Andrew Sullivan's comments on the "is being Gay a choice" question.

[polm]

Andrew Sullivan is a conservative writer for the New Republic. He is also a homosexual. Here is what he had to say about last nights question on homosexuality, and the 2 candidates answers:

I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a "low blow". Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact. No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow." The double standards are entirely a function of people's lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It's a concrete, human and real one. It affects many families, and Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign. He deserves to be held to account for this - and how much more effective than showing a real person whose relationship and dignity he has attacked and minimized? Does this makes Bush's base uncomfortable? Well, good. It's about time they were made uncomfortable in their acquiescence to discrimination. Does it make Bush uncomfortable? Even better. His decision to bar gay couples from having any protections for their relationships in the constitution is not just a direct attack on the family member of the vice-president. It's an attack on all families with gay members - and on the family as an institution. That's a central issue in this campaign, a key indictment of Bush's record and more than relevant to any debate. For four years, this president has tried to make gay people invisible, to avoid any mention of us, to pretend we don't exist. Well, we do. Right in front of him

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Kudos for him. I have been amazed by how many people view the Kerry/Edwards comments on Mary Cheney as a "low blow," in spite of the fact both candidates handled her situation with complete respect IMO.

 

[conjur]

"When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow." double standards are entirely a function of people's lingering prejudice against gay people."


:thumbsup:


Still...it came off as petty from Kerry, imo.

 

[Gravity]

Even Bill Clinton insisted that children of candidates should be left out of politics.

 

[Ferocious]

Actually it's this kind of discrimination by social conservatives that still requires us to have affirmative action in this country.

Hopefully some day soon, such regulations will not be necessary.

 

[chess9]

Kerry handled that issue deftly in my view, and certainly much better than Bush who appeared uncomfortable and confused discussing homosexuality.

Why does Lynn Cheney expect us to ignore her daughter but embrace Bush's daughters? Seems odd....

-Robert

 

[Spamela]

when kerry said it i thought he screwed up
& should have phrased it as
"a close family member of the vice-president,"
so it didn't sound like he was outing anybody
(in case there's anyone in the country who doesn't already know).

 

[pilgrim2u]

John Edwards and John Kerry both had a "motive" for doing this. This was no slip. Mary Cheney has the right to come out of the closet on her terms. A national Presidential Debate with millions is no place to "out" someones ELSES child. The parents do have a right to be respected.
John Kerry and John Edwards both showed why "trial lawyers" are seen in the same light as "used car salesman"

We saw in John Kerry what we saw early in Bill Clinton and Jennifer Flowers......character does not matter. Clinton never stopped in his behavior after election, Kerry will never have the "class" to be president

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Gravity
Even Bill Clinton insisted that children of candidates should be left out of politics.

i agree with what conjur said. its a valid point to bring up but kerry seemed too uncertain about it to bring it up and have it work out well.

gravity: "even Bill Clinton?"
thats a little rough.
bush brought his kids up as did cheney, so its assumedly acceptable. i have not seen them anywhere say anything like "please dont bring them up."
im pretty certain that if they didnt want it brought up, kerry/edwards would respect that.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: pilgrim2u
Mary Cheney has the right to come out of the closet on her terms. A national Presidential Debate with millions is no place to "out" someones ELSES child.

Uhhh. She outed herself a long time ago. The Cheney's just like to hide her in the background and not talk about it. Kerry wasn't saying anything people already didn't know, he was just reinforcing the idea that homosexuality is something that plays a role in a large number of American families, including the vice-president's.

Certainly nothing wrong with that.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: pilgrim2u
John Edwards and John Kerry both had a "motive" for doing this. This was no slip. Mary Cheney has the right to come out of the closet on her terms. A national Presidential Debate with millions is no place to "out" someones ELSES child. The parents do have a right to be respected.
John Kerry and John Edwards both showed why "trial lawyers" are seen in the same light as "used car salesman"

We saw in John Kerry what we saw early in Bill Clinton and Jennifer Flowers......character does not matter. Clinton never stopped in his behavior after election, Kerry will never have the "class" to be president

Nobody "outed" her, and your post just confirms that, as Andrew Sullivan says, we have a long way to go as a society. You're clearly implying that the Cheney family, and Mary Cheney in particular, have something to be ashamed of here, and they don't.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: pilgrim2u
John Edwards and John Kerry both had a "motive" for doing this. This was no slip. Mary Cheney has the right to come out of the closet on her terms. A national Presidential Debate with millions is no place to "out" someones ELSES child. The parents do have a right to be respected.
John Kerry and John Edwards both showed why "trial lawyers" are seen in the same light as "used car salesman"

We saw in John Kerry what we saw early in Bill Clinton and Jennifer Flowers......character does not matter. Clinton never stopped in his behavior after election, Kerry will never have the "class" to be president

Nobody "outed" her, and your post just confirms that, as Andrew Sullivan says, we have a long way to go as a society. You're clearly implying that the Cheney family, and Mary Cheney in particular, have something to be ashamed of here, and they don't.

Come on. Kerry's comments were obviously intended to weaken Bush/Cheney's support among those religious conservatives with strong anti-gay feelings.

