Obviously, it was done with some ulterior political motive in mind, and one that goes beyond simply the "this will prove me to be generous and decent" motive that was behind Kerry's talk about Bush having a lovely wife and being a good father.
BUT the strategic calculation that was behind this is NOT out of bounds. Kerry wasn't trying to exploit the voters' anti-gay sentiments. (No one looking to vote for the anti-gay candidate is going to vote for Kerry, whose statement on the issue was much more pro-gay than Bush's.) He was trying to inhibit Bush/Cheney's ability to exploit those sentiments, by reminding voters that the Cheneys (and probably the Bushes too) are, in fact, perfectly tolerant of homosexuality. He wasn't using Mary Cheney's homosexuality to score illegitimate political points. He was using it as a way to prevent Bush/Cheney from scoring illegitimate political points.
Alas, it looks like it's backfiring politically, but that's not because it was in fact an offensive move. It is because parental outrage -- even obviously feigned parental outrage -- makes great TV, and the lazy media insists on framing it in terms of the "Kerry took a shot at Cheney's daughter" angle, even though no one can explain what exactly that shot was.
The piece that makes it OK for me, and I'm bi for what that's worth, is that up until a few years ago, homosexuality was this *other* thing, not the Republican's problem, certainly not something that existed among their ranks. (Think Reagan and AIDS.) And now, as the GOP pursues policies that fly in the face of the upsurge of visibility and consciousness of regular America about gay people, Kerry and Edwards are rubbing their face in it, saying "look how you treat your own." Which I frankly feel is just fine and not an appeal to homophobia at all, rather a critique of it.
I especially like how PJS put it in John/Belle's comments (as an analogy to racism): "The point of doing so isn't to tarnish your opponent as the pro-black candidate. Rather, it is to neutralize the potency of the race issue by revealing both candidates to be, in their hearts, racially tolerant."
That's the most succinct explanation of why what Kerry did is ultimately ok, but in this post, what I'm addressing is the notion that finding the mention objectionable betrays anti-gay bias on the part of the person objecting.
I'm going to quote Andrew Sullivan, who I think addresses this well:
"Some of the subtler arguments I've heard overnight say the following: it's not that homosexuality is wrong; it's just that many people believe that and Kerry therefore exploited their homophobia to gain a point. I don't buy it, but let's assume the worst in Kerry's motives for the sake of argument. What these emailers are saying is that Kerry should hedge what he says in order to cater to the homophobia of Bush's base. Why on earth should he? The truth here is obvious: Bush and Cheney are closet tolerants. They have no problem with gay people personally; but they use hostility to gay people for political purposes, even if it means attacking members of their own families. What they are currently objecting to is the fact that their hypocrisy has been exposed. To which the only answer is: if you don't want to be exposed as a hypocrite, don't be one."
The outrage expressed seems to be because Kerry has made the political policy personal. They're outraged that Kerry would bring a real person into an depersonalized debate about "homosexuals." And that is bigotry.
As far as Kerry appealing to homophobes, perhaps he was, in a way. But he was appealing only to those who had already been appealed to by the administration. In so far as you can say that Bush's proposed amendment is an appeal to homophobes, then Kerry made an appeal to that same group, giving them a legitimate reason to rethink their positions. If it now occurs to them that "gee, NO ONE supports our strong anti-gay position; even Bush is somewhat tolerant!" - then i think that's for the better. Maybe they'll stay home on Nov 3.
Kerry was responding to the question "Is being gay something you are born as?". This is an important question. If sexuality is not inate, gay sexuality fits into behavior-based sin narratives; if sexuality is inate, it fits into person-based diversity narratives. No one is calling tall or short people sinful.
The fact that Mary Chenney is lesbian is anecdotal evidance that being gay is inate. Kerry could have made his point another way, but his point is legitamate.
If Mary Chenney was complaining that Kerry misrepresented her position, then Kerry should apologize. But, why would she complain, "Lesbian" is not a derogatory word.
And for the love of pete, Ogged, as Jack O'Toole notes today, Mary Cheney is a professional political lesbian. Her job is outreach to gays and lesbians.
Your continued discomfort with the mention of Mary Cheney by John Kerry is mind-blowing. Find me someone gay who was actually offended. Even the Log Cabin Republicans couldn't go any farther than "Kerry shouldn't have done that, but the Republicans are the people who made this a wedge issue, and that's where the real focus should be."
