Posted on 05/21/2006 7:02:19 PM PDT by Sunsong
I just finished Mary Cheney’s book Now It’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life and recommend it as the most important book addressing a gay topic of the year, if not the past few years. Indeed, it is must-read book for anyone who wishes to talk honestly about the Bush Administration’s record on gay issues.
While I will not, at this time, write a complete review of the book, I expect this to be a continuation in a series of posts on the significance of the book — and what it reveals about the Vice President of the United States. I have already noted how it shows what a good man Dick Cheney is and how few gay leaders and activists are willing to acknowledge his positive record on gay issues.
Because he is our nation’s Vice President, widely respected in conservative circles, even by social conservatives who know about his relationship with his lesbian daughter, I wish to focus on what this book tells us about this good man and what its release shows about the narrow-mindedness of gay activists. Perhaps you will say that I have said this already. But, as the comments to my recent posts indicate, some of our critics don’t seem to be listening, so, in the words of André Gide, “it is ever necessary to start again.”
What emerges from reading Mary’s book is that the Vice President is an exemplar of how a parent should treat his gay child. When Mary first came out to her father, she writes, “the first words out of his mouth were exactly the ones I wanted to hear: ‘You’re my daughter and I love you and I just want you to be happy.’”
About fifteen years later, when then-Governor Bush, the Republican nominee for president in 2000, was considering Cheney as his running mate, the former Secretary of Defense talked with his daughter about what his selection might mean. Mary notes that he “was concerned that people would target me and my sexual orientation in an attempt to attack him. He wanted to make sure I understood exactly what this decision could mean.”
In order words, this man showed great sensitivity to how his career choice might affect his lesbian daughter’s life.
This is not the only example which shows the Vice President as an exemplary parent of a gay child. It’s clear as well from Mary’s narrative that Dick Cheney has welcomed Mary’s partner, Heather, into the family, treating her as he would a child’s different-sex spouse. Indeed, on Election Night 2004, Heather and Mary slept with him (though on different sofas and chairs) in his White House office.
Despite these stories of the Vice President’s relationship with his daughter, in their Washington Post column, Elizabeth Birch, former executive director of HRC and her partner Hilary Rosen, refuse to praise him directly for treating his child as we would want all parents to treat their gay children. Perhaps they didn’t even read Mary’s book.
Instead they focus on how her coming out might impact political battles. To be sure, I share their delight that “timing of the book’s release is a welcome boon to the effort to defeat (for the second time) the . . . Federal Marriage Amendment.” In their column, however, Birch and Rosen fail to reference the content of Mary’s book, a sign that they are unwilling to let Mary tell her story even as they applaud her “leap onto the national stage.“
So much have these two activists spent inside the Beltway that they remain focused on legislative (& judicial) solutions to the concerns of our community. They have apparently long since lost sight of the real goal. Perhaps were they to read Mary’s book and focus on the Vice President’s relationship with his daughter, they might discover it once again.
Reading this book would expose them to a side of the Vice President different from the one they are accustomed to hearing in the liberal circles in which they travel. They would see how much Mary loves her parents even though she occasionally disagrees with them on matters of policy. They would see how loving a father Dick Cheney is to his daughters and that Mary’s coming out did not cause him to love her any less.
As they read her story, they might realize once again that we all wish our parents would react as did Dick and Lynne Cheney. Not only that. They would see the impact of a child’s coming out on a parent’s attitudes toward gays. Mary’s coming out didn’t make Dick Cheney any less conservative, but it surely caused him to speak out in favor of tolerance for gay couples and in opposition to a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
Birch and Rosen (and their allies on the left) may be upset that Mary’s coming out didn’t cause Dick Cheney to switch parties. (Heck, her coming out didn’t cause her to become a Democrat either.) But, once they let go of their expectation that coming out makes one liberal, they might have the sense to praise this good man and his wife as exemplars of how parents should treat their gay children. And praise the Vice President as a model of political courage, willing to defy part of his political base to speak up for what is right.
Mary Cheney’s book shows what a good man her father is. And in describing their relationship, she helps us focus on (what should be) the real goals of the gay movement.
That we can live freely and openly as gay individuals in our families and in American society.
And yet, Birch and Rosen, like so many other gay leaders and activists commenting on Mary’s book, focus more on the political implications of Mary’s coming out than on the actual contents of her book. It’s too bad they prefer their own fictional narrative about the Vice President to his daughter’s own true story.
