Why is an uproar being made over Kerry pointing out this obvious fact that Cheney himself publicly acknowledged? The girl goes around proudly declaring her lesbianism, and Kerry using it his response to the question of whether or not homosexuality is a choice is somehow wrong and offensive? I don't get it. And yes, lesbianism is a word, and if it isn't, it should be.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Well, it's probably bad form to bring up the relatives of people from the top levels of your opponent's administration in order to argue against one of their beliefs. It's a bit personal, I think, and there are plenty of other homosexual people he could have brought up. But I can't say I had a very strong reaction either way when he said it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just read an article about that. I don't think he was being insulting in the slightest bit...
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
You know what? Pointing out that an openly gay woman is a lesbian is only bad if you think that there's something WRONG with being a lesbian.
Fox News knows that a significant portion of the Republican party does think there's something wrong with being a lesbian, so they're going for Kerry's throat over this.
But think about it.... was there an uproar when Kerry mentioned that Bush had great daughters and a wonderful wife? No.... even though it was personal and a "political" move, there's nothing "wrong" with being a great daughter or a wonderful wife.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think Kerry was using his daughter as an argument against him. It's tacky to use your opponent's family as a weapon.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
So, kat, then you agree that pointing out that an openly gay (and proud of it) woman is a lesbian is an attack?
It's like saying that pointing out the hair color of a blonde woman is insulting. It only makes sense if you believe that being blonde is somehow inferior.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When you are arguing with someone, it is bad form to use anything about their family to discredit them. It doesn't matter what it is.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
To "discredit" them? How exactly does this discredit Bush or Cheney?
quote:"We're all God's children," Kerry said. "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 a choice."
[ October 15, 2004, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: Zeugma ]
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Here's a hypothetical situation:
Cheney: "I think that all people in this great nation have the ability to achieve their dreams. I think that if you asked John Edwards, who was the son of a mill worker, he would agree. He is the embodiment of the American dream."
Now, Edwards has made this point himself several times during the campaign. If Cheney were to say this as a response to a question, do you think Edwards' mom would be all over the radio claiming that Cheney was a "bad person"? That Cheney was using her husband's shameful poverty as a political tool?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Mod: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
Kerry (paraphrased): Ask Dick Cheney's daughter if it was a choice.
WTF? Just answer the question. We aren't here to talk about what other people think.
What possible reason could he have, if not a political jab, to mention Mary Cheney? I don't care that both sides are using her as a tool, I just expect more from Kerry.
Poly, I think you're being disingenuous. I like Kerry, but in this instance, I think he would've been better off bringing his (more popular) opinion up, rather than bringing his opponent down.
This isn't an argument about whether or not Cheney's ashamed of his daughter, it's about whether or not we should be using family as ammo.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I honestly believe that you can't possibly see this as an "attack" on the Bush/Cheney campaign unless you agree that being gay is shameful and wrong.
I believe that Kerry was simply using the closest example he could find, and framing the question in a more human light. I absolutely did not read what he said as any kind of attack.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I honestly believe that you can't possibly see this as an "attack" on the Bush/Cheney campaign unless you agree that being gay is shameful and wrong.
I totally disagree. It's obviously an attack, but because I know that a lot of Republican support is against homosexual marriage. I don't agree with those people, but it's an attack by Kerry nonetheless. And using family members in an attack is tacky at best.
[edit: and a bad attack, at that. I think that playing up the Mary Cheney card isn't going to lose Bush his anti-homosexual marriage votes, but it might gain him some fence-sitters who think that Dick might temper his strong anti-gay stance]
[ October 15, 2004, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't think that is true either. I don't see that being gay makes anyone inferior, but homosexuality is a political liability when running for national ofice, and it isn't being descriminatory to admit that.
I support Kerry, but I was incomfortable with that answer....although it made sense to phrase it that way....it brings home the fact that the Republican ticket itself is split on gay issues, which is something that they have been teying to sweep under that table. I strongly dislike Cheney, but in this case I think he is right and Bush is wrong.
Still, it is considered very tacky to use someones family against them, unless that family is out there compaining....which, as far as I know, Cheney's daughter has not been doing. Once a family memeber enters the public arena, then they are fair game....but until then, stay away from specific attacks.
Not that big a deal, but....
Kwea
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
quote: I honestly believe that you can't possibly see this as an "attack" on the Bush/Cheney campaign unless you agree that being gay is shameful and wrong.
Cheney's daughter is openly gay, this is a fact. She is not out in the streets campaigning for gay rights, she is not often with her father on the campaign trail, she is just living her life. Taking her and turning her into a political tool is wrong.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
About Edwards being from a mil workers family...it isn't the same thing at all.
Beig from a mill workers family qon't cost Edwards votes, except for maybe a few snobs....it isn't a political liability, and if it was mentioned it wouldn't be consrued an attack, because it isn't controversial.
Acknwledging something like lesbianism is a potential liability, and there is no doubt that thet is why Kerry mentioned it in a public forum. Not because he felt it was the most honest/complete answer to the question, but because he saw a potential "point" for himself in the debate.
People, if they aren't politicians, are not points in a debate....even if they are family.
It's not like Kerry raised the question, though...I just don't think he answred it that well, and was a bit tacky.
After all, they ARE using their families to run for office....and they are all in the public eye constantly.
Kwea
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Well, at least we can all agree that having a lesbian daughter is enough to lose you some Republican votes. It's disappointing, but I guess it lets you know where people stand.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It should also be mentioned that Mary Cheney has been, in times past, a public advocate for gay civil rights. Yet since she has been working for her father's campaign she has been surprisingly absent from the public's eye.
I think Kerry would have been far more effective with something like: "I believe that people are what God made them. I think all of us here have a gay friend, a son, a daughter, someone you care about deeply. Would they say it was a choice?"
Gets the point across, doesn't pick on Mary.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
I don't see this as picking on Mary. Personally, I think this whole 'uproar' is a non-issue and a desperate attempt to grab on to something in hopes that it can slow down the Kerry momentum.
I think the Bush/Cheney campaign cheered when Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter. It gave them something to attack coming out of a debate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, at least we can all agree that having a lesbian daughter is enough to lose you some Republican votes. It's disappointing, but I guess it lets you know where people stand.
It's enough to lose you some Democratic votes as well, which of course is the reason Kerrey said it.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Does anyone remember Billy Carter?
People dogged Chelsea Clinton for awhile, bu that was mercifully cut short.
There were a few headlines about GWB's daughter's troubles with substance abuse and somewhat injudicious behavior.
Ultimately, nobody takes these things seriously. We aren't electing the relatives of the President. We're electing the President.
The only people who would take it seriously (that someone HAS a homosexual daughter, son, or whatever) and base their choice of leader on that is, IMHO, missing the point.
