I thought one of the LCR members here would need the frequent flyer miles. They snooze; they lose.

Log Cabin Republicans File Suit to Overturn Military's \"Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy\"

Wow...behaving like this will get them excluded from the next Republican Convention, too!

Does this mean they will have to use one of those evil trial lawyers ?

God, the pair of you are like crows on a wire!

Which one is Heckle and which is Jekyll? :confused:

My god - if they keep up this kind of activism they just might get a donation again someday...

Rob

Am watching the Patrick Guerrero of the LCR on CNN talking about the Mary Cheney incident. Checked the LCR website to see if they had a statement and my, how wishy-washy can you get.

We, as gay people, should be happy that gays and lesbians are being mentioned by name, publicly, as members of loving families. Maybe if people realized that we are your sons and daughters, friends and neighbors, coworkers and so on, maybe we would be treated with equality.

Mary Cheney's sister was being interviewed by Paula Zaun (on CNN) last night and kept going on about how outraged she was that her sister's name was mentioned. Paula asked her if Mary Cheney herself was outraged, but Liz Cheney refused to answer. Paula asked the question again. And again Liz Cheney refused to answer.

As some have said, the Republicans are trying to have it both ways: to claim how gays and lesbians are part of their loving families, while at the same time denying gays and lesbians the right to form loving families.

"Both campaigns" have a message for Log Cabin:
nobody cares what you think.

Personally I think Lynne is ashamed of Mary and that's why she gets so upset when Mary is mentioned. I remeber in the 2000 campaign how she openly denied Mary's homosexuality and blasted anyone who brought it up.

I think Lynne is the one with the problem. Like the Advocate said, "what is so wrong with saying something we all already knew?"

Denverfan, I agree with you 100%. I recall about 3-4 years ago, Advocate had a pretty interesting interview with Ms. Cheney, and she came across to me as somebody who had lots of problems with her daughters sexuality, so I too, think there is some shame going on here.

OK, let's assume there IS an element of shame in the Cheney household, something not unrealistic given the parents' generation and geography; not everyone is - or must be - "gay and proud." Let's also assume Kerry and Edwards knew this, or, more accurately, they they were urged to mention Mary's sexuality by gay activists holding sway in the Democratic camp, i.e., HRC. That means K&E at least knew they'd be shaming or embarrassing the Cheneys by repeatedly mentioning Mary, and it probably means that HRC participated in their doing so. Either way, it's a cheap shot in my mind, especially coming from HRC, which makes it hypocritical as well. To paraphrase the line that accompanied the Clinton's arrival in the White House, "Leave Mary alone!"

Now, let's get back on thread: Bay Windows Op-Ed on LCR Suit

Why is it a "cheap shot"? Kerry's words were AFFIRMING! Read the exact comments, not some twisted, spun GOP post-debate claptrap. He said very clearly, Mary Cheney is who she was meant to be. She is a lesbian, a dyke, a homosexual! Not some closeted creature who is unable to live out her life as she sees fit. She has a girlfriend/lover/partner. She openly works for her father and for gay interests. She is a LESBIAN. So mentioning her, and affirming her is NOT a "cheap shot." Alan Keyes's hateful comment was a "cheap shot." The issue isn't what Lynne Cheney or her other dizzy daughter feels, but what Mary feels--and as Kerry made very clear, by pushing through this constitutional amendment, not only those abstract homos that the GOP loves to demonize, but a Republican dyke like Mary Cheney will also be HARMED. If you don't want to see this, that's your loss.

Good for the LCR to have gotten some more backbone. (And I don't mean another boot--or something else--in the ass from the GOP!)

[ October 15, 2004, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

since all the underpinnings of gmg's conclusion are unprovable and baseless assumptions, let's just assume the conclusion is also!

[ October 15, 2004, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: thersis ]

GMG, do you not see it hypocritical that Lynne didn't slam Keyes?

Her comments were more polically motivated than Kerry's since she is only willing to attack a Democrat who's comments were harmless, but won't go after a fellow Republican who's comments were a direct attack.

Boy, you guys just can't handle any alternative interpretations, can you now? To me, FT, Kerry's words were a gratuitous cheap shot to ALL the Cheneys because they were condescending and calculated to anger folks who may just not have the same level of sophistication with these issues others may. Thus, they were also deliberately insensitive; I should have mentioned that before, just as I should have my opinion that I really think the last thing Mary wants - if we're to focus solely on her as some would - is being used to bolster any Democratic agenda, whether K&E's or HRC's.

