07/17/2007
Bush Reassured Mary Cheney He Tolerates Her Orientation
Actually, he didn't tell her directly. He told Dick to do it.
Via Andrew Sullivan comes this tidbit from the forthcoming book, Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President
"My only ask was that if his daughter doubted my tolerance to her orientation that I would hope that he would help make it clear to Mary that this is a--I was just worried about--the reason I'd federalized the issue is because I was worried about the courts' defining the issue and that we'd end up with de facto marriage that was not traditionally defined, I guess is the best way to put it."
Sullivan notes that this may be the first time we've ever heard Bush use the word "orientation" with regard to gays and lesbians.
you may have missed...
Mary Cheney Gives Birth to a Baby Boy [tr]
Posted 1:50 PM EST by Andy in Dick Cheney, Gay Marriage, George W. Bush, Mary Cheney, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
I could care less whether that piece of shit tolerates me or not.
Posted by: homer | Jul 17, 2007 2:55:32 PM
Would someone translate that quote, please, for the rest of us who speak English?
"My only ask was..." - WTF?
"the reason I'd federalized the issue is because I was worried about the courts' defining the issue and that we'd end up with de facto marriage that was not traditionally defined" - WTF?
Posted by: Jonathon | Jul 17, 2007 2:57:37 PM
Can we fucking retire "tolerance" for once and for all? I am so fucking sick of it and all its forms. You tolerate a headache, you tolerate a screaming child on a plane, you tolerate your puppy pissing on your rug. I am not to be tolerated. I am equal to every straight person in this fucking country and on this fucking planet.
Posted by: Marco | Jul 17, 2007 3:03:09 PM
Yeah, he "tolerates" her orientation. But he doesn't tolerate gays.
Frankly, my dear. I don't tolerate Bush. He is intolerable and a passive bigot.
And I agree with you, Marco. Gays have always 'tolerated' straights. We don't need them to tolerate us. We do nothing to them and they do everything to us. Hence, we tolerate them and not the other way around.
Posted by: woodroad34 | Jul 17, 2007 3:11:30 PM
"Tolerates?" Fuck you W!!
Posted by: shane | Jul 17, 2007 3:12:20 PM
You tell 'em, Marco. Right on.
I don't give a rat's ass whether that ridiculous war criminal (or anyone else, for that matter) tolerates me or not. I don't deserve equal rights because I'm tolerated. I don't deserve them because I'm a good person, because I pay my taxes, because I'm a law-abiding citizen, or because I may or may not be raising children. I deserve them because I'm a human being, equal in every way to any straight person, with all the gifts and shortcomings that humanity implies.
Posted by: Brian | Jul 17, 2007 3:13:32 PM
Speaking of speaking English:
"between he and the vice president..."
Come, come, Andy, surely we can do better than that!
Posted by: tominsf | Jul 17, 2007 3:16:13 PM
Also, this is another example of what happens when you allow a stupid, crack-addled, frat boy talk freestyle without a proper script in hand to put words together in proper sentences and complete thoughts.
What a disgusting idiot. A major Shanda to the neighborhood.
Posted by: woodroad34 | Jul 17, 2007 3:18:21 PM
So what? And he couldn't even talk to her himself? Fuck "tolerance".
Posted by: FanGirlHater | Jul 17, 2007 3:36:11 PM
Of course he was worried about the courts defining the issue. He knew if that happened it would end the Republican strategy of putting discriminatory marriage amendments on state ballots during election years in order to draw the bigots to the polls. If I could strangle George W Bush with my bare hands and get away with it, I'd happily do it. Happily!
Posted by: peterparker | Jul 17, 2007 4:03:49 PM
that must make mary feel much better
Posted by: rick | Jul 17, 2007 4:20:21 PM
fuck mary too for going along with the whole anti-gay circus. the only public pic of the baby is with the evil grandparents.. as jonathon would say : WTF ?!
Posted by: el polacko | Jul 17, 2007 6:06:32 PM
You know, I bet the vast majority of this administration's higher-ups don't give a rat's ass about homosexuality. I don't think most of them are all that religious in the first place. They simply use that and discrimination against homosexuals as a political tool because it works - when it stops working, only the "true believers" will keep harping on it.
