Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary Cheney and Partner Are About to Be Moms
Washington Post ^ | December 6, 2006 | Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts

Posted on 12/05/2006 11:04:34 PM PST by West Coast Conservative

Mary Cheney, the vice president's openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are "ecstatic" about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

It's a baby boom for grandparents Dick and Lynne Cheney: Their older daughter, Elizabeth, went on leave as deputy assistant secretary of state before having her fifth child in July. "The vice president and Mrs. Cheney are looking forward with eager anticipation to the arrival of their sixth grandchild," spokesman Lea Anne McBride said last night.

Cheney, 37, was a key aide to her father during the 2004 reelection campaign and now is vice president for consumer advocacy at AOL. Poe, 45, a former park ranger, is renovating their Great Falls home.

News of the pregnancy will undoubtedly reignite the debate about gay marriage. During the campaign, Mary Cheney was criticized by gay activists for not being more publicly supportive of same-sex marriage. Her father said people "ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to" but deferred to the president's policy supporting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Cheney herself called the proposed amendment "a gross affront to gays and lesbians everywhere" in her book, "Now It's My Turn: A Daughter's Chronicle of Political Life," which was published in May.

Cheney has described her relationship with Poe -- whom she took to last year's White House dinner honoring Prince Charles and Camilla-- as a marriage. The two met in 1988 while playing ice hockey and began dating four years later. They moved from Colorado to Virginia a year ago to be closer to Cheney's family.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: antifamily; antimarriage; artsem; cheney; displaykid; fatherlesschild; gay; homosexualagenda; justaintfitting; liberalvalues; marycheney; truevictim; turkeybaster; turkeybasterbaby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 561-571 next last
To: napscoordinator
...That has to be the scariest post I have read on Free Republic ever. How do you know how they think???????...

Experience... and just the fact that I am not an idiot :) I have also done my reading and it's all very "calculated," because for the homos and their close supporters... gettting their lifestyle down our throughts is the ULTIMATE goal (actully not... then it comes "bestiality" and other variations like that... ) But this the first one toward "total freedeom.":) - take two women, who look apparently normal... add "THE little KIDS" and they think this will be the ticket to total perversion.

Perhaps them, they think, they will feel "cleaner." But I doubt it.

Ok, I gave you my version, what is yours? :)

321 posted on 12/06/2006 10:14:41 AM PST by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends - basically :) - despite our differences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: jennyjenny

not married in massachusets, specifically homosexuals.


IOW a child legally must come into the world with a legally defined mother and father. A legally bound mother to the child and a legally bound father to the child.

Homosexuals are an abnormal lifestyle choice and have no business anywhere around children. Anecdotes are irrelevant. Society rewards institutions not individuals.


322 posted on 12/06/2006 10:14:59 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: mandingo republican

Sure. They're at #82 on the other thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1749268/posts?page=82#82

(standing back as FReeper men stampede)


323 posted on 12/06/2006 10:15:38 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: snugs
That was supposed to be "one pair of every species." Sorry. The mind is faster than the typing fingers.....
324 posted on 12/06/2006 10:15:53 AM PST by dr luba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: OKIEDOC
REPLY: I see no dignity in violating the principals set out in the bible on how to procreate a child.

You are sadly wasting your time. With even so many FReepers who don't get it, we are surely lost. There are two paths. One is God's way, the other is Brave New World--and worse. The West has chosen the latter, and as a result the future will see medical and societal horrors even Huxley could not imagine.

325 posted on 12/06/2006 10:16:44 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

"Mary Cheney is about to be a single mother with the child's father unknown."


If it's not okay with conservatives for "Murphy Brown" to go down this road, why is it okay with some conservatives for Mary Cheney to do essentially the same thing?


326 posted on 12/06/2006 10:16:44 AM PST by Cecily (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: snugs

I said this on another thread:

I think we have to separate out the Homosexual Agenda, which is a political issue, from the fact that Mary Cheney is having a baby.

Let's be honest - even if San Francisco was swallowed up by a typhoon tomorrow, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was cancelled and Barbara Streisand ran off to be a shaven headed monk in Tibet, homosexuals will still be out there. What we as conservatives and (mostly) religious people want is for our faith to be respected and for homosexuals not to confuse tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance means we live with it, even if it is rather off putting. Acceptance is calling for cheerleading - which is bloody ridiculous.

Mary Cheney, to my knowledge, while gay, is not working towards the kind of nauseating agenda we see from militant gay rights groups. We don't necessarily have to like or agree with her choices in life to tolerate her. If her parents have come to terms with it, then perhaps the best that we can do is hope that this is not hijacked for political purposes and let the Cheneys be.

Regards, Ivan


327 posted on 12/06/2006 10:17:14 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: paulat
There was nothing wrong in the birth of my two nieces.

Is your brother gay? If not, the situation does not have much relevance here.

