I don’t think it was a fair question to ask and was only asked to get a rise out of Cheney. Ratings must suck if they have to resort to cheap tricks like that. And what is this crap: All of us [cnn] are happy. She’s going to have a baby. Does any believe they give a shit?

Left by Anonymous on January 25th, 2007 at 10:07 am

Cheney should have bitch-slapped him.

Left by kw on January 25th, 2007 at 10:30 am

If only every other gay person in the US could tell Focus on the Family to mind their business as well. I’m glad my parents didn’t sell me down the river the way that Dick Cheney has for political gain.

Left by Preston on January 25th, 2007 at 11:41 am

Wolf Blitzer has finally showed just how arrogant and pompous most
of you newcasters are. Nothing is sacred to you…unless its you in
trouble and then its ‘please can’t you just try to understand”.! The
fact that his daughter and the number of his grand children has nothing to
do with this administration…Blitzer just needed another jab at the
administration and did it through the VP’s family. What a moron and very
unjust anchor. He wiped out I’m sure much if any respect that I even
had for him…which wasn’t much.

Johnny

Left by johnny on January 25th, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Preston, why can’t any other gay person — or non-gay, for that matter — tell Focus on the Family to mind their own business?

Here — I’ll give it a try: “Hey, you intrusive dolts at FotF—stay the hell out of my business.”

That wasn’t so difficult.

_______________

A commentor at HotAir was dead on as to why this was inappropriate:

I’m not comfortable with asking Barak Obama about what school his kids go to, either. Still, it’s not the same thing. Barak Obama picks his children’s school. Dick Cheney does not make decisions for his adult daughter. Asking somebody to comment on their own choices is different from asking them to comment on their daughter’s choices.

And this is pretty spot-on as well:

Cheney likely does not disagree with Focus on the Family.

But his FAMILY is more IMPORTANT than petty ideologies.

He has a daughter who is a lesbian. So– his daughter is doing something that he disagrees with on one level; but she is his daughter, and whatever disagreement they have is a private matter.

Clearly, Wolf was setting him up to either be unsupportive publicly of one of the women in his life, or to disagree with a solid conservative position.

Cheney saw through the gambit immediately and shotgunned it.

Left by Robbie on January 25th, 2007 at 2:16 pm

>>OK…the Vice President has now rebuked you twice on the same personal — and frankly none-of-your-business — question. The second time rather sterntly.

Wolf should have got the message that time, right?

In other words, if a leader doesn’t want to talk about it, a journalist shouldn’t ask. There’s a name for that sort of set-up. I’ll give you hint: it rhymes with pricktatorship.

V.P. Cheney is the second highest official of the political party that seeks to ban gay marriage, which effects how same-sex couples can parent their children. It doesn’t matter how Cheney feels about it, it’s a legit question.

The problem with that interview was that Wolf Blitzer was wobbly and spineless. He was quite visibly scared of the Veep.

Left by Andisheh Nouraee on January 25th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

How exactly has Dick Cheney sold his children down the river? He has defended his daughter every step of the way and has NEVER publically brought up her sexual persuasion unless it is brought up to him.

I just don’t get it. Why don’t liberals praise him? No…they denounce something they stand up for. It makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

Left by dianne on January 25th, 2007 at 2:41 pm

which effects how same-sex couples can parent their children.

How does the fact that mommy and mommny are or are not legally married affect the way in which they would parent their child? Would they be more or less strict with their child? Would they love them more or less?

The ban affects the legal relationship between the couple, not in their ability to live together, love each other, nor raise children together.

Left by Robbie on January 25th, 2007 at 3:34 pm

If the ban affects the legal relationship between the parents, wouldn’t it therefore affect the legal status of the child as being the child of two adult women? Wouldn’t that in at least some jurisdictions make it easy to remove the child from the home for no other reason than the status of the two adults? In some jurisdictions, I think such a home might be viewed as an unfit environment.

Left by Patrick Kelley on January 25th, 2007 at 4:14 pm

The ban affects the legal relationship between the couple, not in their ability to live together, love each other, nor raise children together.

By denying the right of same-sex couples to legally codify their relationships (with marriage or civil unions), the state is denying Mary Cheney’s partner, Heather Poe, any rights as a parent.

