http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/cheney.reactions.ap/index.html

Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Cheney's personal feelings are that there should not be a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Maybe this proves that the gay marriage issue is not an issue.


What still has me scratching my head is this:
"The Cheneys have two daughters, both of whom are working on the campaign. Mary Cheney is director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. She held a public role as her father's assistant in the 2000 campaign and helped the GOP recruit gay voters during the 2002 midterm elections."

Recruiting people to vote for a ticket that is hell-bent on marginalizing them? I just don't get it.

Being Vice President isn't worth a warm pitcher of spit.

And PJ congrats on your 1000th post.

Hey, even gays can sell their souls for access to the White House.

Nah, Cheney's comments shoudln't matter. The issue was always just red meat for the base. It's just less satisfying meat for them now.

It's actually a good political move. Cheney's personal view on this means nothing - which is why he chose to share. It can help build a bit of a bridge with a constituency that has been lost to the administration - and it cost nada.

Ken

Oh, I dunno, Klurrs.

The wingers don't like it when anyone steps out of formation. I think it felt like a bucket of cold water in their faces. After all, if Cheney is being reasonable about this, why can't Bush?

The wingers[/b]

Please remember to note which group of wingers you're talking about. You're a winger yourself you know.

"Wingers" means right-wingers. As in "silly Wingers."

PJ,

It’s interesting that Bush has been pretty effective at keeping down the religious right wing of the Republican party. Wacko’s like Buchanan are pretty well marginalized under Bush (good riddance) so you see this kind of thing cropping up.

It seems to me that justifying gay marriage should be easier than it is for the Republican party with its Libertarian leanings. I guess to many of them still get hung up on the whole “god told me to tell you how to live your life” thing still.

Kirk

MLT,

As far as I can tell, the religious right still has their hand up Bush's backside and are making his mouth move like a muppet.

I am still doing my homework on the issue, but the elimination of federal funding for eduction on condom use in favor of abstinence only has "religious right" written all over it.

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200402/CUL20040204a.shtml

I have no love for Cheney...far from it...and I don't care whether it was just a "political" thing to gain some perceived advantage (I think not), I respect Cheney for coming out in support of his daughter and his true feelings rather than the "silly winger" party line. I heard his statement and it rang very true and sincere.

Not that it has a remote chance in h*ll of changing my vote, mind you.

jf

Condoms have no place in the schools. It's a parent's job to teach that stuff. I don't want my tax dollars being spent there.

I agree with TomK. I don't want my tax dollars going for condom use OR abstinence education.

As I said, I'm still doing my homework. It's a much bigger and much, much more disturbing issue. It has a little to do with education in schools, but that's a minor part.

It appears the Bush Administration is trying to kill us all.

New rules went into effect last week that prohibit the CDC or any organization that receives federal funds from mentioning the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of STDs, prohibit any organization that receives federal funds from using any illustration that could be construed as 'obscene', including any that illustrate proper use of a condom, even if it is being put on a cucumber, and require clinics to promote abstinence as the only effective means of stemming the transmission of STDs.

The rules are in direct conflict with the results of all legitimate scientific research, much less common sense. They are obviously pandering to the religious right's misguided belief that if you don't talk about it, it will go away.

A friend of mine is a doctor in a large university hospital. Her area of specialty is HIV prevention. All of their research funding just went *poof* except for funding to promote abstinence.

It's ludicrous.

In an independent study for the Minnesota Dept. of Health found that since implementing their "abstinence only" program, sexual activity among high school students doubled[/b].


I am still learning about the rule changes. The public comment period ended the day before I got an e-mail from my friend with a desparate plea to write to the CDC.

The director of the CDC is a Bush appointee. This is the first time in history that the CDC has strayed from being a scientific organization to a political one.

Scary. And disgusting.

I am against funding for condom distribution and abstinence education in schools.

I am in favor of sex education in schools presented as human biology or health. There need not be an agenda in either direction.

I am dead set against politics having anything whatever to do with what goes on in a clinical setting. If a woman comes in and consults her doc about a problem pregnancy, she should be told the facts about her options. No more, no less. And the government should stay out of it.

Here's an explanation of what the U.S. government is doing about the HIV epidemic.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/31/news-ireland.php

I realize this source is heavily slanted to the left. But the link I posted earlier is heavily slanted the other direction and corroborates the facts of the issue.

I am appalled.

No, I do not think it matters that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush disagree on how to handle this issue. (I doubt they disagree on the basic issue of gay marriage, however -- just how it should be banned.)

To me, gay marriage is like the GOP cynical use of all of the other social conservative issues -- prayer in schools, abstinence based sex eductaion or no sex education, school vouchers, abortion, etc.

