People often realize that something is wrong before they are able to quite put their finger on why.
An example was Sen. Kerry’s use in the debate Wednesday night of the fact that Vice Pres. Cheney’s daughter is homosexual.
When this began to be criticized in the commentary immediately after the debate, Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill applied the language of cynical political exploitation to this remark by declaring the subject to be “fair game.”
Many people were not persuaded, and Thursday the Cheneys expressed their own displeasure at the use of their daughter as a political football by Sen. Kerry (as, it is reported, they previously had expressed it after Sen. Edwards did the same thing during the vice presidential debate).
Watching some pundits on TV yesterday, I observed a number of Republican pundits displaying a strong intuition that Sen. Kerry was wrong to use Cheney’s daughter in this way, but they were unable to clearly articulate why it was wrong.
Asked by Democrat pundits what was wrong with it, they would say things like “It’s a violation of their privacy,” to which the Democrat pundits would point out that Cheney has himself publicly acknowledged his daughter’s homosexuality.
This is a fair point.
Since the matter is not only publicly known but publicly acknowledged by Cheney himself, Sen. Kerry’s use of the situation does not constitute a violation of privacy–at least not in the way privacy is conventionally understood.
But it’s still wrong.
Here’s why: The fact that the vice president’s daughter is homosexual is a very sensitive issue for him and his whole family, both personally and professionally. Personally, no parent (or virtually no parent) wants to find out that one of their children is a homosexual. Even if the parent has no moral problem with homosexuality, the discovery of the fact means that the child will face additional hardship in life that no parent wants for their child to experience.
Similarly infinitessimal numbers of parents want to acknowledge the fact of a homosexual child in public. It doesn’t matter whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing; it’s true. The matter is a source of agony for parents, no matter how brave a face they try to put on it in public–or in private for that matter.
It is even more sensitive a subject when you are a vice president who belongs to a party whose base is strongly opposed to homosexuality. It is further sensitive when there is a homosexual marriage crisis brewing and your boss (i.e., the president) has proposed a constitutional amendment to prevent courts from imposing homosexual marriage as the law of the land. Finally, it is especially sensitive at election time when the fact that your daughter is homosexual could be used against you as a political weapon to try to alienate the voters of your party and cause them to stay home on election day.
What Sen. Kerry did was not violate Dick Cheney’s privacy; it was to attempt to turn Cheney’s daughter into an embarrassment and a political liability to him and his boss.
It was the exploitation of an extraordinary sensitive family situation for his own political ends.
No child should be made to feel that she is an embarrassment and liability to her parents, and no parents should be placed in a situation where their child feels this way.
Kerry tried to turn the vice president’s child into a political weapon to be used against him.
Cheney may have acknowledged his daughter’s sexual orientation in public, but it is one thing for a parent to muster up the courage to admit such a sensitive fact and it is another thing entirely to have it thrown in your face in an attempt to harm you politically by using your child as a weapon.
What Sen. Kerry did was heartless.
It was cruel.
It was vile.
It was despicable.
It was wrong.
UPDATE: Welcome, HughHewitt.Com readers!
UPDATE: Now someone else is using a vile suggestion involving homosexuality to make political hay.
Jim your comments on Kerry are good but am I the “only one on the planet” that heard that Bush won’t try to over turn roe-wade in the next term??? He was given 2 minutes to answer that question and took 15 seconds to say the judges he nominates won’t be held to that litmus test. Kerry said PUBLICLY he would protect roe-wade and we as ONE holy Catholic and apostolic Church and our bishops by 183-6 vote which doesn’t show ONENESS still want to give this self proclaimed Catholic which he isn’t HOLY EUCHARIST!!
I thought Bush played politics by not answering that he would try to over turn roe-wade or will he??? Don’t know where this non-catholic really stands. He and our bishops seem to be lukewarm on this issue and God said he will VOMIT out the lukewarm.