Thersis, I'd wager my assumptions are more likely than not, especially given the talk that HRC put Edwards and then Kerry up to bringing in the Mary angle. You're welcome to disagree with them and my conclusions. Finally, DF, yes, I DO think Lynne - and every other GOPer - should have called for Keyes to retract and apologize. Some have, Judy Topinka immediately comes to mind, but not enough have. That's OK - this joker's already history and we'll move on without him.

Meanwhile, back to the thread, again. Here's another crow for the wire: Washington Blade Op-Ed

I found this quote particularly telling:
Log Cabin has proven its mettle this year as a gay rights group that lobbies the Republican Party. The Stonewall Democrats, on the other hand, have acted more like a Democratic group that lobbies (and recruits) gays.

It makes an important point about the dynamics of gay politics and, I think, is both a symptom and a cause of the left taking the gay vote for granted. As a partisan Democrat, I am upset at the current public stances of the general party and particular prominent Democrats. I'm in no way affiliated with the Stonewall Democrats, but certainly would like to see them more vocally critical (ok, vocally critical at all) of Democrats who are working against gay interests.

But back on the hijack, the Cheney family and Republcans in general (except of course our stalwart cousins in the LCR) want it both ways. They want to be able to publicly condemn and legislate homosexuality while putting on a happy facade of compassion for individual homosexuals. Kerry called them on it and they got pissy. Perhas the senator was simply being too subtle.

BTW, leaving a 14 year old high school student alone is one thing. A political opperative on the payroll of a the campaign should not feel that her family connection to the candidate should shield her in any way. Is mentioning the hypocrisy of the Cheney family and the Republican party regarding several highly paid political opperative (Mary Cheney is nto the only homosexual on the payroll) any more of a cheap shot than refusing to eat Heinz ketchup? Mary Cheney is an issue. Her homosexuality is an issue and the way the Republican party chooses to behave about it is an issue.

Here's another bird on a wire: CNN's take on Mariology

The 'outing of M Cheney' is rediculous - during the 2000 campaign she was ALL OVER campaighning for her father and the ticket as the compassionate side to the ticket - why she is so silent this time around is the big question.

However once you have deliberately taken a public campaign stance; you can not then go back into the shadows and cry foul when someone points you out.

Rob

ITJ, I agree, which is why I've consistently called K&E's comments a "RE-outing," and which is why they are all the more gratuitous. In fact, about the ONLY political use their repeating this information might have would be to alienate super-radical Right wing voters from voting for the incumbents. That's a little too calculating for me - especially coming from the camp that claims a monopoly on "compassion," if not the conservative kind. K&E didn't bring this up to be "kind" or "affirming;" they used it solely for political gain.

I think it'll backfire on them, though. Since most gays and lesbians are solidly - and sometimes blindly - Democratic, they'll never waiver in their support of these two. Likewise, solid GOPers won't waiver in their support of their nominees. That leaves only the undecideds as the intended target - and I can't believe that they'll be taken in by this ploy. They'll be alienated by its crassness and it could be just enough to turn them against K&E. We'll see soon enough. But if I were a lender, I wouldn't be issuing any more mortgages on HRC's new HQ!

I agree gmg. You cannot separate political motives from anything that happens between now and the election.

I am pretty sure that this was a calculated move by K/E for political gain. Is it a little out of line? Yea i guess, but not enough to affect my vote.

Obviously, people in here are more knowledgeable than I and know that she and her parents have already publically used her sexual orientation in the past to help her father in an election, so this was not an 'outting' by K/E. If this is the case, she is fair game. (i think that was a run-on sentence and i would grammar )

It will be up to the American voter if this was a ploy by the Dems to put a wedge between the Religious Right and the Bush/Cheney or it was a legitimate move by K/E. Thank goodness there is only about 2 weeks left.

I don't get it. I don't get the outrage. If this was a gratuitous remark that will alienate more voters than it will win, why be upset? Kerry played directly into the Bush camp's hands. If it was a comment that will make moderate voters think about the callousness and hypocrisy of the Republican ticket then the party of Lee Atwater should be tipping a hat to the superiority of Kerry's political-fu. I have a feeling that the Bush campaign is cynically and calculatedly making an issue where none exists in an attempt to shore up their base and drive a wedge between moderate voters and the Kerry campaign. This sort of thing cuts both ways. At least Kerry and Edwards have been consistent on gay issues, while the Bush camp feigns outrage like Claude Rains when Kerry brings it up, but can't be bothered to comment on Alan Keyes.

