Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary Cheney ducks out of GOP gay group
Advocate ^ | June 2, 2003 | Advocate

Posted on 06/02/2003 9:04:07 PM PDT by Mister Magoo

Mary Cheney ducks out of GOP gay group Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of U.S. vice president Dick Cheney, has resigned from the board of the Republican Unity Coalition slightly more than one year after taking on the largely honorary post with the gay-straight political alliance.

Cheney, who once marketed beer to the gay and lesbian community as an employee of the Coors Brewing Co. of Golden, Colo., has been one of the few key gay rights supporters with close ties to the White House. "Working together, we can expand the Republican Party's outreach to nontraditional Republicans," she said in a statement when she signed on with RUC in April 2002. "We can make sexual orientation a nonissue for the Republican Party, and we can help achieve equality for all gay and lesbian Americans." She made no public statements about her departure, and she did not respond to calls from The Advocate regarding it. In the past she has labored to stay out of the political limelight and to avoid becoming a lightning rod for criticism, pro and con, over gay rights in the contentious GOP.

A source close to the Cheney family said Mary Cheney's resignation from RUC will allow her to pursue business interests in her home state of Colorado, where she lives with her partner, Heather Poe. But some gay activists suggest that there may be more behind the decision, since it comes on the heels of protests from the religious right regarding pro-gay comments by GOP chairman Marc Racicot. "Leaders of the extreme right are demanding that the GOP back away from any association with the gay community," said David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington, D.C., gay rights group. "The Right is calling into question what little outreach the party had to gay voters at the crossroads of an election season. While I can't speculate on the reasons for her decision, Mary Cheney's departure definitely comes at an interesting time."

The RUC--which was founded and is chaired by Charles Francis, an openly gay friend of President Bush--also recently announced that David Rockefeller, the 87-year-old scion of the liberal Republican family, would join the group's board.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cheney; coors; gay; homosexual; marcracicot; ruc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last
To: ConsistentLibertarian

you could have two gay men living together, never mentioning the wild, passionate, satisfying sex they have with each other (just as most heterosexual couples tend not to go public with that info), and one of them could run in the Republican primaries to be the Republican presidential candidate while their same sex partner stood by and supported him -- the way people involved with each other often do.

That's not making an issue of sexual orientation. It's just living your life without other people making an issue out of who you sleep with.

Sound good to you?

Texas Phys.Resource Council, Christian Med. & Dental Association, Catholic Med.Association Sodomy is an efficient method of transmitting STDs. And regardless of the reason, same-sex sodomy is far more effective in spreading STDs than opposite-sex sodomy. Multiple studies have estimated that 40 percent or more of men who practice anal sex acquire STDs. In fact, same-sex sodomy has resulted in the transformation of diseases previously transmitted only through fecally contaminated food and water into sexually caused diseases primarily among those who practice same-sex sodomy.

Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDS - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, ... An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year.

Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.

Citizens Against Government Waste Since the first federal resources were made available to state and local health agencies for AIDS prevention in 1985, federal funding, which now includes money for research, treatment, and housing, has skyrocketed to $13 billion for fiscal 2003. As a result of the work of highly mobilized lobbying forces, more is spent per patient on AIDS than on any other disease, though it does not even currently rank among the top 15 causes of death in the United States. In one year, 1998, heart disease, the nation's leading cause of death, killed 724,859 Americans only 6.8 percent less than the 774,767 who have contracted AIDS in the last 20 years.2 Of those 774,767 total AIDS cases, 462,766 have died. During that same period, 14 million Americans 30 times more have died of heart disease.

61 posted on 06/03/2003 6:36:08 AM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
"... on the largely honorary post with the gay-straight political alliance. "

Since when is being "gay" honorable? The reality is that being "gay" is anything but "gay". Rather it is a sick, behavior resulting from emotional problems. It is the ultimate confusion to be attracted to same sex. Imagine the denial these folks go through!