Cheney has used his daughter's lesbianism in the campaign. Kerry should not have. But it's not a big deal for most people choosing the President.
And he didn't say anything bad about her. He simply pointed out the same thing that Cheney has said on a number of occassions.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Personally, I think it was a stupid move on Kerry's part, since the reaction of the Cheneys and the media in general was entirely predictable.
So this morning it was arguably THE major political story of the day on the morning shows, dominating (cough) less significant stories such as the announcement that we will have to raise the debt ceiling.
I think the latter story would help Kerry more. Instead, the media is talking about his remarks about Cheney's daughter. Stupid move. IM(cough)HO
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
From Andrew Sullivan (openly gay, openly conservative writer):
"Let's say the president was proposing [...] a constitutional amendment to ban inter-racial marriage. Now let's say the veep's daughter was married to a black man. Would it be relevant then? Of course it would. But there is an obvious solution to this debate: let Mary speak. She's running the veep's campaign. She's an adult. Why can't she tell us if she's upset by Kerry's and Edwards' remarks? Give her a microphone, guys. What are you afraid of?"
I agree that Kerry's remark was sloppy. I do not agree that it was out of line.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It's pretty clear that Kerry's remark was not an attack. Even if other people do think homosexuality is something bad, they all know Kerry does not think it is something shameful.
However, the Republican response IS an attack. They are bringing out Cheney's wife in this to, once again, try to convince the voters that Kerry was saying things he didn't - the he was making an attack when he wasn't. This has consistently been their strategy, so I don't think we have much good reason to think they've changed - and that Mrs. Cheney really thinks this was an attack.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Oh, I think it was an attack. I just don't think it was what Kerry's being accused of - trying to use a candidate's children to embarass him.
It's an uproar because Kerry is being accused of picking on Cheney's daughter, when he was (I believe) just trying to point out the flaws in his opponent's stand on the gay marriage amendment by putting a human face on it, one that is close to their hearts.
If Karl Rove were gay, and Kerry mentioned him by name instead, there would not have been the same uproar.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I agree that Kerry's remark was sloppy. I do not agree that it was out of line.
I agree with this, but I don't think I was clear. I don't think there was anything unfair or unkind or "out of line" about the remark.
But when the words came out of Kerry's mouth, I had a pretty good idea of what the response of the Bush camp would be and how the media would go with it. If it's no surprise to me, shouldn't Kerry have been able to see this coming? Dumb move, as judged by the results.
[ October 15, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Kerry is just using the same sleazy tactics that he has been using. We saw this when he successfully provoked Bush in the first debate when he intentionally left out Poland of the coalition. We saw it all three debates when he repeated the same false job numbers that Bush is unable to call him on. He's also being incredibly presumptuous to think he knows how the Cheney family feels. But it works for him, it gets conservatives questioning Cheney, it gets under Bush's skin, and it makes him look compassionate.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
How is it sleazy to leave a country out of the coalition that is withdrawing from the coalition? That's just being accurate.
And the job numbers weren't false. They were just the most negative numbers he could have picked out to represent job decline.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I honestly believe that you can't possibly see this as an "attack" on the Bush/Cheney campaign unless you agree that being gay is shameful and wrong.
quote:After the debate, Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said Cheney's daughter was "fair game."
Fair game? That means Kerry's campaign manager considers it an attack?
----
No, I don't think Kerry considered calling her a lesbian to be an attack. I do think the comment was done with full knowledge that it would be considered a point against Cheney by some, and in that case it was an attack. Using family who is not involved in the campaign.
[ October 15, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Poland isn't withdrawing, it is considering the eventual withdrawal of troops and they were part of the original invasion force. Since the original invasion force the number nations has been increased to 30, either way he's using the wrong information, and it was intentional, he was trying to bait the President and he succeeded.
That's like saying that I could claim the NASDAQ as the entire stock market.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I dunno...I expect slightly more in terms of courtesy from the Kerry camp than the Bush camp, but by no means does that mean they're courteous.
When Kerry said it, I think he was trying to make two points at the same time. First point is that it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice, homosexuals are our kindred, too, and worthy of respect just like everyone else.
That point, I wholeheartedly agree with.
But the other point I think was being made was an attempt by Kerry to illustrate how stupid the opposing view held by many Republicans (and many Democrats, if polls on homosexual marriage are any indicator). How can they think otherwise? The VP's own daughter is gay!
That's less classy, even though I don't know how Kerry feels about homosexuality (I know what he says).
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Kat,
Just one point here. Mary Cheney is Dick Cheney's campaign manager, according to many news sites (although it might be hard to find her name on the campaign website now). So she IS part of the campaign.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
The thing that makes it bad is that he had no need whatsoever to name any names. He could have made his point without mentioning anyone. The trick is that he knows there are several staunch conservatives out there who didn't know Cheney's daughter was a lesbian. I think he was trying to shock those people for some odd reason. In my opinion, in politics, it is just plain morally irresposible to talk about someone's personal life on national TV without that person's permission. Just my two cents thrown into the fire.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I don't think you should use the family of the candidate to attack that candidate. Just my opinion.
Otherwise Teresa Heinz and her post debate "rat's nest" would be fair game. She looked like she had just gotten out of a "cat fight" with that hair doo.
If Cheney's daughter is "fair game" then so would Kerry's wife be, and she would be very easy "game" at that.
But that is just my opinion.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
A situation, by Boris - "Mr. Kerry, this question comes from a Mr. D.W. Burnem. He asks,'Do you like ketchup that much?'"
That would have been funny if I was more creative and took more time to write it Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Teresa Heinz's hairdo has no relevance to policy.
The Bush administration is pushing for an amendment to ban gay marriage. I think asking the vice president what his thoughts are on that, considering he has a gay daughter and knows firsthand that homosexuals are not deviants to be feared and discriminated against, is a very worthwhile question.
I do think, as stated previous, that Kerry should have asked the more general question and not named Mary specifically. "Mr. Bush, I'm sure you know many gay people that are intelligent, caring, worthy of a lasting love and commitment. Can you look them in the eye and tell them they cannot marry their loved ones?"
To me, more effective, and bound to make for an uncomfortable moment around the Cheney house...
Mary has long been a gay-rights activist. After graduating from Colorado College, Cheney went to work as a gay community liaison for Coors Brewing Company, where she was instrumental in ending a 20-year boycott by the gay community of that company. Cheney left Coors in 2000 to work with her father and the Bush campaign. In 2002, Mary Cheney served on the advisory board of the Republican Unity Coalition, a gay-straight alliance formed within the Republican party to help increase tolerance within the party for gays and lesbians, and others. Currently she's the director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.
She is working to re-elect an adminstration that will marginalize her as a person. Dunno about you, but I'm interested in her take on this, I really am.
[ October 15, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Fair game? That means Kerry's campaign manager considers it an attack?
