There aren’t many winners at the end of this game show but that’s the price you pay for entering the public spotlight. As you may know, Liz Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, is running in the Republican primary in Wyoming to unseat the current Republican incumbent Senator, Mike Enzi. However, the plot has thickened when Liz Cheney recently affirmed (or reaffirmed) her belief in traditional marriage.

I’ll let Politico take it from here:

Liz Cheney took fire Sunday from her own sister and sister-in-law over her public opposition to their right to be married.

Mary Cheney and her wife, Heather Poe, went on Facebook after the Wyoming Senate candidate said on Fox News Sunday that she believes “in the traditional definition of marriage.”

“Liz — this isn’t just an issue on which we disagree, you’re just wrong — and on the wrong side of history,” Mary Cheney wrote in a note.

Heather Poe recalled in a separate note that Liz Cheney “didn’t hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us” when the two legally got hitched in Washington last year.

“Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children,” Poe wrote. “To have her now say she doesn’t support our right to marry is offensive to say the least.”

She then drew attention to the fact that Liz Cheney did not actually become a resident of Wyoming until last year.

“I can’t help but wonder how Liz would feel if as she moved from state to state, she discovered that her family was protected in one but not the other,” wrote Poe. “I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.”

Cheney is challenging Sen. Mike Enzi in next year’s GOP primary. The former vice president’s daughter is the the heavy underdog.

A poll conducted for the PAC at the end of October found Cheney trailing by 52 percentage points.

On TV Sunday, Liz Cheney said the disagreement with her sister is not personal.

“I love Mary very much,” she said on Fox. “I love her family very much.”

So, what to make of this? Could Liz Cheney have handled her answer a bit differently knowing she may take some flack from within her own family?

26 COMMENTS

  1. Basically Mike Enzi is a RINO and Cheney is a Tea Party – a lot of Wyoming citizens are concerned that WY is turning purple then blue.

  2. I don’t think she could have handled her answer differently. This is like having family members who like opposing football teams. Everyone knows about the Michigan / Ohio State rivalry, and the Miami / Florida State rivalry. Liz’s comments about being happy for her sister aren’t much different than a Miami fan congratulating a FS fan (who is a family member) for winning a game against Florida.

    This is just crazy. People who talk like Liz’s sisters (gay and straight people talk this way) don’t realize that what they are saying is adamantly not true.

    Gay people have always been able to marry everywhere. They just haven’t been able to force other people, or governments, to call their relationship a marriage. They have been able to share property, designate heirs, insurance beneficiary information…etc. There is nothing that gay people don’t have that married people do, except for recognition by other people.

    It seems that at least Liz has been cordial with her family even though she disagreed with their relationship as a legitimate marriage. However, the cordiality is a one way street apparently.

    Did Liz go out and spread around the world publicly her belief in marriage being 1 man 1 woman, as soon as she heard her sister was getting married to a woman? Did she make a public spectacle of her sister? No.

    It is obvious who the real haters are by their behavior. It is obvious who the real ‘diverse’ people are by their behavior.

    Hopefully some day people will call them on their hatred.

    • Josh: I don’t know how Liz could have done worse.

      First, let’s look at her candidacy. She’s running for, arguably, the second highest national office. And what is her qualification? Well, um, she has a famous name, like Paris Hilton! You don’t expect elective experience, too, do you?? In the era of Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush, the name’s the thing.

      Second, she’s a carpetbagger, who rolled into town because she smelled blood in the water.

      I’m not for Enze (I’m not usually “for” anybody). But this cult of personality crap has gone too far.

      As for her comment, Josh, I’ll tell you what she SHOULD have said. She should have said that states should decide, and since she is not running for an in-state office, the topic is irrelevant to this campaign. If pressed, she should have just repeated that it should be decided by the state, and she would stand by that.

      By saying “states should decide,” she would be, in effect, supporting the state’s anti-gay population, while at the same time, not seeming to be disloyal (and/or hypocritical) to family.

      There was no reason for her to get involved in this topic. It’s certainly not a Tea Party issue. It’s the kind of silliness that derails a political movement like the Tea Party.

      And to say it’s like football, is ludicrous. Family should stick together regarding WHO we are. Being gay is not as frivolous as a ball game. It’s who Mary is, and by attacking her marriage, how could it not be seen as attacking her??

      And you are WAY off in saying that they could always marry. It’s like saying you can always be Black if you call yourself Black. Well, ok, but nobody else sees it that way.

      I’m not “for” gay marriage, but I’m sure you’ve heard the same outrages that I have about gay partners being humiliated–such as not being allowed in the room, because they’re “not family”–or not being allowed to inherit what they worked to build. Not being able to make decisions for the partner, and yes, not being able to be an insurance beneficiary.

      This is equivalent to someone moving to Alabama in 1999 and campaigning in 2000 that her brother should NOT have married a Black woman. (It was illegal in Alabama until November of that year.)

      • Thank you, Goethe. I’ve just arrived, but I’m glad to see someone is refuting the unhinged right-wingers on this site.

        • Godfrey: Actually, I refute anybody who is unhinged.

          I felt the same way about Hillary. She was a carpetbagger who moved to New York just so she could run, and New York, which loves to elect celebrities, went for it.

          Hillary had no greater credentials then than Liz has now, and neither of the celebrities should have been allowed–by the voters–to just walk into the Senate for being famous.

  3. It is a shame Cheney has even that prejudice. Maybe it’s something she wouldn’t do but it is also a personal liberty and as long as no bodily harm then it’s their personal liberty and for insurance and rights of survival there should be docs in place. Don’t remember any form of sodomy outlawed in the Constitution, Amendments, or Declaration.

