I don’t think the Mary Cheney flap is worth all the discussion going on, but I ought to reply to some of the answers to my earlier post.
First, a Mr. Richard Feder, of Fort Lee, New Jersey, writes
You write, “I’ve mentioned my homosexual cousin a couple times very briefly, but I decided it was inappropriate to discuss the subject on my blog because that is his private life. Although his being gay is no secret, it is a private matter that is not properly the subject of world-wide discussion.”But then—Heterosexuality is always public. Kerry and Bush were both asked about the women they married, and no one cared. Gays and lesbians who are very publicly out of the closet--as Mary Cheney has been for years—want only to be treated as though this aspect of their lives were nothing to be ashamed of.
Was Kerry presuming too much to speak for her? I think so, yes. But when she has taken an active role in the campaign, and worked for gay and lesbian visibility in other venues, her sexual orientation is not a “private” affair, not any more than, say, the fact of Kerry or Bush being married. In a sense, their marriages are their “personal lives,” but it’s high time to stop treating gays and lesbians as though they are some kind of dirty secret. I know. I’ve had to put up with that nonsense from my own family, and frankly, I can’t stand it.
That’s a good point, but it doesn’t work well on me, because I think heterosexuality should be a private matter too. I’m sick to death of having to hear about First Ladies and how important a candidate’s wife is to him, and having to see his kids and so on. Look, I don’t care if his dick works; I want to know if he’s got a brain! So I am just as irritated at having to hear about the candidates’ wives as I am about their kids. The difference in this case, however, is that the wives have chosen to inject themselves into the campaigns, speaking at conventions and so on, so it would be fine for Kerry to mention Mrs. Bush (in a gentlemanly way, of course). But, so far as I know, Miss Cheney, has not taken an active role in the campaign, or worked for gay and lesbian visibility in other venues. If I’m wrong about this, then my opinion on the matter would probably change. I was under the impression that she has chosen to remain out of the spotlight, and if that’s the case, it is wrong for Kerry to drag her into it.
Finally, I don’t know that Mr. Cheney, or President Bush, for that matter, has treated Miss Cheney’s homosexuality as “some kind of dirty secret.” They have never tried to hide it; they have simply asked that people respect her right to be a private person. But if you want to be sick to death of something, why not be sick to death of Miss Cheney’s homosexuality being exploited in this way? Mary Cheney is a human being, but to John Kerry and John Edwards, she is just a Convenient Homosexual, to be dragged into the spotlight against her will for their own political purposes. If homosexuals don’t want to be treated as things, seen as nothing more than whom they choose to sleep with, I would think that they would also want to respect the right of a homosexual person to her own privacy.
Again, if I am wrong, and if Mary Cheney has gone out there and given speeches and said “I’m gay and I’m Republican,” then my opinion would be different. But as a private person, she ought to be free to remain such.
Then the Atheism/Agnosticism Blog says
the usually fair Timothy Sandefur objects...“Kerry could have said something like ‘Many of us have close family members who are gay...’ or something, and that would have been entirely appropriate....’ The idea that a vague reference to “family members” is adequately addressed by Sullivan—that doesn’t put a face on the issue in the same way that a specific name does....
That’s just the point. Private persons shouldn’t have their faces put on an issue, and I don’t see why it’s “unfair” for me to say that.
[Sandefur] also writes:Can you imagine if George Bush had said “One of the reasons health care costs are so high is because Americans let themselves get so fat that that we’re all having heart attacks—I mean, look at John Edwards’ wife. We all know how fat she is…” That would have been inappropriate. But how would that have been different than what John Kerry did?
None, [Mr. Sandefur], if one is also ashamed of being overweight and of the health consequences that condition entails (there is also the fact that the suggested quote is an attack on Edward’s wife as someone who “let’s” [sic] herself get fat, an obvious and massive difference). As soon as anyone moves to an example of some condition that isn’t something people are ashamed of, it’s immediately clear that the reference isn’t a problem.
Not at all. There are things in my life of which I am not ashamed, but which are private and are not matters for public consumption. Sex is one of the primary examples of that. I am not ashamed of my sexual life, but it is not a matter for public consumption. And there are some people who are not ashamed of being fat, and who publicly campaign for “equal rights” for fat people. That does not mean that it would be appropriate to publicly refer to a candidate’s family member as being fat.
Finally, Ed Brayton quotes my mention of my gay cousin whom I’ve not discussed on my blog because that is a private matter. He says
If someone is openly gay, why should the subject be such a taboo that the mere mention of it, even in a complimentary way, should be considered a faux pas...? I think perhaps the real disagreement here stems from our different ways of drawing what we might call lines of civility. He is much more formal than I am in terms of how you address another person, for instance, and perhaps it’s just a function of the level of formality that we assign to social interactions in general. Perhaps he just feels that any mention of something like that publicly, even when done in a complimentary manner, is in poor taste.
Indeed, that’s right. President Bush is an openly heterosexual father of two. It would nevertheless be improper for me to go on television and say “Hey, George, what is it like to have sex with Laura? I mean, she’s really pretty. You’re a lucky guy to have sex with her.” That’s complimentary...isn’t it?
The fact that people can disagree about the propriety of public reference to a private person’s life is exactly why they are off limits—because it is not proper to push people into informality. That is called presumption.
Finally, several people point out that when John Edwards referred to Mary Cheney in the vice presidential debate, Vice President Cheney thanked him. This proves nothing. Pointing out another person’s impropriety to his face is often itself improper. For example, it is presumptuous and insulting for Austin Cline to call me “Tim,” as he does twice or three times on the Atheism/Agnosticism blog. But it doesn’t rise to the level of a serious offense, so I don’t say anything about it.* Same goes for Dick Cheney. The politeness of Mr. Cheney’s response to Mr. Edwards’ lack of grace is not to be construed as permission to push impropriety still further.
Now, again, if Mary Cheney really has come out and used her homosexuality as a public issue, or if Dick Cheney has really done so, then my opinion would be different. (It is true that Cheney, in a spur-of-the moment answer to an audience question, did say that his daughter is gay. Although this is not the same as purposely putting her in his speech, it is inappropriate, and Brayton is right that he deserves criticism for that.) But so far as I know, her being gay was a private, non-secret matter that is simply none of anybody’s business. That’s a very important phrase, you know. In fact, it is probably the single most important phrase in the English language: none of your business. On that phrase rests all of civilization, and we ought to take care to respect it—liberals no less than conservatives. If it’s not George Bush’s business whom you sleep with (and it’s not) then it’s also not your business whom Mary Cheney sleeps with.
End of discussion, as far as I’m concerned.
P.S.: Still no condemnation from Brayton of Edwards’ promise of miracle paralysis cures from a Kerry Administration.
*-Yes, the irony of this reference is intentional.
