Posted on 05/02/2006 1:10:54 PM PDT by meandog
New York, N.Y. – In her new memoir, NOW IT'S MY TURN(Simon & Schuster/Threshold Editions, 2006), Mary Cheney writes that when she told her parents she was gay, the first words out of her father’s mouth “were exactly the ones that I wanted to hear: ‘You’re my daughter, and I love you, and I just want you to be happy.’”
VANITY FAIR editor Todd Purdum reports that Mary Cheney tells her story in a voice very much like her father’s, and that she came out to her parents when she was a junior in high school, on a day when, after breaking up with her first girlfriend, she skipped school, ran a red light, and crashed the family car. Cheney writes that her mother hugged her, but then burst into tears, worried that she would face a life of pain and prejudice.
When Purdum asks the vice president whether he thinks gay people are born that way, Cheney scrunches up his mouth, fixes him with a look that says “Nice try,” then says: “I’m not going to get into that. Those are deeply personal questions. You can ask.”
Mary Cheney tells Purdum that her father “has very little tolerance for bullshit, pardon my French.” She also says that one common reaction from people who have read the manuscript of her book is “‘Wow, you guys really have this close-knit, loving family,’ and it always strikes me as ‘Yeah, of course we do.’ It was very surprising to me that people would think we didn’t.”
When Purdum asks Cheney if he is fatalistic about his heart disease, Cheney says, “I am. I don’t even think about it most of the time. You do those things a prudent man would do, and I live with it.” Asked what he would have for breakfast at Nora’s Fish Creek Inn, his favorite pre-fishing spot in Wilson, Wyoming, Cheney responds without missing a beat: “I’d probably have two eggs over easy, sausage and hash browns,” then hastens to add that that is not his normal breakfast. “The day I go fishing, I get off my diet,” he says.” At a roundtable lunch with reporters a couple of years ago, two who were present tell Purdum that Cheney cut his buffalo steak in bite-size pieces the moment it arrived, then proceeded to salt each side of each piece.
Cheney tells Purdum that he has not changed over the years, but perhaps many of his contemporaries think he has “because of my associations over the years, or because I came across as a reasonable guy, people have one view of me that was not necessarily an accurate reflection of my philosophy or my view of the world.”
Purdum asks Cheney if, during his “darkest night,” he has even “a little doubt” about the administration’s course. “No,” he tells Purdum. “I think we’ve done what needed to be done.” Of the debate over whether or not the administration hyped the pre-war intelligence, Cheney says, “In the end, you can argue about the quality of the intelligence and so forth, but ... I look at that whole spectrum of possibilities and options, and I think we did the right thing.”
Cheney rejects the caricature of him as the power behind the throne, insisting, “I think we have created a system that works for this president and for me, in terms of my ability to be able to contribute and participate in the process.” When Purdum says that the cartoon characterization of him must not be accurate, Cheney says, “My image might be better out there, this caricature you talk about might be avoided, if I spent more time as a public figure trying to improve my image, but that’s not why I’m here.”
Purdum reports that Cheney travels with a chemical-biological suit at all times. When he gave his friend Robin West and his twin children a ride to the White House a couple of years ago, West commented on the fact that Cheney’s motorcade varied its daily path. “And he said, ‘Yeah, we take different routes so that “The Jackal” can’t get me,’” West tells Purdum. “And then there was this big duffel bag in the middle of the backseat, and I said, ‘What’s that? It’s not very roomy in here.’ And [Cheney] said, ‘No, because it’s a chemical-biological suit,’ and he looked at it and said, ‘Robin, there’s only one. You lose.’”
Purdum talks with former New York Times reporter and former executive editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, James Naughton, who asks of Cheney: “Does he acknowledge that he is not as pleasant as he used to be?” Naughton knew Cheney as a fellow prankster during the 1976 campaign, and all but sighs in search of an explanation as to why he is so different now. “I guess I would like to believe,” he says, “without any evidence to support it, that coming very close to death has somehow compelled him to act as though he only has so much breath and so much life, that he’s only got so much time to accomplish what he has to do. But the public figure is nothing like the private one that I remember.”
Gerald Ford tells Purdum: “He may have changed a bit, but that was required for the change of circumstances.” Ford, who will turn 93 in July, adds, “Times change, and people change as a result of that.”