That Andrew Sullivan quote from Ted is the best argument. I couldn't imagine Bush being anything other than supportive if he had a lesbian daughter. Bush is "closet tolerant".
No no, I have no continued discomfort; over that, all better now. I'm just finding today's popular rebuttal: that someone would only ojbect if he thought being gay were objectionable, unconvincing.
Now I get it.
I can sort of see how there might be legitimate grounds for discomfort that aren't connected in any way to overt or latent homophobia. I think it can legitimately argued that these comments -- both Edwards' and Kerry's -- violated the privacy of the Cheney's, not by "outing" their daughter, but by fitting the relationship between their daughter and their party's politics into a political box when in fact the Cheney family is entitled to work that out in any way they please. The presumption behind what Kerry and Edwards was doing is that there must be some kind of conflict between the Cheneys relationship with their daughter and the anti-gay agenda of their party. But that really isn't their business to presume.
To use an analogy that implies more than I want to imply, consider the case of Strom Thurmond and his black daugher. They actually had a fairly complicated relationship in the sense that it was not as bad as you'd think. Although Thurmond's racial politics were awful, he and his daughter were nonetheless entitled to work out a relationship privately, provided his daughter did not come forward voluntarily on her own to complain. If Mary Cheney has no problem with what the republican party, under the partial leadership of her father, is doing on gay issues, then Kerry and Edwards are not entitled to imply (however indirectly) that she must have one. So that, I think, might explain the objection.
Of course, that's NOT what the Cheney's are saying. They are implying that Kerry somehow insulter their daughter, which is crap, but may be working.
Insofar as quite reasonable liberals can see the mentions as an appeal to homophobia
Reasonable liberals who feel this way simply haven't thought the matter through. Just because they are reasonable liberals doesn't mean they aren't wrong.
More importantly, "an appeal to homophobia" is phrasing the matter far too vaguely. To beg homophobes for their votes is quite a different thing from trying to drive a wedge between homophobes and the candidate who is begging for their votes (the starkest possible reading of K/E's invocation of Mary Cheney).
the notion that finding the mention objectionable betrays anti-gay bias on the part of the person objecting.
If I say that naming Mary Cheney bothers me, it doesn't mean that I have a problem with gays, but it does mean that I am lending validity and legitimacy to someone else's problem with gays.
I'm having trouble following your logic, Ogged.
a. "I'm saying that the argument [...] that only people who have some latent discomfort with homosexuality would find Kerry's mention of it objectionable, to be unconvincing."
b. "the fact is that homosexuality is a politically charged and divisive topic"
Seems to me that the reasons underlying fact (b) pretty much make argument (a) entirely convincing. Why is homosexuality qua homosexuality (as opposed to, say, the more specific issue of gay marriage) a "politically charged and divisive topic"? The answers look quite plain: 1) some people are personally uncomfortable with homosexuality; and 2) people think they can gain a political edge by exploiting the discomfort of the people in group 1.
I can only support your assertion (a) by noting that there are others whose discomfort is anything but latent.
Let's imagine CBS produces the following memo:
------------------------
Kerry/Edwards Campaign Headquarters
Topic: Mary Cheney
Hey guys, let's mention in the debates that Mary Cheney is gay so that people who dislike gays won't vote for Bush. The focus groups love it! Plus, maybe Bush or Cheney will get mad and look bad.
-------------------------
Would *this* make anyone think the mention was sleazy? Or is there some convoluted reason why it's still OK? I take it some (Ted Barlow/Andrew Sullivan) think the answer is basically "because Republicans attack gays, so it highlights their hypocrisy." That's pretty weak, in my view. Does anyone have another exculpatory theory?
Let me say it another way. I don't think I have an issue with homosexuality, but initially, when Edwards/Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney, I thought, "ah, an appeal to bigots," which I found objectionable. So, I a) am not uncomfortable with homosexuality, but b) found the use of it distasteful. Now, I've since given up my distaste, but that has nothing to do with whether I do or did find homosexuality itself troublesome personally.b
Tthe GOP is hammering on this point because they dare not run on their record, while strenuously casting themselves as angry, protective parents because they dare not repeat to their base that they are 'closet tolerants'. That is a substantially more nauseating political attack than Kerry and Edward's attempt to inoculate this election against the FMA and its politics of hate.
