Cheney Baby Dilemma Update
From CNN:
Think about that one for a minute: Love can't replace a mother and a father.
Do you believe that's correct?
Well, they've got to say something.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Conservative leaders voiced dismay Wednesday at news that Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Dick Cheney, is pregnant, while a gay-rights group said the vice president faces "a lifetime of sleepless nights" for serving in an administration that has opposed recognition of same-sex couples.
...
Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America described the pregnancy as "unconscionable."
"It's very disappointing that a celebrity couple like this would deliberately bring into the world a child that will never have a father," said Crouse, a senior fellow at the group's think tank. "They are encouraging people who don't have the advantages they have."
Crouse said there was no doubt that the news would, in conservatives' eyes, be damaging to the Bush administration, which already has been chided by some leaders on the right for what they felt was halfhearted commitment to anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights causes in this year's general election.
Carrie Gordon Earll, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, expressed empathy for the Cheney family but depicted the pregnancy as unwise.
"Just because you can conceive a child outside a one-woman, one-man marriage doesn't mean it's a good idea," Earll said. "Love can't replace a mother and a father."
...
Mixed reaction to Cheney's daughter's pregnancy
Think about that one for a minute: Love can't replace a mother and a father.
Do you believe that's correct?
Well, they've got to say something.
posted by JimK at 1:02 PM
48 Comments:
How the Christian Conservatives have changed. When my mother was brought home from the train station by the Travelers' Aid Missionary to be raised in the home she shared with her older sister, nobody complained that the baby was being deprived of a father. As a matter of fact, my mother was told all of her life that she was a lucky person to be brought up in that Christian family. In those days, having a husband who abandons you during the depression and having to give up your baby, as my mother's birth mother did, was what made a person a bad parent. (My mother was also told that she was "stained with sin," but I don't know if the sin was having a birth mother with no job or having a birth father who disappeared after he lost his job.)
My grandmother left the Travelers' Mission biz to teach at John Wesley Seminary, now in High Point, but then in Greensboro. My mother was raised on the campus of this rigidly fundamantalist school, and no one ever questioned whether she was getting everything she needed in her family of two mothers. My grandmother's single state was also no barrier to her legal adoption of my mother.
Now, an employed and independently wealthy woman in a stable relationship with a supportive extended family who gets pregnant is "unconscionable."
Maybe it's because Ms. Cheney will be keeping her baby.
Tish
There's a difference between making the best of a bad situation and creating one. I doubt Christian conservatives have changed much. The stereotype displayed here on this blog is mostly liberal fantasy.
Cheney's kid has a father and I think he has legal responsibilities. If he's not gay, that's where the kid belongs.
Tish said,Now, an employed and independently wealthy woman in a stable relationship with a supportive extended family who gets pregnant is "unconscionable."
Maybe it's because Ms. Cheney will be keeping her baby.
_____
Or because Mary Cheney and partner did not care what the Christian Conservatives thought since it will be she and her partner together with their child.
Imagine that someone and the VP's daughter at that living her own life as she should.
Ted
Anonymous at December 07, 2006 2:29 PM
All the social science research shows children of gay parents do just as well as children of heterosexual parents. As money is a primary determining factor in how well children do Mary Cheney's child can expect a particularly good outcome
Anon-you goofball- so the baby belongs with the unknown sperm donor- some guy whose interest in beng a father stopped when he finished with his cup and magazine and picked up a check for his donation- as long as he is hetero. Thank you, you have just made K-Fed dad of the year.
"All the social science research shows children of gay parents do just as well as children of heterosexual parents."
What research? From the Act Up Center for Twisted Research?
"Anon-you goofball- so the baby belongs with the unknown sperm donor- some guy whose interest in beng a father stopped when he finished with his cup and magazine and picked up a check for his donation- as long as he is hetero."
You don't know it was a compensated donor. It's probably David Crosby. If it does turn out to be someone unfit, the grandparents should probably take the baby.
anon said,You don't know it was a compensated donor. It's probably David Crosby. If it does turn out to be someone unfit, the grandparents should probably take the baby.
_____
If that doesn't work then next you will be saying give to FOC.
Nutty anon you need to go back to your hate filled life elsewhere.
Ted
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I stated "All the social science research shows children of gay parents do just as well as children of heterosexual parents."
Anonymous the ignorant replied "What research? From the Act Up Center for Twisted Research? ".