So, I suggest that before they criticize the Vice President, they read his daughter’s book. It confirmed to me that I’ve been right to look up to this man for as long as I’ve been involved in politics. They may not share his politics as do I, but they will at least come to respect him as a man and look up to him as the type of father we all wish we had. (And that some of us do have.)
I have too, but I don't for a minute believe that those people represent the majority of social conservatives. They're the loud minority. :-)
Indeed!
Ah, thanks for that! Now that you say it so clearly, I'm sure you are right.
Now that I don't know. I do know I wouldn't like to have my life out in the open as the daughter of a public figure!
Absolutely spot on,
I saw her interview with Letterman and he was ranting on about how she betrayed the Gay community for not going against her father. She kept saying that there were far more important issues, but the idiot Letterman kept coming back to the same point over and over again.
The Libs hate her and consider her a traitor.
I see her as a fine lady, I dont approve of her sexuality but she shows a strong character, decency, personality ..typical of the Cheney family.
Me either! I'm convinced that that is a big reason why a lot of decent people don't go into politics.
But that's the problem with people who define themselves based on *one* attribute of who they are.
Sonny Bono was more accepting of Chastity than Cher was.
Who is David Letterman to call Mary a "traitor to her sexual minority"?
He was funnier in his younger days.
Is Rev. Phelps' "God Hates Fags" an example of hatred that comes from the "hard right" stance?
He's a Democrat. Former friend of the Gores and he continues to run in elections as a Democrat.
Phelps' position is the most anti-homosexual stance of any that is out there. You'll have to ID particular posts that support your claim about the "hard right".
Phelps is a sicko - for sure. Perhaps we'll get a few haters on this thread. If not, and you really want me to point out a few - I'd be happy to do it for you.
Some suspect that Phelps may not be what he seems. That he may be deliberately tarnishing the image of the religious in this country. His relatives make up part of his "church".
His racist views don't make press. His views against homosexuality do.
We are told how there are "protesters" at military funerals but the headlines don't tell us that they are led by this kook.
He serves the left even if he isn't running as a genuine leftist.
His politics never come into media coverage. Just that he is a "reverend". Jesse Jackson is a reverend but he is a racist, an antisemite, and an adulterer. Al Sharpton is a reverend and a racist and an antisemite.
Again, I make the claim that Phelps' has the most extreme stance. I need some examples of any conservatives that approach this level of rhetoric.
Gay Pride is nothing to celebrate. It is abberant behavior. I can accept that people sin but see no victory in celebrating sin. Even "pride" was considered a character flaw. What good would a White Pride week do?
I do not think so -the Mary Cheney threads are not contentious. Anyone pushing an agenda e.g. anyone attempting to conflate homosexual activity with conservative values is usually ignored as ojectively absurd and not worth the bother...
I have only seen one TV interview she has done, on one of the MSM shows, and just wish to heck she hadn't had to sit through "the rest of the story" when they got around to it.
She didn't flinch, but I did, for her sake. It's what she had to do to sell her book and it's important that her message is read by those who need to "hear" it, but I just wish she could be allowed to keep her private life to herself, if she had the choice.
A poster the other night mentioned what all Dick Cheney and Rummy had to give up in order to serve our country - and this is one aspect I thought of immediately - the sacrifice Mary has had to make, too.
It doesn’t matter if it matches the rhetoric. Hate is hate and there’s plenty of it right here on Free Republic. It is a real turn off and not necessary in any of these discussions. It is just gratuitous hatred. For me, this isn’t a contest as to who has the most extreme stance – this is about people who are extreme and who perpetuate hatred.
Here a some examples. I’m not going to put the people’s handles on the posts – because I don’t want to ping them and start a big argument on this thread. Some of these posts ( like this first one) are obviously not hateful – they are a response to a hateful post:
Should we have a true Freeper "coming out" party? I agree with both of you.
The conservatives on this site that tend to tell others they aren't conservative enough, because we don't care who our neighbor is sleeping with, generally keep me away from these threads.
Although I feel, as a Christian, that homosexuality is a sin, it to me seems like one of those sins that is none of my business. As long as it is two consenting adults, I figure God will let them know in the afterlife if he approves or not. In fact, my state (Wisconsin) is one of the States that has the Gay Marriage Amendment on the ballot this November, and I truly don't want to vote for it. I probably will, only because I can't stand the thought of the liberals winning.