Frankly, I just don't see how the Dems could possibly think bringing this up would scare off the Repugs' religious right base. Come on! There's absolutely NOTHING the Dems can do to get that particular base to stay home, much less get their votes. It ain't gonna happen.

I think the Kerry Campaign wanted to point out the TOTAL hypocrisy of the repugs on this issue to solidify their own base. Afterall, the GOP wanted this to be a wedge issue. Why not try to get a little mileage out of it for the good side?

I'm personally glad it's forcing ALL sides to talk about homosexuality in public [GASP]. In a small way, no matter how the election turns out, this is good for our community just by being included in the dialogue (in a more positive way than usual) in such a bright spotlight. We've got Dems and Repugs saying NICE things about Gays in PUBLIC! That can't be all bad can it?

Okay, I keep hearing all this craziness about "re-outing" Mary Cheney, and Kerry's "nastiness," his "cheap shot," etc., and I realize, THIS IS PURE GOP SPIN.

Here are Kerry's third-debate comments on Mary Cheney VERBATIM:

Huh? First, his comments are truly "compassionate." He is saying, in one sentence, that she is who GOD MEANT HER TO BE. WHAT is wrong with that?

Second, John Edwards mentioned Mary Cheney's lesbianism in the second debate. Alan Keyes viciously attacked her lesbianism when he called her a "selfish hedonist." At least 30+ major newspapers, as well as every one of the major TV channels, including FAUX, has covered the issue of Mary Cheney's lesbianism. So, how is this a "re-outing"?

Third, Mary Cheney has worked openly as a liaison TO THE GAY COMMUNITY for right-wing Coors. She's a major figure in her father's campaign. They kept her OFF THE STAGE at the GOP convention, but she was shown on NATIONAL TV with her PARTNER!!! In fact, her partner's name has been published as well. So HOW on earth is this a "re-outing?" If anything, it's just more confirmation of the GOP's bizarre, looking-glass view of the world, where Iraq is stable and violence-free and Allawi is in control, the US economy is soaring and unemployment isn't a problem, health care is affordable and the Medicare boondoggle to the drug companies will "help" seniors, most of the tax relief went to the "middle class," and W deserves NO responsibility for the multiple failures on his watch, including the worst one-day foreign mass murder EVER on US soil, 9/11.

The truth is, the GOP had ZERO to talk about after W's third debate loss, including his UTTER LACK OF COMPASSION to the question about the hypothetical man whose job had been outsourced. So they drummed up this nonsense.

[ October 16, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Hilary Rosen pretty much sums it all up in her "Outrage That Rings False" piece.

False Outrage

I realize that the GOP is the evil empire and that everything they do is disgusting and dishonest and meant to brain wash America into being Stepford people.

However, almost everything said in those debates were to win that election. Kerry would not have mentioned Cheney's daughter if it would not help him politically. Kerry is not evil for doing that, he is just a good polician trying to win a close election. I tend to like my politicians to stick with the issues (go figure, an election about issues!!) and if they discuss people-they discuss those being elected.

But back on subject:
I applaud the LCR for making a stand. Some might think it's too late, but in my book it's never to late to join the party. The Dems will never have enough people in both houses of Congress to pass equal rights legislation. When was the last time they had 61 votes to break a GOP filibuster? THerefore, we will need like-minded GOPers and groups within the GOP to assist us in getting equal rights.

Heckle and Jeckle were magpies

Heckle and Jeckle, that's our name.
Heckle and Jeckle, we look the same.
The impossible -- that's our game!
Quite so!
Tally-ho!
Let's go!

One more childhood jingle that refuses to be erased from my brain cells.

Oh, and isn't it great how Mary Cheney, that much-outed lesbian, is working to re-elect the administration that wants a Constitutional amendment to prevent us (and her!) from marrying our partners? When will gay people stop working to oppress other gay people?

Come on this is politics... Kerry's comment was an attempt to drive a wedge within the GOP and among the voting public. The Cheney's righteous indignation might be more believable if we weren't 2 weeks aways from a dead-heat election.