Well anonymous I have in the past repeatedly posted aproximately 30 such studies but unfortunately I don't have access to my personal computer to repost them but for starters:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/12/health/webmd/main938234.shtml
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html
http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2005/10/18/studies-prove-gay-parents-better-than-straights/
Next time catch me when I'm at my own computer and I'll have a lot more. Now how about in turn you either post proof that the APA says bestiality is okay, or stop lying
Anon said... "If he's not gay, that's where the kid belongs."
I'm sorry but are you saying fathers are better parents than mothers... I thought you were only discriminatory towards homosexuals.
A Message from PFLAG's Executive Director,
Jody M. Huckaby
On Wednesday morning the Cheney family had the opportunity to share some good news with the public: Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne, is expecting a child.
While this might have been little more than a blip on the radar for media in most cases, this one was far from ordinary. TV, radio, and internet news were awash in discussion and debate for the simple reason that Mary Cheney is expecting the child with her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe.
The pair has been the focus of tremendous scrutiny since Cheney’s father is the number two in the country to a president who aggressively pursued a promise to write discrimination into the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. His approach to the issue of GLBT equality has also given momentum to state- level efforts to deny GLBT people in the U.S. basic rights, not the least of which is the freedom to raise a family through strict anti-GLBT adoption laws.
Such efforts have energized proponents of “family values” in our recent past. Here are just a few examples of things that have been said by supporters of such efforts about the experience that Cheney and Poe (and thousands of other committed couples) are embarking on:
**"I think it's tragic that a child has been conceived with the express purpose of denying it a father... Fatherhood is important and always will be, so if Mary and her partner indicate that that is a trivial matter, they're shortchanging this child from the start Mary and Heather can believe what they want, but what they're seeking is to force others to bless their nonmarital relationship as marriage...and to create a culture that is based on sexual anarchy instead of marriage and family values." (Robert Knight, Culture and Media Institute of the Media Research Center)
**“Mary Cheney’s pregnancy raises the question of what’s best for children. Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean it’s the best for the child.” (Carrie Gordon Earll, Focus on the Family)
**Mary’s pregnancy is an “in-your-face” action countering the Bush Administration’s pro-family, pro- marriage and pro-life policies. She continues to repudiate the work to which her father has devoted his life. Mary has repeatedly said that “studies” show that children only need a loving home. Her statement is incomplete because the experts agree that for the well-being of children, they desperately need a married father and a mother. (Janice Crouse, Concerned Women for America)
**“But children are not guinea pigs to be used in social experiments in redefining the institution of marriage. They are vulnerable individuals with vital emotional and developmental needs. The great harm done by denying them both a mother and a father in a committed marriage will not easily be reversed, and society will pay a grievous price for its ill-advised adventurism.” (Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore)
**"Having a homosexual parent appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50." ( John Giles, President of Alabama's Christian Coalition)
**Obviously, we’re saddened at the spectacle of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, living in an open lesbian relationship, and now bringing a child into a home that is fatherless by design. In our view, this is another case of the “gay” movement putting its wants (in this case, having a child) above what’s best for children. “Two mommies” or “two daddies” will never substitute for a home with a married mom and a dad, and it is sad when men or women model immoral homosexual behavior before innocent children in a home setting. (Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans for Truth)
At PFLAG, we only have one thing to say to Mary and Heather: Congratulations!
It is much simpler for PFLAG. We believe that all families deserve love, respect, and equal rights and responsibilities under the law. It doesn’t matter if that family is composed of a mom and dad, one parent, or two parents of the same sex. Family is family to us, no questions asked.
But if that isn’t enough, we do have the facts on our side, too. While those who attack families like the one that Mary Cheney and Heather Poe are starting point to “evidence” that our families are in some way wrong, we have a mounting number of credible studies – as well as our own experiences – that show that our families are healthy, happy, and producing children who are well-adjusted, accepting and thriving. Among the things that we’re seeing in major medical reports are:
There are no critical differences in the emotional, physical and social well-being of children raised by same sex parents vs. children raised by opposite-sex parents.
Overall, children with same-sex parents are similar in sex-role identification to children of heterosexual couples.
Gay male and lesbian parents are more likely than heterosexual parents to share parenting responsibilities.
PFLAGers also know the reality of what those who advocate against our families do to our loved ones. We know, as research suggests, that the only negative impact of having same-sex parents is other peoples’ reactions to their family.