I thought an "attack" is any argument that is NOT fair game. Like calling Kerry's war medals fake, or questioning whether he was a traitor, etc.
quote:If Cheney's daughter is "fair game" then so would Kerry's wife be, and she would be very easy "game" at that.
If Bush mentioned that Kerry's wife was rich in a speech, there would be nothing wrong with that. She IS fair game.
That doesn't mean he can make fun of Kerry's wife - but then again, Kerry wasn't in any way making fun of Cheney's daughter.
[ October 15, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
game = prey
fair game = okay to prey on
Just because someone thinks it is okay to use something in an attack (they are "fair game"), it doesn't mean it isn't an attack.
This, of course, mixes metaphors with above contention that it's tacky use to family as a weapon. Any attempt to score points off of someone is an attempt to discredit. They aren't having a conversation at a cocktail party (or a forum...), they are in a race.
[ October 15, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
By that logic everything any candidate says would be an attack - in which case, who cares if it's an attack?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Exactly. I'd say the vast majority of what one candidate says about their opponent is an attack in one form or another.
That's why you don't mention their family.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It's sad when both candidates have so few positives to say about themselves, that they have to resort to focusing on the negatives of their opponent.
It would be nice (but impossible) to have a "His plan is good, but mines better" or "He would be a good president, but I would be better".
Funny comming from me, but that would be nice.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If Bush pointed out that obesity is an important health concern, just ask Edward's [insert family member here], would that have been considered tacky? I don't know that any of Edward's family is obese. It's just the closest correlate in my opinion.
Many of the obese are born that way, many are due to circumstances they essentially have no control over, and many are because they have been overly influenced by the agressive marketing of junk food. Some few are just gluttonous and lazy, but that's no reason to shame, humiliate, and persecute the lot of them.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
That's not a good comparison, because Cheney's daughter's sexual preferences had already come up - as a question in the Vice Presidential debate and as something raised by Cheney himself earlier in the year.
Nothing about anyone fat had already come up, and I think it is difficult to imagine the moderator asking a question about Kerry's friend's fatness or anything like that.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think it's interesting that people are upset that Kerry brought up Mary Cheney because it's a negative for Bush's campaign.
Homosexual people are negatives? Really?
The fact that she's willing to work for him gets Cheney points in my book, personally.
[ October 15, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Billy Carter Patty Reagan (correct name?) Neil Bush Roger Clinton
Any of those ring a bell? Family always get dragged in.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:It's sad when both candidates have so few positives to say about themselves, that they have to resort to focusing on the negatives of their opponent.
Personally, I think a lot of people in addition to Chad will enjoy it. I am grateful to UofUlawguy for pointing this strip out to me.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I think it is plenty of the pot and kettle calling each other black, that's all. It was no more of an attack as to say that "Kerry and Edwards are rich, too" when a Republican points out that their opponents aren't, in fact, representing the average Joe. An attack would be to say that Cheney abused his lesbian daughter because she was a lesbian or something of that sort. Simply pointing out something that is public record is far from an attack, especially in this vicious political environment.
fil
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
You should all be ashamed of yourselves for even discussing this. This is nothing but a blatant attempt to create a distraction from policy issues. The Cheneys and the GOP are feigning deep offense at this remark because they know it is to their advantage in the spin cycle. They know that they can benefit from taking the focus off a nuanced and complex discussion of the issues and focus on something simple and one sided, like outrage over an out of context sound bite.
I don't blame them for doing it. They want to win, and they can get away with it. The blame lies with the media, for refusing to keep the discourse reasonable, and the general public, for showing a complete disinterest in things like fiscal policy and constitutional law.
Disgusting.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Since when have elections been about policy? It is a crap shoot whether any particular promise by either candidate will be kept.
Might as well vote for the tall guy.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
I'm glad that elections are still about policy in my country.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
pooka said it best. pooka
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So if Cheney points out his daughter as an example of a lesbian during a national debate (which he did) that's good. But if Kerry makes the same point, that's bad.
Certainly makes sense to me.
[ October 15, 2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Aspecter, he didn't. He mentioned in one speech when talking about gay marriage. John Edwards brought it up in the VP debate and complimented the Cheney family on how they dealt with their daughter which I thought was annoying but basically okay because it was a compliment and not presumptuous. Kerry didn't compliment anyone, he just brought up Cheney's daughter because he's a sleazeball. The other differences are that he wasn't talking to Cheney so Cheney couldn't refute anything personal and that he was presumptuous about how the Cheneys feel.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: We saw this when he successfully provoked Bush in the first debate when he intentionally left out Poland of the coalition
Nice try...Poland wasn't in the colition until after the attack began, if I remember correctly. It was brought up in several interviews after the first debate, on natioal TV.
If I cared more, I would post a link....but I don't:D It's too damn late.
Kwea
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
If Kerry had outed Cheney's daughter, that would have been wrong. However, she is very out of the closet and what Kerry said about her certainly wasn't derogatory. I think the whole uproar by the Republicans has to do with the fact that they don't want voters reminded that Cheney's daughter is in fact a lesbian, because they are afraid that this fact might lose them some votes.
It's a funny thing to me that the Republicans (and by this I mean those higher-ups active in the campaign, not rank-and-file registered Republicans) think it's okay for them to say any nasty thing they want about members of the families of their Democrat opponents (to take it out of the current campaign, witness all the nasty things that were said about Hillary Clinton when Bill was running for office - remember all those nasty speculations that Hillary was a lesbian?), but if any Democrat mentions the family member of a Republican candidate, and not even in a derogatory manner, the Republicans act like this is some sort of huge disrespectful thing. Gee, I just love double standards.
Edited to add example.
[ October 16, 2004, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: littlemissattitude ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
There's a big difference between unofficial "speculation" and a canidate actually bringing it up in a speech or debate. And yes it is different for Cheney to bring up his own family as opposed to Kerry or Edwards bringing up Cheney's family. What if when asked the "strong woman" question Bush had mentioned the fact that Kerry had been divorced? Does that bear any relevancy at all? There's no reason to bring up personal examples from other canidates' families other than to get under their skin. This is in fact precisely why Collin Powell said he didn't want to run.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But what about that fellow, I forget his name, he accused Mary Cheney of being a hedonist. Isn't that so much worse than what Kerry said?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I assumed the worst at first, but I figured the bigots made up their mind months ago. Why would Kerry bother?
I reread Kerry's comments and they struck me with the sense that we have to stop acting as if these people are in the shadows. There are millions of gay Americans and it's time we started talking about them as if they were part of "us" instead of "them." When you invalidate same-sex relationships, you aren't doing it to another. You are violating us.
[ October 17, 2004, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes, exactly. That is how I feel about it.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Kerry's statement irritated me because he had no reason to bring up Cheney's daughter. No reason whatsoever. She didn't relate to the question in anyway.
