tour. We talked about my book, and she averred, after chatting all day, that she had nothing against gay people, she just wished they wouldn't "bring it up" all the time. I responded: "But you've been talking about your heterosexuality ever since I got in the car." She said: "I haven't. I've never once discussed sex." My response: "Within two minutes, you mentioned your children and your husband. You talked about your son's work at high school. You mentioned your husband's line of work. And on and on. You wear your heterosexuality on your sleeve all the time. And that's fine. But if I so much as mention the fact that I'm gay, I'm told it's all I care about, and that I should pipe down. Don't you see the double standard?" Candidates mention their families all the time. An entire question last night was devoted to the relationship between men and their wives and daughters. Mentioning Mary Cheney is no more and no less offensive than that. What is offensive is denying gay couples equal rights in the constitution itself. Why don't conservatives get exercized about that?
For the rest of Andrew Sullivan's commentary, visit his website-- www.andrewsullivan.com...
Originally posted by lmgnyc
Andrew Sullivan, a conservative columnist and blogger, who happens to be gay, made some eloquent comments
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
John Kerry is a man without ethics, morals, principles or shame. He is a waste of the air he breathes and contributes nothing to the world in which he lives except sewerage.
[edit on 04/10/14 by GradyPhilpott]
Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson
I am amazed to see that people jump on the Cheney bandwagon screaming and tearing their hair out like a Muslim woman screaming about her martyred child when Kerry makes a remark about a person/subject that Dick'less' Cheney make public himself.