I love the spin Lileks, Instapundit, et. al., are giving to the Mary Cheney thing: Kerry is trying to drive a wedge between Bush and the homophopes who support him. Actually, Kerry was showing the hypocrisy of Republicans who profess to love their gay children while trying to pass constitutional amendments that would deprive them of even the most meagre benefits of marriage.

It was no secret that Mary Cheney is a lesbian; the Vice-President has mentioned it many times in this campaign. She also isn't just trying her damnedest to stay out of the spotlight; she is an important part of his campaign. Sure, Kerry could have made his point without mentioning her, but it was hardly off-limits.

Sorry, I respectually disagree.

The line Kerry crossed was to introduce anyone else's daughter without permission. Had he ben speaking of his own lesbian daughter, his own Nobel Prize-winning daughter, nobody would have blinked.

But to pull somebody else's kid up to the spotlight--utterly gratuitiously--transgresses. It would be crass were Mary Cheney a Nobel Prize-winner, a non-entity of any sort, or in a wheelchair like Chris Reeves. You can't play with other people's children to make political points.

Besides, he was so busy throwinging Cheney into the picture, he never actually answered the question.

Oh, look: It's the Chelsea Clinton defense. Don't pick on some poor kid who just happens to be so-and-so's daughter!

Two things:

(1) Mary Cheney is a full-grown adult woman who's up-front about her orientation.

(2) Mary Cheney is a key player in Cheney's campaign.

We're not talking about some gawky 14-year-old innocent here. We're talking about an adult woman involved in the political process of her own volition.

More importantly, you're missing the point: It's not insulting to note someone's gay unless you think there's something wrong with being gay. It's like saying someone has blue eyes or is tall.

Unless you're a religious rightist who thinks homosexuality is a sin that can be corrected and forgiven; then, it's an insult. Here's what I don't get: If it's a sin, how come I've never been tempted? Believe me when I tell you it's not because I'm so very righteous that I'm protected by God from it. I've fallen prey to my share of sins. That "sin" has no appeal to me at all. Funny, I thought sins were supposed to be, what's the word . . . tempting?

"Right now what Bush has going for him is that he perceives global terrorism as something more than a nuisance. ... Where would the Bush campaign be right now if the Democrats had actually nominated a guy who was any good at this game?"

Lieberman might well be out in front. And I say that as a life-long Republican. Gephardt? Hard to say.

I'm with you Ilyka,

I looked at the comment and go; so, okay. He said that she was gay and would probably say she was that way because of birth. Can we move on here? Nothing big, nothing major; he didn't slam her and say that she was posioning the world with her behaviour or what-not.

As far as the No Child Left Behind; I'm on e-mail list where this has been a topic of discussion. One woman stated that her school, five years prior, had been a blue ribbon school, but was now failing because the school catered to a varied population (in terms of abilities) and those who needed more help weren't making the cut in one area.

So I don't know how good of a policy it can be if numbers are more important than real facts.

Then again, I'm not shouting GO KERRY either.

I hate this election.

Who are these "you guys" you are talking about? Lileks? Well -- I don't recall Lileks mentioning gay marriage or marriage-protection legislation in any sort of way, so that leaves him out of the second half of this so's-your-old-man scenario. Of course I have read some conservative (well, not leftist) bloggers who disapproved of the Mary Cheney mention, and some of these bloggers are also not in favor of the marriage-protection thing. (Glenn Reynolds comes to mind.) And of course there are some for. But most of these people have taken pains to explain that they don't think that there is anything wrong with Mary Cheney being gay, they just think it was a cheap shot to bring up Cheney's own kid. (Yes, I realize you think it's silly for famous people to get upset when their family members are dragged into arguments.)

For the record, I don't think Kerry did that because he is trying some underhanded get-the-homophobes'-vote tactic. I think he did that because like many modern-day liberals he sincerely doesn't understand how a parent of a gay child who loves that child and is not (openly, anyway) disapproving of their sexual orientation can also be against officially approving the union of two people of the same sex as a "marriage" equivalent to that of two people of the opposite sex. So it seemed quite natural to bring it up. Other people (who are classic liberals not really conservatives -- classic liberals believe in the separation of the private home sphere from the public sphere, while classic conservatives are, or were, actually the ones who believed that one's private life was inextricably tied with public life, and that in fact the two could not be separated) didn't see it that way; they saw a violation of the opposition's private life. And after all, the Bush candidacy has not, to my knowledge, brought up Kerry's divorce/annulment -- though many Bush supporters have, and I think they should shut up about that.

As for Andrew Sullivan, his "shocked, shocked!" act over Bush not turning out to be the Champion of the Gays is unconvincing. I guess he was the last to find out Bush was, after all, a Republican, and they aren't going to be in the forefront of pushing an issue like gay marriage, well, ever.

By the way, for some reason my url in the link above goes to a defunct site that I had had up for a while as an experiment. (The "blog 2" part.) Dunno how that happened.

Cheney has mentioned his daughter in precisely one speech, the one in which he delicately made it clear that he didn't really agree with the FMA.

I do not see the word "lesbian" as a perjorative--and I most certainly don't see homosexuality as a choice--but I thought Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney came across as stilted, and forced, which led me to believe it was a part of some crass political calculation.

I also have the feeling that the Cheneys are private people, so the traditional prohibition against bringing the opposition's family into a campaign (in all but the blandest, "my what a nice family you have" uncontroversial way) was particularly egregious in this case.

And there is a difference between being "out" enough to work a statewide outreach program and wanting your sexuality discussed on national TV.

Finally, I felt that it was out of line for Kerry to speculate on what Mary Cheney might feel the origins were of her own homosexuality. It seemed rude and presumptuous. How does he know what's in her mind?

Always a pleasure, Ilyka.

William Safire is on this in his column today, too. About the Edwards debate mention, he says, "Until that moment, only political junkies knew that a member of the Cheney family serving on the campaign staff was homosexual."

What? Next thing you know, they'll be talking about each other's private lives and maybe even family values instead of Presidential issues. Is sex and sexuality suddenly off limits now?

I find their righteous indignation amusing.

Lieberman might well be out in front. And I say that as a life-long Republican. Gephardt? Hard to say.

John, Kerry is NOT my favorite candidate ever, and he's certainly not that wonderful at campaigning, but I do like him. If Lieberman were the nominee, it would be a serious effort on my part to vote for him. I'd definitely be in the ABB crowd instead of the pro-Kerry crowd and I'd probably have to hold my nose in the voting booth.

And Ilyka, I love your analysis of this. I seriously don't see the big deal over the whole thing.

This is why we missed you so much.