Unless, of course, this was a calculated statement, which is often the case during debates.
Which means he was banking on the "homophobics" of the republican base to withdraw their support of Bush because his running mate has a lesbian daughter. Which tells me that Kerry knows very little about the republican base and is using his high-browed left-wing snobbery to make false assumptions about conservatives.
Any conservative who is that homophobic would've already been angry at Bush for saying that we should tolerate and value everyone, no matter his/her sexual orientation.
But Kerry, who's so much an intellectual, couldn't figure that out for himself. And worse than that is how the Kerry Campaign (or Mrs. Edwards) is defending the statement, claiming that Cheney must be ashamed of his lesbian daughter, and that's why he's upset about it. Holy cow! I can't imagine what the backlash would be if the roles had been reversed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Does anyone remember the Dukakis/Bush exchange over whether Dukakis would favor the death penalty if his wife were murdered and the subsequent brouhaha?
There's nothing new under the political sun.
Dagonee
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
True.
But as a conservative, it's fun to be outraged for a change. I've been saving it up, too, so I won't get Outrage Fatigue before November 2.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If you watched the debate, you could see that John Kerry was very uncomfortable with using that line. There was a significant pause before he delivered it. I think you could see his instincts (or dare I say conscience) at war with his advisors' instructions. To be honest, I 'm not sure if that makes it better or worse.
That being said, while I agee that this was neither a good thing to do nor something that should even be part of a campaign, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this is not a representation of the middle of the road of contemporary politics. Were it say, John McCain's daughter who was a lesbian (or much worse, his son who was gay), you can be darn sure that Karl Rove would have gotten as much milage out of that as he could.
I think it's wrong to use a person's family to attack them and that, especially for something like this, it should be irrelevant in terms of who people decide to vote for, but the fact is, in terms of comtemporary politics, it isn't considered wrong (or at least not something that you shouldn't do; at best it's something you should do and then issue a fake apology about) and there are people in the republican base who will stay home because Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter that he loves. It wouldn't even have been an attack if these people didn't exist and weren't a driving force behind the Bush administration's stratgeic policy of trying to hurt and alienate American homosexuals. As it was, Senator Kerry is playing the game as it exists and, if he didn't lose votes from people who were disgusted by this tactic, then he's going to come out ahead because of this move.
By all means, be upset by the player, but we really should be reserving our outrage for the game.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The fellow was Alan Keyes, and he was rightfully lambasted for it. Its one of the many reasons why Obama is going to beat Keyes in the Illinois senate race.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
(Actually, Polish forces took part in the recent invasion or Iraq, so they were in the Coalition from the onset of the fighting. Most specifically, Polish troops secured the shipping ports and were the ones detailed to search each of the ships in port.)
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Ok, I guess I can't just make this stupid issue vanish, I may as well explain why it should be a non-issue.
Firstly, this wasn't malicious. Anyone watching could see that. Secondly, I thought his intentions when he spoke were clear. What I got out of his comment was an allusion to the Cheneys' disagreement with Bush over the ammendment, as well as an attempt to kill the notion of this as a "wedge issue" by emphasising that his position can even be held by someone deep within the Bush campaign itself, and making this issue out to be a battle of monolithic opposites is disingenous. In that way, I think his statement would have stood as a very powerful attack on this notion, as well a potential point of embarrasment for Dick Cheney, for appearing to be an apostate on social issues that the president is pushing.
That said, I think that the response of Mr. and Mrs. Cheney was the only sensible one. This is because despite it being rather transparently disingenuous, the press will focus on this response, rather than Kerry's indended message, or even the entire debate as a whole, naturally to the benefit of Bush and Cheney.
It's sick, but this is the way politics works when the media fails to do its job as a watchdog of democracy. I think the noise over this is more than a distraction, its preminence in the post-debate news cycle was an indication of something much more dangerous, the media's betrayal of the public trust. A betrayal born not out of some arcane conspiracy or something so dripping of paranoia, but rather born of the dominating corporate culture and consolidation in the modern media. The news media, with few exceptions has ceased to be about informing the public, and holding accountable those in the public trust, but rather is focused of profits for shareholders. Cities are markets, populated by demographics. Moreover, invesigative journalism is discarded in favor of repeating talking points from the two sides and manufacturing scandals for those with attention deficits.
[ October 16, 2004, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Chaeron ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Which means he was banking on the "homophobics" of the republican base to withdraw their support of Bush because his running mate has a lesbian daughter. Which tells me that Kerry knows very little about the republican base and is using his high-browed left-wing snobbery to make false assumptions about conservatives.
Any conservative who is that homophobic would've already been angry at Bush for saying that we should tolerate and value everyone, no matter his/her sexual orientation.
But Kerry, who's so much an intellectual, couldn't figure that out for himself. And worse than that is how the Kerry Campaign (or Mrs. Edwards) is defending the statement, claiming that Cheney must be ashamed of his lesbian daughter, and that's why he's upset about it. Holy cow! I can't imagine what the backlash would be if the roles had been reversed.
Wow...I haven't seen such good speculative fiction in years...
You took your opinions on Kerry and then warped his entire statement, assuming you knew what his actual motivations were.
I LOVE how you try to slam him as high-brow (vs barely educated), and libral...for making a comment that emphasizes his support for freedoms for everyone, vs Bush's desire for a Constitutional amendment to prevent those same freedoms from ever being granted to a group of Americans.....who happen to be gay.
Impressive.
Why bother researching or fact checking when this is so much easier?
It couldn't be that he was trying to use that issue to draw important contrasts during an election year between his campaign and Bush's, because it is an important difference.
He must have been assuming things about you conservitives...a bad thing, right?
Because you are fair and impartial regarding him, right?
No agenda at all involved....no axe to grind....
Twist it all you want, you just make it easier to see why Bush has to go....becasue his vising or reality doesn't line up with actual reality....and he NEVER admits that he MIGHT have made a mistake....
Ever.
Kwea
[ October 17, 2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That comment may have been tacky, but it is far more relevant that Kerry's religious views....
But the Bush campaign didn't flinch at using 3 renegade Bishops opinions that he should be refused communion, or to use that to attack him on his stance on abortion rights....even though those bishops are flouting canonical law themselves, and going contrary to the teachings of Christ.
Last I heard, Christ was all about inclusion .
Mary Chaney is a gay rights activist, and running her fathers campaign....and the Bush campaign (or the Chaney one, anyway) has brought her up more than once.
In case you haven't noticed, Bush has been taking pot shots at Kerry since he began running for President...
So hearing this from Bush's campaign disgusts me.
If you criticize someone as "from the most liberal state", and for being outside the mainstream, don't be surprised if they fight back by showing how "mainstream" their views are in fact.
Their views regarding allowing gays to enter the mainstream of society touch even the Chaney's family....that is a fact.
So perhaps they aren't the ones out of sync with reality, as Bush has said over and over (and over and over and over)....
Kwea
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Interesting to note the reaction of gay groups to this.
quote:Leaders of gay groups said they were surprised at the subject's staying power and argued that the Republicans' reaction showed they think homosexuality remained something to be hidden. They doubted the incident would affect the outcome of the race, because voters who were likely to be moved in either direction by gay rights were already firmly planted because of President Bush's support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
"He didn't say she was an ax murderer, he didn't say she did anything wrong, he just said she was gay, which is a fact of life, like her hair color," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the leading national gay political group. "If he had said something about Liz being married with three kids, we wouldn't be having this conversation."
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
The Log Cabin Republicans also issued a statement worth noting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:even though those bishops are flouting canonical law themselves
No, they're not flouting Canon law.
Dagonee
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Leaders of gay groups said they were surprised at the subject's staying power and argued that the Republicans' reaction showed they think homosexuality remained something to be hidden.
My thoughts exactly.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It was an attack, but not on Mary Cheney.
On its surface, it was an attack on Dick Cheney's apparent hypocrisy in pushing against gay rights while supporting his lesbian daughter. I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.
Was it called for? In my opinion, not really. And simply because the attack on Cheney's hypocrisy wasn't leveled at Cheney himself, but at Bush.
When Edwards mentioned it during the vice presidential debate, it wasn't a problem for me because Cheney had an opportunity to defend himself against the attack. Even though he didn't, really.
When Kerry mentioned it, it wasn't an attack on Bush, but on his absent running mate, by way of his running mate's daughter. That was a long trip, and Bush has really no way of defending his running mate against what is essentially a personal/family issue/justification.
Aside from this, under the surface so to speak, it was a chance to mention Mary Cheney's sexual orientation in the largest and most watched venue in the campaign. Assuming that the country already knew about Mary Cheney assumes an educated, well-informed population - which we don't really have. The mention of the nonissue during the debate reached more people than it had before, and prompted water cooler talk across the country.
Does it matter? Is it an important campaign issue? Will it affect the way Bush or Kerry govern? Not really, no. But there is still a large homosexual bias in this country, particularly in swing states. While it won't make a lick of difference in major coastal cities, it may very well change opinions in suburban or rural areas of the heartland.
In some places, swinging as many as 50 or 100 votes could be the deciding factor. Which leads to Mary Cheney being "fair game". She's not a campaign bullet point, but if dropping her name motivates 10 more people to vote, or discourages 10 people from voting at all... that's significant.
So, I feel the mention of Mary Cheney (instead of, say, Chrissy Gephardt) was definitely a politically motivated action designed to garner votes.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: So, I feel the mention of Mary Cheney (instead of, say, Chrissy Gephardt) was definitely a politically motivated action designed to garner votes.
I would venture that ANYTHING said during a debate, or even a campaign, is politically motivated to garner votes--whether or not it has the desired effect.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, according to what I understand they are, by refusing to follow the Churches stance on this.
The Church has stated publicly that they will not refuse him Communion, and that he has the right to all sacraments, and that the bishops are disobeying their superiors and exceeding their authority by doing so.
At least that is what I had heard about it.
My MAIN point was that the Republicans didn't flinch on using that against Kerry, even though the 3 Bishops who stated that were reprimanded for doing so.....a fact that the Republicans "forgot" to mention.
Kwea
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
You know, its interesting that there wasn't much of a hullaballoo when Keyes attacked Gays as "hedonistic, selfish" But if a Democrat mentions Mary, everyone puts him in the gun sights. If you analyze this more fully, this has become a distraction to be used by the current administration from the REAL issues. It should be noted that Karl Rove has used homosexuality in attacks on his clients opponents. Whisper campiagns against a Judge, and remember when Bush was running for Governor in Texas? His opponent was slandered horribly by Rove because Bush's opponent had Gay/Lesbians in her administration (IIRC)
So whats the deal? Strangely quiet when the R's use it to tear someone to shreds but holler like a stuck pig when there WASN'T a slur intended (according to Kerry's statement after the debate)
***This isn't directed at anyone HERE but noting a glaring hypocrasy of the current Republican party in general.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, according to what I understand they are, by refusing to follow the Churches stance on this.
The Church has stated publicly that they will not refuse him Communion, and that he has the right to all sacraments, and that the bishops are disobeying their superiors and exceeding their authority by doing so.
At least that is what I had heard about it
I'll do some more detailed posting later, but a couple of immediate points:
Technically a Bishop has at most one superior (human, that is) - the Pope.
In a liturgical sense, though, a Bishop has no superiors - the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and it is that capacity that he celebrates Mass. The office of Pope, which coincides with that of the Bishop of Rome, is the superior of the Bishops.
I'm not aware of any statement from the Pope on this subject, although I will look later. "The Church has stated publicly" has no binding authority on the Bishops unless the person making the statement was the Pope (or authorized by the Pope to make that statement, which is rare).
As I said, I'll find links later. But your recollection is almost certainly wrong in the specifics, and likely wrong in the substance.
quote:even though the 3 Bishops who stated that were reprimanded for doing so
As I said above, no one has the authority to "reprimand" a Bishop except the Pope.
Dagonee
[ October 21, 2004, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There was no public reprimand or statement made by the Church over those Bishops who instructed their diocesian priests to deny John Kerry communion. This decision is completely in line with their administrative perogative. Some other bishops and cardinals publically said that they wouldn't do the same, some criticized the decision, but there has been no official statement by the Church.
There was a claim made in the 3rd Presidential debate that (if I remember right) some Bishops have told their congregation that voting for politicians that support abortion is a sin. If the bishops actually did that (and most of what wasn't an outright lie from the 3rd debate was either a deception or innaccuracy due to ignorance), then they would be in violation of Chruch law, which doesn't allow individual Bishops the authority to declare if something is a sin or not.
[ October 21, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I couldn’t find a link about the Pope either “reprimanding” the three bishops or supporting their stance. However, I did find this link that makes it clear that refusal of Communion is sometimes the duty of the Church not to admit some people to Eucharistic communion:
quote:The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion. ENCYCLICAL LETTER ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIAOF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II
I’ll look for more later.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
MrSquicky, I posted my last post without seeing yours.
You're right about the Bishops exceeding their authority by denoting any vote for a pro-choice politician to be a sin, and about Bishops not having the authority to "declare something a sin." I think the distinction involved is actually a little more subtle, though.
