Mary's Baby: The Otherworldly View

Our old friends at Gay Patriot have done it again. This time, it's a word of praise for this post by Robbie at The Malcontent.

There is a sharp flaw within the gay movement in terms of example and rhetoric. Mary Cheney lives by example. She is out, open, in a relationship, and now having a child. She must weather the criticism of the religious right like few others as the most visible gay individual in the Republican party. Knowing that every move she makes will be scrutinized and excoriated by the right-wing base and left-wing gay radicals alike, she moves forward with her life with no apology.

Robbie's post is so filled with omissions and logical flaws that it's barely coherent. I found my self saying again and again "But what about . . . ?" I keep forgetting the right-wing historical selectivity gene.

It's also notable for the degree of -- I want to say "projection," but I can't really do that with any justification because I don't know these men personally. Not only the tone of Robbie's post, but comments by Dan Blatt (GayPatriot West) such as "Despite all this, she is vilified merely because she is a Republican — and the daughter of the Vice President" are simply too far out there. No, she's not vilified (if she's even being "vilified" -- criticized, sure, and with good reason, but vilified? Mmm. . . .) merely because she's a Republican, but because, being a lesbian, she willingly devoted her efforts to a political campaign that rested in major part on vilifying people like her -- and in this case, I use the word advisedly. Both posters ascribe "venom" and "hatred" to any criticism of Mary Cheney (or any other member of the Bush administration, its employees, etc., etc., etc. -- y'know, it strikes me that kind of fanatical devotion isn't really healthy) while never seeming to realize the degree of venom in their own posts about prominent left-wing figures. Do I smell a double standard here?

Mary Cheney, like her father, is an opportunist. Suddenly, after the last election in which Bush/Cheney were contenders, when they no longer have to worry about votes, she's pregnant and being publicly lesbian -- again. (In a very private and personal way, of course.) I remember, if neither Robbie nor Blatt do, that she was very much part of the woodwork during the last Republican convention, but now that her father no longer needs the Christianists, bingo! It's a "personal" matter. How convenient.

(In all fairness, insofar as it's possible, given her prominence and the activities in which she has engaged in her career, it is a personal matter, but there are rather severe limits on how private a public figure can be, especially when a large portion of her audience is composed of people who have a god-given right to tell others how to live.)

We all know that Dick Cheney doesn't have any respect for the Christianists. That's been plain. However, that hasn't stopped him, or Mary, from courting them when an election rolls around.

So maybe Mary Cheney isn't being criticized for being a Republican. Maybe it's just that she, like her father, is a hypocrite, and a pretty self-centered one at that, and gay people continue to suffer because of it.

A note about the Wolf Blitzer interview: No, Blitzer wasn't out of line. Let's get a little real about this: You're a lesbian whose father's a politician who has courted the extreme right, including catering to their anti-gay agenda, for votes. (Robbie notes "Not only did Dick Cheney make the well-known remark, 'Freedom means freedom for everyone,' he unambiguously stated his stark disagreement with the administration on the FMA in the middle of a re-election campaign." What he forgets to point out is that Cheney immediately punted by saying it's the president's call. That's simply evading any responsibility for the party platform. It's even worse, actually -- it's close to prostitution.) You have worked actively on his campaign. Then you make a public announcement that you are pregnant, and it's certainly not by your partner, another woman. But it should be a private matter, not open to discussion. An interviewer asks your father about it, and he's out of line? Sorry. You can't have it both ways, honey. It's called taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions. I'm told conservatives used to believe in that.