I would say they're "enraged" b/c Kerry's answer was better, and more compassionate, than Bush's.

"I don't know" if it's a choice?? Wake up, George. It's 2004. Sexuality is what people are. How sad that he is so enslaved to the religious right that he can't even get past that basic truth.

I completely disagree Teddy. He's enraged not because Kerry's answer was better, but because it simply was not in good taste. When Edwards mentioned it, he was talking about the love The Cheneys have for their daughter, regardless.

When Kerry mentioned it however, it was being used as an attack. It would be similar for instance if Kerry's daughters protested against abortion, and Bush was to mention them in his case against it.

Sexuality is what people are? Sexuality is an element of someone's being. Thats basically saying, people are gay or straight, and thats how we should judge them. How different would it be if I said race is who we are, and therefore just called everyone "the white guy" or the "chinese girl" or "that black dude starting at the latino girl bending over"

The "basic truth" is that the majority of Americans are actually against gay marriages! If that wasn't the case, all the states would be rejecting the amendments

Brad, I'd like to point you to a site you visit from time to time concerning the lesbian issue -

http://www.democraticund...mesg_id=904957&page=

Apparantely, *some* on the left also feel that Kerry will do anything to get elected. The difference is that they accept and even support it, hoping the more of the Bush supporters against gays will vote for Kerry because Cheney has a homosexual daughter!

Lynne and Dick Cheney (and the rest of the dumbass talking heads last night that thought it was in bad taste to bring Mary up) need to remember that it was Gwen Ifill that opened the door to discussing Mary's unique role (haha) in this campaign as the lesbian daughter of the VP in a homophobic administration. She's fair game as she is being paid to work in her father's campaign. She's not a child.

Those who objected are just putting up this smokescreen of "outrage" to keep anyone from following up with the logical questions surrounding how they can be so hypocritical about "tolerance" in their party. All the signals they have been giving demonize homosexuals --- and cravenly score political points with the wingnuts for votes by doing so.

So no matter Kerry or Edwards said, their comments cannot be classified as disrespectful or "outing" statments regarding the professional queer known as Mary Cheney:

"Before her father became vice president, Mary Cheney lived an openly gay lifestyle in Colorado with her life partner and worked as Coors' liaison with the gay community.

She traveled the country, trying to persuade owners of gay bars to sell Coors. It was not an easy sell, because Coors' ties to ultraconservative causes and its treatment of gay employees had led to a boycott by gay beer drinkers.

But by funneling Coors' money to gay-sponsored festivals and events and reassuring bar owners that the company's views on gays had changed, Mary Cheney by all accounts did well. Indeed, with her help, Coors lured gay drinkers so successfully that religious conservatives denounced the brewer, claiming the firm undermined traditional family values.

"Coors is such an easy target," Mary Cheney told the alternative weekly Denver Westword in 1999. "It's really tempting to put the [gay community's] Coors Boycott Committee and the far-right extremist groups in the same room and figure out which one of them gets to be mad at us."

BTW, Kerry's answer that he believes in the traditional definition of "marriage" just reflects the fact that at this point and time, it's just not politically survivable to be in favor of gay marriage. Just the fact that he utters "partnership rights" is pretty inflammatory. One step at a time. At least he'll leave our Constitution alone.

Pam's House Blend

Good post, Pam. Thanks!

Troll, as to potential voters being made aware of the hypocrisy in the Bush/Cheney camp, again, I don't understand your point?

If voters might NOT vote for Bush because Cheney has a gay daughter, that's fine by me! Let them sink themselves with their own twisted hypocrisy.

I'm happy to help, and don't mind at all that Kerry & Edwards seem to have done so as well! Trying to play every side of the same issue can be a tricky business, and I guess Lynne and Dick are beginning to figure that out!

Traditional Marriage - between a man and woman.

You cannot use the word Marriage when you are talking about two homosexuals.

Traditional marriage or Biblical marriage of which you are so fond is historically polygamous. Traditional marriage as far as western culture was concerned was as barter. Dowrys and alliances all arranged for maximum familial benefit. Wives were akin to property up until the beginning of the last century.

You hate gays. There's a couple of neat passage in the current version of the bible that make it ok...no holy...to hold gays in contempt. Its an excuse.

Worry about your own marriage. If your wife leaves you, it's your fault not the gay couple in Boston.