328 posted on 12/06/2006 10:18:49 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
How do you later in the child's life explain to them that they were artificially conceived by some anonymous donor?

I'd guess you'd do it pretty much the same way you'd tell a kid that he/she is adopted.

329 posted on 12/06/2006 10:19:41 AM PST by null and void (To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funnybone. --Reba McEntire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cecily
If it's not okay with conservatives for "Murphy Brown" to go down this road, why is it okay with some conservatives for Mary Cheney to do essentially the same thing?

Murphy Brown is a fictional character on television, thus slamming the writers for being liberal idiots isn't actually making life choices on behalf of others. As I say, we may not like Mary Cheney's lifestyle, and by no means should we be cheerleading it, but at the same time, as she's not using it as a political scheme to shove the gay rights agenda down others throats - it's something that is tolerable and should be tolerated.

Regards, Ivan

330 posted on 12/06/2006 10:20:33 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: dr luba; MEGoody
See post 311 that puts it better than I can.

You either believe the Bible in its entirety as the inspired word of God or you do not.

Your Old Testament Jewish customs are dealt with in the New Testament showing the old has past and the new has come as you would well know if you actually read the book.
331 posted on 12/06/2006 10:20:45 AM PST by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - BIG TIME))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: dr luba
There is disagreement between most Protestant denominations (and Judaism) on the one hand and Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy on the other with respect to certain books of the Old Testament that Protestants call Apocrypha and the Catholics call Deuterocanonical. While these books used by Catholic apologists to support Catholic specific doctrines such as purgatory and prayers for the dead, they are a relatively minor portion of their Old Testament even by their admission. The moral teachings of the Old Testament are in the 39 books Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant concur as being canonical. All three major branches of Christianity agree on the 27 books that make up the New Testament, along with heterodox groups like the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.

At several points, Jesus affirmed the authority of Scripture, which at that time would have been the Old Testament. Citing Psalm 82 in John 10:24-26, Jesus referred to the Psalm as the word of God. Another direct word of the Savior also affirms His view of Scripture. "...until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18) In the previous verse (Matthew 5:17), He stated that He had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. In numerous cases, such as His confrontation with the devil in Matthew 4, his comments to the Sadducees in Mark 12:24, and in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Christ cited Scripture for moral rebuke, doctrine, and the accuracy of its prophetic writings.

To cite an historical analogy, the ratification of the U.S. Constitution did not make the state constitutions or Anglo-American common law obsolete. While the Federal constitution may have superseded certain portions of the latter writings, they remained valid and lawful, a fact that the authors of The Federalist Papers, who were at the Constitutional Convention and would have known firsthand, pointed out. It would be wrong to say that the U.S. Constitution overruled, say, Pennsylvania's death penalty for murderers, just as the words of Jesus Christ did not overrule the Biblical commandment against adultery. In fact, His affirmation of the whole counsel of Scripture is even stronger than the words of the Constitution, a positive affirmation of its authority.

332 posted on 12/06/2006 10:21:38 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: OKIEDOC
I believe that God may have a different take on artificially manufacturing a child.

So you are saying the kid will have no soul? Please clarify why you believe we're not all God's children?

333 posted on 12/06/2006 10:22:55 AM PST by null and void (To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funnybone. --Reba McEntire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Perhaps Rummy is the proud Pappy

I'd go with ROVE!

334 posted on 12/06/2006 10:23:56 AM PST by null and void (To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funnybone. --Reba McEntire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Agreed


335 posted on 12/06/2006 10:24:44 AM PST by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - BIG TIME))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: ElPatriota

I think that you are right on some level that some of the homosexual activists have an agenda, but in the matter of the Cheney's, I believe that she wants to have a family and does not have any agenda. I doubt highly we would be having this thread if she were not the Vice President's daughter. The one area that I can't stand in regards to homosexuality is those parades. How ridiculous! We don't have straight parades why should they?


336 posted on 12/06/2006 10:25:18 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

Well said.


337 posted on 12/06/2006 10:26:48 AM PST by null and void (To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funnybone. --Reba McEntire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
My kids have a democratic mother.

Lucky you. The mother of my children is a greenie. *sigh*

338 posted on 12/06/2006 10:28:07 AM PST by null and void (To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funnybone. --Reba McEntire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Murphy Brown may have been a fictional character, but women in real life make the same choice she did and want everyone to say it is fine and dandy and affirm their actions. Conservatives mostly didn't affirm or congratulate such actions back during the Dan Quayle/Murphy Brown hubub, so why are we doing it now?


339 posted on 12/06/2006 10:28:47 AM PST by Cecily (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: Cecily

Trolls...

It is never good.

The fact is Marry Chenny is a single mother. There is no father present equals single mother. Her sex partner is irrelevant.

She might as well be doing the Murphy Brown feminist baby as accessory thing.


340 posted on 12/06/2006 10:29:10 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 561-571 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson