Mary With Child

Quote:

But Ms. Cheney wrote in a book published this year that she had considered resigning from the campaign after learning that Mr. Bush would endorse the proposed amendment. She said that she decided to stay because other important issues were at stake in the 2004 campaign.

As she promoted her book last spring, she said a federal ban on same-sex marriage would "write discrimination into the Constitution." The vice president has hinted at disapproval of the proposed amendment. Asked where he stood on the issue during a campaign stop in Iowa in 2004, Mr. Cheney said, "Freedom means freedom for everyone."

The Mary Cheney matter IS important (unfortunately for her personal privacy) because her father's government and political movement has very callously and purposefully used anti-gay divisive strategies for electoral gain.


re LSM's thing on Pelosi/Nambla... it is an illogical and irrational and slimey repetition of a rightwing electoral gambit which sought to achieve two ends:
1) minimize the electoral consequences of the Foley matter (they are just as sexually perverse and immoral and unchristian as we are)
2) the attempt to scare folks about the extremism of the democrat party with a portrayal of Pelosi as representative of "San Francisco values" (like Hollywood values, but even worse sexually).

Because LSM's insistence on tying Pelosi to Nambla is illogical, irrational and slimey, there's no problem in anyone taking her to task for that. Or any other such "argument" she might make. Or any claim about anything for which she forwards no compelling rationale or evidence greater than her own self-certainty.

But she HAS stopped with the "come on and fight me, you coward with the liberal brain cancer and teeny weiner!" stuff. So we ought to stop with it too.

OK guys. I think it's time to stop piling on here. MSM has ceased posting in the manner we all protested. Not everyone manages to accomplish such a change and that really ought not to go unnoticed or unrewarded.

Why should any of us care what Mary Cheney is doing. She is a private citizen and should not be the basis for your lame partisen discussions.

Mary Cheney is having a baby and really no one should care.

I wish her luck.

Cheney baby news sparks comments
Groups differ over lesbian's pregnancy
By Johanna Neuman
Originally published December 7, 2006
WASHINGTON // No Republican in Washington is more beloved by social conservatives than Vice President Dick Cheney, who with his wife, Lynne, has backed and breathed every issue dear to them for six tumultuous years.

News that Cheney's lesbian daughter, Mary, is pregnant touched a raw nerve, as advocates for conservative family values struggle to reconcile their loyalty to the Cheneys with their opposition to same-sex relationships - and particularly to raising a child without a father.

Advertisement
"Not only is she doing a disservice to her child, she's voiding all the effort her father put into the Bush administration," said Janice Shaw Crouse, senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank run by Concerned Women for America.

The vice president's office confirmed yesterday that Mary Cheney, 37, an executive at AOL, was expecting her first child with her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, 45. The vice president and his wife issued a statement saying they are "looking forward with eager anticipation to the arrival of their sixth grandchild."

Cheney's elder daughter, Elizabeth, and her husband, Philip Perry, had their fifth child in July.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that when Cheney told President Bush of Mary Cheney's pregnancy, "the president congratulated them and said he is very happy for them."

Some groups that oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoptions - such as the Family Research Council and the Eagle Forum - declined to comment. But others were critical, albeit with a delicate touch not always seen in the political wars over gay issues.

"Children deserve the very best we can offer, and gay adoption - by definition - intentionally denies children either a mother or a father," said Carrie Gordon Earll, an analyst for Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based family advocacy ministry. "Adoption laws should put the needs of children first, above the desires of adults."

Family Pride, a Washington-based organization that supports gay parenthood and organized gay families to join the Easter egg roll on the White House lawn this year, said Cheney's pregnancy will focus attention on the injustice of parents without equal rights. She and Poe live in Virginia, which has a state law and a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage or civil unions, and where the legal status of adoption by gays is unclear.

"Unless they move to a handful of less restrictive states, Heather will never be able to have a legal relationship with her child," said Jennifer Chrisler, the group's executive director. "Grandpa Cheney has been part of an administration that has leveled unprecedented attacks [on gays]. If this doesn't make it real for him, I don't know what will."

Social conservatives said the case highlights the tragedy of children raised without fathers. "The best thing we can do for a child is to provide a father and a mother," Crouse said.

Others disagreed. "All of the peer-reviewed social science studies show that gay people ... are good parents," said Chris Barron, former political director for the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest organization for gays in the GOP.

Johanna Neuman writes for the Los Angeles Times.