That’s what the Republican drive to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions means. It means that the same-sex parent who didn’t give birth or sign the adoption papers has NO LEGAL RIGHTS as a parent over the child they’re raising.

That’s why it’s a legitimate to press the Veep for a comment. Like I said before, he’s the second-in-command of a party that wants to deny his grandchild one of his/her parents.

Left by Andisheh Nouraee on January 25th, 2007 at 4:17 pm

a party that wants to deny his grandchild one of his/her parents.

That’s an absurd and illogical jump in reasoning. There are no laws (nor should there be) that prohibits 2 parents (regardless of gender or sexual orientation) from living together and raising children.

Nobody is deyning any child their parents. Both Mary and Heather (or Bill and Ted) is having their child taken from them. Both are still there, parenting their child.

Sheese people — I’m actually on your side when it comes to not having laws that stipulate which two consenting adults can marry. But when you use such ridiculous rhetoric and fallacious arguments — well, not wonder even those who might otherwise agree with you have a knee jerk reaction against you.

Left by Robbie on January 25th, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Heather Poe (Mary’s partner) will have no legal rights as a parent. NONE. If Mary Cheney dies in a car accident five years from now, Heather Poe will have to go to the expense and trouble of legally adoption of her own child. With marriage and civil unions closed off to same-sex couples, Heather Poe will have the same legal rights over that child that a babysitter or nanny would have.

Of course, old Wolfie didn’t even ask about that. He instead asked about the “controversy” — as if a memo by Focus on the Family is somehow meaningful — which brings me back to my first point — that Wolf Blitzer is a tool.

Left by Andisheh Nouraee on January 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pm

If Mary Cheney wants Poe to be part of her child’s life and Poe wants to be part of the child’s life, she can apply to adopt the child right after birth. Your drama of dying in a car crash five years later is silly. As far as expense and trouble, God forbid that anyone actually be inconvienenced in seeking to become a parent! It should be absolutely effortedless. Last, adoption is affordable.

Left by Anonymous on January 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

>>If Mary Cheney wants Poe to be part of her child’s life and Poe wants to be part of the child’s life, she can apply to adopt the child right after birth.

Depending on where she lives, no she cannot. That’s why same-sex marriage is such an important issue.

Your drama of dying in a car crash five years later is silly.

It’s not a drama. It’s a quite common scenario faced by same-sex adoptive parents who are denied the legal parenting rights that heterosexual married and unmarried parents get. Same-sex couples are denied many of the legal protections granted to hetero couples.

As far as expense and trouble, God forbid that anyone actually be inconvienenced in seeking to become a parent!

If an unmarried mother dies, legal custody of the child automatically goes to the father. Why should Heather Poe, or any parent, have to go to hire a lawyer and go to court to get legal custody of their own child in the event of a death. Mary Cheney and Heather Poe should be able to codify their relationship legally if they choose.

Last, adoption is affordable.

That’s wonderful! Why don’t you go through the obits, find someone whose spouse just died, and write them a letter telling them that if they want to have legal custody of their children, they have to get a lawyer and fill out a few forms. Be sure to remind them how affordable it is.

If that seems ridiculous to you, then you understand why it’s perfectly reasonable to ask Dick Cheney to account for Republican tactics vis-a-vis gay marriage and civil unions.

Left by Andisheh Nouraee on January 25th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

For the last several years Democrats have been engaging in wholesale personal attacks on the spouses, children, and non-elected family members of Republicans.

Fine.

Chelsa is now fair game.

In particular, Hillary must reconcile why it’s OK for Chelsa’s parents to exercise school choice, whereas middle class and poor kids must be denied choice and forced in the horrible and dangerous DC goverment school system.

Since Hillary’s kid didn’t suffer from goverment schooling, how does she have any moral right to oppose school choice for the average American family?

Left by Jim Howard on January 25th, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Depending on where she lives, no she cannot. That’s why same-sex marriage is such an important issue.

If she doesn’t live in Utah, yes she can. Suck it up. You people hate religious people anyway.

It’s not a drama. It’s a quite common scenario faced by same-sex adoptive parents who are denied the legal parenting rights that heterosexual married and unmarried parents get. Same-sex couples are denied many of the legal protections granted to hetero couples.