Dick and Lynne Cheney already have six grandchildren and they are no doubt thrilled to be welcoming a seventh. I’d like to think that listening to what many of these “family values” advocates are saying might inspire them to tell their story and talk about their increasingly diverse family too. And I’d also like to think that seeing the difficult process that Mary and Heather will need to go through to get the most basic legal issues regarding this child resolved might even cause them to approach some legislative issues differently.
There’s a commercial that suggests “Having a baby changes everything.” For Mary and Heather, Dick and Lynne, and all of our families everywhere, I hope that it will.
Let’s all look to the Cheney family for hope as we continue to work to move equality forward!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701440.html
It's a Cheney!
Reality Is a Blessed Event
By Ruth Marcus
Friday, December 8, 2006; A39
My only regret about Mary Cheney's pregnancy is that it didn't happen earlier -- say, during the 2004 presidential race, when Cheney was working for her father's campaign and his running mate was busy trying to write discrimination against people like her into the Constitution.
Imagine a hugely pregnant Mary Cheney sitting in the vice president's box at the convention. Imagine Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, cuddling their newborn onstage at the victory celebration.
How perfectly that would have illustrated the clanging disconnect between the Republican Party's outmoded intolerance and the benign reality of gay families today.
Better late than never. Cheney's no crusader; she has little interest in becoming the poster mom for gay parenthood. But whether she intends it or not, her pregnancy will, I think, turn out to be a watershed in public understanding and acceptance of the phenomenon. This is the Ellen DeGeneres moment of national politics.
Acceptance won't come immediately, of course, and certainly not from all quarters. The folks who have fits about "Heather Has Two Mommies" are beside themselves over "Heather Is One of Two Mommies." Especially because the other mommy is -- as Mary Cheney is inevitably described -- The Vice President's Openly Gay Daughter.
"Unconscionable," said Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America. "Her action repudiates traditional values and sets an appalling example for young people at a time when father absence is the most pressing social problem facing the nation," Crouse wrote on the TownHall.com blog. "Her child will have all the material advantages it will need, but it will still encounter the emotional devastation common to children without fathers."
"I think it's tragic that a child has been conceived with the express purpose of denying it a father," pronounced Robert Knight of the Media Research Center. The couple, he said is seeking to "create a culture that is based on sexual anarchy instead of marriage and family values."
I can understand that people -- especially those who have no personal experience with gay families -- are uncomfortable with the notion of children without a parent of each gender. What I can't understand is using words such as "unconscionable" or "tragic" to describe the choice of two people who love each other and want to create a family together.
To be a badly wanted child (one thing that's indisputable about the children of same-sex couples: the parents had to work to make it happen) in a home with two loving parents is no tragedy. If they're worried about "emotional devastation," the Crouses and Knights of the world would do better to reserve their lamentations for children in poverty, those who are abused or neglected, or for children in families splintered by divorce.
As to sexual anarchy, Mary Cheney and Heather Poe represent its antithesis. This is a couple who've been together for 15 years. In her mind, as Cheney told "Primetime Live" this year, "Heather and I already are married. We have built a home and a life together. I hope I get to spend the rest of my life with her. The way I look at it is, we're just waiting for state and federal law to catch up with us."
That could take some time, especially if Mary Cheney's political party has anything to do with it. As a resident of Virginia, which does not permit a gay parent to adopt, Poe will have no legal connection to the child that she and Cheney clearly intend to have and raise together. If the couple were to split up, Poe would have no legal right to see the child.
Virginia's newly adopted and expansively drafted constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage casts doubt on the ability of Cheney and Poe to write binding medical directives and wills. Without any legal protection, state or federal, against job discrimination -- the Bush administration opposes extending anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation -- Mary Cheney could be fired simply because she is gay.
In fact, perhaps because it's less susceptible to being hijacked by the extremes, the business world is outpacing the political sphere in recognizing and responding to the new, out-of-the-closet reality of gay Americans. More than half of the Fortune 500 companies offered health benefits for domestic partners this year, up from just 28 a decade earlier, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
The latest issue of Fortune describes how companies seeking to attract and retain gay workers are offering bereavement leave if a same-sex partner dies, adoption assistance or paid leave for gay employees who have children, and relocation help for gay partners when employees are transferred. "Put another way, gay marriage -- an idea that has been banned by all but one of 27 states that have voted on it -- has become a fact of life inside many big companies," the magazine said.
Perhaps Cheney's high-profile pregnancy will help the Republican Party come to grips with those facts of life. If not, though, she's going to have to explain to her child what mommy was doing trying to help a party that doesn't believe in fairness for families like theirs.