As to the Cheney's..they used their daughter as a swing state prop, but their love for her ends on national TV. The Republican family portrait at the convention lacked their little bag of shame.

Dick and Lynne are hypocrites. They troll their daughter out to soften the monster up, but put her in the dungeon because hateful people like Paul don't like the news that conservative christian values can spawn queer kids, too.

My friend Brandon just got married to his boyfriend in Massacheusettes. I think it's a lovely marriage!

Ooops, Paul, looks like I just did! Boy, you sure are wrong alot when you comment on this blog.

I think the major point is being missed. Its not that Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter - Edwards did it and it was fine.

However, Kerry claimed to know what she would feel, as to say that he knows she feels she was born homosexual and it wasn't a choice.

Everything is a choice - its called free will. For instance, look at Ellen's former girlfriend - Anne Heche. She's gone back to the sausage - CLEARLY A CHOICE.

You aren't born gay or straight. You form those life choices throughout the course of your adolsence and make a judgement based on it. Just because you might "not want to be gay" when you have the feelings doesn't mean you had no choice.

Saying you were born a certain way refers to a condition, either physical or mental. Homosexuality is not a condition which affects someone physically, or makes them think different. Its a lifestyle choice.

You can *choose* to be whatever you want. Saying that is how you were born is akin to comparing it to a disability, which is one reason why people, including the Cheneys are upset about it. They DO love their daughter and feel that she made a choice. Its not like God said "Lets give Dick and Lynne a homo baby, that'll be interesting."

I guess it all comes down to a belief in free will. I happen to believe that people have the ability to choose.

Free will. Yeah, the Republicans freely chose to try and soften the image of Mr. Cheney when they brought Mary out to try and show they don't really hate gays. Of course, she can't be seen with her life partner on stage at the convention and she hasn't been produced to make a claim that she was outraged by Kerry's remark.

And, btw, thanks for reading the minds of the republicans and telling us what they were oh so faux outraged about. Mrs. Cheney was outraged that Kerry had somehow violated the family privacy of Mr. Cheney's campaign manager. A campaign manager who has yet to address the issue of being outraged. Her sister has addressed it. When asked on daytime if her sister was outraged did not reply directly. She pointedly refused to state her sister's reaction. SO mom, dada and sister may be outraged but not Mary? Telling. This is a woman who had claimed to Cokie Roberts that her daughter had never admitted to being gay (during the 2k election and before the vp debate). Kerry's remarks were supportive not intrusive.

Troll,

Holy canoly. I couldn't disagree with you more. There is NO proof that one's sexuality preference is a choice. While I realize that there isn't any proof that it's genetic either , I don't think it's fair for you to make a claim like that. How would you know? You're not gay. You're accusing Kerry of doing the same thing you're doing!

I urge of you to think of it this way: think of the most repulsive girl you have ever met in your life. Now imagine someone forced you to feel attracted towards her. Imagine your parents want you to marry her for some reason (just humour me here). You try and try, but you just can't. You find her disgusting! The thought of you and her together, in bed is just plain gross!! The thought of you just touching her is gross. This girl is a DAWG !!

This isn't a choice you make. You can't choose to be attracted or repulsed by someone. You either are, or you aren't. You either find women attractive, or you find men attractive. You are either a guy who likes the brunette next door, or you're the guy who likes Pamela Anderson, or you're the one who likes 'em both!

You dont' choose who you like and who you want. It's just part of who you are.

Troll,

This is the point I was trying to make as well. Obviously, people who are gay or straight are more than just that. But our sexuality does make up a part of who we are. It's one of the most basic things about us.

And it's not a choice. Who would choose to be ostracized and mocked? Who would choose to be denied basic benefits and rights? Who would choose to be subsceptible to bigoted attacks?

What Kerry said was supportive of Mary and spoke to the truth of the matter. It's not a choice.

Johanna - I feel its part of upbringing and conditions around you. You feel someone is attractive based on the perceptions layed on you through others for instance. The way things are marketed to us in this society, we are told how to feel. People are sheep in a herd Johanna. Most often they don't make choices for themself. But thats not to say they can't!

I agree that there isn't any proof one way or the other. I simply feel that more evidence can support those who "choose" such as Anne Heche for instance. She decided she was going to be a lesbian with Ellen. Then she decided it wasn't for her and she wanted to be with men. Thats a choice. I'm not heterosexual because its something that was in me when I was born as a type of trigger in my DNA.

