Well, Lynne Cheney's displeasure with John Kerry is highlighted somewhere on every news site on the Web. Again--what is her problem? Andrew Sullivan's response, linked above, cuts to the heart of the matter. Here is almost the entire post, because just one good quote wouldn't do this important argument justice:
The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn't. What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form. Mickey Kaus, for his part, cannot see any reason for Kerry to mention Mary except as some Machiavellian scheme to pander to bigots. Again: huh? Couldn't it just be that Kerry thinks of gay people as human beings like straight people - and mentioning their lives is not something we should shrink from? Isn't that the simplest interpretation? In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like president Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I'm not outing any gay person. I'm outing the double standards of straight ones. They've had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose.Sullivan's sense of being betrayed by his own people is evident here, but his argument is a strong one. The Bush campaign's efforts to turn this against Kerry show just how desperate they are. They fear that Kerry's comment will (a) peel away voters for whom gay rights are a marginally important issue as they realize how hypocritical the administration is, and (b) drive foaming-at-the-mouth gay-haters to stay home when they realize that one candidate likes gays and the other has a veep with a gay daughter. Bigots really are between a rock and a hard place in this election...[UPDATE: Lest there be any confusion, that last statement was sarcasm. Bigots should vote for Bush, of course...]
DOUBLE STANDARDS: Let me give you an example of the double standards here. I remember once being driven around by a charming woman on a stop on a book tour. We talked about my book, and she averred, after chatting all day, that she had nothing against gay people, she just wished they wouldn't "bring it up" all the time. I responded: "But you've been talking about your heterosexuality ever since I got in the car." She said: "I haven't. I've never once discussed sex." My response: "Within two minutes, you mentioned your children and your husband. You talked about your son's work at high school. You mentioned your husband's line of work. And on and on. You wear your heterosexuality on your sleeve all the time. And that's fine. But if I so much as mention the fact that I'm gay, I'm told it's all I care about, and that I should pipe down. Don't you see the double standard?" Candidates mention their families all the time. An entire question last night was devoted to the relationship between men and their wives and daughters. Mentioning Mary Cheney is no more and no less offensive than that. What is offensive is denying gay couples equal rights in the constitution itself. Why don't conservatives get exercized about that?
No comments:
Post a Comment