For 20 years, these are issues the GOP has never worked very hard to acheive, has never been willing to spend the political capital necessary to obtain what they claim they so wholeheartedly support.

But they give lip service to all of these and other similar issues for the sole purpose of gaining the votes of social conservatives who do not seem to realize they have been voting for the GOP for a generation and, with the exception of a crumb here or there, have yet to get any of what they have been promised from Republican politicians during all of that time.

Tom-*K is dead on target here. It is the responsibility of parents to teach this; not the school system- private or public. There are a number of ways they can do this. One method is through traditional religion. Another is through setting an example and by demonstrating that actions have consequences and that consequences more than often entail long term personal responsibility and liability.

There is also a draconian third approach: would be parents must apply for and meet the designated competencies required of parents. IN order to have children people must demonstrate that they have the core competencies needed to look after the needs of a child. If a child is born to a parent or parents who are incapable of, or unwilling to, accept the responsibilities of parenthood pre screened adoptive parents will receive the child or children without appeal. Eliminates what Larry refers to as *illegitimate parents*

This was the whole point of Thomas Frank's book, as discussed here.

As long as they don't resolve these social issues, they can continue to run on the platform of fighting them.

The problem is that too many parents are unwilling or unable to discuss these matters with their kids.

And most of those who do, do after they find out that their kids are sexually active.

Part of demonstrated competencies. IF they don't have them then I guess they haven't earned the right or privilege to raise children.

I would support that wholeheartedly. I think you should have to pass a test before getting married or engaging in intimate activity. A much more rigorous test than for getting a driver's licence. More like the psychological profiling you get before you can get on an El Al flight.

But, let's be realistic here... it ain't gonna happen. No more than my suggestion for mandatory Depo Provera for women who go on welfare.

Sorry folks, I think y'all are losing sight of the bigger picture.

Do all gays base their vote on the single issue of gay marriage?

Until you can convince me otherwise, I would say that many factors enter into the electoral decision.

PJ most of it is already legislated and in place but politicians and bureaucrats are unwilling to enforce the existing rules and guidelines. I agree the exam and psychological profiling is difficult. Nevertheless the bureaucrats seem to be able to do it with extreme bureaucratic prejudice to potential adoptive parents who are biologically or medically unable to have children. What's wrong with this picture?

Also cynical and authoritarian.

They have basically adopted a policy of "If we keep them ignorant, they will do what we want."

The very idea that the way to treat the American people is to NOT give them information clearly shows this is agenda-driven and nothing else. Scientific studies have shown the effectiveness of condom use, while also showing it is not 100%. This is what people should be told.

If the Administration wants to ideologically oppose condom distribution, then say so. Let the American people accept or reject the concept.

But THE PEOPLE'S[/b] government should not be in the business of denying the people information.

Certainly not. But it is a factor for most of the gays I know. It is the sole reason that one of my best friends moved to Canada because he could not sponsor his Canadian partner to come to the U.S. If they were straight, it would have been a slam-dunk.

If you were a redhead, would you vote for a candidate of a party who adopted into its platform the goal of passing a constitutional amendment banning redheads from getting married? Regardless of what other issues were in their platform? Would it at least make you think twice?

Perhaps.

But most voters are not single-issue voters. Not taxes, not guns, not abortion, and not gay marriage.

Huh?

Where is it legislated that you must be mentally and emotionally fit before you can get married or have children?

Furthermore, who is to judge one's mental or emotional fitness?

Talk about social engineering.

New rule: Only people who go to church every Sunday, have an IQ of at least 105 on the LAIT, save at least 15 percent of their salary for retirement, and carry no debt are allowed to procreate. Does that get your vote?

The government should be the bearer, and clearinghouse for all information? Is that what I understood J.A. to write?

Good.

I want mandatory education for all children 12 years old, in safe firearms handling, and how to handle a weapon properly. I want this firearms progarm to include live range fire, and the teaching of all three major disciplines - shotgun, rifle, and combat handgun.

This will lead to a dramatic lessening of firearm accidents within the U.S.

Originally posted by Pianojuggler:
If you were a redhead, would you vote for a candidate of a party who adopted into its platform the goal of passing a constitutional amendment banning redheads from getting married? Regardless of what other issues were in their platform? Would it at least make you think twice?[/b]

Hey I voted for a political party here that was going to cut all[/b] government financial and funding programs for private industry accross the board. In return industry would receive huge tax incentives for R&D, investment, job creation, training and export promotion initiatives. I am in private industry and thought it to be a good way to get the rest of the private sector to rely less on Big Brother's handouts and more on themselves. Sure it would hurt but industry would feel so much better and independent after.

Nah. I want firearm education that teaches abstinence as the only reliable method for preventing firearm accidents.