Posted by: Jordan | Jul 17, 2007 6:09:52 PM
AMEN MARCO!!! Come on 1/20/09...It doesn't matter what he tolerates the clock is ticking. Na na na na hey hey hey GOODBYE!
Check out the web site below for T-Shirts to W's last day in office!
http://www.zazzle.com/carolinablue?gclid=CJuj98PZr40CFSbUgAodU1BBsQ
Posted by: RB | Jul 17, 2007 7:07:01 PM
AMEN MARCO!!! Come on 1/20/09...It doesn't matter what he tolerates the clock is ticking. Na na na na hey hey hey GOODBYE!
Check out the web site below for T-Shirts to W's last day in office!
http://www.zazzle.com/carolinablue?gclid=CJuj98PZr40CFSbUgAodU1BBsQ
Posted by: RB | Jul 17, 2007 7:08:31 PM
Arrrrrrggggggghhhhhh!
Coward couldn't even tell her in person but he calls Jack Bauer every five minutes!
OK. Once more. Who voted for Bush? C'mon, own up. You all need to be bitch slapped for being stoopid.Twice.
Most of his "higher ups" in the administration not only don't give a flying f**k about gays, they don't care about anyone. Period. This story demonstrates it all.
Posted by: Sean R | Jul 17, 2007 7:40:34 PM
Half the people in America didn't want to tolerate him, but he stole the election anyway.
FUCK GEORGE-THE SHRUB-BUSH.
What he's done to America we might never recover from.
There's also talk he's gonna try to rule himself POTUS until the war ends, and ignore the elections in '08.
Posted by: Bobby | Jul 17, 2007 8:40:12 PM
Why even bother to link to asswipe sully he and his repukes are only concerned about their own "kind". There is not one piece that barebacking-andy has written that does not go past his own self interest.
A waste of a mind.
Sorry Towleroad but if you fel you HAVE to read andy coulter-sullivan check out
Bootstrapping Andrew Sullivan and save your cache space.
http://bootstrappingas.blogspot.com/
Posted by: MCnNYC | Jul 17, 2007 9:10:01 PM
I don't care what G. Bush has to say about his feelings toward Cheney's daughter.
In response to some commenst within these posts, I would hold that homosexuals and lesbians deserve virtually all the rights that married couples have; that in this way, they should be treated equal.
However, I cannot be persuaded that same sex partners and straight partners are the same in every way. If that were the case, civilizaton would continue through the sexual relationship of both groups, which, understandably, could not happen.
Hence, there will always be this intrinsic difference. Validity of this is undeniable.
Lawmakers could - though it would take time and effort - pass laws that afford the same rights sought by same sex partners without defining the inclusion of those rights as marriage.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 18, 2007 7:05:00 AM
Stephen,
You are clearly either a heterosexual, Republican troll or an absolute moron.
Your argument that same sex partners don't deserve every single right that heterosexual partners deserve because same sex partners can't have children is an idiotic argument at best. There are thousands of homosexual couples who have children. Some of these children are adopted, some of these children are the result of artificial insemination/surrogate mothers, and some are the result of heterosexual sex that occurred prior to the homosexual member of the relationship forming a new relationship with a same sex partner. The truly sad thing about these families is not that the homosexual parents are denied rights and responsibilities that any heterosexual couple would have. The sad thing is that the lack of marriage rights means that in most cases one partner in the homosexual relationship has no legal right to a relationship with a child who thinks of that person as 'Mom' or 'Dad'. This denies THE CHILD/CHILDREN the rights that any child of heterosexual parents would enjoy. In my opinion, the ones who are most mistreated by marriage laws, the ones who are truly in jeopardy, are the children. And all because people like you fret about 'redefining marriage'.
And Stephen, did it ever occur to you that not every heterosexual relationship produces children? Some heterosexual couples choose to remain childless. Other heterosexual couples are simply unable to conceive. So why, then, should every heterosexual couple enjoy financial advantages that homosexual couples are denied? Did you know that if one partner in a heterosexual couple dies, he or she is able to bequeath their ENTIRE ESTATE in trust to their spouse without any tax liability, regardless of how large the estate is? It is a one-time exemption that exists solely for married couples. Homosexual couples, however, do not have the right to take advantage of this one-time federal and state tax exemption. The moment one partner in a homosexual relationship dies, the federal and state governments move in and begin to collect taxes on any amount over $2,000,000.00. Perhaps this doesn't concern you, Stephen because your estate is not valued at over $2,000,000.00. But I have assets in excess of that and it pisses me off that I don't have the right to leave those assets to a life partner without the government stepping in and taking a large part of it.
