Mary Cheney Considered Quitting 2004 Campaign Over Gay Marriage Issue

ABC News ^ | May 3, 2006

[skandalon]

She says she considered quitting her role as campaign adviser over the issue of gay marriage, but Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary Cheney tells ABC News "Primetime" anchor Diane Sawyer her sexuality has never created problems within her family.

Mary Cheney discussed the campaign, her feelings about President Bush, life with her partner of 14 years, and what it was like to come out as gay to her parents.

"I struggled with my decision to stay on the 2004 campaign," Cheney told "Primetime." Her personal challenge came when President Bush said the nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

[Antoninus]

I think it's all a lesson that we're all responsible for our own marriages and would do best to keep our noses out of others'. It's worked for me for twenty years, now.

How noble. I guess you're ok with ol' Zeke marrying his son, and demanding that the marriage be recognized in the newspaper, the church, and the statehouse? After all, it would be wrong for you to stick your nose in his business....

[linda_22003]

I think we let the law take care of what's legal. There are all sorts of reasons we don't allow incestuous marriages. What IS your fascination with fighting with me? :)

[gidget7]

Thanks. Your post are also so logical it boggles the mind how anyone can argue them.

All those arguing about free will, and sin, should realize, we all sin. Of course, no disputing that. Most of us however, do not sin and then celebrate it, claim to be proud of it, insist others celebrate it and be proud of it, demand the legal right to commit our sin, or claim others are hateful and bigoted if they do not celebrate and embrace it as normal and healthy. And we DO NOT attempt to indoctrinate children, teaching them that our sins are healthy and normal.

We try not to sin. Therein lies a huge difference! Most of us, when we sin, know it, and try to make it right, as well as ask for forgiveness.

[spunkets]

Re: the definition of evil.

" That which is contrary to the commandments of God as taught by Jesus Christ. "

That's a start, but not good enough. In order for there to be any absolute definition of good and evil, there must be reference to a moral code, w/o reference to any being whatsoever. There must be a purpose to that code and the code itself must protect individual rights.

"Arguing that God gave man the "right" to commit evil is an aburd premise"

It's not a premise at all. It's a fact. It is man's right to act according to his will, regardless of whether it is good, or evil. That fact exists so that he could be judged. If man doesn't have the right to act according to his own will, then he can not be judged. That is simple logic.

Re: "Do you claim to have the right to violate the rights of others?

This is rubbish. I never said it.

"unless you believe that God himself is not good. Is that your belief?"

No being is good, or evil. Only their holdings and actions can be judged and that judgment is based on how well those things respect the rights of others.

"The "rights" you're talking about do not descend from God. They were hatched by materialists looking to validate their own doings. "

Individual sovereignty of will is a right inherent in each man to do as they choose and to determine their own destiny. That right belongs to them, not to you.

"Where do your rights come from?"

Rational inquisition and thought.

[gidget7]

So you think we should all just sit by quietly and watch our society be swallowed up by deviant behavior? Do you have children? What kind of society is going to be left for them to live in if everyone thought that?

There comes a point, when people have to take a stand, or our society will not have a future. Whether or not a law effects me personally or my marriage, if it denigrates society as a whole, it will eventually effect us all, even if that effect is felt only by our children or their children. This issue does effect everyone, now.

[Antoninus]

I think we let the law take care of what's legal.

Wow, never knew you were a legalist. If the law says it's wrong, it's wrong? Neat. I guess you'll be on board with any law that declares homosexual "marriages" illegal, then. That's the law in most states.

There are all sorts of reasons we don't allow incestuous marriages.

Give me one (1) good reason why a man should be forbidden from "marrying" his 21 year old son--that isn't also directly applicable to why two unrelated guys should be forbidden.

What IS your fascination with fighting with me? :)

Because your wrong so very often, dear. :-)

[Antoninus]

I wrote: "Where do your rights come from?"

You wrote: Rational inquisition and thought.

Based on your position that people have a "right" to do evil, I maintain that rational thought is the farthest thing from your mind.

[linda_22003]

"Because your wrong so very often"

So are you, looking at that spelling. ;)

I have no particular interest in gay marriage one way or the other. I personally think they can accomplish everything they need to legally through partnership laws or even civil unions. As far as "deviant" behavior, logic like that once made miscegenation laws possible.

Yes, it's illegal in most states, and I'm fine with that. If and when it becomes legal in ENOUGH states, it will likely follow the same road as in Loving v. Virginia, since it will be very difficult to allow it in some states and not in others.

