CHENEY SIS JUMPS INTO LESBIAN FRAY

New York Post ^ | October 17, 2004 | STEFAN C. FRIEDMAN

[Cincinatus' Wife]

October 17, 2004 -- Add Mary Cheney's sister's name to a growing list of Cheney family members angry with Sen. John Kerry for bringing up Mary and her sexuality at last week's debate in Tempe, Ariz. Appearing on "Good Morning America" alongside first-daughter hopeful Vanessa Kerry, Liz Cheney — a married mother of four — said an apology from the Democratic nominee "would be appropriate."

But Kerry's daughter defended her dad's comments and noted that Mary Cheney's sexual preference is a matter of record.

"My father's point was the concept was celebrating a strong family," the younger Kerry said, adding that his comments echoed what Sen. John Edwards said to Cheney himself at the vice-presidential debate. "But when you choose to be part of a campaign, you choose to make yourself public."

[wrbones]

Amendment four and amendment nine...in my opinion...

"secure in their persons"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

and "denying or disparaging" other rights to be retained...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article IV
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Not being a constitutional scholar, this is just my opinion.

[Neanderthal]

"This is why the right to privacy was placed in our Bill of Rights . . ."

I must have missed that one. Which one was it?

[Boot Hill]

"My father's point was the concept was celebrating a strong family."

And here is the young Miss Kerry displaying some of those strong family values that her father taught her.

--Boot Hill

[durasell]

William Sidis Versus The New Yorker magazine. He was a child prodigy who was interviewed when a youngster. As a grown man, he was "interviewed" without his consent, sued the magazine and lost the case.

Sidis vs. F-R Pub. Corp

Federal Reporter, 1941, #113, 807-811

---

In a 5 - 4 opinion, hence by the vote of a single

Justice, the US Supreme Court decided that fame

cast upon one's shoulders the burden of losing

one's rights of privacy. Chief Justice Brandeis, the

deciding vote, said The New Yorker article was,

"...merciless in its dissection of intimate details

of its subject's life," and further admitted that

ALL have the "... right to be protected from

the prying of the press..." But he proceeded to

deny Sidis that right because he was a public

figure! This case set the precedent which has

come up time and again in celebrity libel cases

against the press.

[wrbones]

You don't give them up. They are taken from you.

The press, as an entertainment industry, has walked all over Freedom of Speech in such fashion as to justify their abuse of other's rights.

This is why we are inundated with opinions instead of news, and yellow journalism instead of integrity and honest reporting of the facts of matters.

We must not forget that any and all parts of the media are BIG business. Their job is to make money, not report the news. Their concern is the bottom line, not the truth.

Rights and freedoms are not privileges, they are responsibilities. Any who uses them irresponsibly endanger the freedom of all.

That lack of responsibility and integrity is why the MSM is beginning to be supplanted by the new media.

Just my opinion...

[wrbones]

I stand by what I said. You don't give up these rights. They are taken from you.

[durasell]

If you're a celebrity, you have willingly given up the right to reasonable privacy in exchange for being a celebrity. If you're Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts, this can be a drag. However, if you're just a guy walking around leading his/her life, then you have every right to expect your privacy and should fight to maintain it.

[maryz]

I assume you're speaking in terms of practice, especially under current American caselaw. Lots of things are quite wrong, even if perfectly legal.

[wrbones]

Well, it's still my opinion. It's still my thinkin' on the matter. I still have the right to that.

By the use of Supreme Court Justice's decisions as a precedent fer things, I reckon abortion is ok... Constitutionally speakin', that is...outlawin' hard currency... just all sorts of interestin' things to think about here...

You've helped to take a lookit things in a way I hadn't really looked hard at before. I thank ya fer that. Real interestin' stuff...

...real interestin'...

[durasell]

Yeah, that's just the legal angle. It's upheld every so often when a celeb gets upset about images in the press.

And yes, a lot of things are wrong and legal at the same time. Particularly wrong is the burden of celebrity that falls on the children of the rich/powerful/famous etc.

[durasell]

Check out William Sidis' life story. There are a couple of websites devoted to it. Fascinating stuff.

Also, a photog for a tabloid once told me, "That at any given time there are fewer than 200 people whose images can sell magazines or newspapers." I found it to be a fascinating statement.

[maryz]

I understand British libel law is quite different and that's the reason Kitty Kelly didn't publish her book on the Royals in England.

Apart from the fact that he was bringing up her "gayness," though, is the sheer effrontery of saying of someone he doesn't seem to know personally "If you asked Dick Cheney's daughter . . . she would tell you . . . ." IMO, if you were crude enough to ask, she would probably (and rightly) tell you to mind your own business.

[Elkiejg]

"But when you choose to be part of a campaign, you choose to make yourself public."

O.K. - try this on for size Kerry girls. Your father had his marriage to your mother annulled - after you were born. So that makes you basically "born out of wedlock" and as such deserve the label of "bastards". Shall we talk about that on national TV? How does that label "make you feel" girls? Is your family "ashamed" of you? Are you "ashamed" of yourself?

[Salamander]

Putting the obvious horrors aside, the white BVDs were a real fashion faux pas.

[durasell]

Look, I live in NYC. I have a lot of gay friends, business associates, etc. If I presumed to speak for any of them - say while out having a drink, much less in a public forum, they'd drag me over the coals without mercy. Likewise, it is considered the height of bad taste to ask someone if they're gay. It really is a personal matter.

The fact that some gay people are applauding Kerry has nothing to do with their personal feelings on the subject and everything to do with their partisan feelings about politics.

[durasell]

That picture is an old paparazzi trick. They open the flash all the way and set a particular exposure. People in Hollywood have learned to counter it via various methods. Without the camera's flash, that dress would appear opaque.

[Salamander]

She should've countered it with a bra, then...;))

[lonestar]

"But when you choose to be part of a campaign, you choose to make yourself public."

Must be the Kerry daughter who wore the see-through dress without underwear?

[durasell]

I believe that actresses walking the red carpet have either flesh toned prosthetics and/or there's a material that is sewn into the lining of the dress.

[lonestar]

Has Christopher Reeve called Kerry since he died?--to tell him he has to vote absentee?