Reply to Robbie

Here is the comment left by Robbie of The Malcontent, in italics, on this post, with my comments in roman. I had thought I would probably just dump it in the comments on the original post, but he raises some issues that I think need to be addressed more widely. Just for convenience, here'a a link to his original post.

Well, for a start, I'm nowhere near as partisan or right-wing as Gay Patriot tends to be. I'm not a Republican, I don't like the GOP, and I typically have many harsh remarks for prominent figures on the Right. Not important in the larger scheme of your post, but I dislike being miscategorized at the outset.

I've reviewed my post and can's seem to find any categorization of you. Yes, I made several comments about the general tone of your post, but nowhere that I can find did I comment on your politics, which I don't know. (Although if you're talking about my reference to the right-wing historical selectivity gene, that was meant more for GayPatriot than you, although your post shows enough evidence of it that I can say "if the shoe fits, wear it.")

You seem to see my post through the prism of Republican apology. However, as written, my approach is less interested in Republicans as swell folks than gay politics as a hypocrisy-filled, double-standarding, unserious mess based in little more than narrow partisan ideology and heaps of emotionalism.

My beef (which you ignore) is that Mary Cheney is held to a standard that Democrats simply are not. She's held to a standard that most prominent gay people are not - if they possess the correct politics.

While you say Dick Cheney punted by asserting the president has the final say on policy, this is nothing compared to John Kerry lobbying for the repeal of gay marriage in Massachusettes. Both errors, I think, but the objectively worse decision is the man who would have the primary say in policy throwing gays under the bus vs. a second in command.

But the typical gay response to both men could not be more different. Instead of seeing individual positions, both are lumped into their parties. Democrats good, Republicans evil. My approach on these things is to give credit where due to individuals regardless of party.

The major question here is, "Who promulgates this 'typical gay response'?" I seem to remember both Pam Spaulding and John Aravosis raking Kerry over the coals for his position on gay marriage (not to mention Andrew Sullivan, who supported Kerry otherwise), and I, in my own small way, certainly did not give him a pass (I'd quote, but my archives from the old site are history). In the blogosphere, at least, I don't see Mary Cheney being held to a stricter standard, although I have to say that it might be justified to do so -- she's an out lesbian working against gay interests. No, I don't expect the same level of commitment from a straight who is by and large sympathetic, if not ready to jump on board for the most difficult issue facing us.

If you're talking about the national organizations such as HRC, I certainly have no faith in them and I've said so, time and again. I understand that they're working on a long-term strategy involving basic rights, and the marriage thing took them by surprise. By the same token, they've proven themselves unable to respond effectively to the issues of the day, and by their inactivity have done us considerable damage. I don't agree with allying ourselves to a party, and I think it's a stupid move. HRC should go back to supporting individual candidates, no matter their affiliation, if they meet our criteria for support.

If the Cheneys are going to be held to an utterly unforgiving standard, then much of the Democratic party must be as well. That doesn't happen, well, ever. I realize the HRC's full time job now involves full on fellatio of one political party - especially during this last election where they cheered on the election of people who support the FMA - but I do believe in having some integrity on these matters.

This only points up the validity of my comments on the degree of venom you seem to lavish on the left, or, in your parlance, "gay politics." As for the HRC, I understand their strategy, I think -- gettting Democrats into office was the major priority in this election -- but again, I don't agree with them and I think they're wasting valuable resources. In practical terms, though I'm not ready to give any Democrat a pass just because he or she is on the left, a Democrat is, at this point, much more likely to be someone we can work with. That doesn't mean anything they say or do is OK, and aside from HRC becoming an adjunct of the Democratic Party, I don't know of anyone who is willing to let them off the hook. I do take exception to lumping us all together, since there are numerous critics of HRC within the ranks of gay America, and they're not all on the right.

As for integrity, I fear we are long past the point where you can expect any in politics. To insist that a candidate adhere to the party line in all respects may be, in your eyes, "integrity," but in real life, it's a good way to wind up with no one to support.