My husband and I are going into our third decade of marriage in a few months, and we know two gay couples who have been together longer than we have!

[Antoninus]

It's not a premise at all. It's a fact. It is man's right to act according to his will, regardless of whether it is good, or evil. That fact exists so that he could be judged. If man doesn't have the right to act according to his own will, then he can not be judged. That is simple logic.

You equate the ability to do something with the right to do something. That is a very basic error. I attempted to illustrate the vacuity of that notion with a concrete question which you studiously ignored. Let's try it again:

You have the ability to drop your pants and take a dump on a busy street. Do you believe you have the right to do it?

[spunkets]

" So I didn't give you Moses, I gave you the Word(s) of God. "

You gave me the word of Moses.

"While Moses was the writer of Leviticus, God was the Author."

Matthew 19:8
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Just as Moses gave you the divorce law out of the hardness in your heart, so to did he give you that little tidbit you wave to justify murder. Had God authorized you to kill folks Jesus would have said so and acknowledged that Moses was correct. He didn't! He didn't authorize the killing of witches anymore than he did the killing of Cain.

[Antoninus]

So are you, looking at that spelling. ;)

Ah, reverting to spelling-nit-picker is always the second-to-last bastion of the losing argument.

My husband and I are going into our third decade of marriage in a few months, and we know two gay couples who have been together longer than we have!

What a lovely piece of unprovable anecdotal evidence! I have known lots of "gay" people too--all of whom are supremely miserable people who are in and out of therapy, battling all sorts of mental illness, and go through sex partners faster than a roll of life-savers. So I guess we'll call it even, eh?

I notice that you totally avoided my question, so I'll try it again:

Give me one (1) good reason why a man should be forbidden from "marrying" his 21 year old son--that isn't also directly applicable to why two unrelated guys should be forbidden.

[spunkets]

" You have the ability to drop your pants and take a dump on a busy street. Do you believe you have the right to do it?"

Exercise of the right to dump, in that fashion, would violate the rights of others. Notice that folks do have the right to dump. They don't have the right to violate the rights of others by doing so.

[DBeers]

My husband and I are going into our third decade of marriage in a few months, and we know two gay couples who have been together longer than we have!

What is a gay couple?

[spunkets]

"your position that people have a "right" to do evil,"

The right is to choose and to act regardless of whether it's good, or evil. If exercise of that right violates the rights of others, then the choice, or act can be said to be evil. If it does not violate the rights of others, it can't be said to be evil and there' no justificaiton in sanctioning that act.

[DBeers]

He didn't! He didn't authorize the killing of witches anymore than he did the killing of Cain.

Can you move on to some other topic -e.g. twisting scripture using witches to support homosexual activity (try DU)?

[spunkets]

" Can you move on to some other topic -e.g. twisting scripture using witches to support homosexual activity (try DU)?"

Try paying attention. Killing witches was brought up to imply killing, and/or otherwise sanctioning homos was fine.

[ElPatriota]

The truth?... Cheney is a man of quality, and we were not going to penalize him for family matters or his views on them. 2004 was even more critical because of the war and we needed people with ba--s... so that his daughter does this or that was not or any big significance to us (social conservatives) because soldier's lives were at stake now. BUT, he is not the president!... the standards for the president are QUITE DIFFERENT.

I guess the difference is: you still love your son/daughter regardless of what they do with their lives. A son could be a KILLER, and you still would love him and try to help him, but never EXCUSE the crime, or PROMOTE a lifestyle that is not the one you would want for people you love. So, accepting and dealing with something is one thing... promoting it, is something else!

[mikeyc]

Gee... there is so much contained in this miriad of questions and responses.
The points about whether homos are genetically homo is a bit pointless from my perspective. Surely the point is whether sexual acts, 'gay marriage', sexual obsession between males is right, positive for society, and should have legislation to enable or disable or be allowed to promote?

Even if homosexuality can be cured, you firstly need the homo to want that cure, and to agree to treatment. Since the homos refered to in this thread seem to be those who live for their homosexual 'rights' and activities, and have no intention of being anything different, any discussion of changing orientation or what sort of sexual activity a person chooses to indulge is pointless here.

[ClaireSolt]

So, millions take medicine to normalize brain function every day.

[DBeers]

Try paying attention. Killing witches was brought up to imply killing, and/or otherwise sanctioning homos was fine.

I would suggest you simply report violent postings to the moderators. If the violence is not obvious enough to report might I suggest it not obvious enough to belabor and discuss?

I see no homosexual lynch mobs here for you to head off at the pass -move along with your straw man...