I applaud Mary Cheney for supporting her father. The Vice President has publicly commented that he does not support an admendent prohibiting gay marriage. And for a VP to publicly diagree with administration policy on such a divisive issue is very unusual. This fact alone should speak volumes for the relationship, at least, between the VP and his daughter. And in this instance, Mary has accomplished what those of us in LCR hoped, change from within.

Our community can never know how much either party will do to advance our issues until we have strong voices in both that will challenge each party like never before.

Like Cheney doesn't hold any influence in the WH, please he likey runs the operation, and doesn't have to take the heat for it, he has the perfect position in the admin.

As for Mary:
It can easily be seen as double-speak by the administration, a sort of good-cop/bad-cop approach to gays.

W- Dick, I'll make the religious right happy by supporting this ammendment and since you have a lezbo in your family you can be against it to make the Loggers happy. It's a win win for us.

[ October 17, 2004, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

I agree SDSoccer.

In order to affect change on a national level, you cannot have all your eggs in one basket (i.e. the Dem Party). If US was a parliamentary system, like Britain, then we could all jump in the Dems pocket and when they won an election, we could change laws. But the US is not run that way, and with the Senate rules, Gay Americans will have to have influence in both parties.

I find it humorous that that all sorts of evil intentions can be ascribed to BC, but KE seem to be totally innocent of playing politics. Every move both campaigns make at this point is calculated to win those 8 swing states and thereby become Prez. Mentioning MC in the debate was not for altruistic reasons, it was to remind gay voters to vote for KE, and remind the religius right that there is a gay person in their midst (eeeeekkkk).

As for the loggers, they are not happy with Bushy's support of the Amendment. There were some Dems who voted for the Amendment, as well as most GOPers. There were also some GOPers that voted against it.

I am certainly not one who puts all my eggs in one basket. I have gotten into debates with my BF about this. I am a Democrat but I am not oposed to voting for the right Republican or voting against a Dem who turns on me. I have even said I may support Nighthorse Campbell if he runs for CO govenor, he was one of the Republicans who stood against the ammendment and I am willing to take a closer look at him because of it.

I am a fiscal conservative and would likely vote Republican on some things, but this is a big issue for me. Isn't that why they call it a wedge issue?

Yep, this is definitely a wedge issue. People on both sides feel so strongly about it. It amazes me, weren't we just talking about how gutsy Vermont was. Now, we are actually talking of marriage. Who woulda thunk it even 5 years ago?

I am for equal rights for all Americans, but I am not surprised there is such a strong backlash now. It's a Prez election year and a big issue to a lot of people. People get very emotional about this issue on both sides.

AND NOOOOOOOOO, I am not siding with those not wanting to give us equal rights. I believe our side will win eventually. If ya ask most Americans they are all for job protection and sharing benefits and such, but marriage is a special word to them. It's gonna take time.

I know this thread has been hijacked, but if I can indulge one more thing here. I have always believed the path to Marriage was through Civil Unions. Taking small steps will gradually change minds, but a giant leap forward directly into marriage (as some see it) is what is creating the resistance. Separate but equal didn't work in the past. However, it's not as polarizing and gets our foot in the door.

I know I'll get hammered for this post, so as the President once said, "Bring it on!"

Naw Denver, I got your back.

I agree with you, but it's too late for small steps now. Mass. Supreme Court has opened the door to gay marriage, so we have to deal with it. There was bound to be resistance and a backlash because of it. The key is, we will never turn the nutty far righters our way, so we need to educate the majority of Americans to see that this will not affect THEIR marriage one bit. Once they realize that, I think they will come around.

I am not sure how crazy this issue will be once the election is over. Bush came out for the Amendment in order to shore up his base. If he is re-elected, I see it fading into the back ground a bit. If Kerry wins, I don't see gay marriage being legal on a national level anytime soon. In the end, I believe it will be decided by each individual state over the next 5-10 years.

OK, I surrender this thread to its hijackers! (Even though I didn't start it and it's not mine to surrender in the first place. wink ) As a token of submission I offer WFBuckley's Take On Mary.

There's really nothing more to be said about the lawsuit at this time. When judges start making rulings or even when further briefs are filed, we can discuss the lawsuit, but otherwise, all the issues concerning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" have been hashed and rehashed.

OK, so here's another op-ed on the subject(ion) of Mary. I don't know if the author's right on the RR's half-turn, but if true they're certainly behaving better than I'd given them credit to!

Re: unraveled threads, where's a militant moderator when you need him!