Mary's not perfect. Her on again, off again lesbianism is schizophrentic at best. But given her family's position, I understand it. I don't agree with it - I never ever said I have - but I have sympathy for someone trying to maintain a very careful balance when it comes to leading her own life while tap-dancing in such a way that doesn't harm her father's political career.

It's not ideal, but it really is no different from a lot of behavior gay publications have no problem with in Democrats. John Kerry supported a repeal of gay marriage in his home state, and the apologists were out in full force. "Well, that's just what he has to do . . ."

Cheney's position was/is no different from a whole host of Democrats. From Obama to Edwards to Clinton, they're all mush-mouthed and ready to pass the subject at the first opportune moment. And again, isn't it objectively worse when the presidential candidate takes these positions over a vice-presidential one?

As far as I can tell, the gay community has reservations about the entire field of candidates at this point. However, considering how the Republican side of the roster is stacking up, any of the Democrats are preferable. Should we be supporting Sam Brownback or Mitt Romney? I don't think so. It's hard to tell whether Cheney has had any influence on the administration on gay issues, since the White House's attitude toward the religious right is an open secret at this point, and it's not pretty. Sure, the rhetoric is muted -- it was never very strident from that direction to begin with -- but there's been no action and no counter moves. I think we're safe in saying that, Cheney's public positions notwithstanding, these are not our partisans. When Cheney is making trips over to the Hill to lobby in support of ENDA, then I might change my view.

Cheney's out, she's not in an enviable position given her family, but she's still working to carve a place for herself in a very awkward environment. It's not the best situation, but I admire her for being open in a party as hostile to her as the Republicans. I think once her father is out of office, she'll be even more vocal about gay issues. Especially if she remains in Virginia.

It's important to have prominent, out Republicans if we're going to make gay rights a human thing rather than allow forces on both sides to minimize it as a partisan, easily marginalized special interest (the HRC strategy).

If I'm not as harsh on her as other people, perhaps it's because I don't believe in piling on when it isn't necessary, and I object to the self-righteous tone of those who yell and scream at a Mary while giving quiet hand-jobs to their political allies who behave in a very similar manner.

We either have standards and integrity, or we don't. Unfortunately, the loudest voices in GLBT discourse almost always come firmly down on the side of don't.

Your last comment sort of encapsulates the gist of my post, and I'm going to turn your own position around on you: why should Mary Cheney, who by all available evidence is as self-servingly hypocritical as any other public figure you want to name, be defended by any gay person in the country? Not for her integrity, that's for sure. What good does it do us to have a prominent, out Republicans (who is out when it suits her purposes, but calls people who refer quite legitimately to her orientation dirty names on television when it doesn't suit her agenda) standing there like butter wouldn't melt in her mouth when she has spent her entire career not only not giving a damn about the community at large but working against it for her own gain? Her work at Coors was nothing more than trading on her own right-wing connections to milk money out of the gay community to fund more right-wing nutjobs while she was making a very comfortable living at it. I'm supposed to give her a break? When pigs make poetry.

Mary Cheney has wealth and position, which most of us don't, and is going to be insulated from a lot of nastiness no matter where she lives. Do you honestly think anyone in Virginia is going to give her grief about Heather and their relationship? Not in this universe.

For all your talk about a double standard, I seem to see strong evidence of it in everything you've said regarding criticism of Mary Cheney. The gay community in this country is as diverse as any other, and probably more so than most, and to heap contumely (I love that phrase) on us because somebody criticized the Cheneys while giving Democrats a nod (and frankly, for our own interests, that makes a lot of sense) strikes me as more than a little confused. I'm still waiting for someone to point out this "typical gay response" when all I can see is the very broad range of opinion that is what we should be expecting.

If you want to take the gay press, the national rights organizations, or any other part of the gay community to task, do it for something they've done, not because they are quite justifiably criticizing someone who deserves it. Coming down hard on the Cheneys is not much indication of a double standard.

Frankly, you have more deserving targets out there than our own.