"Next time catch me when I'm at my own computer and I'll have a lot more. Now how about in turn you either post proof that the APA says bestiality is okay, or stop lying"
Yeah, I'm sure gayparenting.com has some unbiased research. And APA? Don't get me started.
If you guys think bestilaity is listed as a mental disease by APA, show me where. You know as well as I do, they took it off.
"I'm sorry but are you saying fathers are better parents than mothers"
Not usually. Only when the mother is living in an extramarital sexual arrangement.
http://www.familypride.org/academicsymposium.html
Download the summary report of the research presented and discussed at the 2006 academic symposium.
You lunatic fringe types are something else. Now kids are supposed to suffer a childhood of ostracism just so a couple of lesbians can..........
So-called pro-family adherents who ostracize children because of who their parents are are hypocrites of the worst kind.
"So-called pro-family adherents who ostracize children because of who their parents are are hypocrites of the worst kind."
Pro-family adherents won't be ostracizing them. Average kids will. It's a tough life trying to scorn the make-up of society. These fringe types should think twice about it.
Give the kid to the father. The interest of the child should come first.
Average kids today are fine with the many varieties that are families these days.
It's homophobes like you who do the ostracizing.
"It's homophobes like you who do the ostracizing."
Not me. I never ostracize anybody. I'm also not phobic about gays. That's a rhetorical device devised by the lunatic fringe.
I don't think it will be the homophobes anyway. It'll be the opportunists. It's not the kid's fault that their parents are messed up in the head.
Right, you never ostracize anyone, you just spread lies about LGBT, but your intent is not to ostracize.
And speaking of rhetorical devices, "lunatic fringe" is apparently your favorite. It is a perfect description of yourself.
It's not the kid's fault that their parents are messed up in the head.
And it's not LGBT folk's fault if you are messed up in the head.
Anonymous:
"Not usually. Only when the mother is living in an extramarital sexual arrangement."
You say these things just to provoke people, don't you?
rrjr
Anon says:
"Pro-family adherents won't be ostracizing them. Average kids will. It's a tough life trying to scorn the make-up of society."
Of course, I suspect that was an argument made about interracial marriage back in the day. Their children would be ostracized by white children for being black, and by black children for possibly looking white.
And why would such children ostracize children of interracial parents? Because they learned bigotry from their parents. Same thing here.
"You say these things just to provoke people, don't you?"
That one?
Well...yeah. You got me.
"And why would such children ostracize children of interracial parents? Because they learned bigotry from their parents. Same thing here."
Hate to disagree, David. But I think young kids are actually uncomfortable with people who look different from them. They need to learn tolerance. It's a good lesson.
The gay thing is somewhat different. Unfortunately, kids always hold other kids responsible for their strange parents. Still, they don't need their parents to see that having "two mommies" is a little strange.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Typical, anonymous. You don't have anything to refute the huge volumes of research showing that children of gay parents do just as well as the children of heterosexuals, just empty posturing.
Anonymous, you're the one making the claims about the APA and bestiality. Its up to you to back up your claims, not me. You keep claiming to quote the APA on bestiality, demonstrate that came from them or don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Your insignificant opinion of the APA means nothing, its not like you have a reputable alternative, just your own baseless condemnations.
As only small percentages of kids have gay parents its to be expected that some kids find this unusual. That's one of the reasons why kids need to learn about such families in school to develop tolerance so everyone has equal opportunity. The last thing any child needs is to learn the bigotry of a person like you.
Randi
I've noticed that you often have a hard time making up your mind about what to say. All these U-turns where you post something and then delete it might indicate some mental instability. You might want to get a check up.
That's no way to speak to a lady. Did they teach you that in church?
It's pretty damn obvious who needs the check up, you insult hurling chicken shit.
Tbone
Anonymous, the deleted comments are due to the fact that blogger sometimes doesn't post my original comment to the blue thread page. I have to delete and repost to get it to appear, sometimes two or three times.
If anyone's mental stability is in question its yours. There's something wrong with a supposedly straight person that's as obsessed with LGBTs as you are.
"Anonymous, you're the one making the claims about the APA and bestiality."
Look up the wikipedia entry on bestiality. It goes through the whole thing.