This false outrage over the mentioning of Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter (let's not say her name for fear of upsetting the holy family) would be outrageously funny if it didn't so fully expose how low this campaign has gone, and how repulsively dishonest the Cheneys' really are...And "the daughter" is truly pathetic for allowing this kind of bullshit to occur. She's not to be trusted on any level for she fights for those who believe that being gay is wrong and not allowed by God. She's fighting for the fundamentalists just as everyone is who votes for Bush. Let there be no doubt about that. We're in a religious war, thanks to the current administration. And, it's disingenuous to suggest that Kerry mentioned "the daughter" in hopes of outing her to the two or three crack pot right wingers who've had their heads in their toolsheds building shelters for when armageddon comes. This administration has been around a tragically long four years (with obviously catastrophic results) and everyone knows about the Cheneys and their dyke daughter. She's the goddamn campaign manager! If anything, perhaps the Cheneys' hypocrisy will become more obvious to educated people out there still undecided.

Kerry was asked if homosexuality was a choice. He said "No." Mary Cheney was the most well known gay or lesbian person in the room - so to speak - and mentioning her made total sense. He was compassionate, respectful, and articulate in his response to a vitally important question especially to all of us who are gay, and are constantly hoping and trying to make people understand who we are, and that we've always been this way. If the Cheney family has a problem with their daughter being mentioned in such a dignified and respectful manner, then clearly they are ashamed of her and themselves.

And I'm not surprised that a certain resident poster (gmginsf) is echoing this false outrage. What a conundrum it must be to be gay and so ashamed that you have to fight for those who want nothing more than to hurt and silence other gay people. And, how typical for the same poster (let's call him "the one who hates San Francisco and anyone who dares wear a wig to a parade") to criticize where this thread has gone while fully participating in its very relevant twist.

[ October 17, 2004, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

I don't agree with you on that, but that's what makes America so great. Somethings are private-it is not because you are ashamed, you just think it's not anyone else's business. Just because they don't go around screaming that she is a lesbian, does not make them ashamed of their daughter. They are a family and how the decide to share that/or not share that with the rest of the world is their business--actually it's Mary's business--and no one else's. To say that it was not a political ploy is pretty naive. Does that make the John's evil, NO, it makes them politicians trying to get elected. I am not really that upset that the John's did it, does not hurt my personally-or affect my vote--but it was not done for a purely compassionate reason. Why not Ellen Degeneres, Melissa Etheridge, Greg Louganis, Martina Navratilova?

OH, and getting back to the topic of this thread. I am glad the Loggers filed suit-i hope it helps to overturn the ban.

I think in the more than 10 years it has been in affect, there are enough Pro-Equal rights politicians (Dems and GOP) to prevent Congress from overturning a Court Ruling in the favor of equal rights for all Americans.

Mary Cheney's sexual orientation was used as a political chit in the 2000 election. Facing increasing backlash from the religious right, her sexual orientation has become a taboo subject. I really dont' know which is the worse political ploy, using her name in a debate where just about any name would have been fine (one from Kerry's family would have been a far better choice) or the outrage coming from the Cheney family (entirely absent any comment from Mary. Why hasn't anyone asked her if John Kerry was right, she does not consider her sexuality a choice). Both are calculated to drive a wedge between voters and the opposition, but in a world where we increasingly vote against candidates rather than for them, politicians taking advantages of any levers they can it would seem the truly niave expect our politicians to be nice to each other.

Great post, Bryan!....I couldn't have said it better myself....thanks for sharing such eloquent words.

~Joe

Thanks, Joe!

It amazes me that anyone who's gay couldn't be thrilled with John Kerry's answer. Millions of Americans finally have heard a sincere answer to such an important question regarding our lives. He treated it with respect and dignity while recognizing the complexity of the issue all around. My respect for John Kerry has gone up immensely. He told the truth about an explosive, often divisive issue. He said what I presume we all want people to f*cking understand: "I was born gay. As I grew up, I struggled mightily with it. I tried to be what was acceptable without success; in fact it was destructive to me and everyone around me. Now I'm an adult and I accept myself fully, and I respect that I am God's choice for me. I hope others can understand and accept this as I have come to understand and accept this."

I think it's brilliant that LCR has filed a suit to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy - Just in time for more Americans to be killed in Iraq in George Bush's quest to spread "liberty."

[ October 17, 2004, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

Dick Cheney - silent, Lynne Cheney - silent, Bush-silent, Gillespie - silent, Frist - silent,
oh but the Illinois State Treasurer speaks up, well, there you have it.

