Calling gay civil rights a single issue, while accurate, doesn't really capture the importance of it. It's not the inheritance tax; it threatens to make some Americans second-class citizens for no good reason. So it's a very important single issue, and given that some gay people voluntarily sign on to or work for a party that threatens to MAKE them second-class citizens, it's easy to see why someone would want to lampoon or excorciate them for it.

I agree that MC has signed on to take shit by choosing to be a public figure (her kid didn't, but that doesn't excuse HER), and considering that she'll get it from both sides, I think it was rather brave. Well, maybe it wasn't brave considering that she's trying to wiggle out of it now. (Which I think is what's pissing off Dan Savage.) She must love her dad a lot more than anyone I know LIKES him.

Jon May said:

As far as I can tell Cheney himself isn’t all that opposed to his daughter or any other gay couple’s lifestyle and is also dealing with the base for the sake of the votes. So they want him to admit to being a politician?

Yeah, people probably only call him on it because they can get the moral high ground, but why should we be OK with hypocrisy just because it's routine?

That was enticingly cryptic.

Oh, she's damned. Pretty sure of that.

Fuck yes.

One of the commenters there made the excellent point that candidates' families and intimate relationships are heavily politicized. You can run for president without parading your spouse and kids around (I'm sure Hillary Clinton is banking on it), but almost nobody does. I'm not sure if that's the way it SHOULD be, though.

Dan Savage has one of the best writing jobs in America.

Why is it that MC has to atone for the sins of the party she belongs to? Come the fuck on! This article makes me sick. MC is not setting Republican platforms. MC is not the chair of the RNC. MC is not an elected official whom we should excpect to answer for her public acts. She would like to be left the fuck alone--from both the right and left--in regards to a matter of private family choice. That Savage is exhausted is surely understandable. But his displaced anger is politically puerile.

Cheneylicious, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. No one is asking for atonement. What good would that do? But in what way is Savage wrong for pointing out that she's been fully complicit in the politics of her father's party for years now- she's been an underlying but fully visible complication in their family values tirade from the get-go of the life of the current administration, but as far as I can tell she's always just kept more or less quiet about her personal life, meanwhile actively working to get people into office whose sexual politics are fundamentally opposed to her basic mode of being- and those sexual politics have been central to their acquisition of power! She has actively worked, therefore, to make these issues public, not private, matters, as politicized as any issue facing us, and now when she wants a little privacy we should give it to her? How the fuck does that work? Why should she get to exercise her privelage every which way she wants to? She's a willing public figure and a hypocrite and she should absolutely be called on it. Atonement would be useless. Taking a stand, now that would really be something.

Mary Cheney was a top campaign aide for the Vice President of the United States of America, and is a public figure. (She speaks publicly, has published books about her sexuality, etc.) I have to side with Savage.

You're not asking for atonement. You're looking to blame someone for the state of gay rights in America—someone who doesn't deserve the amount of shit that she is getting. I agree that there likely is a degree of, oh let’s say cognitive dissonance for many gay active republicans. I disagree that it is appropriate to lampoon them for this--thereby doubling their struggle and likely alienating them from the left even more.

Now, perhaps you’ll say that I’m taking the specific issue of MC and unduly expanding it to all gay republicans. And you’d have a point. My reaction would be that I am not yet convinced that the hyperbolic furor over MC’s pregnancy can be considered appropriate political discourse, even if she is, at best, a limited public figure. What exactly is it that makes her fair game? Aiding a political campaign? Nearly all of us have done that, from Monk’s web design to canvassing during the last prez election. Is it because she got paid? Good god, I better stay away from politics because it might result in public criticism of whom I sleep with! Or is it because she’s the Veep’s daughter—and a gay republican daughter at that. None of which means that she does not have the right to ask the public to fucking back off when it comes to her family life.

Jesse, you overstate your case when you say that MC has actively worked to make these issues public matters. She has worked to get her dad elected VP; she hasn’t lobbied for anti-gay legislation. You're off base to say that she has actively sought republican victory for the purpose of advancing a reactionary social policy concerning gay americans. At best, she accepted the republican policy on gay rights as a necessary condition for her dad's victory. I don't expect her to be a Cordelia, gently rebuking her father-King until he finally comes around.

It cracks me up that leftist public intellectuals think it is irreconcilable to be gay and republican, as if being a democrat or a green or a socialist were a perfectly tailored fit. Jesse, is the sexual politics of the republican party an important (i wont give you central) component of the republican rise to power? yeah, no doubt. but why is it morally detestable (and i think that phrase is appropriate given the vitriol both in Savage's article and to a noticeably lesser but not absent degree in your comment) that an individual campaign worker/campaign leader/daughter of the veep decides that there are other issues she prioritizes above and beyond the sexual politics?

