[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if all you say above is/were true, it wouldn't change the fact that it's a rather insensitive, crude, low-class sort of thing to say in public, and a cheap shot of sorts. Even Andy Fox agrees with this I think. It just isn't the sort of thing I would say to an audience anywhere, even at the poker table. That it is common knowledge that she is gay doesn't much change my take on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to respond to Andy's several posts on this but your point serves as just a good jumping off point. To all you who thinks mentioning Mary Cheney is low or offensive, you need to ask yourself what is so offensive. It is only offensive if there is something shameful about being gay. If not (and the Kerry/Edwards position would clearly be this) then there is nothing embarrassing about this. It may not be appropo of much, but it is hardly offensive. In the first debate each of Bush and Kerry made innocuous references to the other's family members so mentioning family memebrs is not per se off limits. If Kerry had mentioned that Laura Bush was a librarian in the context of a question about education would everyobody have said that was a low blow, you can't use the president's wife as an example period. No. It is only if you think that there is something bad about the characteristic that is being described that would lead you to believe that it shouldn't be mentioned so as not to embarrass someone. But Kerry's point is that being gay is not a choice and is not something shameful.

The gay conservative Andrew Sullivan summarized this all much better than I am able to:

"All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. 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."