CHENEY SIS JUMPS INTO LESBIAN FRAY

New York Post ^ | October 17, 2004 | STEFAN C. FRIEDMAN

[Cincinatus' Wife]

October 17, 2004 -- Add Mary Cheney's sister's name to a growing list of Cheney family members angry with Sen. John Kerry for bringing up Mary and her sexuality at last week's debate in Tempe, Ariz. Appearing on "Good Morning America" alongside first-daughter hopeful Vanessa Kerry, Liz Cheney — a married mother of four — said an apology from the Democratic nominee "would be appropriate."

But Kerry's daughter defended her dad's comments and noted that Mary Cheney's sexual preference is a matter of record.

"My father's point was the concept was celebrating a strong family," the younger Kerry said, adding that his comments echoed what Sen. John Edwards said to Cheney himself at the vice-presidential debate. "But when you choose to be part of a campaign, you choose to make yourself public."

[colorado tanker]

First Rule of Holes, Ms. Kerry . . .

[Hemingway's Ghost]

After Gatsby's death the East was haunted for me like that, distorted beyond my eyes' power of correction. So when the blue smoke of brittle leaves was in the air and the wind blew the wet laundry stiff on the line I decided to come back home.

Beautiful stuff. Simply brilliant.

[Old Professer]

Sigh, another irony for the times - the straight one is named "Liz."

[durasell]

As close as any has ever come to "the great American novel." It does not speak well of us that few people, if any, still talk about "the" great American novel.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yep. I'm sorry to clutter the thread with non-essentials. But like you said, it's so beautiful. I've always thought GG is best read in the autumn, "season of mists and mellow fruitfulness."

(Someone stop me)

Or like Frost wrote...

"Ah, when to the heart of man
Was it ever less than a treason
To go with the drift of things,
To yield with a grace to reason,
And bow and accept the end
Of a love or a season?"

Sigh...

I need to rake some leaves. 8~)

[Casloy]

No 'shadows' are needed to establish that our rights to privacy are as old as common law. Only zealots with an agenda deny that persons have individual rights to a private life, liberty and private property.

You are taking the approach that all pro abortion people take that somehow there is a right to privacy implied in the constitution. The Roe V Wade decision was based on the right to privacy which justice Blackman decided that, while not mentioned in the Constitution, was to be found in the roots of other Justices's decisions. In other words, even though it wasn't there, they found it. Once you start finding things in the constitution you may as well open yourself up to anything, which is precisely what Blackman did in order to decide something he thought was a good thing could be made a "right" protected by the constitution. There are many legal scholars that agree with you and many that agree with me. My problem is that by finding a right to privacy the supreme court legitimized killing.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The most perfect ending to a novel, ever: "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

[UsnDadof8]

Beat me to it. That's the second unfortunate headline today.

[durasell]

Try Kafka Was the Rage...

[durasell]

GG should be read once a year. Unlike many books, it only gets better as you get older.

[tpaine]

No 'shadows' are needed to establish that our rights to privacy are as old as common law. Only zealots with an agenda deny that persons have individual rights to a private life, liberty and private property.
A "right to privacy" is found in the basic principles inherent in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth amendments. -- Common law & common sense also tell us we have a right to privacy. - Case closed.

You are taking the approach that all pro abortion people take that somehow there is a right to privacy implied in the constitution.

There is no doubt about the fact we have a right to be left alone to live a private, non-aggressive life.

The Roe V Wade decision was based on the right to privacy which justice Blackman decided that, while not mentioned in the Constitution, was to be found in the roots of other Justices's decisions. In other words, even though it wasn't there, they found it.

That is your erroneous opinion. Feel free to rant on.

Once you start finding things in the constitution you may as well open yourself up to anything, which is precisely what Blackman did in order to decide something he thought was a good thing could be made a "right" protected by the constitution.

You think its a 'good thing' to prohibit what you see as 'evil' behavior by government legislation. -- I don't.

There are many legal scholars that agree with you and many that agree with me. My problem is that by finding a right to privacy the supreme court legitimized killing.

I don't see early term abortion as murder. Murder is decided by a jury in the USA, not by government decree.

[Casloy]

That is your erroneous opinion. Feel free to rant on.

I have visited about 10 websites discussing the ROE V WADE decision and in every single case it stated categorically that the majority based their decision on the right to privacy. Below is just one item

Subsequently, in Roe v. Wade , by a 7:2 majority the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute that prohibited abortions (on the ground that it violated the right to privacy) except in cases where the life of the mother was medically endangered.

So feel free to rant on.

There is no doubt about the fact we have a right to be left alone to live a private, non-aggressive life.

I don't see early term abortion as murder.

I guess an unborn baby does not get the right to live a non-aggressive life. I'd certainly like for you to define an early term abortion. Please tell us when the exact instant occurs when it moves from early term to mid term. It is a life and therefore it does seem as if we shouldn't just be "sort of" deciding when it can and can't be killed. The problem with you pro-choicers is you are never willing to define when a baby becomes a baby. You used terms like "early term" and then walk away from the consequences. I think the government should stay totally out of people's private lives and there are plenty of protections without finding privacy in the constitution. No doubt you can find judicial scholars who support your position. I can find plenty of scholars (Bork) who support mine. So this is not about one of us being wrong. It is about a difference of opinion.