Worse, it’s hyper-drama! Adoption is legal in various forms by gays in all states except Utah.

If an unmarried mother dies, legal custody of the child automatically goes to the father. Why should Heather Poe, or any parent, have to go to hire a lawyer and go to court to get legal custody of their own child in the event of a death. Mary Cheney and Heather Poe should be able to codify their relationship legally if they choose.

Why? Because Heather Poe is not the biological father — just like a stepparent would not be automatically entitled to custody of a child if the biological parent dies. If hiring an atty, going to court is too much of a burden for gays, they shouldn’t be parents.

That’s wonderful! Why don’t you go through the obits, find someone whose spouse just died, and write them a letter telling them that if they want to have legal custody of their children, they have to get a lawyer and fill out a few forms. Be sure to remind them how affordable it is.

It is wonderful! Why don’t you stop being hysterical? You argue that gays should have greater rights than non biological hetereo sexual married couples.

If that seems ridiculous to you, then you understand why it’s perfectly reasonable to ask Dick Cheney to account for Republican tactics vis-a-vis gay marriage and civil unions.

The only thing that is ridiculous are your arguments.

Left by Anonymous on January 25th, 2007 at 7:23 pm

If an unmarried mother dies, legal custody of the child automatically goes to the father. Why should Heather Poe, or any parent, have to go to hire a lawyer and go to court to get legal custody of their own child in the event of a death.

And why shouldn’t the child’s biological father (unless it was an invitro sperm donor situation) have more right to custody of his child than the non-biological partner of the birth mother?

The father in most instances (most, not all, so don’t spend too much time trying to dig up or come up with the extenuating exception) should get full custody of his child in the event that the mother dies.

None of this has anything to do with two same sex parents raising and loving their child.

Left by Robbie on January 25th, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Worse, it’s hyper-drama! Adoption is legal in various forms by gays in all states except Utah.

You’re entitled to your opinion, however you’re not entitled to just make stuff up to support your argument.

Regardless of what you think of me or of gay marriage, the following are facts.

1. Only eight states have laws that clearly allow a same sex second parent adoption — translation, only eight states would recognize her as the legal parent of the child that she will be raising. Those states are: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont.

2. The desire for same-sex, two-parent households where both parents have equal, legal rights as parents is among the main reasons that gays and lesbians want marriage and civil unions.

3. By actively working to stop gay marriage and civil unions, the Republican Party is making it vastly more difficult for same-sex couples to become legally co-equal parents of the children they adopt.

Left by Andisheh Nouraee on January 25th, 2007 at 8:48 pm

You’re entitled to your opinion, however you’re not entitled to just make stuff up to support your argument.

I’m not making anything up, you are.

Left by Anonymous on January 25th, 2007 at 9:17 pm

If I’m making things up, then certainly someone as smart as you won’t have any problem proving it. So go ahead.

1. Name another state that fits the description.
2. Find a major, national gay rights group that doesn’t cite parenting rights as one of reasons behind the push for gay marriage.
3. Explain how banning gay marriage makes it EASIER for same-sex couples to become legally co-equal parents of a child.

Left by Andisheh Nouraee on January 25th, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Geez, most of your responses make little to no sense. Panties in knots? I got my info from the same lamda sites you did. Once again, you are arguing that same sex couples should have greater rights than hetereosexual couples. They don’t. Get over it.

Left by Anonymous on January 26th, 2007 at 3:16 am

One of the main reasons gay marriage is very unlikely to become a reality in our lifetimes has to do with that old Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

If gay marriage becomes legal, then all of a sudden gay parents have every right to adopt children just as much as hetero couples do. Any time a gay couple is then turned down for adoption, no matter how valid the reason for it in their own specific cases, they can and in a great lot of cases probably will file a discrimination lawsuit on the grounds that they were denied rights of adoption based solely on their status as a gay couple.

In a good many such cases, the suit might be valid, in a good many other cases not. In the event of the latter, it might be demonstrated that the lawsuit has no validity, but in a great many of them the lawsuit will be successful, whether it deserves to be or not.

Then, there will be judicial problems, with many judges on both sides exercising their discretion based on their own personal views.