62 posted on 06/03/2003 6:41:50 AM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
Maybe Daddy put his foot down and told her to keep a low profile and get out of this "honary" position. LOL - "honary"!
63 posted on 06/03/2003 6:43:40 AM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Sexual orientation should be a non-issue for the GOP."

Maybe for you, a RHINO, it isn't an issue however for Biblical based Republicans, such as myself, homosexuality is unacceptable. We don't believe in having an benign eye to clinton and his sexual escapades nor is it proper to have a blind eye on same sex attraction. In either situation this is unacceptable and their judgment is not trustable.

I'm suprised that you as a Catholic are still defending homosexuality. Most Catholics I know have NO time for homosexuality in the pulpit or in an "honary" position.

64 posted on 06/03/2003 6:48:27 AM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
If sodomites want to vote Republican based on shared values, then the religious right has no objection.

I don't know what the shared values of the gays are, but to say that the religious right has no objection is totally wrong from what I've been reading in the threads.

65 posted on 06/03/2003 7:30:27 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: EverOnward
Where's the "pro-jobs for Americans?"

That was included by the elipsis (...) after the word "responsibility" in my post.

66 posted on 06/03/2003 7:35:53 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Maybe republicans should just tell certain groups NOT to vote for them so they won't be accused of 'accepting' the votes of sub-human people. /sarcasm
67 posted on 06/03/2003 7:43:48 AM PDT by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Consort
me: "If sodomites want to vote Republican based on shared values, then the religious right has no objection."
you: I don't know what the shared values of the gays are, but to say that the religious right has no objection is totally wrong from what I've been reading in the threads.

What I'm saying is that religious right voters have no problem with sodomite Republican voters if they want to vote GOP based on a concern for their civil rights, for less intrusive and smaller government, for lower taxes. What the religious right opposes is the use of an organization like Log Cabin to infiltrate a radical gay agenda into the party.

Are there legitimate sodomite conservatives? Yes, a relatively small number. But the Log Cabin and Human Rights Watch are Leftist organizations, just as much as are the NEA (both of them) and Planned Parenthood. There is no legitimate political reason for the GOP to accomodate them in any substantial way, given their well-known views. In doing so, the GOP risks that they will drive away 10%-40% of their religious right base and gain very little in return because when it comes to sodomy and abortion rights, the Dims will always out-pander the GOP. There are very few sodomite votes to gain and a great number of relgious right votes to lose.
68 posted on 06/03/2003 7:52:35 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
The republican party can't abandon a large solid part of its base, for a smaller part of somone elses and hope to win.

We agree but I have to point out that: Sure they can. They can hope right up until the moment they lose.

Strategy doesn't have to reflect reality if hope and distorted perception is your driving force. Rove's model of the electorate seem's to revolve around a rather simplistic normal distribution where a move to the "center" and away from the right would pick up votes. Quite the opposite is likley if the electorate is bimodal (culture wars, anyone?).

I don't know if Rove's approach is driven by his personal preferences or a skewed view of distributions (pun intended) but if it isn't redirected it could lead to the latest chapter of "The Stupid Party in Love and War".

69 posted on 06/03/2003 8:05:42 AM PDT by LTCJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
A politician might have a preference for unhealthy foods, but it's never an issue in a campaign.

A happily married heterosexual politician might have a preference for anal sex with his happily consenting wife (and ingest her feces when licking her butthole during foreplay), but not talk about it publically, and it would never be an issue in a campaign.

And a gay man might prefer only to have oral sex -- never anal sex -- with his lover.

WHY SHOULD ANY OF THIS BE AN ISSUE IN A CAMPAIGN?

Do you really want reporters repeatedly asking GW and Laura Bush if they have anal sex?
70 posted on 06/03/2003 8:10:38 AM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: nmh
I'm suprised that you as a Catholic are still defending homosexuality. Most Catholics I know have NO time for homosexuality in the pulpit or in an "honary" position.

I'm not defending homosexuality; the fact that some homosexuals support President Bush and the GOP is a good thing, and I don't understand the angst over that by some on this website.

Bush doesn't ask questions about orientation when considering someone for a position in his administration. That's a pretty good policy for a government job.

