Parents
“Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, welcomed their seventh grandchild, Sarah Lynne Cheney, Wednesday, November 18, 2009. She weighed 6 lbs., 14 oz and was born at 8:17 A.M. at Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C. Her parents are the Cheney’s daughter Mary and her partner, Heather Poe.”
Her parents are.
Her parents are not some two hell-bound lesbians who chose an immoral lifestyle.
Her parents are two women who love each other enough to want to raise a child together.
That love is why I know that, eventually, after all the screaming is done, equality will come to homosexuals in this country. They will be able to get married to who they love, and they will be able to raise and love their children, because, in the end, love conquers hate. And all the “religious” freaks like David Anderson have supporting them is hate.
Comment by a. price on 20 November 2009 at 10:55 am:
head……..exploding. this makes me hate Dick even more. He obviously doesn’t even believe in the vile principles of his Hate Group. He just pretends to align himself with the violent virulent right to gain power. yay for his daughter and the family or whatever, but seriously. screw him.
Comment by Progressive Mom on 20 November 2009 at 10:58 am:
Where are Pat Robertson and the American Catholic bishops when you really need them?
.. ..
Comment by Another Mike on 20 November 2009 at 11:08 am:
Still waiting for the standard-bearers on the right to criticize this. Still waiting…
Comment by Republican David on 20 November 2009 at 1:31 pm:
It is a sad that this child is being condemned to being raised without a father by choice.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 20 November 2009 at 1:33 pm:
You never disappoint, David.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 20 November 2009 at 1:47 pm:
Dick Cheney used to be in a position of power to help out people like his daughter. Are we supposed to give him praise because he isn’t saying mean things about his daughter and granddaughter.
Comment by V on 20 November 2009 at 2:02 pm:
Maybe David’s kids would be better off with lesbian parents…
Comment by a.price on 20 November 2009 at 2:05 pm:
aw shucks V, ya went there. now david is gonna lock his kids in the basement and make them watch VeggieTales until they burn effigies of Will Pillips (the little gaywad
)
Comment by Republican David on 20 November 2009 at 2:22 pm:
There is a reason nature won’t allow two women or two men to procreate. It is not GOD’s will. I celebrate the life, but not the lifestyle. Forgive me if I don’t pass the proverbial cigar.
Comment by pandora on 20 November 2009 at 2:32 pm:
Hmmm… (Just off the top of my head) Dick Cheney, Alan Keyes, Phyliss Schlafly are all prominent conservatives with gay children. Perhaps being raised by a conservative makes you gay. David better watch out!
Comment by V on 20 November 2009 at 2:32 pm:
God makes the gay people. He also loves all his children.
Comment by pandora on 20 November 2009 at 2:33 pm:
And here’s the tired old “procreation” argument. In David’s world people who can’t, or won’t, have children aren’t really married. Is there any definition a conservative won’t whittle down?
Comment by V on 20 November 2009 at 2:36 pm:
So i guess people who adopt are also against God’s will. BRANGELINA = ABOMINATION!
Comment by Nosy on 20 November 2009 at 2:46 pm:
Procreation is needed for the survival of the species. Marriage not so much. The two don’t go hand in hand if you leave religion out of it. However, you do need a man and a women in order to conceive a child naturally. No two ways around that.
Comment by Scott P on 20 November 2009 at 2:47 pm:
And obviously, post-menopausal women should not get married, either.
Comment by Progressive Mom on 20 November 2009 at 2:49 pm:
That’s why McCain, Gingrich, et al divorced those first wives: if they can’t procreate, toss ‘em overboard and get one who can!
Comment by Progressive Mom on 20 November 2009 at 2:50 pm:
Nosy, do you think the planet is in danger of not having enough men and women who want to procreate with each other? Survival of the species, indeed! Just ask Bristol Palin.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 20 November 2009 at 2:51 pm:
Ah, but no, PM. McCain had children with his first wife, and so did Gingrich, I believe. No, they tossed them overboard because those wives were no longer of use to those supposedly moral men.
Comment by V on 20 November 2009 at 3:02 pm:
because they got sick or became disabled.