The Church, including Bishops, does not preempt a member of the laity's autonomy on "worldly" matters, which has a very specific connotation here. This means that if a non-theological element is involved in a decision-making process, the Church cannot categorically state that a particular decision is sinful. For example, as Christians we have a duty to make sure the poor are taken care of. This does not mean, however, that a Catholic has to support every social welfare program which assists the poor in order to comply with Church teachings. For example, people can disagree about how much money is needed to take care of the poor or the best way to distribute that money. These worldy interpretations are used in conjunction with the religious requirement for charity to inform how a Catholic might view particular policy proposals.
In the case of voting for pro-choice politicians, there are certainly worldy matters in making that decision. These matters directly include the likely impact of the politician on the availability of abortions in America (low for a Sheriff, high for a President expected to appoint 3 justices next term). But it also includes the other policies of that politician. For example, if someone ran on a strict pro-life platform but advocated nuking China, a Catholic would probably be acting consistent with Church teachings to vote for the sane pro-choice candidate. In this election, the distinction is of course much more subtle than that.
The comments I read about the Bishop warning parishoners about voting for pro-choice politicians was basically a reminder of the policy concerning receiving communion while under the effect of mortal sin and that contributing to the carrying out of an abortion was a mortal sin. It then asked Catholics to examine their conscience about the effect their vote would have on the availability of abortion and take that into account when deciding whether to receive or not.
I haven't heard of a strict ban, or an outright declaration that "voting for a pro-choice candidate is a sin" from a Bishop or priest, although I'm not trying to refute whether one did make such a statement. If they did, they would be exceeding their authority.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:contributing to the carrying out of an abortion was a mortal sin
Dag, I'm going to need a source on that. That's a pretty open-ended definition for a class of things that the Church has been pretty careful about providing strict guidelines for.
In either case, I'm all on board about asking people to reflect on how their political choices match up with their religious beliefs (although I'd take exception to omitting the commission of a war criticized by the Pope and that was not held to the Catholic "just war" standard or support of the death penalty), but as I guess my parethetical and your nuking China example illustrates, I don't see how making it out that one issue should be the litmus test is a responsible practice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- contributing to the carrying out of an abortion was a mortal sin
Dag, I'm going to need a source on that. That's a pretty open-ended definition for a class of things that the Church has been pretty careful about providing strict guidelines for. [/quote]
quote: Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication." This means that at the very moment that the abortion is successfully accomplished, the woman and all formal conspirators are excommunicated.
An abortion is defined as "the killing of the foetus, in whatever way or at whatever time from the moment of conception" (Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, published in the "Acts of the Apostolic See" vol. 80 (1988), 1818). This definition applies to any means, including drugs, by which a human being present in the woman is killed. Thus, once a woman knows she is pregnant the intentional killing of the new life within her is not only murder but an excommunicable offense. A woman who only thinks she might be pregnant has a grave responsibility to find out and to protect the possible life within. Any action to end a "possible" pregnancy while probably not an excommunicable offense would be callous disregard for life and gravely sinful.
Conspirators who incur the excommunication can be defined as those who make access to the abortion possible. This certainly includes doctors and nurses who actually do it, husbands, family and others whose counsel and encouragement made it morally possible for the woman, and those whose direct practical support made it possible (financially, driving to the clinic etc.).
quote: although I'd take exception to omitting the commission of a war criticized by the Pope and that was not held to the Catholic "just war" standard or support of the death penalty
Under the standards outlined in my post above, it is possible to disagree with the Pope’s view of a particular war or the appropriateness of the death penalty while still being in accord with Church teaching, as both of these judgments require an assessment of worldly matters. This is not possible with regard to the legal availability of abortion, just as it would not be possible with regard to a law authorizing any white person to kill a black person whenever he wanted to.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Yeah, I wouldn't trust that site unreservedly. I did a little checking and the canon about abortion, 1398, has no mention of accomplices. The accomplices come up because of what seems to me to be a pretty dishonest application of Canon 1329:
quote:In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence, accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept, incur the same penalty if, without their assistance, the crime would not have been committed, and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them...
which sets a very strict line (without their assistance, the crime would not have been committed) for incurring a mortal sin here.
The death penalty is an issue that I think you've expressed an excessively liberal interpretation of before. The Catechism lays out a very specific set of limited circumstances in which it should be applied, with the Pope's expressed opinion (that isn't law but should definitely be included if we are talking about reflecting on this) that it is doubtful that these circumstances could ever be met in todays world:
quote:Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason, the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.
If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means. Catechism 2266-67
quote:Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm -- without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself -- the cases in which the execution of the offender is an abolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 56)
I feel pretty safe to say that nearly all politicians running with the death penalty as a banner issue would be unable to reconcile their position with the official position of the Church. And that's leaving out the people like Antonin Scalia who have come out and specifically said that the Church is wrong on this issue.
[ October 21, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
MrSquicky,
How do these two sites differ? I'll admit my original language doesn't make the distinction clear enough, but the EWTN quote specifically includes only those who "make it possible."
quote:I feel pretty safe to say that nearly all politicians running with the death penalty as a banner issue would be unable to reconcile their position with the official position of the Church.
The fact remains that to deny the protection of the law to unborn children requires repudiation of basic Church doctrine in a way that supporting the death penalty does not. Further, there ARE worldy issues to analyze in determining if a particular death penalty law is within the teachings. There are no such considerations when contemplating abortion.
quote:And that's leaving out the people like Antonin Scalia who have come out and specifically said that the Church is wrong on this issue.
That's an entirely different issue altogether, one clearly not in accord with Church teachings.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think there's a big difference in connotation if not in denotation between "those who make it possible" and "those whom without which it couldn't occur." Especially since the site you referenced delved right into the connotations of their statement, saying:
quote:This certainly includes doctors and nurses who actually do it, husbands, family and others whose counsel and encouragement made it morally possible for the woman, and those whose direct practical support made it possible (financially, driving to the clinic etc.)
Many of the people listed here may represent people who from a certain point of view made it possible, but are not people without which it wouldn't have occured. Voting for a politician who is not going to work to abolish abortion definitely does not make one someone without which abortions couldn't occur, although in search the net for info on this, I came across sites that used that making it possible standard to suggest that the principles of Canon 1329, which they didn't directly reference, did come into play.
[ October 21, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And yes, I agree that there is more latitude with the death penalty than with abortion, but I also think that a great many Catholic who support the death penalty do so in a way and with an enthusiasm that is direct conflict with the Catechism of the Church, not to mention the Pope's statements on it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Many of the people listed here may represent people who from a certain point of view made it possible, but are people without which it wouldn't have occured.
I think the point here is to hold those who provide the moral reasoning necessary to allow someone to choose to have an abortion bear culpability, and by relating it people who provide that moral cover in the specific instance they're clearly not proposing automatic excommunication for those who are preaching the acceptability of abortion in the abstract or general case.
And remember, we're talking about what actions warrant automatic excommunication. There are many, many, many actions which constitute mortal sin which do not warrant automatic excommunication.
quote:Voting for a politician who is not going to work to abolish abortion definitely does not make one someone without which abortions couldn't occur, ...