While it does not excuse the way both Edwards and Kerry brought the issue into the recent debates, I think it needs to be remembered that Dick Cheney’s prior mentioning of his daughter and the issue of the Federal Marriage Amendment were designed to make a political point–that the Republican party was a big tent that could accomodate those who fundamentally disagree with the President’s view of these matters.
BTY, I find Kerry and Edwards statements on these matters to be an incoherent mess.
(TONGUE IN CHEEK MODE ON)Wait, it gets worse. Check out The Borowicz Report:
(/TONGUE IN CHEEK MODE OFF)
“The matter is a source of agony for parents, no matter how brave a face they try to put on it in public–or in private for that matter.”
If Mary’s coming out were recent, I might agree with you. However, she has been out for years and worked as a gay spokesperson for Coors before running her dad’s campaign. If her parents are still in agony over their daughters’ orientation it is a flaw in their character.
Kerry was answering the question “Is homosexuality a choice?” by pointing to a gay public figure who, if she had the choice, would clearly not have chosen homosexuality, given her familial and political ties.
Anon brings up an interesting point. A more basic problem with Kerry’s statement is that it didn’t answer the question he was asked.
The question, as I recall, was along the lines of, “Do you think homosexuality is a choice?” Rather than give his own view, Kerry’s answer was, “Well, I imagine that I can tell you what this other person’s view might be …”
Did he ever get around to answering the question for himself? Perhaps so, but I haven’t heard it — maybe I’ve just missed that part of the sound bite.
Somone suggested today the analogy of George Bush bringing up John Kerry’s divorce to make a political point. What John Kerry did is even worse, because the family of a candidate should be left completely out of it, on either side.
That being said, I would hope that this incident not be a test for whether John Kerry is elected or not. Just because a politican says something stupid doesn’t mean he’s not fit to be President. Kerry is unfit for plenty of reasons, just not this.
Mary Cheney could spin this by saying, “I am a homo and I am voting for George Bush like all homos should.” Of course, Kerry has no business on speaking for Mary Cheney. Kerry does not know that Mary Cheney believes being a homo is a choice or just born that way. What really irks me, is this is a new low in politics. The candidates used to never publicly use or abuse the other candidates family in campaign politics. That was left to campaign staff. Things like the prez.’s daughters alcohol convictions or heinz-kerry’s gold digging are not talked about. (I can empathize with Heinz-Kerry, because if she had the choice she would not have chosen to marry wealthy and instead chose to remain poor)
Just because a politican says something stupid doesn’t mean he’s not fit to be President.
When a candidate is willing to use sleazeball tactics in a campaign, he’s likely to use them to, say, move a bill through Congress once he’s elected. So it most definitely speaks to his “fitness” to be President.
Vile, despicable, and IDIOTIC.
You can see what they’re doing, can’t you? – they’re trying to scare the Evangelicals and the religious conservatives. They really think that we’ll gasp in horror and cry, “A LESBIAN! Oh no! I can’t vote for Bush and Cheney because MARY CHENEY IS A LESBIAN!” – and therefore stay away from the polls.
In other words, they think we’re stupid, bigoted and easily confused. In fact, they don’t know us at all. I hope this backfires on them, big time.
You say that “No child should be made to feel that she is an embarrassment and liability to her parents, and no parents should be placed in a situation where their child feels this way.”
I agree. And I also agree with Kerry that homosexuality is not a choice (all you have to do is talk to one, which is what Kerry is suggesting). My question is how is Mary, or any other gay family suppose to react to Bush’s “I don’t know [if being gay is a choice].” Is it going to make being gay easier? Or is it going to cause continued embarrassment? After all, if it is a choice, little bobby just needs to get a girlfriend. Are we going to overcome prejudice and ignorance through acquiescence to prejudice and ignorance? It is 2004, shouldn’t we be advocating acceptance?
