Skip to main content

A heartbreaking exchange

(NOTE: I initially confused the names of the two Cheney sisters, undoubtedly rendering this post incomprehensible to anyone who had already heard about the incident. I apologize for the confusion; the mistake has been corrected).

The Cheney sisters- one heterosexual, and running as a Republican for the U.S. Senate, and the other a "married" lesbian- disagree about gay "marriage."

Sadly, the exchange provides further evidence that civil discourse on this subject simply isn't possible. Sadly, it also provides additional evidence that rational discussion that doesn't lapse into the purely emotional isn't possible.

I'd like to think that friendship is. Even love. But even more sadly, this exchange seems to suggest otherwise, at least in this case.

I'm sure that it has long since occurred to Liz that Mary might not see the question raised by marriage definition as being the same question her own negative reponse is meant to answer. But I wonder whether it has ever even occurred to Mary that Liz might- in fact, undoubtedly does-  see it other than a matter of her sister's happiness.

Mary may be right that marriage redefinition is the wave of the future. But that doesn't necessarily put a person who supports it "on the right side of history-" just the winning one.

And it certainly doesn't make that person right.

I would guess that Liz Cheney really does love her sister, and that whatever her feelings about same-sex marriage itself really is happy that her sister is happy. It's a shame that Mary and her "wife" apparently can't conceive of that possibility. And it's just another really sad illustration of the intolerance of many of those who think they are preaching tolerance.

HT: Drudge


Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…