I agree, and stated as much (although not directly) above.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And yes, I agree that there is more latitude with the death penalty than with abortion, but I also think that a great many Catholic who support the death penalty do so in a way and with an enthusiasm that is direct conflict with the Catechism of the Church, not to mention the Pope's statements on it.
I agree.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But again (nitpicking here) you were the one who said that contributing to the carrying out of an abortion was a mortal sin and brought up this line when I asked for sourcing on it. You haven't established your claim.
You know, I agree with nearly all of what you're saying. Catholic do have an obligation to deeply consider a candidates stand on abortion before deciding whether to support them or not. - I also don't think John Kerry's stance on abortion is principled enough to pass the test that I'm going to talk about later. - I'm not really trying to argue against that. It's more that as J.S. Mill said much more eloquently than I, I think that most religious people (to their detriment and to the detriment of the world) don't actually follow their religions in many cases, but instead follow a social conception that gets aligned in their minds with their religion. The death penalty thing is, I think, a good example of this. There's a idea that many people seem to hold that Catholics and other Christians are almost required to be Republicans, whereas I'm trying to get out that the Republican party and it's current representatives don't actually do all that great a job of representing Christian values.
I can understand Christians voting Republican (as I can understand them voting Democrat), but I think it's a problem that they seem more interested in working towards Republican (or Democrat) ends than towards Christian ones. I'd think that even if I didn't agree with many of what I think are proper Christian ends.
Also, I think there's a touchy issue that people don't seem to want to get into which is the unconstitutionality of passing laws to ban abortion. If a politician who is a sincere Christian also believes that he is constrained by the Constitution and Supreme Court from acting against abortion and either agrees that the Constitution does actually provide this right to privacy or if President doesn't think that the people he could appoint to the Supreme Court who would change the law so as to ban abortion are good choices, what is he to do? To be true to the oath he swears upon taking his office, he must serve to upold the Constitution, even if it prohibits him from acting on his religious convictions. Doing otherwise would both cross his solem oath of office and have him putting his religion above his responsibilites as a leader of society that prizes certain rights above the dictates of a religion.
[ October 21, 2004, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: But again (nitpicking here) you were the one who said that contributing to the carrying out of an abortion was a mortal sin and brought up this line when I asked for sourcing on it. You haven't established your claim.
Yeah, my wording was bad. I was referring to the definition of accomplice when I said it, though. So I’ve supported the claim I meant to make.
And, of course, I wasn't actually making a claim with that statement, but recording my recollection of a statement made by a priest or bishop.
quote:Also, I think there's a touchy issue that people don't seem to want to get into which is the unconstitutionality of passing laws to ban abortion. If a politician who is a sincere Christian also believes that he is constrained by the Constitution and Supreme Court from acting against abortion and either agrees that the Constitution does actually provide this right to privacy or if President doesn't think that the people he could appoint to the Supreme Court who would change the law so as to ban abortion are good choices, what is he to do? To be true to the oath he swears upon taking his office, he must serve to upold the Constitution, even if it prohibits him from acting on his religious convictions.
The constitutional reasoning behind decisions supporting abortion rights rely heavily on the fact that the state’s interest in the life of an unborn child is not “compelling.” Someone who believes that unborn child to be fully human due the respect and dignity of other humans will have little difficulty getting over this hurdle. Roe is considered by many legal scholars to be a horrendously reasoned decision.
There’s also the fact that it is not unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to overturn a previous decision. Nor is it unconstitutional for a government lawyer (the Solicitor General) to argue the constitutionality of a law in front of the Court.
So, in practice, I doubt there’s very little to this touchy issue with regards to either the legislative or legal process. There would be an issue if the President ordered the FBI to start arresting abortion providers on civil rights charges; this would clearly exceed his authorized mandate.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Roe is considered by many legal scholars to be a horrendously reasoned decision.
But there's a whole world of difference between thinking that a decision is a bad one (and I don't agree with what I know of Roe either) and deciding not to abide by it.
As far I understand it (and my background here isn't all that great) the ruling in Roe v. Wade was not that the state had no compelling interest in the child but that the interest was outweighed by the right to privacy on the part of the mother. It's possible to believe in a different level of compelling interest and still believe that the right to privacy outweighs it. A politican may think that abortion is wrong, do all he can as a private citizen to oppose it, and still think that his responsibilities as a givernment representative of the people preclude him from legislating or otherwise acting against it in his official capacity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But there's a whole world of difference between thinking that a decision is a bad one (and I don't agree with what I know of Roe either) and deciding not to abide by it.
But the fact that there's a difference doesn't automatically mean that working within the system to get the decision overturned is automatically an abrogation of one's duty as an elected official. It's clear that working toward a constitutional amendment would not be so, for example. And if the decision is "bad" as in "poorly reasoned to such an extent that it reached the wrong result," then it would be the duty of a goverment official to work in his capacity to get the decision overturned.
quote:As far I understand it (and my background here isn't all that great) the ruling in Roe v. Wade was not that the state had no compelling interest in the child but that the interest was outweighed by the right to privacy on the part of the mother. It's possible to believe in a different level of compelling interest and still believe that the right to privacy outweighs it.
Compelling in this usage is a description of the level of interest. The right to have an abortion was deemed to be fundamental. Fundamental rights may only be infringed when there is a compelling state interest. So the fact that they said the state couldn't infringe the right means they decided the interest wasn't compelling.
quote:A politican may think that abortion is wrong, do all he can as a private citizen to oppose it, and still think that his responsibilities as a givernment representative of the people preclude him from legislating or otherwise acting against it in his official capacity.
Yes, this is true. But it's very difficult to do so from the Catholic perspective, because the Catholic perspective is that the unborn child is a full human being do the full rights of a human being. People who oppose abortion for other reasons (there are several on this board) can more easily reconcile the two. But to someone who believes as a Catholic does, the constitutional reasoning behind Roe is based on a "factual" error.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, that doesn't match up with the impression I had gotten from the little I know about Roe v. Wade or really constitutional law in general. I'm most likely wrong. Oh well, it was a nice argument while it lasted.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let me be clear that I do think it can be the responsibility of a goverment official to enact laws that permit people to act in ways which violate the moral teachings of that religion.
Case in point would be my opinions on civil gay marriage. Abortion is a bad issue to try to make general points with, because the dispute for many revolves around a definitional controversey: Who is a human being?
Dagonee
[ October 21, 2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, I have heard specific orders by Bishops to not provide Communiuion to Kerry due to his stance on abortion, adn i have heard of Bishops telling their comgregation that voting for him would be a sin.
So much fro rendering unto Ceasar, huh?
I haev a HUGE problem with Preists telling their congragation who to vote for, adn comdeming them for not folllowing that advice.