You say, “the discovery of the fact means that the child will face additional hardship in life that no parent wants for their child to experience.” If I understand your logic correctly, while there is nothing wrong “per-se” about Mary Cheney being gay, because some people are bigots we shouldn’t talk about it. I agree with the first part: being gay will make one’s life more difficult. It is a fact. But is isn’t right. In fact, it is wrong. We should talk about it. Indeed, talking about it is the only way that hardship will be lessened.
And how ironic that the Bush administration and the GOP should demonize homosexuals for political gains (i.e., Santorum and “protecting families” and the pamphlets saying that liberals want to take away the bible and institute gay marriage all key for getting out the evangelical vote. And if you still don’t believe, ask someone who is gay and they will tell you why they feel persecuted by Bush) and then cry foul when Kerry points to an exemplary woman. Clearly there are some double standards going on here. Is it OK to kick around 10% of the population because they are black? Then why is it OK if they are gay? Oh, yeah. Because Bush thinks it could be a choice.
You wondered why people were unable to clearly articulate why it was wrong? Because it meant being a hypocrite. I believe Kerry is talking about Mary because there is no embarrassment in being gay and to prove it, he is talking about it. But your argument is that while there is nothing wrong with being gay, to prove it Kerry shouldn’t be talking about Mary being gay. Huh? Do you really want to know what that feeling is? It’s pride.
Ben: Let’s avoid the pejorative word “homo.”
Also, your remarks regarding Mrs. Kerry are close to the line, if not over it.
We want to keep the discussion on an elevated level. If the politicians can’t, we can.
Rich Leonardi,
No, they don’t think they can keep you from voting Bush; however they do think they can point out who the morons are.
Jimmy:
What was even more despicable was the comment made by Elizabeth Edwards on ABC radio. In response to the righteous indignation of Lynne Cheney over Kerry’s comment, she said Mrs. Cheney’s lament was an indication that she was “ashamed of her daughter.”
First of all, whether or not the Cheneys are ashamaed of Mary’s homsexuality (they have made no public indication that they are) is none of Liz Edwards damned business. It showed, as you pointed out about Kerry’s remarks, an utter disrespect toward the sensitivities of family members and loved ones of homosexuals. Just one more reason why a Kerry presidency would be dangerous.
Highway66: I would not say that there is nothing wrong “per se” with Mary Cheney being homosexual.
Homosexual temptations are a form of sexual temptation that are a cross for many individuals. However, like all temptations, they are a disordered desire to abuse a faculty (in this case, human sexuality) that is in itself good.
Having homosexual temptations is not sinful. Giving in to them, like giving in to any morally disordered temptation, is wrong.
And Kerry wants to show more “sensitivity” to our enemy? I.E., To fight a more “sensitive” war?
It boggles the mind.
I am one of the evangelical christians that John Kerry was hoping to reach with his remarks about Mary Cheney. He was so transparent it reeked of maliciousness……in his ever so “stylish” manner. I am still voting for Bush-Cheney; he didn’t change my mind a bit. However, he did add to the overall dislike and mistrust that I already had for him. I agree with Lynn Cheney, “this is not a good man.”
Remove all the smoke and mirrors and it is clear that the DNC deliberately chose to use Mary Cheney as a means to bolster their chances of gaining the white house. Kerry and Edwards sought the right moment to bring it up in front of large audiences for gratuitous gain. There biggest sin was thier inability to pull it off without disclosing their true intent. For those people who are defending their actions as all the more evidence of the depths that the Dems will go to win this election. It is a sad state of affairs……By the way I am a former Democrat, who like Zell Miller hates what has happened to the Democratic Party. I truly believe that this election will be the death knell of the Clintonites, the Moores, Ted Kennedys and the other extremists who have destroyed a fine party. Zell Miller and Knighthorse Campbell were not slouches……wake up DNC your days are numbered.
Why was it despicable? Because it was intentional.
Jimmy,
I can’t agree with you that homosexual desires are not sinful. While it is worse to act on evil desires, there is nothing in Scripture to justify the act/orientation distinction, and a great deal to refute it. For example, Jesus said in Matthew 15:
“19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.”
The Bible repeatedly holds man accountable for his fallen nature, even though the problem is ultimately traceable to Adam.
If I spend the whole day thinking about how I can cheat on my wife with another woman, that is sinful whether I act on it or not.
The Catechism says that we must “discern between being tempted and consenting to temptation” (n. 2847). For a dramatic scriptural demonstration of that distinction, we need only turn to chapter 4 of St Matthew’s Gospel.
Steve is right, of course, that we can sin in our thoughts. But the sin lies in consenting to a temptation not in the temptation itself.
I guess that I disagree with the premise that the Democrats are defending this in order to split the Christian right from the Republican ticket–to make them stay home as they did in 2000.
Think about it. The Christian Right already knows that Mary is a Lesbian. This isn’t news. Furthermore, the issue of gay marriage is a strong enough one, in my opinion, that, even if some are offended by Cheney’s daughter’s lesbianism (and I am by no means saying that they are, but for the sake of argument) they would still vote in this election and they will vote for Bush/Cheney.
I think they are doing it to make republicans sound like homophobic wackos to the center and undecideds…and furthermore, the longer we keep up this indignation, I’m afraid, the more that is the way we sound.
I was listening to Hannity and Colms last night and Hannity was near foaming at the mouth. By comparison, Colms’s take, that this was sham indignation from the right to deflect from Bush’s failures, sounded eminently reasonable.
It is being used as a wedge, just not aimed at the folks most of you think.
Kurt,
You are right that there is a difference between temptation and giving into temptation, but both are sins and we are accountable for both.
If God holds us accountable for a sin nature that we inherited from Adam, then it is likely He holds us accountable for evil temptations, such as to homosexuality. A homosexual “orientation” is sinful, just as a kleoptomaniac orientation, or whatever.
Steve,
Temptation may lead to sin but “temptation” and “sin” are not the same thing. We can see the difference clearly in scripture which describes Jesus as “one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). If experiencing temptation was sinful, the expression “tempted as we are, yet without sin” would be a nonsense!
The Baltimore Catechism defines actual sin as “any willful thought, word, deed or omission contrary to the law of God”.
One well-known manual of Moral Theology explains that “The requisites for every sin are (a) the transgression of a law, at least a putative law, (b) the knowledge of the transgression; a confused knowledge suffices, (c) free consent.” (Fr Heribert Jone, Moral Theology, Maryland, 1962). The text goes on to address the question of temptations against purity: “Thus he does not sin who, with the best of will, cannot dispel unchaste or blasphemous thoughts, even though he knows such thoughts are gravely sinful.”
I don’t think that there is any basis in Catholic Moral theology for the proposition that uninvited temptations to which we do not consent are sinful.
I think that what you are trying to express is that homosexual attraction is disordered. That is quite correct but it does not make the inclination sinful per se. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons makes the distinction clear when it states “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
[While I’m here, I’d like to apologise for a snippy comment in my earlier post which Jimmy has rightly now removed.]
Kurt,
I’m a Lutheran and I reject the idea of “free will.”
Also, Hebr. 4:15 might better be understood that temptations are sinful, but Jesus was unique in that the things of this world didn’t tempt Him like it did us. Are you saying that Jesus had immoral thoughts?
We believe that children should be baptized because of their sinful nature. If God didn’t hold that “against them,” then why not wait until 14, 16 or whatever to baptize like the so-called Baptists do?
Hi Steve,
If you “reject the idea of free will” then we have some big theological differences between us (although Jimmy’s comment box may not be the right venue to discuss them).
The exegesis of Hebrews 4:15 that you propose (“that temptations are sinful, but Jesus was unique in that the things of this world didn’t tempt Him like it did us”) doesn’t make any sense to me. How can a passage which states that Jesus “in every respect has been tempted as we are” possibly mean that He wasn’t tempted like us? The text explicitly affirms two facts: (1) Jesus was tempted and (2) Jesus did not sin. If both of these statements are true (and they are) it logically follows that temptation does not necessarily equal sin.
