Mary Cheney is pregnant. Yawn.

06 Dec
Printer-friendly versionSend by emailPDF version

 Amidst all the white noise on the Iraq report, the blogosphere still appears to have found some time to shout a big ‘ah-ha’ on Mary Cheney’s pregnancy. See! She’s gay and a single mom! We surely gotcha now! Honestly, all this hooplah really gets to me. It’s annoying enough when the right-wing blogs bemoan the wretched stain on the Cheney family's good name, but it’s even worse when such malarkey comes from ordinarily progressive bloggers.

Aside from being a simpering little apologist for her dad’s administration, this girl has done nothing that we ourselves are not fighting for. Yes, she is gay. Yes, she will now be an “unwed” mother. But come on, in what stretch of the imagination does this somehow “win” an argument that Cheney – and right-wingers by extension – are all hypocrites? Our entire argument is that being gay is not a choice, so how is it possible that her dad could have had any influence over her sexuality? Besides, do we really need to manufacture another excuse to criticize right-wingers that we must exploit the private life of this woman whose only real fault is being the progeny of the Prince of Darkness?

We shouldn’t be gloating about this, we should feel sorry for Mary Cheney – she is about to be victimized even further by her father’s policies.

Share this

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I feel sorry for her, actually.

Imagine growing up in that household? Fucking nightmare, man. Evil rotting her soul from within...that's gotta take the cake.

Re: Mary Cheney is pregnant. Yawn.

I hardly consider myself or my blog to be "right" wing or "Left" wing. (No there isn't a difference either between repubs and demos..) I consider myself an ordinary truth seeker, who sees the world around her changing and not for the better....I support neither the right( bush) nor the Left( kennedy). As for my post on cheney? I was commenting on a commentary I read by Kevin MCCollough. There seems to be things that are not allowed to be asked in this world .. Kevin brought up one of them.

but you call them sodomites?!

Sure, these right/left dichotomies do tend to lose some meaning among abstract political discourse.  But referring to gay men and women in a blanket sense as "sodomites" who can't believe in God is enough for me to lump your post squarely in the "right-wing" category.  If you prefer, I could refer to it instead as hate-filled rhetoric?  Or simply general intolerance and persecution?

Re: but you call them sodomites?!

Sodomites,= From the land of Sodom and Gomorhhea. Book of Genesis chapter 13- on I never said they couldnt believe in GOD. No matter what I say I am wrong ( according to them, homo is wrong, queer is wrong, etc...) Dont label me right or left or hate filled or intolerant, I am a truth seeker and not p.c. I believe in calling the truth what it is - not the revisionsts new form of it. As for My comments they refered to Kevin Mccolloughs column.

Calling people sodomites is ok if it's biblical?

The quote from your site is "Saying it is against the Laws of GOD isn't enough for these people [sodomites], since they obviously don't swear any allegiance to GOD and it is doubtful they believe in the TRUE GOD." I have many friends from them LGBT community that both embrace and are embrace by the church.

Do you think that just because Sodomite is a biblical word that somehow it is less insulting and dehumanizing, particularly when you use it in an intentionally derogatory manner? As far as being wrong no matter what you say, this has so much less to do with the label you choose than with the dehumanizing venom behind your words. You're wrong because you're hateful towards an entire group of people, not because of the label you apply to them. If you were an earnest truth-seeker (rather than someone dangerously assuming they have a monopoly on the truth) than you would be more than forgiven for a slightly (though unintentionally) offensive label. Either way, I'm sure you realize that sodomite is far more insulting that homo or even queer, don't you?

Finally, you keep trying to hide behind McCollough's column as though that absolves you of your own intolerance and bigotry while also claiming to hold a monopoly on truth ("calling truth what it is"). Stop trying to have it both ways!

Re: Calling people sodomites is ok if it's biblical?

Venomous? Hateful? Not hardly. Being honest used to be a good thing. I know people who are homo and dont go around beating them up. BUT if the movement suddenly shifted to "EMBRACE" adultery, pedophilia, being a thief and lying,I would be there just as loudly saying it is wrong! You cannot throw the blanket of morals away just because it feels good and makes you happy. There are absolute rights and wrongs. That lifestyle is against the LAWS of GOD "and" The Laws of NATURE! Why should that be taught to young and impressionable kids? It would be one thing if they were struggling with it, but they are embracing it and teaching our kids to do the same! I cannot stand there and say NOTHING! People like you may call it hateful, I call it honest. And for the record the term of being offended is real old. Everybody is offensive to somebody at some point, and life itself is offensive, they used to have a saying for that... "Sticks and Stones....." I find their wanting to make their lifestyle normal OFFENSIVE... But I am NOT storming the halls of the supreme court. You say to find a less "offensive" label... Like what? Every time I am told this or that is offensive...Even the term homosexual has been called offensive.....People need to stop changing the meaning of words and accept them as they are...."It all depends on what the definition of the word is , "IS" was klintons legacy, and seems to have carried over to every group out there. They are what they are. If I wanted to be offensive I would have called them what they were called when I was growing up..... it started with an "F" had 2 "G"'s in the middle and ended with a "T".