“If you’re looking for a change from one point to another, being vice president is sui generis,” Lynne Cheney tells Purdum. “It’s not quite like any other job.”
The June issue of Vanity Fair hits newsstands in New York and L.A. on May 3 and nationally on May 9.
Thanks. Thanks for taking a minute to write in. I appreciate that.
It is quite true that some people need to live by the LotL because that is all that is in their capacity to do. Perhaps most people need to. And you have made clear that it is not a thing of shame to have that lesser capacity. For those who can live by the SotL it is certainly a downfall to hold themselves as higher because they can walk at that level. (And FWIW I don't think you have.)
I would like to butt in and clarify a point about living by the letter of the law though. You may have addressed it but I don't see it clearly. That is, when you point to Islamists as those who live by the LotL (and I think you particularly mean radical Islamists by your descriptions) they are not practicing in an appropriate and positive way.
That said, my point is that there is an appropriate and positive way to live by the LotL. IMO that is to apply it to oneself with great vigor and faith while concerning oneself with others uprightness with great trepidation and gentleness.
This is where the Islamists, and many others, fail by taking the view that it is the sins of others that must be dealt with harshly while finding endless justifications for one's own faults. That is not the right way to live by the LotL and there is a right way.
It seems to me that those who need to live by the law often are misled or mislead themselves into trying to live in the spirit while rigidly applying the law at the same time and great confusion results. That confusion often leads to calamity.
FWIW
Suit yourself. I certainly didn't expect anything different out of you.
That said, my point is that there is an appropriate and positive way to live by the LotL. IMO that is to apply it to oneself with great vigor and faith while concerning oneself with others uprightness with great trepidation and gentleness.
This is where the Islamists, and many others, fail by taking the view that it is the sins of others that must be dealt with harshly while finding endless justifications for one's own faults. That is not the right way to live by the LotL and there is a right way.
Thanks for your post. I appreciate you taking the time to correct and clarify here. I agree with these paragraphs and I am thankful to you for the clarification.
What you add here is stated so well and really quite eloquantly. Thank you so much!
That is nice of you to say so. I didn't think of it as correcting you but just filling in a possible gap in the overall theme. You seem agreeable about it so I guess I done good. ; )
Absolutely!
Here's the link again to the Mostert column, for those who missed it earlier in the thread:
Alan Keyes teaches sex education lesson to homosexual interviewer
It's the only honest analysis of the controvery that I am aware of.
You may be interested in this outstanding Keyes speech, given around the time Massachusetts legalized gay marriage:
Real sexuality is about the distinction between male and female, as expressed in the body and its differences. And the reason I say that the child isn't an accident, is because everything about those differences points in one direction: procreation!
Now, see, this is the kind of thinking, though, that we really have to take patiently because we use the word so carelessly most of the time, but the truth is that the sexual distinction as such--that is to say, human sexuality as such--exists for the sake of procreation and nothing else. It's that simple.
So, that means that the child's life is not accident, it's essential! It's not an incident, no. It is expressive, in fact, of the essence of human sexuality, and it is in consequence of that essential truth about human sexuality that the relations between men and women are always haunted by the possibility of procreation.
But haunted, in what sense? Haunted by that possibility in the sense that that life represents, what? It represents the possibility that there would be an obligation, a lifelong obligation that transcended the immediate and momentary satisfaction of the parties to any given sexual episode or relationship.
That is the truth, in fact, of human sexuality. It is haunted by that line which separates the choice of pleasure from the obligations and responsibilities that are the consequence of procreation.
Now, I go through this because that sets up a clear distinction--and it's not a distinction that prevails just between homosexuals and so-called heterosexuals. No. It's the distinction between what we could call an understanding of human sexuality that is based in the end upon hedonism and self-gratification, and an understanding that is based upon the essential acknowledgment of the responsibilities and obligations of procreation.
These are two distinct alternatives. And I use the word "hedonism," by the way--and some people will think that that's pejorative. It's not. The word "hedonism" comes from the Greek hedone, and it means "pleasure."
And I think that it would be kind of absurd on the face of it for people who advocate same-sex relationships to turn to us and say that those relationships are not about pleasure--the point being that, at one level, that's all they can be about.