Finally, on the question of infant baptism and original sin, I would emphasise the distinction between original sin and actual sin. As the Catechism explains, original sin is “called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense.” It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice rather than a personal fault. Accordingly, I wouldn’t speak of God holding something against the unbaptized but of the unbaptized lacking sanctifying grace.
“It is being used as a wedge, just not aimed at the folks most of you think.”
If that’s true then it is even worse political calculation. Homosexual activists really hate Mary (see http://www.dearmary.com) and have been trying to use her sexual orientation as a political wedge for a long time. What this does is expose the agenda that the activists are against gay people who are not activists.
The Christian Right standing up for the Cheney family acquits them in the mind of this moderate. It shows by example that they are being pro-family rather than anti-gay.
To those who make the arument that Kerry did nothing wrong, ask youself the following question…
Do you think everyone would be so upset if Kerry had used NJ Gov McGreevy (-sp) for his example of someone who would say being gay is not a matter of choice? His is a much more prominent story about his sexual orientation and the struggles that come with it.
Another thing this actually points out, and this is a real wrecker for Kerry, is that the Republican Party includes gays and lesbians, and in very trusting positions. The Republican party can accept anyone who:
1-Believes that people are better at controlling their lives than the govenment.
2-Believes that people should take responsibility for their actions and their lives.
3-Believes that the government shouldn’t be required to create a worry free, risk free life for its citizens.
4-Believes that America is the greatest country on the face of the earth, and that we can accomplish anything we set our minds to.
Dems on the other hand…
While it was an ugly deed (Kerry even had trouble spitting out the words, but he thought of all that power), I do not see the polls leaping upward for Bush. Is it a dirty deed without penalty? Hope not.
Kurt,
Are you really saying that Jesus had improper desires for the things of the world?
Steve,
You are missing Kurt’s point. Jesus was TEMPTED just as we are. If he acted on his temptations, then he would have “improper desires for the things of the world”. But he didn’t. Our fallen nature pushes and pulls us in many disordered directions. But, as rational and spiritual beings, our will opposes what the non-spiritual flesh suggests.
And, as Kurt points out, your errors regarding the nature of a human will is something that requires attention in its own right.
“If I spend the whole day thinking about how I can cheat on my wife with another woman, that is sinful whether I act on it or not.”
Indeed. In this model, you “consent” to the idea of cheating on her, and do so in your mind and heart; however, just the thought being present in your mind, without you will assenting to it, would not be sinful.
The question is: do the thoughts entertain you, or do you entertain the thoughts.
Kurt & Jason,
Here is an exegesis of Hebrews 4:15 that indicates that “although he is stressing Jesus’ identification with his people, the author is still attempting to show that there is some difference in the way in which he faced temptations and in the fact that we are born in sin, though he was not.”
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1488
Steve,
The article to which you refer is mostly concerned with a separate issue, namely whether Jesus was impeccable. For the record, I absolutely affirm that Jesus was impeccable.
Our discussion has centered on the distinction between temptation and sin. You have said that “there is a difference between temptation and giving into temptation, but both are sins and we are accountable for both.”
I do not believe that being tempted is sinful per se because Jesus (who is sinless) was tempted (this is affirmed several times in scripture, see Mt 4:1, Mk 1:13, Lk 4:2, Heb 2:18, Heb 4:15).
Kurt,
Do you believe it’s possible that Jesus experienced sexual temptation (that is, that Jesus experienced the desire to engage in impermissible sexual conduct)?
Why not? He was tempted to kill himself and worship Satan!! I fear you are thinking that “tempted” means “wanted to”.
