Monday, August 30, 2004
VP dick cheney's daughter mary is openly gay, and the VP publicly supports her. i would have thought that no one more than gay activists would argue that this is her own personal business and no one else's, and that no one has the right to question how she deals with her sexual preferences. had i thought that, however, i would have been incorrect, as evidenced by this story in the new york times via myway.com:
mr. foreman arrogantly presumes to make a number of statements about the way in which ms. cheney views the world, her place in it, and her priorities. who is he to decide the fundamental elements of her existence, the 'basic life' about which he seems so sure? who is he to decide what her 'family aspirations' are? even mr. foreman seems willing to admit his total ignorance about this question, shown by his addition of the modal qualifier 'might'. and, at any rate, her devotion to her father seems to demonstrate a much more concrete sort of 'family aspiration' than anything about which matt foreman would like to speculate. and i'm even more astounded by his last question: 'so...against your people?' 'against your people'? since when are individuals who practice homosexuality a separate race? and since when is a person, based on his or her sexual orientation and choices, thereby responsible for an entire segment of the population of humanity? forgive me an analogy, but if i like to play basketball, and a group of people tells me that playing basketball in public is wrong, am i of necessity compelled to advocate for all basketball players who wish to play in public in the world? do i owe it to shaquille o'neal? or may i, as a valid agent making choices in the world, choose instead to be silent, or to be satisfied with playing basketball in private? and if i choose to do that, is it really any of matt foreman's business, whether he agrees with it in principle or not? or does a proclivity toward playing basketball in certain circumstances necessarily predicate an alliance with whoever likes to play basketball in any and all circumstances?
the issues which ms. cheney considers private should be left there, apart from the self-righteous pontifications of the likes of matt foreman. thus i end my own self-righteous pontification.
Gay rights advocates, on the other hand, accuse Ms. Cheney of selling out gays to aid her father's campaign.
"There is a profound sense of bewilderment bordering on betrayal," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Taskforce. "How is it possible that you could be working so hard for an administration that is so against your basic life, so against you and any family aspirations you might have, and against your people? I understand father-daughter ties, but it seems impossible to reconcile."
mr. foreman arrogantly presumes to make a number of statements about the way in which ms. cheney views the world, her place in it, and her priorities. who is he to decide the fundamental elements of her existence, the 'basic life' about which he seems so sure? who is he to decide what her 'family aspirations' are? even mr. foreman seems willing to admit his total ignorance about this question, shown by his addition of the modal qualifier 'might'. and, at any rate, her devotion to her father seems to demonstrate a much more concrete sort of 'family aspiration' than anything about which matt foreman would like to speculate. and i'm even more astounded by his last question: 'so...against your people?' 'against your people'? since when are individuals who practice homosexuality a separate race? and since when is a person, based on his or her sexual orientation and choices, thereby responsible for an entire segment of the population of humanity? forgive me an analogy, but if i like to play basketball, and a group of people tells me that playing basketball in public is wrong, am i of necessity compelled to advocate for all basketball players who wish to play in public in the world? do i owe it to shaquille o'neal? or may i, as a valid agent making choices in the world, choose instead to be silent, or to be satisfied with playing basketball in private? and if i choose to do that, is it really any of matt foreman's business, whether he agrees with it in principle or not? or does a proclivity toward playing basketball in certain circumstances necessarily predicate an alliance with whoever likes to play basketball in any and all circumstances?
the issues which ms. cheney considers private should be left there, apart from the self-righteous pontifications of the likes of matt foreman. thus i end my own self-righteous pontification.
