Mary Cheney Considered Quitting 2004 Campaign Over Gay Marriage Issue

ABC News ^ | May 3, 2006

[skandalon]

She says she considered quitting her role as campaign adviser over the issue of gay marriage, but Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary Cheney tells ABC News "Primetime" anchor Diane Sawyer her sexuality has never created problems within her family.

Mary Cheney discussed the campaign, her feelings about President Bush, life with her partner of 14 years, and what it was like to come out as gay to her parents.

"I struggled with my decision to stay on the 2004 campaign," Cheney told "Primetime." Her personal challenge came when President Bush said the nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

[Torie]

Does the First Amendment apply to agitating in the public square for a redress of one's grievances? Nite.

[sinkspur]

Each of you just did what you have been accusing and condemning the rest of us of doing: you judged homosexual behavior to be a bad thing and admitted that it is not to be celebrated or encouraged.

You didn't read what I wrote. Any purely sexual relationship is not healthy, homosexual or heterosexual.

Isn't that what you were focusing on, the purely sexual relationship?

[Torie]

I really don't trust pre Vatican II Catholics, when it comes to the public square. They seem hostile to a representative government and policies, determined at the ballot box. Plato misused becomes Stalin.

[Antoninus]

It's called free will. And unless you are claiming to be without sin - you have chosen to exercise that right(g).

Free will is not a "right to sin." If it were, it would mean that we all have a right to murder, right to steal, and a right to bugger each other. If you think God gave you those rights, you are sadly mistaken. God has given us the freedom to choose good or evil, not a right to choose evil.

BTW, you didn't answer my question: Where do your rights come from?

[PhilDragoo]

I read the article at abcnews in its entirety and Mary seems clear in her identity as a given not as a choice, makes clear her parents are first and foremost loving of her and accepting of her, and that she does not pursue any outrageous course of action, nothing flaunting, nothing confrontational.

I remind us that the most offensive insult to her came from that most despicable of traitors John Forge Kerry and his ambulance-chasing sidekick the Breck Girl.

I would recall the sampler Work Out Your Own Salvation, that classic bit of needlework, itself an echo of Buddha and an allusion to that first and best gift from our God, that of free will followed by the valued admonition to eschew obsessing on the mote in our neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in our own.

For those who would judge I suggest you first let me walk a mile in your moccasins and if they are really really good moccasins I will call to you my thanks as I disappear into the night well shod.

Mary was encouraged to express her disagreement--and notes her father's disagreement--and lo we haven't any regulation from Russ Feingold and John McCain setting aside the First Amendment right to disagree.

But these men are not dead yet nor yet retired from public life.

For them the Dick Cheney self-help tip, "go f--- yourself".

[sinkspur]

Apparently, you think (in the best tradition of the "me" generation) that love involves affirming every behavior and making no distinction between the virtuous and the wicked. I couldn't disagree more.

So, you do judge. You judge people to be wicked, based on their actions.

Love involves affirming every person. How are they going to know they're affirmed if you don't ignore, for the time being, their behavior?

BTW, who's virtuous?

[Howlin]

Phil, you always bring a clarity to any thread you're on.

Thank you.

[churchillbuff]

I am pretty sure they are shamed by your actions."""

You sure? Didn't Lynne Cheney write a novel that featured lesbian love?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You're not going to listen to someone who might mess up all that orderliness.

I do not follow the wisdom of men...

[Torie]

You sound like a wanna be Nietzsche.

[sinkspur]

I do not follow the wisdom of men...

Since, in your world, there's no God, who's wisdom do you follow?

Dora the Explorer?

[Antoninus]

He reserved His gentleness for sinners, and His wrath for those who thought they had all the answers.

Here's a quote from the article that is the subject of this post:

"Well, from my perspective? Heather and I already are married," she said. "We have built a home and a life together. Um, I hope I get to spend the rest of my life with her. The way I look at it, is we're just waiting for state and federal law to catch up with us."

This from the daughter of the Vice President of the United States. And yet we, anonymous every-men who post on FR are somehow the hypocrites for vehemently disagreeing with someone in a powerful public position who thinks they have all the answers?

My dear sinky, you have the situation exactly backwards.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.

[DBeers]

As I say, you expose yourself as a modern day pharisee...the taleban Christians

ROTFLMAO!

And what exactly do these religiously premised accusations even if true have to do with the homosexual disorder and oppostion to the homosexualization of society?

Might I suggest your warped religion views might be better recieved on DU...

[durasell]

I do not follow the wisdom of men...



You mean you listen to chicks?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Does the First Amendment apply to agitating in the public square for a redress of one's grievances? Nite.

If you can do such without harrowing displays of sodomy, violence, vandalism, etc...

If one cannot yell “fire” in a crowdwed theatre, one cannot also light one either... morning...

[Antoninus]

I really don't trust pre Vatican II Catholics, when it comes to the public square. They seem hostile to a representative government and policies, determined at the ballot box. Plato misused becomes Stalin.

Well there's a muddle of ideas for you. You'll remember that the Pre-Vatican II Catholic Church was one of Stalin's worst enemies. And Plato? Pre-Vatican II was more influenced by Aristotle than Plato.

BTW, I was born in 1971...

[sinkspur]

And yet we, anonymous every-men who post on FR are somehow the hypocrites for vehemently disagreeing with someone in a powerful public position who thinks they have all the answers?

I thought you said, earlier, that this wasn't any of our business? And, since when is being the daughter of the Vice President a "powerful public position"?

Does Jenna Bush, who I haven't seen in over a year, have a "powerful public position"?

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.

I don't call it anything. Jesus has earned the right to judge. I haven't.

[connectthedots]

If she let her hair grow out and add a bit of style, she would be fairly attractive looking.

[Antoninus]

So, you do judge. You judge people to be wicked, based on their actions.

No, I judge behavior, not people. Don't put words into my mouth. I believe that even someone up to their eyeballs in sinful behavior or a wicked lifestyle can cast it off by the Grace of God.

[RebekahT]

"Here's the question/issue nobody addresses: Every day legally ordained clergy perform "weddings" for gay couples. The unions, of course, are not recognized by the gubmint.

So, should these clergy be banned from conducting the services? And what defines a marriage -- gubmint recognition or the blessing of clergy?"

---

A marriage is a contract between a man, a woman, and the state. For many people, it's also a religious/moral union (myself included). But surely when we (conservatives) advocate against "gay marriage," we aren't insisting that it be illegal for private individual to conduct their own little "commitment" or "union" (insert another description here) ceremonies. Rather, we do not think that the state, who recognizes marriage as a fundamental right (and facilitates the privileges that go along with that right) should extend that right to people who don't fit the very definition of marriage (ie, same sex couples).

I think it's silly and stupid when gay couples have their little ceremonies (and it's even worse if some "clergy" is condoning it, let alone peforming the ceremony. I would question that person's sincere faith in God and His teachings). But I don't think the government should prohibit them from pretending they're married or have a "union" or whatever. They can wear their bands and celebrate their anniversaries all they want. But they shouldn't be treated like a married couple.

The point I tried to make earlier is that I disagree with the concept of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" because it is essentially a marriage by another name. The government is trying to make both sides happy; but a rose by any other name is still a rose. I don't believe the state should sanction homoesexuals relationships like they do (and should) heterosexual relationships (ie, marriage).