71 posted on 06/03/2003 8:17:04 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Racists vote too. What's he doing for them?

Nothing.

72 posted on 06/03/2003 8:18:37 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian

preference for unhealthy foods

A happily married heterosexual politician might have a preference for anal sex with his happily consenting wife (and ingest her feces when licking her butthole during foreplay),

And a gay man might prefer only to have oral sex -- never anal sex -- with his lover.

You are ill-informed, mentally sick and morally retarded.

Center for Arizona Policy The APA's brief cites to Laumann et al. to support their statement that the sexual practices prohibited by the Texas law "are important aspects of sexual intimacy for many American heterosexual couples." APA Br. at 21. However, Laumann's study specifically reveals that oral sex is "a technique with which most people have at least some familiarity, but it has in no sense become a defining feature of sex between women and men (as vaginal intercourse or, perhaps, kissing is) . . . it is important to establish at the outset the ambiguity of oral sex in the repertoire of [heterosexual] techniques." Laumann et al., supra, at 101.

Laumann's research also reveals that heterosexuals engage in anal sex even less than oral sex: "anal sex has not entered into the repertoire of regular sexual practices of most women and men in the United States." Laumann, supra, at 107. This study found that only one-quarter of men and one-fifth of women have experienced anal sex over a lifetime, and is far less frequent than that in any given year of life. Id. Heterosexuals were also 79% less likely to find anal intercourse as "very appealing" compared to vaginal intercourse. Laumann et al., supra, at 152-155, Table 4.2.

Because oral and anal sex are primary means of sexual activity between individuals of the same sex (APA Br. at 22-23), and such is not the case with heterosexual couples, it should be considered that the Texas law has reasonably and narrowly drawn their prohibition of "deviate sexual intercourse" to those couples where it is most likely to take place. The Texas law may also contemplate the higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases which are related to certain sexual behaviors, and seeks to prohibit behavior associated with a higher prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (not only HIV/ AIDS) and sexually associated infections and other illnesses. Laumann et al., supra, at 396.

It is well-documented that as the number of sexual partners rise, the likelihood of having a partner with a sexually transmitted infection also rises. Laumann et al., supra, at 403; see generally Hickson et al., supra. As has been noted, homosexuals have a much greater number of sexual partners, 23 as compared to heterosexuals, and engage in sexually riskier activity, 24 therefore, there are serious health considerations implicated in same-sex sexual activity which should be taken into account when a legislature proscribes certain sexual activities.

SODOMY : Texas Phys.Resource Council, Christian Med. & Dental Association, Catholic Med.Association

The CDC has identified men who have sex with men as among the groups that "are most vulnerable to STDs and their consequences . . . ." Id . at 39 (Introduction to "Special Focus Profiles"). One reason that men who have sex with men are at high risk of STDs is the nature of anal sex. Anal sex is not the same as sexual intercourse because of the differences between the vagina and the anus. 10 "The vagina is surrounded by thick muscular tissue which distends and changes shape to accommodate the erect penis during intercourse." Jeremy Agnew, Some Anatomical and Physiological Aspects of Anal Sexual Practices , 12 Journal of Homosexuality No. 1, 75, 91 (Fall 1985). The nature of these muscles make them "capable of protecting against abrasion during intercourse . . . ." Id . In contrast, the anus has a far more limited capacity to expand because it is firmly attached to the tail bone, and it is vulnerable to tears at its point of attachment. Because the anus is surrounded by veins and arteries, any tears may lead to substantial bleeding. See Keith L. Moore, C LINICALLY O RI ENTED A NATOMY 385 (2 nd ed. 1985). Accordingly, receptive anal sex may cause physical trauma to the anus and the rectum:

the lining of the rectum consists of a single layer of [membranous cellular tissue] with numerous goblet [mucous secreting] cells. The function of this thin layer is to promote the absorption of water and electrolytes. In spite of the limited protective capacity of secreted mucus from the goblet cells, the mucosa is incapable of much mechanical protection against abrasion. . . . . . . One of the commonest problems associated with anal sexual activity is tearing of the anal canal. The external anal sphincter is biologically intended to have material pass through it out of the body. The sudden or forceful insertion of objects in the "reverse" direction stimulates the anal reflex and produces a natural tendency of the sphincter to contract to prevent inser- tion. Unlike the vagina, the anus and rectum lack a nat- ural lubricating function, and insertion of unlubricated objects or inadequate dilation prior to the insertion of large objects can result in the tearing of perianal and anal canal tissue.