I am sure Mary Cheney will raise her child well. The only reason this is even being discussed is because her dad is Dick Cheney who has a different belief about homosexuals then some of the posters here. Yet, despite that, I bet he loves her very much and is happy she will be bringing him a grandchild that he can scowl at and guarantee a wonderful future with all his Haliburton money.

blatham wrote:

OK guys. I think it's time to stop piling on here. MSM has ceased posting in the manner we all protested. Not everyone manages to accomplish such a change and that really ought not to go unnoticed or unrewarded.

Thanks, but I doubt your words will mean much to some that would find fault with anything that any conservative says, which is fine, it's their right, it's my right to keep on standing for what I believe.

blatham wrote:

OK guys. I think it's time to stop piling on here. MSM has ceased posting in the manner we all protested. Not everyone manages to accomplish such a change and that really ought not to go unnoticed or unrewarded.

Thanks, but I doubt your words will mean much to some that would find fault with anything that any conservative says, which is fine, it's their right, it's my right to keep on standing for what I believe.

I believe that Pelosi is as responsible for saying something about NAMBLA is as important as it was for Dennis Hastert to have said something about Foley, Hastert did not, Nancy has not condemmed any child molestoers that are in her own party. I don't call that sliming her anymore than Hastert was slimed because of his silence.
I don't believe evidence is required to offer an opinion.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

blatham wrote:

OK guys. I think it's time to stop piling on here. MSM has ceased posting in the manner we all protested. Not everyone manages to accomplish such a change and that really ought not to go unnoticed or unrewarded.

Thanks, but I doubt your words will mean much to some that would find fault with anything that any conservative says, which is fine, it's their right, it's my right to keep on standing for what I believe.

ah yes, the classic graciousness. What's that all over that pearl blatham?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

blatham wrote:

OK guys. I think it's time to stop piling on here. MSM has ceased posting in the manner we all protested. Not everyone manages to accomplish such a change and that really ought not to go unnoticed or unrewarded.

Thanks, but I doubt your words will mean much to some that would find fault with anything that any conservative says, which is fine, it's their right, it's my right to keep on standing for what I believe.

ah yes, the classic graciousness. What's that all over that pearl blatham?

I am sure Mary Cheney will raise her child well. The only reason this is even being discussed is because her dad is Dick Cheney who has a different belief about homosexuals then some of the posters here. Yet, despite that, I bet he loves her very much and is happy she will be bringing him a grandchild that he can scowl at and guarantee a wonderful future with all his Haliburton money.

Why should any of us care what Mary Cheney is doing. She is a private citizen and should not be the basis for your lame partisen discussions.

Mary Cheney is having a baby and really no one should care.

I wish her luck.

I don't think having this a child out of wedlock is good for the child. A child needs two parents.

Why don't they get married?

Quote:

I believe that Pelosi is as responsible for saying something about NAMBLA is as important as it was for Dennis Hastert to have said something about Foley, Hastert did not, Nancy has not condemmed any child molestoers that are in her own party. I don't call that sliming her anymore than Hastert was slimed because of his silence.
I don't believe evidence is required to offer an opinion.

No, often not. But if you or anyone offer up an opinion which everyone else (or nearly so) find illogical or irrational, what good does it do you?

I'm not going to argue this issue with you. Others have done so previously and you haven't apparently altered your position.

woiyo wrote:

Why should any of us care what Mary Cheney is doing. She is a private citizen and should not be the basis for your lame partisen discussions.

Mary Cheney is having a baby and really no one should care.

I wish her luck.

I trust you are addressing LSM, as she started the thread.

From the article I posted:

"Not only is she doing a disservice to her child, she's voiding all the effort her father put into the Bush administration," said Janice Shaw Crouse, senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank run by Concerned Women for America.

Roxxxanne wrote:

From the article I posted:

"Not only is she doing a disservice to her child, she's voiding all the effort her father put into the Bush administration," said Janice Shaw Crouse, senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank run by Concerned Women for America.

[/b]

Quote:

Other than being born to the daughter of a public figure, what disservice is being done to the child?

Apparently, Ms. Crouse feels that lesbian couples should not raise children.

Quote:

Voiding what effort her father put into the Bush administration?

The effort to deny Lesbian and gays their rights such as the right to marry and raise children.

ebrown_p wrote:

I don't think having this a child out of wedlock is good for the child. A child needs two parents.

Why don't they get married?

Maybe they don't want to move to Massachusetts and pay all those taxes.