Do I think that there is a tension between MC's sexuality and her assumed political beliefs? Yes. Does she deserve the shit she’s getting because one of the compromises she made in supporting her dad’s campaign is something the left unfairly inflates to having a deterministic affect on how she votes? No way. There are too many problems within our own party/alliance of the left to be quibbling over Mary Cheney.

"Your side started it. It only serves you right that you’re going to have to finish it."

Better response later, but as someone who has been close to a somewhat similar situation to Mary Cheney's I'm going to have to back her in this case. Presumably she's very much pro-gay rights and, again presumably, she's otherwise very Republican. It's a shame to say that one has to chose one political leaning over the other and can't work towards furthering both.

It would be sad to leave the Republican party as a ghetto with only anti-gay members. Pro-gay people everywhere should be heartened to see more openly gay people in the Republican party... not antagonistic towards them. As their inclusion and power grow, the extreme right will be marginalized more and more.

This is good for everyone.

Working for someone (especially your father) who doesn't share your views isn't necessarily as hypocritical as people want it to be.

Wait, I guess I'm a little bit unclear. What exactly is the problem (CM and everyone else) that you have with Mary Cheney?

First of all, I agree with this line: "The GOP’s selective embrace of some pregnant dykes—only knocked-up lesbians with powerful connections will be treated with respect—is a disconnect that demands answers." Although that's more of an attack on her father than her.

Listen, here's the deal: I don't think anyone is saying that Mary Cheney shouldn't be a Republican, at least I'm not. I simply think that she is in a position to really make a difference in public perception in this area. It's not her obligation to do so, but I certainly think less of her for not doing so. Still, I agree that it's her right. And even more still: I defend the rights of the media to discuss her private life and even criticize it. Why? Because she got paid $1 million to write an autobiography, where she expressly says that she supported her father because she values his take on terrorism more than his take on gay rights. As soon as she published that, her beliefs and practices in that area became fair game.

I definitely never said anyone should not be a republican, nor did I say that Mary Cheney's personal agenda was to advance anti-gay legislation.

Oh, and I'm also certainly not blaming a single individual for the state of gay rights in America. These aren't extrapolations of what I said at all. Of course politics are not that amenable to 'unrealistic demands,' such as for example demanding that Mary Cheney not be heavily involved in a campaign to get her father into high office when that campaign is heavily opposed to gay rights, if she's then going to demand her right to privacy as a pregnant lesbian several years later, once his position is secured. I see no reason, however, why such 'unrealistic demands' should not be made, and vitriolically at that.

I am more convinced in this debate by Doorframe and Cheneylicious so far than I am by savage et al. Politics is a game of compromises. The reality of the system is that you have to make compromises on some fronts if you're ever going to make progress on any front. It may seem nonsensical to you that MC was willing to embrace a base that hated her lifestyle for the greater good, i.e. in order to get political power in the hands of the Republicans, but I can imagine making the same decision. Imagine a world where the Republicans considered their base to be Libertarians and the religious right, and thus pushed a policy of homophobia, prayer in schools, creationism, friendliness to corporations, AND drug legalization. (i.e. republicans+drugs). And imagine that Dems pretty much stayed the same as they are today. It's not so crazy, really.

I want drugs to be legalized, but not so much that I'm willing to embrace the other parts of the Repub. agenda. So I stick with the Dems, even though their drug policy annoys me. I'd rather keep science in schools, have a shot at a health policy, clean up the environment, etc. Drugs can wait.

MC did the same thing. She's not into the anti-gay message, but she (presumably) likes the rest of it. Who are you to say that gay rights should be more important to MC than drug legalization is to me?

No one, Jon, and again, I don't think anyone here is making the straw man point you made. The question is this: is it right for the media/public to criticize Mary Cheney and/or discuss the decisions of her private life. I am arguing: yes. It is a valuable discussion, and even if her decision is justified in some way, it doesn't make it not worth discussing.