Kerry was playing politics with Cheney's daughter, sure, but with the goal of improving political discourse. Cheney is playing politics with his own daughter now, with the goal of resurrecting the FMA wedge issue and further coarsening the 2004 campaign.
It shocks me that any left-leaning partisan even considers which party did the right thing. The GOP has been using homophobia to shore up its support among social conservatives for years. Bush explicitly supports the FMA. And somehow when Kerry mentions a lesbian in a positive way, the Democrats are the bad guys?
Bush supports the FMA, Kerry doesn't. That should be the beginning and the end of your analysis.
Save your opprobrium for the bigots.
"We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it. And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them. I think we have to respect that."
That's an appeal to bigots? The ones who believe that homosexuality is a choice and that homosexuals are an abomination before God? Please.
baa, the national Democrats didn't make homosexuality an issue; they wanted to avoid mentioning it all costs. The GOP has pushed it and pushed it and pushed it because they thought it was an effective wedge issue. Bush proposed a freaking Constitutional Amendment to pre-emptively disallow individual states to grant homosexuals partnership rights. One he knew stood precisely zero chance of ever getting enacted, just to make Democrats cast a vote that he could use against them. Now it's sleazy for a Democrat to make reference to the fact that the VP's daughter is an open lesbian?
Fuck that.
Well, I think the response to the gay marriage issue is more complicated than you suggest, apostropher. Had the Massachusetts court not brought the issue to everyone's attention, I suspect we'd be hearing little about FMA. And while I support both gay marriage and gay rights, it is probably useful to note that these issues are not identical.
On the Mary Cheney issue, I take it, your view is basically that even *if* we learn that Mary Cheney was brought up for the explicit purpose of driving gay-haters away from Bush/Cheney, it's OK because of the GOP stance on gay rights. I understand this position, I just think it's a mistake. Partisans of both sides think their opponents have (morally) mistaken policy, but I think this is the first time the mention of a candidate daughter has been deployed to tactical advantage by his opponent during a nationally televised debate.
No, it's ok a priori. We don't want them voting.
Had the Massachusetts court not brought the issue to everyone's attention
And I'll wager that John Kerry was less than thrilled that they did, while the Republicans, facing a Massachusetts nominee, were downright gleeful. They didn't make much secret of it.
it is probably useful to note that these issues are not identical.
As I did in comment 12.
even *if* we learn
*If* my grandmother had testicles, she'd be my grandfather. Let's move away from implausible hypotheticals for the time being. I don't think it's a safe assumption that Kerry brought it up to drive a wedge; it's equally as likely that he was attempting to humanize the debate. Taken in context of the rest of the paragraph, it looks more like "we all know somebody who is gay."
Let's turn this around. Say the question was on immigration, and Bush said, "My opponent's wife immigrated and has been a great citizen and a proud American and she should be congratulated on that." Would anybody consider that sleazy, even though immigration is a hot-button issue? I doubt it.
I thought we were beyond the "was it sleazy?" question. The quote in comment 3 is the alternative explanation I like best. Are you still arguing sleazy, baa?
I think we should all blame Bob Shieffer. He should never have asked whether homosexuality is a choice. That's a totally inappropriate question for a Presidential debate. It's inappropriate because it's an empirical question into which neither candidate ought to have any special insight. The question was also inappropriate for its dubious implication that sexual voluntarism is morally or politically relevant.
I blame Bob Shieffer for everything, but, that aside, the claim that sexuality is a choice, and that it's therefore urgent to shield children from those who would lead them down the wrong path, is a stardard part of wingnut discourse. In that sense, it was a tough question for Bush, who is trying to rally the base and attract a few moderates; that's why he had to say "I don't know, Bob." Now, whether even chosen sexuality should be a subject for political debate is a separate question, but no way this country's there yet.
My questions to anyone who found Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney objectionable, for whatever reason would be:
1) Would Kerry mentioning any specific gay person by name be objectionable (assuming the person was publicly out, as was Mary Cheney)? If so, why?
2) If the answer to question 1) is "No", then I have a followup. Whom should Kerry have mentioned by name instead, and why? What makes naming that person less objectionable than Mary Cheney?
Hell yeah I'm still arguing it's sleazy! It's transparently sleazy, although perhaps not ranking high on the list of sleazy campaign moves to work oneself into a high moral dudgeon about. If the Kerry backers just said "welcome to hardball politics, perhaps you remember my friend Willie Horton" that would be one thing. Instead poeple are just justifying it as non-sleazy, which seems nuts to me. Can anyone think of a similar mention of the oppositions *family* in such a bizzaro context in a presidential campaign this century?