Steve,
I am not going to engage in speculation about what temptations Jesus might have endured. Rather, I will spell out some of the things we know:
1. Jesus was tempted.
2. Since He was free from concupiscence, those temptations must have come from exclusively external causes (e.g. the suggestions of the devil).
3. Because of the union of His human and divine natures, it was impossible for Him to sin.
4. In the first temptation described in Matthew’s Gospel, Satan tries to persuade Jesus to prefer a natural good (food) to a supernatural good (observing his fast and trusting in God’s providence). The text tells us that Jesus was hungry so we can assume that He would have desired food. In no way, however, did He consent to the devil’s suggestion.
Now, if I am tempted to engage in illicit sexual activity, the thing that I find enticing (namely sexual pleasure) is also a natural good. If I, following the example of Jesus and with the help of His grace, refuse to consent to that temptation how can I be said to have sinned?
Kurt,
If by tempted you mean that Satan offered Jesus certain things, then Jesus was of course tempted. My opinion is that Jesus had no desire for anything impermissble. I deny that Jesus suffered from that second form of tempation.
You say you don’t want to speculate, but I imagine it’s that you don’t want follow where the logic of my argument leads.
If you or I feel desire to engage in illicit sexual activity then we have sinned, regardless of whether we give into that desire. This is because it flows from our sinful nature, which we are 100% accountable for. Scripture repeatedly tells us that our hearts are wicked.
>>>”If you or I feel desire to engage in illicit sexual activity then we have sinned, regardless of whether we give into that desire. This is because it flows from our sinful nature, which we are 100% accountable for. Scripture repeatedly tells us that our hearts are wicked.”
Well, obviously, your beliefs on this matter differ radically from Catholic doctrine (what else to expect from a Lutheran?)
For the record, Catholicism does not believe we are “accountable for” our sinful natures, in the sense that we are morally culpable for them. We did nothing to receive it. Furthermore, there is nothing intrinsically evil about human nature. Original sin is a lack of supernatural life, not a personal sin. We are born in a purely natural state, and thus our natural bodies seek natural things (eg, the alleviation of sexual frustration, of hunger, of work, etc). Because we also have a soul which is intimately bound with our body, we can make a free choice to consent to the desires of the flesh.
So, basically, Catholicism rejects your proposition that feeling a desire for illict sex is a moral evil. The spirit is superior to the flesh, and is rational. Unlike the flesh, it can make choices. Those choices are either good or bad. With God’s grace, we can make good choices.
Steve,
I don’t think speculation into what temptations (other than those recorded in scripture) Jesus might have endured sheds any further light on the argument. It may be helpful if I restate my position as succinctly as possible:
Among the things that Satan offered Jesus were things that were naturally good and enticing. For instance, as I have said, it is not unreasonable to suppose that when Satan tempted Jesus to turn a stone into bread He found the prospect of bread desirable. It is natural for a man to desire food – particularly when he has fasted for 40 days! In no way, however, can recognition of the desirability of food be called sin because Jesus did not consent to Satan’s suggestion.
By analogy, I argue, if the suggestion of illicit sexual activity comes to my mind but I refuse to entertain or consent to it (albeit recognising in all honesty that sexual pleasure is desirable) I cannot be said to have sinned.
At the risk of beating this poor dead horse I would like to respond to Kerry’s statement about Mary Cheney.
What I observed was Kerry’s attempt to show how “tolerant” he and his party is of gay people. He begins by stating, (for the Brethren) “We are all God’s children.” (And unlike the intolerant homophobic Republicans we see gay folks this way, too!) Then he audaciously drags the vice president’s daughter’s name into his attempt to appear more generous, more inclusive, more accepting of Ms. Cheney than the president (and his party). He wants to look like the “bigger man” to create a familial bond– across the party line–to Ms. Cheney and therefore to all homosexuals. How admirable!!
Only it backfired.
If the backlash weren’t as vehement he probably would’ve added this to his resume: altar boy, war hero, tolerant of homosexuals…
poker 113
poker 113