Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« And The Oscar Goes To... | Morning News »

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

Mary Cheney: Knocked Up

posted by on December 6 at 7:46 AM

Mary Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney’s carpet-munching daughter, is pregnant. I wonder what the gay haters on the right—they’re opposed to same-sex relationships, gay adoption, and the insemination of lesbians—are going to make of the news. Unless Cheney’s conception was immaculate, or Cheney’s butch partner is even butcher than she appears to be, Mary Cheney had some help.

It looks like the Washington Post refrained from asking the obvious follow-up question: Who’s the baby daddy? Who donated the spunk? Unknown donor? Frozen sperm? Or a known donor, a friend of Heather & Mary’s? A lot of lesbians are hooking up with gay men to make babies—these newish arrangements were the subject of a recent New York Times Magazine piece. So was it a Republican homo donor dad? Ken Mehlmen? Ted Haggard? Mark Foley?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

RSS icon Comments


The Republicans are just crossing their fingers that the kid turns out gay, so they can say 'See?'

Posted by Rottin' in Denmark | December 6, 2006 8:06 AM

I can't wait until she poses for the coveer of Vanity Fair, like Demi.

That is about the only thing she can do to earn a smidge of respect from me.

Posted by patrick C | December 6, 2006 8:08 AM

Maybe the Daddy is the the biggest Republican homo of all:
Frozen Sperm from Ronald Reagan!!!

Posted by StrangerDanger | December 6, 2006 8:11 AM

Mary (the mother of god Mary) was the one who was conceived immaculately (free from original sin); they don't have a special term for Jesus' conception, but they call it the Virgin Birth.

Ah, didn't they drill that into your head in Catholic Sunday School? They did at mine.

Posted by Matt from Denver | December 6, 2006 8:16 AM

Just wait till the kid asks for a bicycle and she tells him to go fuck himself.

Posted by Andrew | December 6, 2006 8:18 AM

carpet munching. I love that term. Muff diver is also good.

Posted by Mike in MO | December 6, 2006 8:20 AM

I'm aware of the difference between the virgin birth and the immaculate conception. Many people make that mistake—I did not—and it makes me lose my patience.

Posted by Dan Savage | December 6, 2006 8:34 AM

Either I've been watching foreign news on all the news stations, my cable is entirely foriegn and didn't get the memo, people kept this a big secret, I missed the Jay Leno show, or you get the point... Cheneys daughter is a Lesbian?WTF. Man I feel I just got back from outerspace or something. Kathy Griffin why didn't you tell me?lol.Not that it bothers me that shes a lesbian, I just feel sick and woozy right now that I didn't even know for like the last decade.

Posted by sputnik | December 6, 2006 8:39 AM

And I was in the armed

Posted by sputnik | December 6, 2006 8:41 AM

Uh oh, what happens when you run out of patience? Does someone get spanked?

Posted by Sean | December 6, 2006 9:02 AM

Whatever, it’s sad. I’m all in favor of gay couples adopting existing children, but to intentionally create a child without a mother and father is a tragedy. No, it’s not homophobic to have these sentiments – it’s simply recognizing the fact that the maternal and paternal influences are the norm in our society and to intentionally deprive a child of that wholesomeness is not putting kids first – it is gratifying the egos of adults at the expense of the child and forcing the kid to lug around a big asterisk for the rest of his or her life with the haunting feeling of what could have been. Yes, gay couples can make great parents and their children can turn out happy. But that’s not the point. Its about giving a child the best life can offer, and without a mom and a dad they’re short changed. OK, I’ll duck down now. Fire away!

Posted by Proud Gay Republican | December 6, 2006 9:15 AM

PGR, you are a total fucking moron. Let's start with the fact that no peer reviewed scientific study proves what you say. In fact, the only difference they found was that thanks to homophobic assholes like you, the children of gays and lesbians face discrimination in everday life.

Next, let's face the fact that in today's society, biology isn't the most important factor in a family. One of my best friends found out at the age of 20 that the man he thought was his father was not. His mom also didn't know who the real father was (she was a bit of a cheater at the time, and her three best guesses turned out to be wrong). Guess what? His "dad" did his normal divorced dad duties, and his stepdad did all the regular fatherly duties, including discipline and doting on his grandchild.

If anyone shouldn't have reproduced, it's your parents.

Posted by Gitai | December 6, 2006 9:23 AM

PGR- Strait couples conceive out of vanity and ego too. If you want to be consistent you should side with the folks at VHEMT (The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement) since there will always be kids who need to be adopted into a loving home.

Posted by Jude Fawley | December 6, 2006 9:27 AM

Ok, PGR, I'll bite - here's my thing. I grew up without a mommy, and all those "maternal influence that are the norrm in our society." And, oh, I'm not exactly alone - I don't have exact statistics but single parents are not exactly unusual. I would much rather have had two daddies - and therefore had more attention, time with him/them, and less stress on their part - than one dad who had to work all the time. But because my daddy dated women while I was growing up - most of whom thought I was a complete brat & didn't exactly take me out for ice cream - that's somehow better?