(through sickness and in health indeed)
Comment by Progressive Mom on 20 November 2009 at 3:35 pm:
I wasn’t clear, DD: I meant that the first wives got “too old” to birth them babies. And that’s exactly when they were no longer of use to those supposedly moral men.
Comment by arthur on 20 November 2009 at 3:38 pm:
David – 50% of american marriages end in divorce. Whose choice is it to condemn children to be raised in that environment?
Comment by Scott P on 20 November 2009 at 4:01 pm:
That’s a great point, arthur. If the great crime is that children are being raised in a household without a mother and a father, then couples with children should be prohibited from divorcing. Not to mention the forced marrying of single pregnant women.
Comment by V on 20 November 2009 at 4:12 pm:
Also Davey, clearly the presence of a father is necessary for the raising of a healthy child. That’s why those situations where parents who are unhappy but “stay together for the children” work out so well.
Comment by Ergonomic on 20 November 2009 at 4:12 pm:
“It is a sad that this child is being condemned to being raised without a father by choice.”
Good grief – what an exercise is story-telling.
Sad for whom and why? For the child? How could we possibly know if the child’s life is sad because of the absence of a male in the family?
Sad for the two women? doesn’t seem so.
And condemned. Condemned? Is not having a guy in the house some form of hell or something? What a ‘god’ complex, and by this I mean a male hetero ‘god’ – how can you make such a judgment?
No, it is sad for R. David and others, because, not content to live their own lives, they have to assign value judgments and emotional states to *other* people’s lives.
Isn’t each one of us busy enough trying to sort out our own lives, without imposing our thoughts/feelings/emotions/idealizations on others??
We should be.
Comment by liberalgeek on 20 November 2009 at 4:20 pm:
It should be noted that one should not assume that R.D. is white. He is presumptively male and quite possibly hetero.
Comment by Ergonomic on 20 November 2009 at 4:24 pm:
Good point – I once again was speedy on the edit button, coming to the same realization as you, liberalgeek.
Comment by xstryker on 20 November 2009 at 4:32 pm:
V is the winner of this debate.
Comment by Ergonomic on 20 November 2009 at 4:48 pm:
Yes. An DelDem’s original assertion … Amor Vincit Omnia … Love Conquers All … Can’t get enough of that. It is steadily conquering racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia. Amen.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 20 November 2009 at 4:57 pm:
There are two truths in life. Love does conquer all. And death comes to us all. These truths apply both individually and to society as a whole. Slowly, over successive generations, bigotry is dying, as those who spew the vile toxins of hate die. You just need to look at our history over the last 50 years to see that is true. In the 1960’s, conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats openly used the “N-word” in opposition to the Civil Rights bill on the Senate floor.
Now we have a black President.
And while that fact seems to have brought more racism to light, it is only because those racists left are making a final scream.
The same will happen with homosexuality and the bigotry against it.
Comment by h. on 20 November 2009 at 5:53 pm:
“No, it is sad for R. David and others, because, not content to live their own lives, they have to assign value judgments and emotional states to *other* people’s lives.
Isn’t each one of us busy enough trying to sort out our own lives, without imposing our thoughts/feelings/emotions/idealizations on others?? ”
Unfortunately, both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of the above.
Comment by lizard on 20 November 2009 at 6:03 pm:
so this is what it takes to get the left to celebrate a live birth.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 20 November 2009 at 6:05 pm:
I am now convinced that Lizard is Sarah Palin. Only Palin can sound so incoherent.
Comment by Progressive Mom on 20 November 2009 at 6:11 pm:
But what does it take to get the right to care for the already-born? Like with health care?
Comment by cassandra_m on 20 November 2009 at 6:16 pm:
We celebrate live births all of the time — unlike you we don’t try to impose any sense of illegitimacy on said live birth. These parents wanted their new baby, which is about all that matters and is worth celebrating here.
Comment by A. price on 20 November 2009 at 7:09 pm:
“so this is what it takes to get the left to celebrate a live birth”
well, usually we like to eat it.