This could turn into a real hornets nest, with courts tied up, and this is to say nothing of the expense to the various communities.

Before long it will get to the point that adoption will be granted automatically except in the most flagrant cases of unsuitability.

All of these are my main concerns about the issue, and I am generally PRO gay marriage. I am afraid, though, that as usual, not a lot of thought is being put into the potential problems that can arise.

Another thing, what about divorce problems? Custody disputes? You can’t legislate general acceptance and respect for gays or the gay lifestyle, so how is Johnny or Suzie going to feel when they are in the middle of a gay parental custody battle in a small town of middle America where they are generally made to feel like laughing stocks or objects of scorn or pity?

Left by Patrick Kelley on January 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am

they can and in a great lot of cases probably will file a discrimination lawsuit

Patrick, this is no more likely than lawsuits demanding fair application of the Equal Protection Clause in a case, say, denying adoption on the basis of race or religion.

Left by Preston on January 26th, 2007 at 11:33 am

There is nothing wrong or unconstituional with denying or restricting adoption based on what is in the best interest of a child. The nuclear family, i.e., marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to raise children.

Left by Anonymous on January 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

The nuclear family, i.e., marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to raise children.

Says who? None of these studies.

Left by Preston on January 26th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

There’s a fine line of decencey in regards to dragging a politician’s children into the fray. Blitzer crossed that line and went from reporter to asshole in about 10 seconds.

I couldn’t agree more. That’s almost as despicable as this:

On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, “Did you know there’s a White House dog?” Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone.

When viewers objected, he claimed, in typical Limbaugh fashion, that the gag was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea–which I found as disgusting as his original attempt at humor.

by Molly Ivins

Left by Anonymous on January 26th, 2007 at 1:01 pm

The nuclear family, i.e., marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to raise children.

Anon, I’m going to have to disagree with you on that one… mainly because you’re just full of crap.

Left by kw on January 26th, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Anon — I agree 100% that Limbaugh’s comments about Chelsea were inappropriate and despicable.

Personal attacks on the minor children of politicians is indefensible.

Left by Robbie on January 26th, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Preston-you might be right, but my point is that a lot of thought needs to be put into things like this, on both sides. There could be a lot of potentially adverse consequences that could be avoided if enough thought were put into it, instead of people on both sides digging in their heels and refusing to acknowledge them.

Anonymous-It doesn’t matter one whit whether what you say is true or not. The point is, if gay marriage becomes legal, the Equal Protection Clause will demand gays have equal rights to adoption.

Plus, I don’t agree with your statement at all anyway. There are plenty of abusive, alcoholic, drug addled, physically/mentally/emotionally/sexually abusive hetero couples who suggest otherwise, just as I am sure there are numerous examples of gay couples who would make admirable parents.

Left by Patrick Kelley on January 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pm

The nuclear family, i.e., marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to raise children.

Anon, I’m going to have to disagree with you on that one… mainly because you’re just full of crap.

Right. Fatherless homes have done soooo well for the black community. Imbecile.

Left by Anonymous on January 26th, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Since my posts never appear or if do, disappear after a few minutes, let’s try again:

KW, you ignorant slut. If you are so threatened by the simple fact that the best way to insure healthy happy children is by a mother and father committed through marriage, you are an idiot.

Left by anon on January 26th, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Anon — Your IP address is on my Spam software’s IP Blacklist. I’ve removed it several times, but it keeps getting reinserted by the software.

Left by Robbie on January 26th, 2007 at 9:21 pm

Besides, he (Anon) is trying to change the subject. We are talking about gay parenting, which involves TWO parents, and he’s suddenly trying to divert it to an irrelevant issue involving single parents. What does single parent black families have to do with gay couples adopting a child and providing the child with two parents who just happen to be of the same sex?

Left by Patrick Kelley on January 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pm

anon, dated Jan 26 - pay attention…. I may be a slut, but ignornant I am not. Please re-read. Surely you can do that.

Left by kw on January 28th, 2007 at 9:39 pm

I think Blitzer is a pussy and fell to Cheney. He is a God Damned elected public offical. He should have said to Cheney that is a fair question. Your party is telling people gays shouldnt have rights and his own kids are fags.

Left by ME on January 31st, 2007 at 1:20 pm