The relationship between man and woman can be incidentally about pleasure, but essentially about procreation and family, and things that in fact transcend the immediate gratification of the parties involved. The same-sex relationship is haunted by no such necessities, no such obligations. It is essentially about fulfillment of the passions, the needs, the dreams, the ambitions, the this or that. You can put up any words you want, but at the end of the day, it's just the people that are there. It's about them!
It is not about the future! It is not about the society! It is not about that which at any given moment can transcend the pleasure of the individuals! It's not about that.
Now, wait. I'm walking through all of this, y'all, because I think it's important to remember, though. And that's why I call it the view of sexuality based on hedonism and self-gratification, but you and I both know that this understanding of human sexuality is not confined to same-sex couples.
It's the same sounds any crushed, brokenhearted but loving parent would make.
A book that has the blessing of both her parents.
Terry's embarrassment had nothing to do with any invasion of privacy concerns, but the embarrasment of having a homosexual son who came out. He wrote an opinion piece entitled "My Son, the Homosexual". Randall Terry had always campaigned against homosexuals, and could not take this public knowledge of a homosexual in his very own family. Real love, huh?
OK. I looked up the article you referenced (titled "My Prodigal Son, the Homosexual") which is at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37979
It strongly confirms what I wrote above. Terry repeatedly affirms his love and care for Jamiel, together with his anger and hurt over the Out Magazine episode.
Not at all. I just don't see how a rational adult can expect to be taken seriously when trying to draw equivalence between Jesus in the Temple, and the fate of Sodom.
It's quite obvious you have no interest in anything but winning, as you completely ignored what I posted. Your response should have been questions for clarification or refutation of my statements. You did neither. You are campaigning. You don't care whether you are wrong or not, you just want everyone to think like you do, and are willing to throw a tantrum until you get it.
Romans 1 is quite specific as to the causes and prevalence of homosexuality, and it has nothing to do with "threatened masculinity."
No, Terry's response is not understandable, given the high regards his son had for him. I saw nothing "in your face" in interviews with the son, but certainly did with the father. He rejected his son outright and told the world he is no longer welcome in his home. Randall Terry's hatred for his son and his lifestyle was the only "in your face" attitude.
My children all turned out straight, but if one of them hadn't, I would hope I would have emulated the Vice President's response, rather than that of a well known hate monger.
So far none of my kids is homosexual and I am thankful for that. Right now the whole issue is moot. If the time were to come and one of my children told me they had decided to become homosexual, I would do everything in my power to discourage them. I would still love them, no matter what. However, I would probably feel deep hurt, anger, disappointment and worry. I would absolutely feel like I was a failure as a parent. But again, so far it isn't an issue.
You resemble your remarks.
I absolutely think homosexuality is a choice. No doubt in my mind. So yes, I would take it personally. However, all of my children are at this point normal heterosexuals so I am not worried.
I never said I wouldn't love my kids. I just said I would be extremely disappointed if any of them chose the homosexual life. So far they haven't so it isn't an issue.
I know that. I just don't believe you should kid yourself into thinking it's the right one.
You should stop kidding yourself into thinking your hypothetical is parallel to your kid being a goth or somesuch. The parallel is your kid being a child molester, or a beatialist. It's just that you are a product of a society that has had most of its sensitivities dulled through forced familiarization.
Note how many on your side of this argument are not interested in discussing the matter. They don't have Scriptural support for their position so their entire argument is a variation on what's wrong with the people who don't agree with them.
The interview Terry gave attempted to demonstrate that he was a loving parent and anything that happened to his son must have happened before he took him in. He calls his son's story filled with fraud and deceit and says he is no longer welcome in his home. Did you read the interview given by his son? His son had nothing but compliments for his father.
Randall Terry is an admitted fraud, and this obviously embarrassed him beyond belief, given his anti-gay activities. As I said earlier, I will go with the Vice-President's reaction, and if one of my children were gay (which they are not), I would hope my response would be that of Mr. Cheney's. I think God understands love over hate any day of the week.
I've never heard this about GSA...if so, then Juliette Lowe is spinning in her Savannah, Ga. grave!
Exactly! Sin is rather black or white to God...and, with the possible exception of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, there is no degree to it!
I was really disappointed having spent many hears as a "Brownie" leader and supported GSA Cookie sales all of my life!
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.