I am actually quite pleased that this thread is proving that all Freepers don't feel as you do. I know that the Catholic Church believes that homosexuality is a sin, but the last time I checked, they don't control the United States.
As a life long Catholic, I really believe that this is one sin thats between each individual and God. I cannot believe that God would condone your suggestion that the Cheneys either condemn their daughter, or cut her out of their lives? I know you don't say this exactly, but I can't imagine what other choice you feel they would have (tough love after all), if she refuses to change.
If some1 engages in homosexual & lesbian activities, we must change their behavior to only straight behavior or celibacy.
Sinkspur opines, "But, it's not about concern for human beings, is it? It's about how good you are and how rotten they are." Feel bigger now sinky? You have quite a menagerie of straw-men I've seen of late.
What is the point of calling someone a degenerate? Do you think that depiction is going to motivate them to change?
Sinky condemns them and tosses smart aleck comments at them for not being in agreement with him. 'Abomination' isn't a term sinkspur wants to acknowledge ... who knows why.
Who said anything about dismissing behavior?
Jesus never called any sinner he met "degenerate" or their sin an "abomination."
What He did was love them, and told them to sin no more.
Many on this site who profess to be Christian jump offside in denouncing and thundering against those who they profess to be sinners.
That's what the Pharisees did, and Jesus reserved his most scathing condemnation for those who thought themselves righteous enough to condemn another for their sin.
There is no love of sinners when one calls what they do "degeneracy." After all, who commits degeneracy?
Why, degenerates, of course.
No homosexual who reads this thread is going to come away from it thinking there's much love from most FReepers for him. And that's the way most "Homosexual Agenda" threads are. Full of ridicule, condemnation, and, in some cases, downright hatred. As a result, most of you are left talking to yourselves, as no person with an ounce of compassion in their hearts wants to be a part of that.
The rest of society disagrees with your support of homosexual adoption... The judge in question ignores law based in reality and creates law based in delusion.
Engaging in homosexual sex does not create a loving home -it creates a sick and psyhologically abusive home -a selfish sexually self centered home that children should never be exposed to...
"It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue — a lot of sensitivity," she said.
Not any more than is required to discuss polygamy, polyandry, incest...
Just say no.
"compassionate conservatism": irresoluteness in the face of vice and the teaching of evil.
The Bush family, like most contemporary elites in the Western world, are herd animals who value maintining comity above all else, even at the expense of tolerating evil.
Morality and republican politics require me to respect another's person, not their beliefs (Islam) nor their sexual appetites.
What is wrong with her? Nauseating. Can you imagine a real conservative President and real conservative First Lady? Sure would be nice.
"It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue — a lot of sensitivity," she said.
and
It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."
Oh, sunsong - how suprising to meet you here. I don't mean that Mrs. Bush is nauseating in her entire persona, but in her weasly support of homosexual marriage, by not supporting a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. She is obviously not a social (i.e. "real") conservative, as also evidenced by her support for abortion.
I didn't mean to say that everything about her is nauseating.
Oh, I beg to differ. The Mary Cheney threads have indeed been contentious. In fact, you are one of those I would list as a hater. Listen to what you have written here:
Unless people agree with your view they are trying to conflate homosexual activity with conservative values and should be ignored. That tells us a lot about you DBeers
"That we can live freely and openly as gay individuals in our families and in American society."
You can...
Just because we disagree with your chosen sexual behavior and don't believe it needs to be legislated due to it's abnormal nature does not mean we hate you.
Acceptance does not always mean agreement and that's OK!
Unless people agree with your view they are trying to conflate homosexual activity with conservative values and should be ignored. That tells us a lot about you DBeers
LOL actually -it is the bait that a troll repeatedly uses that says much more about the troll than it does about the unwitting few the troll pulls in...
I would say that the proverbial jig is up troll -regardless, the Mary Cheney bait will be soon running out -the 15 minutes MSM spotlight is already dimming as is evidenced from last "source"...
I have just realised something that I should have at the time. When the VP, Mary and Heather left the White House in the early hours of the following day after the election the caption on the AP photo said the VP, his daughter and an unnamed female depart the White House ......
Of course they would not want to admit that Heather had been there that would show tolerance, can't have that can we.
The evidence. Is that Scooter Libby at the rear?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.