Oh, I didn't understand the discussion (at least not as CrazyMonk frames it). I'm fine with the media discussing members of political families if they've either

(A) put themselves in the spotlight (for example by writing books about their sexuality/politics), or,

(B) been willingly used as political props by their family (for example being pulled onto stage to emphasize that the politician is a "family man/woman")

If you're in a political family and you've done either of these two things, then it's A-Ok for the media to talk about you. What I'm not clear on is what exactly our problem with Mary Cheney IS. Can someone clarify a little bit more bluntly for me? I'm missing the point.

my point is I don't begrudge MC for being a Republican and I'm not about to ask her to stop being a Republican and I'm not all that interested in finding out where her personal views and the Party's views part ways. If that seems like a straw man issue, well I agree with you and thus don't think it makes any sense to keep asking MC about what it's like to be a lesbian and a republican and how can she support her father's policies yadda yadda yadda. I.e. why bother debating it? Moreover, I also don't see the point of calling out DC for being hypocritical w/r/t his daughter's lifestyle and the laws he would advocate. What do people really expect to get out of this? As far as I can tell Cheney himself isn't all that opposed to his daughter or any other gay couple's lifestyle and is also dealing with the base for the sake of the votes. So they want him to admit to being a politician?

The criticism of the cheneys, ultimately, is that they're not single-issue voters simply because one of them happens to be gay. I guess that's worth criticism and discussion, since you can argue that being gay or having a gay relative that you don't reject should turn you into a single issue voter. To raise my straw man again, I'd certainly become a single-issue voter if Dobson et. al replaced "gay" with "jew". At the same time, it's not all that surprising that they're not single-issue voter specifically because they're the Cheneys. No matter how bad things get for gays in the US, MC will probably be okay if Republicans are in power. Thus activists are better off focusing their energy on less-highly-connected gays who continue to vote Republican, arguing there is no more important issue at hand.

So, given that it's OK to discuss Mary Cheney's private life, now I'm saying this: as a public figure who seems to care about issues surrounding gay rights, she should be criticized for acting as if the birth of her child does not have a political element, as Savage has done. I'm not going to go as far as Savage and blame her, but in terms of the gay rights movement, I would like her better if she outright said something like, "I recognize that given my familial/political connections, this child and we as same-sex parents will not be as disadvantaged as typical citizens in this situation." In other words, she has the ability to move the debate forward and is choosing not to. That is her right, but it's also my right to consider it an ethical failure.

That is her right, but it’s also my right to consider it an ethical failure.

Eh, ok. That's not an opinion I'm going to get riled up about.

I wonder if she'll be louder about this stuff when Dick Cheney dies?

"So they want him to admit to being a politician?"

Yes, I would like him to admit that his administration's policies towards same-sex relationships is mostly a political ploy, because then it would hurt them and those policies that much more. Do you realize the harm this administration has already done to same-sex couples? Have you seen the brutal and despicable statewide initiatives that have been passed via these political machinations? In Michigan, it's not even legal for a private business to offer health insurance to same-sex domestic partners as of this year -- a private business!

My sole consolation is that rightwing homophobes are beginning to realize that most Republicans are using them for their votes, and don't actually care about the policies themselves. Hence, their recent disenchantment with the Republican party. Unfortunately, most of the harm has already been done.

a private business!

Eh again, we opened the door for this sort of thing when we allowed the government to regulate private business for the sake of desegregation. It's annoying that it cuts both ways, but it's also predictable.

The real question is how long before the extreme right finds itself a true minority on these issues? I'd give it twenty five years.

No, the problem is that sexual orientation is not a protected class like race or religion.

They'll be a protected class soon enough, when the culture changes. Again, I give it 25 years.

Goddamn you personally, Mary Cheney!
If it wasn't for you it would be 23!!

Flea is baffling.

OK. I quit reading the comments at about #12. People. GET REAL. An anti-gay movement of any kind or degree is DISCRIMINATION. Period. MC is gay. She turned her head the other way while discrimination against her own was used to futher a political agenda (one which once in power thanks to the success of this manipulation in my opinion set back our country a good decade or two).

DS is gay. He believes that he deserves equal rights. MC supported a campaign which touted ammending the constitution of our nation to discriminiate against a group of people. (You may say, no, just to DEFINE marriage as between a penis and a vagina (and how stupid is that defense when you break it down).) DS called her out on this years ago, and he's kept on it ever since.

So now if all of the sudden MC wants to be left alone, boo hoo, I'm with DS, i.e., why don't you try and see if you can look at yourself in the mirror and die in a fire if you can't because you've been a negative contribution to humanity.

You can all smart talk yourselves in circles, but the point here -- and the reason why DS is so angry -- is that this is discrimination. Period. Overall, the USA is still stuck in this immature place thinking gayness is cute, we can put that on TV, homophobic comments and humor are cute in the right context, etc., while other countries on this planet are moving forward saying, hey, gay is one of the many ways of life, it always has been, and we're going to recognize that and allow people to be free.