Just one last thing - people can't control their upbringing or conditions either. So even if you were right, it's still not really a "choice", but just an inevitable effect . Again, it has to do with someone's identity.

But just remember the studies people have done on twins who were separated at birth. Some things are still identical (regardless of their surroundings) .

If my post isn't clear, I apologize. I am SO tired right now!

Basically, Kerry voiced his opinion on the matter (just like you are doing now). I don't believe he should be faulted for that.

Troll,

You seem like a smart person, and I appreciate your point of view. However, on this topic it's very obvious you are inexperienced. As George W. Bush is, as is anyone (Paul, for instance) who hasn't spent any considerable length of time with numerous gay people. I'm not calling you out, but understand that most people who have intimate relations (friendships, love partnerships, family ties) to gay people tend to think this isn't a choice.

You can believe what you will, but it doesn't make you correct. Being gay is not a choice. You can choose not to act on it (and probably make yourself unhappy in the bargain) but you cannot avoid being gay if you are gay.

I would add that Anne Heche also thought she was God, perhaps not the best person to select in making your argument. But it affirms to me that you probably don't have an overwhelming number of examples to consider. I'd be interested to hear if I am correct. Again, not calling you out; rather, attempting to bridge a gap.

As for the rest of this Mary Cheney nonsense, it's clear to me that Kerry was attempting to make his point while also drawing attention to the hypocrisy of the right. He succeeded; therefore, an uproar.

Bush will stick with his base, while pretending to be a compassionate conservative. The right will continue to parade Schwarzenegger and Guiliani out to the American public, while encouraging Alan Keyes to run for the Senate in Illinois. The left will continue to call attention to this, and the media will continue to run stories about everyone's distaste with the left, avoiding the initial point altogether. Game-set-match.

In the end though, I think the right's venom alienates more people in the middle. I guess we'll see in three weeks. For those in an uproar over this comment, I would suggest they redirect their uproar to the casualties in Iraq, or the policies that were/were not discussed at the debates.

Wow...Did Troll step into with this one or what? Gotta admire a guy who is willing to be so openly wrong!

So, to that end, I'll start by giving a compliment to Troll, who actually hit one certain nail right on the head. I've been waiting for someone to say this:

"However, Kerry claimed to know what she would feel, as to say that he knows she feels she was born homosexual and it wasn't a choice."

On that, I agree with you! I was stunned that Kerry decided to speak for Mary Cheney! And nobody else that I've seen has bothered to point that out. Including the Cheney's! Had they been outraged about that they may have had some credibility in the matter!

That was not what they were outraged about however. Which is, of course, very telling.

So congrats on getting that part right, Troll! On the rest, however, you're a mess.

Your point would suggest that you are currently choosing to be heterosexual. Are saying that you could just as easily choose to go out with men today? Are you attracted to them, but choose, instead to go out with women?

Let us know!

And Bryan hit something I was going to mention as well. Do you actually know any gay people? And if so, have you ever asked them their opinion about whether they "choose" to be attracted to the same sex instead of "choosing" the much easier route (for them) of being heterosexual?

It seems you're either sheltered, uninformed, in denial, or a closeted homosexual based on your responses to this issue as of now. So we'd all love some clarification from you (and wonder if your fiancee knows that you could as easily choose to go out with a man instead of her).

Ah...one more thing. You disparraged the idea of "being born gay" as akin to "being born with a condition". Saying it was "a choice of lifestyle" instead. Were you born with the "condition" of being male? Or white? (presuming you're white). Or are those items choices of lifestyle as well?

You seem to have no evidence to back up your claim, and the existing evidence on the topic would seem to disprove your theory. In a BIG way. So wondering, aside from the usual wingnut brainwashing, what evidence you have for you claim.

Here's something no one is talikng about...The former REPUBLICAN Illinois senate candidate--you know, the guy who's not Barak Obama--called Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist".

Did Lynne call him a bad man? NO. Did fake conservatives and fake republicans like Paul call him a bad man? NO. People like paul nodded in agreement, "yeah, she is a selfish hedonist".

This little missed fact makes me tend to agree with Elizabeth Edwards in thinking that shame is partly to do with it.