Apostropher, I get the feeling I'm irritating you. If so, sorry! And true, we'll never know if Kerry was trying to drive a wedge or humanize the issue. Although here's a thought: could he have humanized the issue without talking about the family of his opponents? Maybe!
Me!, The answer to question 1 is "no," the answer to question 2 is "someone who isn't the vice-president's daughter." The principle behind this is "leave families out of it."
Hmm. I'm convinced that there are non-sleazy explanations for mentioning it. And if you're arguing that family is always out of bounds, I'll need more convincing, because, as people keep pointing out, she's not just family, but a campaign worker.
Quit picking on Bobby Kennedy, he's just the Attorney General...there are thresholds, right?
Yeah, sure, of course there are shades of grey in this. Like, if Hilary Clinton is running the health care task force, you can say "what does she know about that?" Or if Nancy is doing "just say no" you can say, "what the *&% does she know about the pressures facing young people." And in both cases you could site biography as appropriate.
But Mary Cheney was not a big ticket political actor, at all. And Kerry/Edwards went way, way out of their way to mention her sexual orientation. And the most obvious explanation is the sleazy one. This is not hard. Your initial gut call on this, ogged, was correct. It was a sleazy play.
If I'm persuadable, you are too, dammit. Part of the problem is that we can't know Kerry's intent. It's possible that he was reminding homophobes that there's a big gay in the Cheney family, and it's possible that he was pointing out that even Republicans are closet tolerants. I can't be confident that I know which he intended, and given that the second option makes at least as much sense as the former, I'm reluctant to keep saying "sleazy."
Apostropher, I get the feeling I'm irritating you.
No, you're not. I come across more uppity in writing than I do in person. I know we're on the same side of the larger issue and debating a minor tangent. That, however, is part of what I find frustrating about the debate: the so-called liberal media is all over "the Cheneys are outraged" (manufactured outrage, I believe, given that Cheney announced it himself at a campaign stop) at the expense of the actual issue.
Anyhow, I think it's impossible not to bring family into this question because gay rights is inherently a question about family (you know, the anti-gay crowd is just trying to protect the American family and all that). And again, she isn't just family, she's the director of VP operations for the Bush campaign with a six-figure salary, and someone who has taken very public jobs doing outreach to the gay community for corporations. If she was Director of VP Operations, but not blood-related, would it be sleazy to say, "Your own campaign director is gay and you trust her with some of the most important decisions in the organization, because you respect her as a person."
If the question was about drunk driving and Kerry said, "Well, your wife has some experience here," or if the question was about drug policy and he brought up Nicole Bush's arrest, then I'd agree with you. But there just isn't anything wrong with being gay.
Baa, I see you as arguing that it's sleazy because Mary is family. In your view, family seems to be an unapproachable topic in a debate, no matter what. Is this correct, or is there another reason you think Kerry's response was sleazy?
"I'm so glad you asked me if homosexuality is genetic or not. My opponent's golf buddy is gay as a french horn, so I guess that means 'genetic'"
Not acceptible.
"Gay marriage is a tough issue. My position is the same as the president's. Identical. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Also, his chief economics advisor is queer as a tangerine"
Also dubious.
For more incisive, commentary, as always, consult Mr. Sun. It's getting more classy by the minute!
------
Brief and more serious asides.
Michael: yeah, family is basically off limits. that accounts for a good 80% of the slease. Second potn though, we aren't really "there yet" as a culture where someone's sexual identity is out there as a prop to be deployed willy-nilly in a presidential debate. So I find that borderline icky too. Obviously, as ogged notes, I only make that point because I hate gay people.
Apostropher, who ever said the issue was respecting gays as people? How was this topic even tangentially relevant to the mentions of Mary Cheney by Edwards and Kerry. I just don't see it.
You can respect gays as people and not think gay marriage is a good idea. This isn't my view, as you know. But it is the position of both our brave, brave presidential candidates.
Apostropher, who ever said the issue was respecting gays as people?