Anonymous, according to the wilkipedia, bestiality that doesn't affect the normal functioning of a person is not considered a disease. If the standard for judging whether or not something is a disease is the ability to function normally I suppose I would have to defer to the experts on whether or not this is the case with bestiality and their judgment that it may not be a disease. Whether or not this is typically the case is not clear from the wilkipedia and it may be that in most cases it is considered a paraphilia by the apa. The wilkipedia can be edited by any joe blow so it can't necessarily be taken as representative of the position of the APA.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is for psychotherapists to use to classify patients for billing purposes, mainly, though it can also be used a guide for treatment.
When the CRC refers to transgender people by their DSM classification, they assume they are insulting them some way. They always remind us that it's a "mental disease," but I don't think they've thought that through. Does that mean the person has no control over it? OK, that's what they say, too. Does it mean they need treatment, e.g., transformation into the subjectively experienced gender? That seems OK, too. Does it mean they're insane or undesirable in some way? No, it doesn't mean that. Is it reflect some moral judgment? None that I can see. The use of the DSM term is simply an unintelligent way to feel that they are insulting transgender people.
As for bestiality, a person who is irresistibly driven to have sex with animals has a psychological problem. A person who has sex with animals may or may not have a problem -- it appears that a good proportion of rural youngsters have sex with animals as a normal part of growing up. The APA will regard an obsession with bestiality to be a kind of paraphilia, but having sex with animals says nothing about the person's psychological processes.
How about people who have sex with inanimate objects? Does Anon think these people should be diagnosed by the APA as having some kind of mental disorder? If so, then it appears that nearly half of the population would need treatment.
A major social change in the twentieth century involved the realization of a distinction between the mental ill and criminals. Society needs to be protected from criminals, mentally ill people need treatment. The CRC's attempts to try to derogate people by referring to them as if they were mentally ill is a step back.
JimK
CRC and PFOX love to insult trans persons, though at least these days it's more subtle, like quoting the DSM, or calling me "he" in a room full of people when I'm not in attendance.
Still, there isn't a much better way to highlight their prejudice than to let them speak like that in public. Of course, it would be even better if someone called them on it at the time.
"The wilkipedia can be edited by any joe blow so it can't necessarily be taken as representative of the position of the APA."
Well, go ahead and edit it then. They do have a quality control process. Your edit won't last long.
"CRC and PFOX love to insult trans persons, though at least these days it's more subtle, like ... calling me "he" in a room full of people when I'm not in attendance."
When did they do that, Dr?
Why do you consider that the ultimate insult?
It was done at the ultimate or penultimate CAC meeting; I forget which.
Why is that insulting? Just try putting yourself in my place. How would you feel if I referred to you as "she" all the time, taking it as a given?
I can deal with this; it comes with the territory of being a public individual. But there are many who take it much harder, because their lives are that much harder.
And the fact is that it is used deliberately to be insulting, which makes it completely unacceptable.
Dana
I think it was the next-to-the-last meeting. We were so surprised that nobody said anything, but I and others emailed the CRC rep about her offensiveness, and I know of at least two of us who notified the committee chair that we would not let it pass if it happened again.
It didn't.
I wrote in a recent post, the transgender situation is hard on our bifurcated language, and it is possible for anyone to slip when they're thinking about what they're talking about. I think a quick apology would cover the situation. As I recall, this was a recurring humorous motif in "Rent." Miss Jacobs' misuse though did not appear to be a mistake, but pure rudeness.
JimK
"The APA will regard an obsession with bestiality to be a kind of paraphilia, but having sex with animals says nothing about the person's psychological processes."
They say the same about an obsession with heterosexuality. They've essentially equivalized all sexual practices. I don't most Americans, even in Montgomery County, would agree.
Anon, this is a diagnostic manual for mental health professionals, it doesn't judge whether you're a good person or not, it simply classifies symptoms into categories for billing and treatment purposes.
There's nothing for county residents to agree about, it's a book for therapists.
JimK
Well, they need to agree about whether we should teach kids that homosexuality is not a mental disease. And since the APA has been used to justify not teaching that, it is relevant what else they are saying the same about.
It'd be better if the curriculum simply didn't say one way or another.
Anon, I don't see where the curriculum says it was or wasn't a mental disease. What page is that on?
Merle
Which one do you reference Merlo, the constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions or the new unapproved CAC document?
People who are unfamiliar with the phenomenon, and especially those that knew an individual in her or his prior presentation, will often make that mistake innocuously. And the longer you knew somebody before the more likely it is you will err. It's simply a matter of habit.
But the Dobsonites deliberately use it as a slur and insult.
Post a Comment
<< Home