You know, I might, MIGHT, agree with you if the Cheney's did not trot out their heterosexual daughter and the products of her sex life (the grandchildren) at every turn to soften the VP's image. I have heard Lynn Cheney on the local radio here (she does at least one morning show a month on 107.3, the local \"Mix\" station), and she goes on constantly about Liz and the kids. So clearly there is, at the very least, a political understanding that no one will get offended at the Liz comments, but we have to hide Mary's existence (Lynn rarely even mentions she has another child) so as not to scare off the radical \"religious\" right. They may not be ashamed of her, but they are certainly willing to kowtow to their supporters who are anti-gay.

Of course it was not compassionate - it was an attempt to embarass Bush (you don't know if being gay is a choice - how about asking the director of VP Operations for your campaign?) and to show the hypocrisy of the GOP's gay-bashing campaign. I just wish Kerry had been more forceful in making the point that the GOP wants to scapegoat gay people as a threat to society if we get G-d-damned inheritence rights, in order to shore up their biogted base, but has NO problem using the skills of gay people to get that job done. He should have mentioned the CFO of the RNC, and the #2 political operative at the RNC, who have both pubicly revealed their homosexuality to Mike Rogers, who has been leading the campaign to expose the hypocrits at the GOP.

Whatr aspect of a politician's so-called private life, other than homosexuality, is covered under this "some things are private" canopy? I'd be more inclined to accept that notion if people's spouses and children were not used for campaigning. At this point, it just sounds like an excuse for the continuation of the culture of the closet.

Boy, I would really love to know what Mary thinks about all this but it would seem that she can't speak for herself. Sad, sad, sad...

Whoa, Bryan, lots of rage and anger in your rambling and inconsistent posts. You San Franciscans just can't tolerate dissent, can you? You talk a lot about what a "wonderfully inclusive" city that place is, but let someone disagree with your party line and you're all over him like a cheap coat, hustling him off into the gay gulag you've created there. After 25 years there, I'm glad I escaped!

Your criticism of my responding to off-thread posts and LCR's filing its DADT suit betrays a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude. Apparently nothing any GOPer will ever do can satisfy you. Fine, you're entitled to your opinions, however irrational they may be, just as we're entitled to embrace ours and reject yours.

Finally, please spare me the "gay shame" pop-psychology psychobabble. Unlike most folks on this board, I've been out - that's "openly gay" for those who need it spelled out in the latest language approved by the GLBTQ thought police - here and in the belly of the beast of the GOP from day one, fighting not to "hurt ["awww!"] and silence other gay people," but for REAL respect, tolerance and acceptance for us and our causes. Just because I do so by means other than making a fool of myself hardly makes me "fighting for the fundamentalists." And that, I believe, is the biggest problem you and the rest of the gay left have with folks like me and LCR; we share the same goals, but reject and recoil from your presumed leadership in the fight. Unable to accept that others might have better ideas on how to do things, you're left crying mightily. That's your right too, however immature it may be, but don't fault us for having grown up and away from you.

Awfully broad generalization of the left. You folks complain about the generalizations we put on the LCR, but then you go and do the same thing.

I used to be Republican, but I grew up to become a Democrat. I accept other's views, i just don't have to always agree with them.

I think Kerry mentioning Mary Cheney was a calculated move, and I hope it does work for him. Don't know if this is the best analogy, but it reminds me of Paul Newman in Absence of Malice who engages in some innocent activities, but he knows full well that idiots and ignorant people are going to blow it out of proportion and engage in outrageous behavior. What Kerry said was innocent and very supportive of Mary Cheney. But then we get all this righteous indignation about mentioning that Ms. Cheney is (gasp) a Lesbian, and that their should be privacy, blah, blah, blah. Why? She's out and proud to be a Lesbian, and holds a fairly high profile job with Coors in trying to market its beer to homosexuals again. Lynne Cheney is apparently proud that she's married to Dick, and proud of her straight daughter whom she parades with her grandchildren. So what's the problem? Oh, the disgusting part is that all of these people either a) know that Mary's homosexuality is not a choice, and won't say so, because they don't want to insult the religious right nuts, or are ignorant, despite all their connections they have in government.

So Kerry talking about Ms. Cheney was probably a politically calculated move. But so was Bush's comment that he doesn't know whether homosexuality is a choice. To me, Bush's comment was much more outrageous.