|
|
THERE’S NOTHING ABOUT MARY
BY PETER KURTH (published 10.20.04)
The third and last in the
series of “presidential debates” went unwatched and unmissed by
this column, there being no question – as we’ve insisted now
for what seems like two or three decades – that the
“contest” on November 2 will be decided not by the people, but
by the press.
We are so sure of this,
indeed, that our head didn’t leave the pillow last week until it
learned that “homosexuality” had been talked about in the final
episode of the beauty pageant.
Specifically, after George W.
Bush had just remarked with typical clarity, “Whoo! Let me start with the Pell grants,”
the “moderator” of the debate that evening, Bob Schieffer of
CBS News, responded sharply, “Mr. President, let's get back to
economic issues. But let's shift to
some other questions here.”
If you can figure out what
that means, bully for you.
Schieffer’s brother Tom is not only Ding-Dong’s current
ambassador to Australia, one of our stauncher allies in the Coalition of
the Willies – excuse me, the Willing -- but was formerly also his
business partner when he (Dumbo) “ran the Texas Rangers,”
according to Time magazine.
None of this was formally
disclosed, of course, before, during or after the debate. Addressing both candidates, brow furrowed
and heart aflame, Schieffer pressed bravely on: “Both of you are opposed to gay
marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to
ask you a more basic question. Do
you believe homosexuality is a choice?”
Dimwit answered first. “You know, Bob,” he said,
“I don't know. I just don't
know.” And, indeed, he
doesn’t. Neither does he
care: “I do know that we have
a choice to make in America,
and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. I also know, in a free society, people,
consenting adults, can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored.”
Bush then went on to dishonor
the way lots and lots of people in this free society want to live, spouting
a lot of blather about “the sanctity of marriage” and how
“important” it is “that we protect marriage as an
institution between a man and a woman.” Words that are easy to say, and which no
one can really contradict, provided you realize that “a man and a
woman” means one man and one woman at a time. You can have as many as you want if you
do it in order – i.e., “my first wife,” “my second
wife,” “Cyndi” and little Ego, Jr., then long years of
drooling idiocy and Viagra-popping to keep the old man’s plug in
gear. There’s nothing sacred
about it, I’m afraid, so long as any “heterosexual” idiot
can marry on a whim and divorce at the same level of thought.
Well, all right – this
is old news. The kicker didn’t
come from anything Ding-Dong had to say, but from Kerry’s perfectly
straightforward comment that Dick and Lynne Cheney’s daughter Mary
is, you know, a lesbian.
"We're all God's
children, Bob,” is what this Massachusetts
liberal actually said. “And I think if you were to talk to Dick
Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you she's being who she
[is]; she's being who she was born as. I think if you talked to anybody,
it's not [a] choice."
Well! Judging from the response of the Bush
campaign and a raging horde of right-wing bigots, bloggers and blowhards,
you’d have thought Kerry had accused Mary Cheney of stealing Christian
babies and drinking their blood, as well as having little horns growing out
of her head. Certainly, the response
of the Cheney family and their minions would suggest that they think the
label of “lesbian” amounts to really, really bad news. Listen to Mama Cheney, post-debate.
“I [had] a chance to
assess John Kerry once more,” she said. “And the only thing I could
conclude is that this is not a good man.
And I’m speaking as a mom and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political
trick.”
Of course, Mrs. Cheney might
well have asked if Bob Schieffer’s question to the candidates was
itself “cheap and tawdry,” there being no way for anyone with a
brain to answer it; the question was posed in the first place only to
highlight such minuscule differences as exist between Bush and Kerry on a
issue that doesn’t touch them personally or, I expect, concern them
at all
Mrs. Cheney may even have
considered it “cheap and tawdry” that Kerry, by mentioning
Mary, deftly evaded the whole gay-marriage flap. But she wouldn’t want to repeat the
phrase too often, lest “cheap and tawdry” bring to mind the
essence of her own 1981 “lesbian romance novel,” Sisters, a steamy potboiler,
reportedly slated for republication this year, that “celebrates”
Sapphic love, according to The New
York Daily News, promotes the use of condoms and other
“preventative devices” and features a woman character
“who has unmarried sex with the widow of her sister.”