Texas Phys.Resource Council, Christian Med. & Dental Association, Catholic Med.Association

3. Oral sex

Oral sex also results in the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. According to the CDC, HIV, "[h]erpes, syphilis, gonor- rhea, genital warts (HPV), intestinal parasites (amebiasis), and hepatitis A are examples of STDs which can be transmitted during oral sex with an infected partner." CDC, Preventing the Sexual Transmission of HIV, the Virus that Causes AIDS: What You Should Know about Oral Sex , HIV/AIDS Update (December 2000). 24 A number of the diseases associated with men who have sex with men, particularly the enteric pathogens, are most likely transmitted through an oral/anal or penile/anal/ oral route. Marino & Mancini, 58 Surgical Clinics of North America at 514 ("Sexual transmission of [enteric pathogens] is a possible consequence of oro-anal, ano-genital, and genito-oral contact either separately or in sequence"). One study expressed surprise at finding that oral-anal sex "was the single most important practice associated with infection [with hepatitis B surface antigen] . . . ." Reiner, et al., Asymptomatic Rectal Mucosal Lesions and Hepatitis B Surface Antigen at Sites of Sexual Contact in Homosexual Men . . . , 96 Annals of Internal Medicine at 170. Human herpes virus 8, "a necessary etiologic agent of Kaposi sarcoma," also appears to be spread by oral sex between men who have sex with men (but seldom in opposite- sex couples). Dennis H. Osmond, Ph.D., et al., Prevalence of Kaposi Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus Infection in Homosex- ual Men at Beginning of and During the HIV Epidemic , 287 Journal of the Am. Medical Ass'n No. 2, 221 (2002).

73 posted on 06/03/2003 8:50:28 AM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
My husband told me that Dick Gephardt also has a gay daughter. What is it with politicians' families? There seems to be more than the usual percentage of gays in the families of prominent politicians. It makes you wonder about the nurture vs nature argument.
74 posted on 06/03/2003 8:55:10 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
I forgot to add that my guess is that she didn't want to be in any prominent position during the upcoming election cycle, which would attract attention like a lightning rod.
75 posted on 06/03/2003 8:57:04 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Either way, like for drug addicts, we should offer them help if they seek it.

You believe oin publicly funded health care?

76 posted on 06/03/2003 9:12:09 AM PDT by jmc813 (After two years of FReeping, I've finally created a profile page. Check it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The non-issue must be that children must be taught homosexuality is wrong.

By whom?

77 posted on 06/03/2003 9:15:50 AM PDT by jmc813 (After two years of FReeping, I've finally created a profile page. Check it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Maybe Daddy put his foot down and told her to keep a low profile and get out of this "honary" position.

I think "Daddy" is a bit more intelligent and mature than the gay-obsessed posters on FR and lets his adult daughter make his own decisions on whom she associates with.

78 posted on 06/03/2003 9:24:21 AM PDT by jmc813 (After two years of FReeping, I've finally created a profile page. Check it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: nmh
We don't believe in having an benign eye to clinton and his sexual escapades nor is it proper to have a blind eye on same sex attraction.

I take it you were a vocal critic of Rudy Guiliani as well?

79 posted on 06/03/2003 9:25:22 AM PDT by jmc813 (After two years of FReeping, I've finally created a profile page. Check it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
"We can make sexual orientation a nonissue for the Republican Party, and we can help achieve equality for all gay and lesbian Americans."

Isn't this a contradictive statement? Everytime you push the gaygenda, you create an GOP party issue.

80 posted on 06/03/2003 9:27:14 AM PDT by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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