Um, that would be John Kerry. Re-read the actual quote up there in comment #16.
re Kerry's possibly sleazy motivations, baa, do you actually think there are some B/C voters who are so opposed to homosexuality that they will decline to vote for B/C now because of gay cooties? I find that very difficult to believe. if there are some people that nutty then a) there can't be many and b) seriously, no one needs to take these people's view into account, because they're fucking nuts. now, if it makes people think, "wow, I bet Bush socializes with and is polite to an actual living gay person, namely his VP's daughter. Hey, I don't think he hates gays enough to get my vote!" I think this is a legitimate doubt to try and raise in people's minds, because pretending to be a bigot for political reasons is even worse than really being one. if your hypocrisy runs in the direction of being a better person than you pretend to be, and you get called on that, then too bad. and not to repeat this for the nth time, but since being gay isn't embarassing, it's not rude to mention that people are gay. it's just not.
"I'm saying that the argument--which I've seen, off the top of my head, at Matt Yglesias, John & Belle, and Michael Berube--that only people who have some latent discomfort with homosexuality would find Kerry's mention of it objectionable, to be unconvincing."
Okay. Why? What's your argument?
I've already made my own in at least three posts, which, alas, perhaps off the top of your head you've not read, though I'd not claim I put the points any better anyone else. I'd link, but Blogger isn't letting me me get to my "manage posts" page at the moment. I'm sure you can find them, along with my other fine recent posts, quite quickly, though.
"...the fact is that homosexuality is a politicaly charged and divisive topic...."
And? Political debates aren't supposed to mention those?
If a candidate wants to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban Iranians, or those of Iranian descent, from obtaining citizenship, and strip citizenship from those presently possessing it -- because, you know, the events of 1979, and look how nasty the present leadership of Iran is -- would it be "tawdry" and out-of-bounds to mention that the candidate's daughter is the campaign's official liason to the Iranian-American community, is Iranian on her mother's side, has worked for years as a corporate liason to Iranian-Americans, has been a proud leader of an organization defending Iranian-American civil rights, has been publically proud for years of being of Iranian descent, and the candidate has said in speeches that he is proud of his daughter being part-Iranian?
Or am I tawdry and out-of-bounds for asking such an intrusive question that violates your privacy, given that, you know, there are people out there who find your being of Iranian descent offensive?
Serious questions. Have I been offensive? If not, the difference is exactly what?
If I were running for office, and working to pass a Constitutional Amendement to bar Jews from marrying, would you be outing me, and violating my privacy to note that I, or my imaginary daughter, were Jewish?
"...you can't pretend that a presidential candidate (and his vice-president) mentioning it in debates didn't mean anything by it."
Of course both Kerry and Edwards meant something by it: bigotry is wrong. Shocking and offensive and out-of-bounds! Bigots are offended!
This is wrong why?
My posts here, here, and here.
"...what I'm addressing is the notion that finding the mention objectionable betrays anti-gay bias on the part of the person objecting."
Okay. What are the other reasons?
Okay, later mentioned is not thinking things through; that's always a possibility. Anything else left?
JoeO says: "Kerry was responding to the question "Is being gay something you are born as?". This is an important question."
Actually, it's a politically utterly unimportant question, or should be. We guarantee people's rights not to be discriminated against by reason of religon in this country, and rightly so. This is purely a matter of choice. The idea that sexual rights should not be protected if they turn out to be scientifically proven to be somehow susceptible to choice is entirely wrong.
"Can anyone think of a similar mention of the oppositions *family* in such a bizzaro context in a presidential campaign this century?"
If you mean "this century," the 21st century, no. If you mean the 20th century, why, heck, surely Joe Kennedy was never, ever, ever mentioned in 1960. Of course, that was different, because he was mentioned as a derogation.
Same for John McCain's adopted daughter all of four whole years ago.
The mention in McCain's case was wrong. The mention of Joe Kennedy wasn't necessarily so, because he bankrolled Jack's campaign and career, and obviously arguably influenced his son's opinions.
Mary Cheney is one of the leaders of her father's campaign; she is mentionable both because of her inoffensive public sexuality and because of her high rank in his campaign. In any case, I guess it was completely sleazy of Dick Cheney to say in speeches and interviews that he was proud of his gay daughter.
"But Mary Cheney was not a big ticket political actor, at all."
This is complete nonsense. She's one of the lead actors in her father's campaign, as well as having spent a career as a professional political lesbian, as well as being discussed, as I just said, by her father as a gay woman.
One could just as well claim that it was out-of-bounds to comment on either the Kerry or Bush daughters' speeches to the respective conventions.