Anyone, gay or straight, who supports or supported an anti-gay movement is BIGOTED and has some explaining to do if they want to just brush that aside. Particularly someone who's put themselves out in the public eye.

Pick any other form of discrimination (gender, race) and create a hypothetical parallel situation to this. We would not be having this discussion.

I'm sure some people will refute what I'm saying, and I'm really, really sorry that is the case.

This thread is too long. But I must say. Homophobic comments and humor ARE cute in the right context. I have seen many a foriegn film from all of these other countries (I assume mostly Europe, no?) and they have plenty of humor about homosexuality on TV and plenty of humor about, despite being oh-so-enlightened about homosexuality. So don't bring comedy into this, 'cause be it racist or sexist or homoist, every country does it, and I am all for it (in the right context).

Jessica, I hear your point (and it is not because of your, um, cute use of CAPITALIZATION). No one, as far as I can tell, is arguing that discrimination in any form is right or just or socially desirable (DoorJamb's civil rights jurisprudence notwithstanding). So falling back on the "but it's discriminaiton" agrument in order to end discussion seems a bit simple and, although you might feel really really sorry for me, I'll refute not your sense of justice (which viewpoint I share) but your sense of politics.

Let's assume MC is a single issue voter. All that she cares about--the one issue that she thinks is the most pressing--because it has the potential to affect tens of millions of Americans who otherwise might be neglected--is Social Security privatization. Oh, OK, let's also assume, arguendo, that MC is gay and is somewhat rational (not reasonable, but rational) when she gets into the voting booth. Now, whether there is a mirror in the voting booth, whether it is on fire, or whether DS is outside with "God Hates Fag Republicans" signs, MC has one clear choice of political party that maximizes her utility w/r/t Social Security policy.

Sorry for sounding like too much of an ersatz economist, but my point is this; I don't mind people discussing, publicly like we are doing here, MC's politics even to the extent that it touches upon her family life. But to condemn her because her political preferences don't match our own, to blame her as DS does for the diffulties he and I face as gay americans, to hold her solely responsible for the sins of her party, to offer callous boohooing when a gay family says "fuck off" to media scrutiny, and to burn the woman in effigy because you think she should be the Dr. King of the gay rights movement but has chosen not to, only makes me think that you all are the front line crusaders for gay rights in this country. And yet, with a few exceptions, I don't see you folks (ostensible gay activists so far as I can tell from the tenor of the convdersation) at HRC, GLAAD, Act-Up, Lambda Legal, or SLDN meetings, rallies, protests, or fundraisers (flea, you baffling quixotic rogue, you can except yourself to the last comment). And why not? Because you have other things that you would like to do. Yet you won't let MC make the same choice without subjecting her to the most vicious criticism.

Chenelicious out. I'm off to suck a dick.

wow, TWO comments finding my comment cryptic?? #22 says Doorframe gives it 25 years before gays have full rights, and I was sarcastically making the point that Mary Cheney is to blame for this delay (otherwise, it would only take 23 years). It was flip, below the level of discourse of this thread, not terribly witty, and I apologize.

yeah, thanks for clearing that up

Oh, well I understood the comment contextually, I just thought it nicely obscured your actual thoughts on the matter.

Cheneylicious, I take your comments to heart. I still do not entirely agree with you (what about, not limited interest/concern, but limited time? I would be lying if I claimed to be a full-time activist, and if I were I still would not be able to fight for every issue. Nevertheless...) but your words are well considered.

Yeah, and I'm just pontificating to a probably unwelcomed degree. All I'm saying is that Mary Cheney is not the real issue. Statements like DS's sell newspapers and get web hits. But don't get us anywhere. There may even be some damage.

i don't know that anyone's still checking this thread, but fair enough about obscuring my opinion. it's pretty simple. she's a public figure and a hypocrite, and there is zero wrong with stickin' it to her.

as for her 'blame' for the state of gay rights, she is but one fetid tampon in a sea of period blood. but unlike many, her complicitness has a special 'fuck you' quality to other gays who cannot enjoy the immunity from right-wing political criticism that she has invoked due to her stature, and it hurts, and that's my impression of what Dan was trying to say.

Um, probably just me (showing my hand a bit too readily here). I thought you were going to remain obscure, which I found amusing, but always curious to hear your thoughts, so this works too. I have nothing constructive to add, just in sum, while I hear Cheneylicious, I still come down on the other side too. But basically just wanted to acknowledge message reception. Bye.

Hey, just watched a video about Condi that mentioned our friend MC... how do we feel about this one: Condilicious.

flea, your words are poetry. You could totally get a job writing greeting cards for Hallmark.