Skip to comments.Mary Cheney pregnant with second child
Posted on 10/06/2009 6:17:42 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
Mary Cheney, the former vice presidents daughter, and her long-time partner, Heather Poe, are expecting their second child, a source close to the family told True/Slant. [Ed. Note: Since publishing this piece, Cheney has confirmed that she and Poe are expecting their second child in mid- to late November.]
Cheney has worked as a principal at Navigators Global, a bi-partisan communications firm, but recently announced that she would be leaving the company for maternity leave and to begin a new consulting firm with her sister, Liz. Close friends were informed that she was expecting a second child about four months ago and she is now visibly showing her pregnancy, the source says.
Cheney, a lesbian, attracted much attention from the conservative movement when she announced she was pregnant with her first child in late 2006. Social conservative pundit and founder of Focus on the Family, James Dobson, penned a controversial op-ed for Time magazine called Two Mommies Is One Too Many, opining Cheneys decision to start a family:
"With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father. That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boyany more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl."
(Excerpt) Read more at trueslant.com ...
At least Dick Cheney will be the Grampa. That should balance things out.
“There is something quite perverse about a society that allows avowed and unrepentant homosexuals to unnaturally take on children as playthings.”
Also repugnant, IMNSHO, is the use of “they are expecting a child” when, for obvious reasons “they” could not POSSIBLY have conceived. It is the slight of hand that the left does with rediculous name reversals (like “FAMILY PLANNING”) that implies something that in fact does just not happen...
Since his daughter IS a grown adult, I doubt he has control over what she does, obviously.
Actually, she should be referred to as the daughter of the former Vice President. Far as I can tell, she’s still his daughter...
It's not his decision since she's an emancipated adult. Mary Cheney is poorly exercising her free will which she will have to answer for one day.
How much control do you have over your adult children?
Was that on the cover of “The Rolling Stone”? LOL
Cheney has confirmed that she and Poe are expecting their second child.. their? I thought her ‘partner’ is a female? Two females can’t create a child.
When your kids become adults, there’s not one thing you can do about their choices. I don’t approve of these kids being deprived of a father in the home.
I respect Cheney for not trashing his daughter in public. It wouldn’t do any good, and it would be a betrayal of sorts.
As much as I don’t like it, God will have to sort this out in the end.
Our society has gone to hell in a hand-basket, no doubt about that.
I wonder if Hallmark makes a card for this occasion? Yathink?
Listened to a few priests in the last few months and I think they might be right--we are due anytime for a major @$$ kicking (chastisement).
I doubt that Dick Cheney is a controlling force in his daughter’s life, much as you and I, and probably he as well, would prefer that her life choices be far different from what they are.
A baby is a baby is a baby.
I hope Mary’s new baby is as healthy and happy as the first one.
Give glory to God for every new life!
But I'm not sure I'd want to live in a society that restricted pregnancy to only those it deemed worthy of having children. I'm not even sure I'd want adoption restricted in that manner. In this brave new world of Obama-ism, I'd be afraid that people not unlike many of us who post here would be told they're neither permitted to procreate or to adopt. ::shudder::
“’they’ could not POSSIBLY have conceived. It is the slight of hand that the left does with rediculous name reversals (like ‘FAMILY PLANNING’)”
Exactly. The media casually reports she is pregnant, yet these homosexual couples have to use a whole series of bizarre test tube procedures in order to obtain their human play toy. There is nothing natural or loving about it. There are thousands of crying infants waiting for adoption, yet these two lesbians prefer to ‘create’ and then damage a newborn by denying him or her a father.
I will never understand why it has to involve gestation.
Even the sons and daughters of Republican politicians get on the gravy train and don’t get off, and have easy, conflict-free lives due to the virtue of their connections and name. This has got to stop.
Who is the father? Yes, you selfish lesbians, there is ALWAYS a father. Not that the baby will benefit from one. sick.
Do you have ANY evidence at all that Mary Cheney and her partner view their child and unborn child as "play toys"?
You are being very reckless from what I can tell. I think most of us agree that having gay parents is not ideal, but you are seriously impugning Mary Cheney's character here and I think what you are doing is really sh*tty. I could be wrong, but I'm sensing this is more an attack on the Cheneys than it is anything else.
they are not expecting "their" child... Mary Cheney is expecting a child fathered by an unknown man... again. Does anyone know who the father of the first child is ?
now that’s LOL! funny!
“Do you have ANY evidence at all that Mary Cheney and her partner view their child and unborn child as ‘play toys’?”
It seems a common sense conclusion to me. Here you have two avowed and unrentant homosexuals who embrace that lifestyle. In other words it can’t be excused with “oh well, we’re all sinners.” These two are literally embracing the evil of a sexual deviancy. Then on top of it they bring two innocent babies into their home and instantly curse them with being fatherless for life. You have to ask yourself what is in it for the child to be fatherless versus what is in it for the two homosexuals to put these kids in a same-sex home. There is no other explanation than that these poor kids are being used to fill up some emptiness in the lives of the homosexuals - ie they are being used as playthings.