"Anyhow, I think it's impossible not to bring family into this question because gay rights is inherently a question about family (you know, the anti-gay crowd is just trying to protect the American family and all that)."
Also absolutely correct.
"Michael: yeah, family is basically off limits."
Then they can't work for you (the candidate) politically. One simply can't have it both ways.
"...do you actually think there are some B/C voters who are so opposed to homosexuality that they will decline to vote for B/C now because of gay cooties? I find that very difficult to believe. if there are some people that nutty then a) there can't be many...."
Belle, I beg you (and everyone else) to please go read the Washington Post series I linked to here, with particular focus on the two articles on the kid from Oklahoma. Be sure to read both (the two on the kid from Newark are also important).
"... b) seriously, no one needs to take these people's view into account...."
Exactly. And if I sound passionate about this topic, that's why. Catering to bigotry makes me furious. I don't say this to attempt to gain any false moral high ground; I don't think anyone here is being bigoted or catering to such; I'm simply observing before anyone else does that, yes, this is a subject I feel strongly about, and yes, I think Bush/Cheney cater to bigots, and no, I don't think it's the faintest bit wrong to say something innocuous that might bring that out.
Belle, I think it was designed to make people stay home, not necessarily swicth to K/E.
Gary, how would you feel if one of the Kerry daugthers was gay Bush had mentioned that? They've been "involved in campaigns " too. If you say: that's fine, I guess you're consistant, but I would have to disagree. I don't think that would be fine.
Look, here's a fact you may not like. Homophobes exists among the votign populations of both parties. Everyone is saying it's OK for Kerry to appeal to them usign Cheneys' daughter. This is because either a) Bush did so first, b) republicans do it more, or c) the GOP is net worse on gay rights issues. None of these seem like good reasons
Ok, baa, you agreed that you're problem is that Lynne is family. So, supposing it a different topic, say, women's rights, and Kerry mentioned her as a admiirable advocate of women's rights, I doubt you would have a problem. I don't think you're problem with this is really the family issue - it's the gay issue. I understand you intellectually support gay issues, but perhaps your feelings are a little more ambivalent?
"Gary, how would you feel if one of the Kerry daugthers was gay Bush had mentioned that? They've been 'involved in campaigns " too.'"
I don't think the level is "being involved" in the campaign. I think the level is being a major advisor or speaker or operative. Which would very much include Alexandra Kerry, but not the other Kerry daughter; Mary Cheney, but none of, so far as I've noticed, the other Cheney daughters, and neither of the Bush twins, though they've pushed up towards the margin in the last couple of months.
And, sure, if Alexandra Kerry were her father's campaign's official liason to the gay community, or a professional gay activist, or somesuch, of course there's nothing wrong with mentioning that. I shall now also reveal another awful, tawdry, fact: Alexandra is a woman! Condemn me for this intrusion into her privacy! After all, there are still plenty of sexist people out there. If Bush mentioned that Alexandra Kerry were a woman, he'd be appealing to the sexists!
"Everyone is saying it's OK for Kerry to appeal to them usign Cheneys' daughter."
See, one of our base differences here is that I completely don't agree that's what's going on (that it was a political remark, yes, surely).
I don't for one second believe there are any homophobes out there previously ill-disposed to vote for Kerry because of his lack of support for the anti-gay-marriage Amendment who, having heard that Mary Cheney is gay, is now going to vote for Kerry? Do you believe that? Seriously? Do you seriously think Kerry believes and believed that? Really? If so, can I have what you're smoking?
That Kerry very likely, indeed, may have have had the intention -- though this is purely speculative, of course, and is also very possibly entirely wrong -- of letting some of Bush's evangelical, anti-gay, supporters know that Cheney hasn't driven his daughter out with a stick, or put in a psychiatric hospitcal, or had the demons outed, or whatever, doesn't strike me in the least as appealing to homophobes, but as confronting them. I applaud that.
I imagine we may have to agree to disagree on that, to be sure. But I think your case would be a lot stronger if even a significant number of homsexuals agreed with your stout defense of them. Can you name some? What is your reaction to the fact that every gay blogger who can be found utterly disagrees with you, and, well, takes the same opinion I do (or vice versa, if you prefer)? Are all the gay people who can be found anti-gay in supporting Kerry's homophobic usage? Or what the heck? Respectfully, what kinds of sense is this?