Also, your logic is, um, screwy at best. How the hell is adopting a baby different than having one, from a "maternal & paternal influences" perspective?

Posted by SeattleExile | December 6, 2006 9:34 AM

"no peer reviewed scientific study proves what you say..."

There are, however, lots of peer reviewed studies on parenting styles showing that children of authoritarian parents (who tend to be conservative) are more depressed and anxious than their peers raised in less rigid households.

Proud Gay Republican should definitely not reproduce.

Posted by Sean | December 6, 2006 9:34 AM

david crosby is the baby's father. obviously.

Posted by charles | December 6, 2006 9:35 AM

* OK, I’ll duck down now. Fire away!

I think I conserve my ammo for a worthy target.

Posted by Orson | December 6, 2006 9:44 AM

Mary Cheney and her partner live in Virginia, which means they have absolutely zero legal protection for this child. No custody rights, for instance; if the sperm donor wanted to claim the child at any time in the future, he could, no questions asked.

Of course, Mary Cheney has other, far superior protections than the law: she's protected by the oligarchy. No Cheney child is ever going to be interfered with in anything. She could carry the thing around the mall by one leg and not get arrested.

Posted by Fnarf | December 6, 2006 9:58 AM

PGR: Unless having same-sex parents is worse than not having been born at all, your conclusion doesn't follow. By the way, are you looking for a date? I'm single.

Gitai: Oh, the irony of calling someone a "fucking moron" while simultaneously offering an anecdote that undercuts, rather than supports, your own position: the story about your friend who was raised by a non-biological father. PGR obviously believes that kids can turn out fine even when raised by parents who are biologically unrelated to them. Otherwise he would not support adoption by same-sex couples.

Posted by Gay Moderate | December 6, 2006 10:16 AM

Hey PGR - maybe black people shouldn't have children either, since being black is pretty tough in this country. Also, maybe there should be a minimum income level that parents should have too, since it's pretty tough to be good parents if you suffer from poverty.

Also - couples that both have a congenital defect should probably also not be allowed to have a child, since, hey, it sucks to have Downs syndrome.

Also, if either parent has ever suffered from mental disease, well, they're out.

Get the picture?


Posted by wtf | December 6, 2006 10:18 AM

i can't believe i bit on that troll. *sigh*

Posted by wtf | December 6, 2006 10:20 AM

For once, I agree with PGR. Kinda. Only on the point that people should adopt. however, I should mention that I believe ALL PEOPLE should adopt. Gay, straight, whatever. too may foster kids, orphans, crack babies, etc.

PGR is right that people have their "own" kids out of vanity. What is the difference between making a baby and rescuing an orphan? other than some fakacta notion of heredity?

Posted by Mike in MO | December 6, 2006 10:28 AM

PGR = asshat

Posted by monkey | December 6, 2006 10:30 AM

If I wanted a child (which I don't) and I were a lesbian (which I'm not - but I am a big homo) I would definitely adopt. Having been present at the birth of several children, there is NO WAY that I would go through that ordeal. Talk about messy!

And, for me, adoption is the way to go generally. There's no many kids out there who are looking for someone to love them, why go through all the trouble of conception? That's like going the trouble to bake your own bread when you can just go to Grand Central or someplace.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | December 6, 2006 10:37 AM

Sorry kids, but vanity is not a reason that people choose to have children. Vanity and economic privilege is what allows people to make that sweeping assertion about people who procreate.

Posted by dewsterling | December 6, 2006 10:41 AM

I think it is egotistical, but I also think that people have the righ to be egotistical sometimes. I'm thinking of adopting and I think people who adopt are the bestest ever... but if someone REALLY wants to be pregnant... I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all.

Posted by Arturo | December 6, 2006 10:49 AM

Egotistical? Are you fucking kidding me? Unless the egotism and vanity of procreation referenced here only applies to gay people and fertility-challenged heterosexuals (which denies the biological imperative that makes people think reproducing is a really good idea), you are seriously in need of a biology refresher course.

Not that it applies to Cheney, but IVF is a lot cheaper than adoption, too. The culture of this country encourages and privileges people for having children biologically and makes adoption pretty damn hard - especially for gay people.

Posted by dewsterling | December 6, 2006 11:06 AM

I suspect that Proud Gay Republican is not a real person.

His posts are just too idiotic, un-nuanced, ignorant and stereotypical.

Perhaps someone at the Strangler likes to throw in some contrarian view points to cause a dust up. Whatever.

All reputable scientific research by social workers and psychologists support gay and lesbian parents as being just as healthy and competent as straight parents. You might try reading some of the friend of the court briefs filed by such organizations that our WA State Supreme Court totally ignored. The case against is solely made up of wrong wingers like PGR screeching that we can’t be good parents, much like racists in the past would scream about slaves obeying their masters.

Many attorneys are advising gay men and lesbians to leave Virginia asap, especially if they have children.