“What a tragedy it will be for these poor kids to be deprived a father figure from the day they were born.”
Is this worse then Laura Ingraham adopting a baby to be raised by a single woman with a full time, day job, not to mention regular night time interviews?
I know that the “horse is out of the barn” when it comes to the mom and dad and “traditional” families, but just because it is common in the world, doesn’t mean conservatives should jump into the decline of the American culture. The example of Murphy Brown should not be practiced by those who propose to defend Family values.
“I could be wrong, but I’m sensing this is more an attack on the Cheneys than it is anything else.”
Not at all. That is the first thing that homosexuals always use to defend their lifestyle (that they are being attacked). There is such a thing as loving the sinner, but hating the sin. I wish all the best to Mary Cheney and her female sex partner. But it is tragic that she insists on forcing young kids to be raised in a homosexual household. In all cases, the welfare of the kids should be first, no matter how powerful or well-connected you are. Talk to any child who has been denied a loving father and you will find out the pain she is causing these poor kids.
I'm with you. Would anybody be surprised if the next generation of liberals tried to slap restrictions on hetero couples, claiming some wacky discrimination because a 3rd party is necesary for them to reproduce? Does the idea of reproductive limits with government mandated abortions seem that crazy anymore (remember: more babies = more CO2)? I'm sure there's a way to deconstruct the Constitution for them to justify it with a straight face.
This should be made a criminal act- it is selfish and does emotional violence to the child.
On the road to diversion again I see.
Beautiful post Palladin. Thank you!
Beautiful post Palladin. Thank you!
“Is this worse then Laura Ingraham adopting a baby to be raised by a single woman with a full time, day job, not to mention regular night time interviews?”
The guy’s got only one testicle.
>> The guys got only one testicle.
Apparently that’s all it takes.
Congratulations on your baster bastard?
Alan Keyes explained it best:
Alan Keyes: “The definition and understanding of marriage is ‘the two become one flesh.’ In the child, the two transcend their persons and unite together to become a new individual. That can only be done through procreation and conception. It cannot be done by homosexuals.”
Alan Keyes: “And they are adopting the paradigm of family life. But the essence of that family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it is possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism. This is unacceptable.”
Q: “So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist, is that it?”
Alan Keyes: “Of course she is. That goes by definition. Of course she is.”
Q: “I don’t think Dick Cheney would like to hear that about his daughter.”
Alan Keyes: “He may or may not like to hear the truth, but it can be spoken.”
Q: “Do you really believe that, that Mary Cheney . . .”
Alan Keyes: “By definition, a homosexual engages in the exchange of mutual pleasure. I actually object to the notion that we call it sexual relations because it’s nothing of the kind.”
Q: “What is it?”
Alan Keyes: “It is the mutual pursuit of pleasure through the stimulation of the organs intended for procreation, but it has nothing to do with sexuality because they are of the same sex. And with respect to them, the sexual difference does not exist. They are therefore not having sexual relations.”
I don't think so...I do not support her life style, but she is very capable and financially able to support children and there are many children in this world who don't know who their father is and not raised with a father in the home and they turn out just fine.
Dick and Lynn Cheney will welcome and love this grandchild just as they do all their other ones.
>> Congratulations on your baster bastard?
DAMN! I just BOUGHT that keyboard and now it’s all full of sticky adult beverage!
The Lawrence decision was an enormous mistake.
There is no comparison. Any more questions?
“Is it any ones business to know who the father of this child is?”
Yes, the children have every right to know who their father is.
“she is very capable and financially able to support children”
No amount of money makes up for a child who has been intentionally denied a father for life. My wife works with children and I can’t tell you how damaging it is for them not to have a father. Such things can’t just be smoothed over with cash. That is one of the tragedies of our anything goes society. I really urge you to seek out some fatherless kids and you will find out that they don’t take it so lightly.
How? Because Laura isn't gay? Because her politics and lifestyle aren't repugnant? Either way the children in question are being deprived of a home with a father.
Nothing against Ms. Cheney. I just think there is something not quite right with denying a child a father.
It was an ultra-constitutional decision by a liberal court with “centrist” Kennedy in the majority.
“Because Laura isn’t gay?”
Yes. She might marry. I doubt the two Lesbian Ladies will.
“Because her politics and lifestyle aren’t repugnant?”
Yes. The child has a chance at a normal childhood and a MUCH better chance of doing well.
I’ll go with “because Laura isn’t a sodomite and her lifestyle isn’t repugnant.” But, then again, there are so many degenerate behaviors that go along with the “lifestyle” that it is hard to choose.
I wonder who is the “father”? A turkey baster?