Wait a minute – hold
everything. How can a woman have sex
with her sister’s widow unless the sister and the widow were married
to start with? Hmm.
Well, let’s not look
too closely at that. Sisters isn’t the kind of book
an indignant mom would want to see passed around at the next Republican pot
luck. It was, however, recently
adapted for a satirical staging at the New York Theatre Workshop as part of
a celebration of Laura Flanders' scathing expose, Bushwomen: Tale of a Cynical Species. Lines like these nearly brought down
the house:
“Let us go away
together, away from the anger and the imperatives of men. We shall find
ourselves a secluded bower where they dare not venture. There will be only
the two of us, and we shall linger through long afternoons of sweet
retirement."
And even better, here’s
one of the dykes in Sisters
reflecting on a letter from her lover:
"How well her words describe our love -- or the way it would be
if we could remove all impediments, leave this place, and join together.
... Then our union would be complete. Our lives would flow together, twin
streams merging into a single river."
I won’t contribute
further to the moral degradation of this great land by singling out other,
similarly depraved quotations from Mrs. Cheney’s chef d’ouevre. If
homosexuality really is “a choice,” Mrs. Cheney’s
high-romantic tastes – not to mention her writing style -- might
easily have improved over the years, just as the whole Cheney clan,
I’m sure, is looking forward to the day that Mary comes to her senses
and marries an oilman somewhere. Or
becomes a nun, if being gay isn’t
a choice.
Suffice to say, in
Kerry’s defense, Mary Cheney is a “known lesbian,” that
is, an “openly gay” person, who has previously worked for the
Republican Party in an effort to drag faggots into the fold; who did the
same thing for a while for the Coors’ beer factory in Colorado; and
who didn’t seem to mind at all, last August, when Dick Cheney told a
crowd of Republican proto-fascists in Iowa, “Lynne and I have a gay
daughter.” Mary was even
mentioned by name and, um, preference, at the Vice-presidential debate,
when Democrat John Edwards complimented Cheney père for his
"wonderful" willingness to talk about his daughter's sexual
orientation without dropping dead in his tracks.
But this big, swollen,
throbbing non-issue won’t be going away anytime soon. Last week, the worldwide Anglican Church,
under the direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, issued a 93-page
report that chastised its American branch, the Episcopal Church (USA), for
having “caused deep offense” last year when it approved the
ordination of “openly gay” Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New
Hampshire.
“By electing and
confirming such a candidate,” says the Anglican decree, “in the
face of the concerns expressed by the wider communion, the Episcopal Church
(USA)” should be sent to bed without its supper – or
something. It’s hard to tell
what this lunatic document really means.
Certainly, it recommends that the US Church “express it
regret” for such a colossal misdeed; that anyone who took part in the
consecration of Robinson should think about withdrawing “from
representative functions in the Anglican Communion”; that a
moratorium should be placed at once on Church blessings of same-sex unions;
and that Episcopal clergy, if they happen to find themselves “living
in a same-gender union” should knock it off, pronto.
As might be predicted, none
of this will happen. Conservatives
in both the American and worldwide Communion are “disappointed”
by a report that fails to come down harder on the “offensive”
parties in their midst and are currently stomping off with their dolls and
going home. Those who assisted at
Robinson’s ordination are standing firm on his fitness for the job. The Archbishop of Canterbury is wringing
his hands, saying there are no “simple answers.”
The only two people who kept
their mouths shut last week were Robinson and – you guessed it
– Mary Cheney, both of whom seem to think that the world will go on
spinning, one way or another. Amen,
as they say, to them.
|