 

[pilgrim2u]

If we follow logic that Mary Cheney is "fair game" by Kerry spokes mouth Mary Beth Cahill.......then John Edwards wife should be the poster child for obesity and the HealthCare debate?
Mrs. Edwards "outed" her obese self by wadling across the stage at the debates.

So Bush should have used Mrs Edwards obesity in his HealthCare debate?

Why not if..... all family is "fair game" as the Kerry spokesmouth said :-(

 

[Genx87]

It was a low blow and there isnt getting around it. Both men used it in a way I would say is calling out. There was little reason other than to remind people that the VP daughter is gay. They did this knowing many people do not like gays. There is a senate race going on where the democrats called out a competitor who is gay. They do this in order to scare people who are homophobes. And there are still a bunch of people who are.

As for Bush's response to it I thought he did it very well. He admited he didnt know if it was DNA or lifestyle but that we should not interfere with it. Then went on to explain why he wants to amend the constitution concerning the marriage issue. His reasoning is a valid one. In a country where 65-75% of the people do not approve of gay marriage. Why should some activist judges get to decide for the people?

The amendment will get every single states legislature involved along with the house and senate. It will truely get the issue out for the "people" to decide, not a few judges. That was his point.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: pilgrim2u
John Edwards and John Kerry both had a "motive" for doing this. This was no slip. Mary Cheney has the right to come out of the closet on her terms. A national Presidential Debate with millions is no place to "out" someones ELSES child. The parents do have a right to be respected.
John Kerry and John Edwards both showed why "trial lawyers" are seen in the same light as "used car salesman"

We saw in John Kerry what we saw early in Bill Clinton and Jennifer Flowers......character does not matter. Clinton never stopped in his behavior after election, Kerry will never have the "class" to be president

Nobody "outed" her, and your post just confirms that, as Andrew Sullivan says, we have a long way to go as a society. You're clearly implying that the Cheney family, and Mary Cheney in particular, have something to be ashamed of here, and they don't.

Come on. Kerry's comments were obviously intended to weaken Bush/Cheney's support among those religious conservatives with strong anti-gay feelings.

political motivation aside; it is a SHAME that our current president is concerned about offending anyones anti-gay feelings.

Our president should be standing up for gay rights, and not play down the issue simply to appease those who would rather see less rights for gay people in this country.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It was a low blow and there isnt getting around it. Both men used it in a way I would say is calling out. There was little reason other than to remind people that the VP daughter is gay. They did this knowing many people do not like gays. There is a senate race going on where the democrats called out a competitor who is gay. They do this in order to scare people who are homophobes. And there are still a bunch of people who are.

As for Bush's response to it I thought he did it very well. He admited he didnt know if it was DNA or lifestyle but that we should not interfere with it. Then went on to explain why he wants to amend the constitution concerning the marriage issue. His reasoning is a valid one. In a country where 65-75% of the people do not approve of gay marriage. Why should some activist judges get to decide for the people?

The amendment will get every single states legislature involved along with the house and senate. It will truely get the issue out for the "people" to decide, not a few judges. That was his point.

people to decide ??? are you freakin kidding me !!! This is DESCRIMINATION we are talking about. How can you not see that ??


This, IMHO, is entirely WHY Kerry mentioed Cheney's daughter. Bush needs to be exposed for what he is, and who he is supported by, and who he is supporting.

The calls against Kerry coming from the Bush campaign clearly indicate that the president sees support of gay rights as a SHAMEFUL act. As if Kerry told the world a DIRTY little secret about the VP's daughter.

Anyone who beleives the constitution should be ammended to restrict the rights of ANYONE can all move to freakin' Saudi Arabia ! Im serious....move.

 

[Genx87]

How is it discrimination?

Where in the constitution does it state you have a "right" to be married?

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

The amendment will get every single states legislature involved along with the house and senate. It will truely get the issue out for the "people" to decide, not a few judges. That was his point.

it will never pass the 2/3's that is needed to amend the const.

I also think bringing up Cheney's gay daughter is tacky. But if you look at the context of the whole issue, the Bush admin has politicized the gay marriage issue by attempting to add descrimination into the constitution. So I guess everything is fair play now.

 

[Genx87]

While that may be true. It is a much better check and balance than letting judges decide for the people.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
How is it discrimination?

Where in the constitution does it state you have a "right" to be married?

the constitution is to give rights to the people, not to take away. Prohibition took away rights from the people, and we all know how that one ended

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Genx87
How is it discrimination?

Where in the constitution does it state you have a "right" to be married?

I would place it in the "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" section.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: Genx87
How is it discrimination?

Where in the constitution does it state you have a "right" to be married?

I would place it in the "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" section.

:thumbsup:

And follow that up Equal Protection.

 

[pilgrim2u]

I usually like Andrew Sullivan....we can disagree.
Lets have him comment on the raging storm waiting......Thats right its polygamy. You people on the left gonna fight "discrimination" against their "oreintation"

And the bi-sexual......they will want to marry one of each?

 

[chess9]

To say nothing of Full Faith and Credit when you are married in Mass. and move to Miss.!!!

Ouchee!!!

-Robert

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: pilgrim2u
I usually like Andrew Sullivan....we can disagree.
Lets have him comment on the raging storm waiting......Thats right its polygamy. You people on the left gonna fight "discrimination" against their "oreintation"

And the bi-sexual......they will want to marry one of each?

-