What are your views on that?
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I have heard specific orders by Bishops to not provide Communiuion to Kerry due to his stance on abortion
As I explained above, this is an entirely appropriate expression of the Bishop's duty to protect Communion.
quote: i have heard of Bishops telling their comgregation that voting for him would be a sin.
Again, as I explained above, this does seem to be exceeding their authority. However, I have not seen one that states it quite as you put it. I'd like to see a link if possible. If not, then whoever did this is likely acting incorrectly.
quote:So much fro rendering unto Ceasar, huh?
I haev a HUGE problem with Preists telling their congragation who to vote for, adn comdeming them for not folllowing that advice.
Taxation is different from the toleration of injustice. There is a very long history of religious activism to seek social justice in this country, and a lot of preaching from the pulpit on political issues.
Nor do I have a problem with priests expressing political opinions to their congregation. I do have a problem if any priests "condemn" their flock. I don't have a problem with priests reminding their parishoners about the Catholic doctrine underlying opposition to abortion and stressing the importance of the issue.
Dagonee
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I just thought it was rude. You don't mention someone else's personal business in a public forum without their express consent. It's basically gossip.
If Kerry and friends had the woman's permission to use her name and situation publicly, that's one thing. But otherwise it is rudeness.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Reply to Kwea.
quote:I LOVE how you try to slam him as high-brow (vs barely educated), and libral....
I love how you just made my point about high-browed left-wing snobbery.
quote:Why bother researching or fact checking when this is so much easier?
This isn’t a facts issue. This is very much an opinion issue, and that’s my opinion.
quote:It couldn't be that he was trying to use that issue to draw important contrasts during an election year between his campaign and Bush's, because it is an important difference.
I don’t get it. What contrasts was he drawing? And how did mentioning Cheney's daughter highlight those contrasts?
quote:Because you are fair and impartial regarding him, right?
No agenda at all involved....no axe to grind....
I am not fair and impartial regarding Kerry, nor will I ever pretend to be. I see him through Pro-Bush Colored glasses.
I also do not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. However, I support Bush on most everything else, Iraq war, abortion, lower taxes, so I'll take the bad with the good.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Took, thanks for the honesty. I don't really care who you vote for, but it was refreshing to hear you admit your bias...I freely admit my own as well, in thinking that Bush is one of the worst things to have ever happened to this country.
However I don't think that re-electing Bush is the end of a free US, nor do I think that electing Kerry will put a stop to everything that I feel is wrong with the political scene today.
And I get really mad a people who say that about either candidate...the US is far stronger than any one man, and will survive one way or another.....as it always has to date.
quote:I don’t get it. What contrasts was he drawing? And how did mentioning Cheney's daughter highlight those contrasts?
Mentioning Mary Cheney highlights the differences in the two parties on their stance regarding gay rights and their stances on same sex marriages, and puts a human face on the argument.
It is far easier to deny rights to a nameless, faceless mass of people who you don't know and don't care about....but it is another thing to refuse those same things to ones own daughter or son, or to someone who is active in your community....
I think it was tacky, but she IS working for her father on his campaign, which I had been unaware of until this conversation, and as such has chosen to enter the public debate surrounding this election.
Kwea
[ October 22, 2004, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
So this is ok:
Keyes says Cheney's gay daughter is a sinner
September 1, 2004
ASSOCIATED PRESS Advertisement
NEW YORK-- Illinois Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes labeled homosexuality "selfish hedonism" and said Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is a sinner.
The former talk show host who has made two unsuccessful runs for the White House made the comments Monday night in an interview with Sirius OutQ, a satellite radio station that provides programming aimed at gays and lesbians.
After saying homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," Keyes was asked if that made Mary Cheney "a selfish hedonist."
"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition."
Liz Cheney, Mary's sister, refused to comment Wednesday during an interview on CNN.
"I guess I'm surprised, frankly, that you would even repeat the quote, and I'm not going to dignify it with a comment," she told the interviewer.... Clicky Here
But what Kerry said isn't.
Gotcha.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, I think it's pretty clear what Keyes said isn't OK.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
There is a big difference between mentioning a fact....that she is gay....and accusing her of a breach of morality that she never subscribed to herself.
He is an idiot, not for believing that, but for going on national radio and teling people his opinion, when the voters have already told him twice that they don't care....by not electing him.
There is a HUGE difference between the two comments.
Kwea
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Clearly Keyes belives Obama is the best man for the job and is doing everything in his power to help him win.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As I said, I don't think Keyes comment was OK. But the difference is that Keyes didn't bring up Cheney's daughter, he responded to a question about it. So if the specific complaint against Kerrey was bringing her up in a debate, then that complaint doesn't apply to Keyes.
Other complaints apply to him, and at least one of them was made, as your quote examplified.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, Kerry was on a much larger stage than Keyes at the time he made his comment. This presidential election is one of the most watched in history, and one of the most politically charged ones as well. I my area there have been a record number of people registered to vote....there was a big article about it in yesterdays newspaper.
As important as a Senate race is, it pales in compareson to this presidential race, with all its supercharged emotions and issues.
Place anything under perssure and the boiling point goes down quite a bit....both in cooking and in politics.
Kwea
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Took, thanks for the honesty. I don't really care who you vote for, but it was refreshing to hear you admit your bias...I freely admit my own as well, in thinking that Bush is one of the worst things to have ever happened to this country.
However I don't think that re-electing Bush is the end of a free US, nor do I think that electing Kerry will put a stop to everything that I feel is wrong with the political scene today.
And I get really mad a people who say that about either candidate...the US is far stronger than any one man, and will survive one way or another.....as it always has to date.
You and I agree on one thing. I think we'll all be fine no matter who wins the presidency. But I do, of course, want my guy to win.
quote:It is far easier to deny rights to a nameless, faceless mass of people who you don't know and don't care about....but it is another thing to refuse those same things to ones own daughter or son, or to someone who is active in your community....
I think if Kerry would've phrased it like you have here, he would've made a powerful statement about homosexuality.
Seen in this light, it's a brilliant point. The way it was delivered, however, came off as (as you so aptly put) tacky.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I agree with you there. I think that was what Kerry was trying to do, but he didn't want to explain it...he would have come off condescending and overly intellectual...
BTW, I am not an intellectual snob...not really. I just think it is funny how people use intelligence as an insult these days, and what that says about the times we live in. I went to college myself, but left college to enter the Army, and while I am not dumb (at least I hope not ) I am hardly the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.
Is it really too much to ask that we have a President that is well read, who reads the paper, and who can read his own briefings on matters of national security?
One that has at least a 10th grade knowledge of World Geography, and a 9th graders command of English?
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Place anything under perssure and the boiling point goes down quite a bit....both in cooking and in politics.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
pooka
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)