Alan Keyes' Daughter Coming Out

(CBS) The 19-year-old daughter of Alan Keyes has a Valentine for the anti-gay rights conservative pundit and frequent Republican candidate.

Maya Marcel-Keyes will be making her first public appearance as a gay activist at a Valentine Day's rally in front of the Maryland State House, says Dan Furmansky, the leader of Equality Maryland, a gay rights group.

Last summer her father, a conservative pundit and frequent Republican candidate, caused a stir during the Republican convention by labeling Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter a sinner and calling homosexuality "selfish hedonism."

"It was kind of strange that he said it like a hypothetical," she told the Washington Post. "It was really kind of unpleasant."

Marcel-Keyes told the Post her parents have thrown her out of the house, stopped speaking to her and refuse to pay for college because she is gay. She said she loves her parents.

Keyes' Web site says he is against "the homosexual rights agenda, including same-sex marriage."

Marcel-Keyes grew up in Darnestown, Md., attended a conservative Catholic school for girls in McLean, Va., spent a year in the south of India advocating tribal rights, and plans to attend Brown University this fall, according to an Equality Maryland press release.

Furmansky told CBSNews.com that Marcel-Keyes would not be speaking to the media ahead of Monday's rally, and probably not afterward, either.

Bloggers have identified her Web site as http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Xmisled0youthX. The author of the blog says it is public and she has nothing to hide.

Your argument makes sense. But I would always want my child to know that I loved her. I would not be happy with her decision. I would let her know that I would be praying for her deliverance from that lifestyle, but that I would always love her. Also, I would not cut myself off from my child. One never knows when our time on this earth will end, or those of a loved one. I could not bear it if my child were to die and I had banished her from my life.

I think too much is being made of a family argument that might otherwise have ended in reconciliation. The hype reminds me of the hype divorce lawyers use to drive families further and further apart until there is not only no chance of reconcilation between the husband and wife, but no chance of an amicable, working relationship as seperate parents in order to make life more bearable for their children - only the lawyers win.

Are you saying that Keyes feels betrayed by his daughter "coming out" publicly and he therefore says he's opposed to her lesbianism, rather than that he's opposed to her embarrassing him?

I'm saying Keyes reaction is perfectly justifiable on her politics alone.

She is explicitly aligning herself wiith groups seeking to undermine the legitimacy of a sitting President in time of war.

All the homosexuality issues, while sufficient in my own mind to justify the same reaction, may or may not have been operative before he cut her off, but clearly the watershed event was the "Counter-Inaugural."

As a matter of fact it takes a careful and fairly selective reading of Paul to get lesbianism into the bible at all.

Romans 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Anal intercourse is "against nature" for men. Women could have allowed anal intercourse, not practiced lesbianism.

Paul speaks of homosexual acts. He says nothing about the origins of the homosexual orientation.

Incorrect.

While admittedly the language is rather convoluted by modern standards, it is not incomprehensible. There is no textual support for your claim that Paul is speaking of isolated acts as opposed to general rule.

If by use of the term "orientation" you mean to incorporate the modern understanding into the Pauline discourse, you should understand the two are mutually exclusive and can not be reconciled.

If by use of the term "orientation" you mean to incorporate the modern understanding into the Pauline discourse, you should understand the two are mutually exclusive and can not be reconciled.

Of course they are. You make my point for me.

Scripture does not speak to homosexual orientation, since Paul could not make the distinction.

The Catholic Church makes the distinction, and rightly so.

No, but is there any reason not to conclude evangelistic homosexuality is trivial to you?

You can conclude anything you want, and you can kick your kids out of your family for anything you want. I think that these actions were way beyond the pale. But that's just me.

If I read you correctly, embarrassing ones' father entitles him...

This sentence leads me to believe you didn't read me at all, let alone correctly.

I'm saying her actions were the domestic equivalent of Jane Fonda's trip to Hanoi. All the sound and fury over her sexual proclivities is an attempt to employ the "McGreeney defense," against the sanctions she's suffered for it. Though reflexively, said proclivities are sufficient to warrent the same reaction.

One is left with a simple choice. You can believe Keyes is a blatant hypocrite, or that his daughter is being somewhat disingenuous. I choose to give benefit of the doubt to the party that doesn't celebrate sodomy.

Actually, if I recall my catechism correctly, the Catholic Church's position is to leave the question open, made moot by the fact that the act is disordered in and of itself.

The act is disordered, but the orientation is neutral. Homosexuals should not be condemned merely for being homosexuals.

Yes you are. I'm talking about this statement you made to me: DON'T sit there and try to convince me those kids, whoo's balls hadn't even dropped, somehow just KNOW they were born gay.
I never said anything like that and you are assuming and giving the impression that I did. All I said was what "I" thought ...not what they thought and I never specified kids or adults. I'm talking generalities.

I can believe both, easily.

Keyes is clearly a hypocrite since he commented on Cheney's daughter without acknowledging his own daughter was the same. Saved him some embarrassment during the campaign.

I also consider his reparations explanations disingenuous.

I don't have enough data, but what I do have leaves room for the daughter to be disingenous also. I'd like to know who funded her trip, since she had been fired and was also "homeless".

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.