Plenty of info available in the archives at Freedom to Marry.

Posted by Andrew | December 6, 2006 11:13 AM

What's this nonsense about straight people reproducing due to vanity? They reproduce due to being too drunk or too stupid to use birth control.

Posted by bill | December 6, 2006 11:22 AM

I wish to Christ that for once, just for ONCE, people who pontificate about how children reared by gay parents turn out would try, oh, I dunno, maybe actually TALKING to some of us. We're out here, you know, a lot more than you think.

I was brought up by lesbians. I have strong opinions on the topic of children being brought up by people forced to remain closeted. I do not, however, think a child gives a flying shit whether their parents have matching or contrasting genitalia - your parents' sexuality is completely uninteresting to most kids anyway. It never even occurred to me that my mother and her girlfriend were more than roommates until years later, when I realized they'd shared a bed all those years. And, oh yeah, all their friends were women who lived in pairs, some of whom were awfully butch.

What did me harm was not lacking a father - I HAD a father, she just didn't have a penis - what did me harm was their having to remain closeted and thus, dishonest. I thought until fairly recently that they'd just wanted me to be socially retarded, but about a year ago, I had an epiphany about why I was never allowed to have friends over. Duh. In those days, if a child had talked to his or her parents about our living situation, the least that would have happened is that CPS would have taken me away from them, and they might have lost their jobs, their home, and been put in jail.

When I was 11, my mother decided it was all too hard, and married the first man who came along. A drunken, violent, child-abusing deadbeat asshole.

Everything in my life would have been different if my mother had been allowed to marry her girlfriend.

And everything about it would have been better.

Posted by Geni | December 6, 2006 1:27 PM

wow, very interesting Geni. (not sarcastic at all). Also, lol @ 29.

Posted by Mike in MO | December 6, 2006 1:49 PM

Thank Geni--I'm not being sarcastic either.

Posted by Boomer | December 6, 2006 2:10 PM

Any parents who have multitudes of biological kids while never adopting (Exhibit A: that frothy mix we love so much) are absolutely selfish. They're too selfish to give a shit about this planet or all the unwanted, unloved, and suffering children in the world.

Posted by keshmeshi | December 6, 2006 3:52 PM

@28: Andrew, I'm as real as your dick.
@19: Gay Moderate, sure I'll date you. I usually have a martini at CC Attle's ~7pm on Fridays - in the room with the big lumberjack and wear black. Warning: I'm certaintly not nearly as sexy as Dan Savage.

Posted by Proud Gay Republican | December 6, 2006 5:50 PM

@20: Are you calling homosexuality a congenital defect?? You fucking moron / homophobic asshole. (Sorry, couldn't resist. It's not often I get to feign politically-correct outrage.)

PGR@34: I can't join you for a drink this week. Besides, I only date Dan-Savage look-a-likes. But I do like the direction this hijacked thread is going: a dating service for gay republicans and their admirers!

Posted by Gay Moderate | December 6, 2006 6:22 PM

That's OK GM. I might still have a chance to get back with my "ex."

But back to the main thread. I certaintly do not advocate denying anyone's reproductive choices and I can't refute sociological studies and anecdotal testimony. It simply is my opinion, which is to know and love the maternal (mother with pussy required) and paternal (dad with dick required) influences from a married heterosexual couple (even if they are not the sperm/egg donors) is the optimal way a child should start out in life. If that seems insensitive, I can only say I'm sorry. But to me, it is simply facing reality because it is the norm. And remember that breeders create great gays and lesbians about 25% of the time.

Posted by Proud Gay Republican | December 6, 2006 8:16 PM

PGR - Isn't it possible that it comes down to individual personality? Two people in a relationship who are abusive or negligent or irresponsible or just plain terrible are hardly the optimal parents for a child. These two people are usually straight, as this is the norm in society. In our growing modern world, these two people can also be gay/lesbian. Why do you generalise to the extent that a man plus a woman equals the best nurturing environment? People, regardless of gender, can be excellent parents. Surely the need for a nurturing childhood outweighs the need for a balanced hetero perspective. If two straight people are wonderful parents, then the child is in the best position. Thus, the same for same sex parents.
Please don't turn this thread into a dating service. Your original posting made my stomach feel funny enough, thank you.

Posted by bazz | December 6, 2006 9:21 PM

Bazz, you're going to have accept that I have more than one answer. I agree completely that same sex parenting is nurturing and based on the evidence, their children are just as well adjusted as from hetero families. So I agree with you. But if I was a child that was not born yet, and I had a choice, I'd take the hetero family. It's that simple. The two opinions do not cancel each other out.

Posted by Proud Gay Republican | December 6, 2006 9:44 PM

You gotta be even dumber than I am if you are gay and choose to be a Repugnant -- hey lets call it Lincoln Log bullshit. Hello Mr. Stupid Melman -- please do not confuse this with the good Melman (or is it Mellman, smellman?)

Posted by Bob Freeman | December 7, 2006 6:40 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).