And Stephen, has anyone ever informed you that GLBT citizens are not guaranteed the right to visit their partner in the hospital when the partner is sick or dying? No, Stephen, we have to rely on the kindness and understanding of nurses and doctors and hospital administrators (people who are almost always strangers to us, Stephen) as well as the understanding of family members who might not be sympathetic to our relationships. We have to hope and pray that those who are the gatekeepers in such a situation will ALLOW us to visit the ones we love when they are most in need. All because squeamish ones like you sit and agonize about the word 'marriage'!
So, Stephen, while you and people like you, sit and bemoan the 'redefining of marriage' within society, I'd like to inform you that GLBT citizens, real people Stephen, are suffering. While you and people like you decide which relationships are 'good enough' to be called a marriage and which relationships only deserve some, if any, benefits, GLBT citizens are denied their equality. If you are, as I suspect, a Republican troll then I hope a bus hits you tomorrow. And if you are actually gay then someone should take away your gay card!
xo,
peterparker
Posted by: peterparker | Jul 18, 2007 3:09:02 PM
I am for all the rights within each state, but I am against saying it is a marriage.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 18, 2007 9:24:54 PM
Stephen,
Would you please explain the logic behind saying that GLBT citizens should have all the rights of marriage yet should not be able to call our relationships marriage? I don't understand the logic nor the reasoning of such a position.
xo,
peterparker
Posted by: peterparker | Jul 18, 2007 10:54:19 PM
Stephen,
Who told you it was *your* choice? I'll call MY relationship whatever I please... as it IS my relationship and has nothing to do with you or yours.
Posted by: Dean | Jul 18, 2007 11:09:44 PM
Bush is evil, and just as bad as Hitler was. A total psychopath no doubt.
I'm sure Mary isn't as sensitve or logical as the rest of us are, since she's probably very brainwashed being in THAT family, so I don't give a damn what George W. wanted to reassure her of.
Hopefully George will "tolerate" the burning flames of HELL (and sooner than later)
Posted by: Jordan | Jul 19, 2007 12:18:10 AM
Intrinsic upon the joining in marriage of a man and a woman is the sexual union. That sexual union, through its natural course will produce an offspring. It is not mandated that a man and a woman joined in marriage must produce offspring. But, they - and only they - have the natural and biological capacity, i.e., ability to do this. This does NOT mean that married couples who choose not to have a family/child have an artificial, bogus marriage. Assuming the health of both the man and the woman in marriage, they will always have the ABILITY to pro-create. That is NOT something that a same sex couple can ever do. Hence, there is that magnificent DIFFERENCE in the two entities!
They (the married couple) do not gain government tax benefits if they choose not to have a child/children. Hence, some of the benefits bestowed upon married couples are in that way, conditional. This would be no different than a same sex couple that opt not to adopt or have children via artificial means. No kids, no particular benefits. Kids = these benefits (for married couples and those same sex couples who are in, I'll call it, civil unions).
However, there ARE benefits that should be provided to same sex couples that are currently provided to married couples (visitation, inheritance, etc.) and I support that.
But, a same sex couple does NOT marry.
The intrinsic aspect of a same sex couple's sexual union produces no offspring; hence is done for the love and pleasure of it - a wondeful thing!
And so their IS a difference, and it doesn't matter how you spin it, but you cannot escape that fact.
Therefore, I canot justify (and millions of people agree with me here) that marriage is inclusive of a same sex couple.
As previously stated, it would take time and effort, but the legislators of this country - if they really wanted to accomplish it - could pass laws that would afford virtually all the benefits (had by married couples) that same sex couples seek. The name game - "it MUST be called marriage" - smacks of in your face behavior, and only re-inforces me (and millions of others) to be persistent in our call to grant the rights through civil unions, or whatever it is Congress would decide to call it.
In one's heart, truth resides. I've examined mine on this topic.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 19, 2007 7:17:01 AM