Honesty IS good, but hatred begets hatred

Venomous? Hateful? Not hardly. Being honest used to be a good thing. I know people who are homo and dont go around beating them up.
Violence is not only a matter of the physical. Your particular brand of violence falls under the emotional/spiritual category. It is the same brand of violence committed by passive bigots in the 1950s deep south. MLK wrote his Letter from a Birmingham Jail not to those who were turning the firehoses on blacks, but to his fellow clergyman who were counseling restraint and acceptance to those who were experiencing discrimination and oppression.
BUT if the movement suddenly shifted to "EMBRACE" adultery, pedophilia, being a thief and lying,I would be there just as loudly saying it is wrong!
I would like to assume by "movement" you are referring to gay rights activists, though I get the feeling you are referring to homosexuals as a single unit instead. This is a tragic error in reasoning, as I am sure you would not like me to lump yourself and Bush in the same category even though you are both Christians. But back to the point, I challenge you to produce a single individual or group who is championing the rights of adulterers, pedophelia, stealing, or lying (not sure how the last two have even a single connection to this discussion).
You cannot throw the blanket of morals away just because it feels good and makes you happy. There are absolute rights and wrongs. That lifestyle is against the LAWS of GOD "and" The Laws of NATURE!
Well, this is a legitimate point of contention, isn't it? You feel as though you have a monopoly on morality based on, in my opinion, a tragically flawed and decontextualized reading of the bible. Whereas I feel that there is nothing inherent in homosexuality that violates the laws of God. As for the laws of nature, there are plenty of examples that contradict this argument in sexual terms. Lust is animalistic and even housepets will hump anything they can wrap their paws around. In terms of Love, this is a strictly human construct, so homosexulity, like heterosexuality, is unique to the human experience and therefore has no context exterior to it from which to draw conclusions.
Why should that be taught to young and impressionable kids? It would be one thing if they were struggling with it, but they are embracing it and teaching our kids to do the same!
If sexuality was something that could be taught, then there would be no homosexuals. Think about it. All children are born to a pairing of male/female, so where would existing homosexuals have "learned" their behavior? Not to mention that there appears no causal relationship amongst children raised in homosexual households.
I cannot stand there and say NOTHING! People like you may call it hateful, I call it honest. ...
I'm not trying to infringe on your free speech. In fact, I hope I've made it clear that I am trying to engage you on an intellectual level, attacking your ideas and not you personally. But I think you missed the point of my last post - your words are being perceived as offensive not because of the specific word you're choosing, but because your intent is to cause offense. When someone who clearly despises homosexuality as much as you do, then that person will be hard-pressed to find phraseology that won't be deemed offensive. This is your cross to bear - just as the bigots in the 1950s had to go on television to defend segregation, you will have to also prepare to weather attacks from the more open, inviting, and inclusive elements of society. I hold no illusions that I am going to change your mind and I will continue to love and respect you even when we disagree so strongly. But there will come a day (a generation or two from now) when homophobes will be regarded with the same contempt we now hold for racial bigotry - and then you will have to endure explaining to your children and grandchildren why you hold the opinions that you do.

Thanks for the link...

...but I'm rather sure neither me nor my blog has ever been called "right wing" before. My post on Mary Cheney, coupled with the pic of the "virgin birth," was making the point that only right wing kooks could blow off the hypocrisy of a vice-president who has stood for homophobia all his life, proclaiming how "thrilled" he was at this development. But keep up the good fight.

Many apologies Todd

sheesh, talk about sheer laziness on my part - just trudging around technorati looking for a quickie link and I didn't even bother to see that your site is anything but!  I've switched the post link to something more appropriate and once again apologies all around.

Sometimes...

Sometimes I don't see the differnce between right and left.

Cheney and the baby

The main thing about the baby is that she and her lover,Tricia Poe were introduced by Mary at a WH event as being "married". Mary Cheney can be marreid and no one has a problem with that but others who love each other and are gay cannot have a marriage. What hypocrisy.

Cheney and the baby

The main thing about the baby is that she and her lover,Tricia Poe were introduced by Mary at a WH event as being "married". Mary Cheney can be marreid and no one has a problem with that but others who love each other and are gay cannot have a marriage. What hypocrisy.

If Newt says...

...that the rules of terrorism are different than the rules of civil society, then I shouldn't be surprised that the righties also think the rules of the elite are different than the rules of the plebs.  Would definitely explain the bloated culture of corruption in GOP circles these days!