(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.