    • Sam;
      I’m not quite sure, and hope you clarify which Cheney you are referring to when you state “It is a shame Cheney has even that prejudice”. Being against gay marriage isn’t a prejudice especially when it is based on religious issues. There are many laws which were written on moral issues but not in the Constitution. Something that we need to get desperately back to !

      There is nothing wrong with condemning the sin but still loving the sinner.

    • Sam – not really sure what you mean. The ones who are limiting the liberty of others (or at least trying to) are those who are pushing the modern gay agenda, not people like Liz Cheney who hold a personal view point and would not force other people to accept homosexuality as normal. She’s not even trying to force people to accept her personal view. That’s what Liz’s sister is apparently doing, trying to force acceptance and silence opposition. That’s the modern gay agenda.

      The modern gay agenda is no longer about ‘tolerance’ its about forced acceptance.

  4. Josh and Bob – I apologize if i offended you. I’m very spiritual and i do believe that Jesus was the greatest Master Teacher to visit here. But i’m offended by religion. It was created, written, and propagated by man. The creator’s energy is in everything in this universe (and others) and exists in you and provides you with your morals (maybe a little from genetics, too). I doubt seriously if the creator gives a rats ass is people are gay and probably could care less about any kind of sodomy. It’s not my thing but other’s Personal Liberties are none of my business and what people think of me is none of my business. Religion was created for political control and enlarging or converting to a same thinking flock.

    I was talking about Liz Cheney and if she is a Christian, it is perfectly normal for her to have the feelings she does and if she is open minded enough to accept her sister’s personal liberty – good for her.

    The 1st Amendment discussed no law related to religion and should have been more explicit to say no law from religion. There should have never needed to be a law about discrimination, Roe vs Wade, or gay marriage. If it weren’t for religion they wouldn’t exist. The morality inherent in your soul tells you what’s right and wrong for YOU

    • Sam – you seem to be making a mistake to think that the only reason people would think homosexuality isn’t normal is religion. Nature also shows its not normal. Maybe you’ve been brainwashed by the MSM?

      Jesus really didn’t say anything about homosexuality, so I’m not sure how any specific teaching of His relates here. Well, except for love your neighbor, be merciful, the meek will inherit the earth…etc. These don’t really relate to homosexuality, but they definitely relate to how Liz’s sister is treating her and is behaving publicly – which is bad.

      Nature also reveals that homosexuality is not normal. Whether you look at the world through evolutionary eyes, or through the eyes of intelligent design, the biological world is designed for the coming together of male and female. Even plants. Sure, there are exceptions that people find with unusual behavior by a few animals and plants, but by and large the male and female are designs of Nature and God. A girl and guy get together and things happen naturally, don’t need an artificial intervention to cause procreation of the species.

      You claim that you do not want to interfere with other people’s personal liberties, in saying that you are either inaccurately assessing the modern gay agenda, or are deliberately turning a blind eye.

      You seem to think that those who know homosexuality is not normal are trying to stop them from behaving that way, or make their relationships illegal. This is not the case.

      What is happening today, as you can see with Liz Cheney very clearly, is those who support the modern gay agenda are seeking to silence opposition to their viewpoint. They do not wish to debate or discuss. They consider disagreement to be ‘hate’ and respond in kind.

      So if anyone is trying to stop anyone else’s behavior, and interfere with their personal liberties (thought and speech) of others, it is those who are promoting the modern gay agenda.

      • Josh: Yer so full o’ crap. Where do you even get this stuff? Do you make it up, or do you have an imaginative minister who bends yer ear?

        The only way you could be right would be if you are relying on the dictionary meaning of “normal” as–

        “something that is normal is how you expect it to be, and is not unusual or surprising in any way”

        Using that definition, you are certainly “not surprising in any way,” so I guess you’re normal.

        But I’m sure you are using “not normal” as a moral judgment to suggest that gays should have no rights because here ain’t many of them.

        You are trying to give the impression that only humans have any significant homosexual population, and that’s not true. In fact, homosexual interaction IS the norm among Bonobos, which are primates, like ourselves, and unlike us, are very peaceful and cooperative, largely BECAUSE of their homosexual interaction.

        And in case anyone else thinks only humans have this trait, here’s a partial list of other species who have notable homosexual populations:

        MAMMALS
        Bison
        Brown Bear
        Brown Rat
        Cavy
        Caribou
        Cat (domestic)
        Cattle (domestic)
        Chimpanzee
        Common Dolphin
        Common Marmoset
        Dog
        Elephant
        Fox
        Giraffe
        Goat
        Horse (domestic)
        Human
        Koala
        Lion
        Orca
        Raccoon

        BIRDS
        Barn Owl
        Chicken
        Common Gull
        Emu
        King Penguin
        Mallard
        Raven
        Seagull

        FISH
        Amazon molly
        Bennett
        Blackstripe topminnow
        Bluegill Sunfish
        Char
        Grayling
        European Bitterling
        Green swordtail
        Guiana leaffish
        Houting Whitefish
        Jewel Fish
        Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)
        Mouthbreeding Fish
        Salmon
        Southern platyfish
        Ten-spined stickleback
        Three-spined stickleback

        REPTILES
        Anole
        Bearded Dragon
        Broad-headed Skink
        Checkered Whiptail Lizard
        Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard
        Common Ameiva
        Common Garter Snake
        Cuban Green Anole
        Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard
        Desert Tortoise
        Fence Lizard
        Five-lined Skink
        Gopher (Pine) Snake
        Green Anole
        Inagua Curlytail Lizard
        Jamaican Giant Anole
        Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard
        Largehead Anole
        Mourning Gecko
        Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard
        Red Diamond Rattlesnake
        Red-tailed Skink
        Side-blotched Lizard
        Speckled Rattlesnake
        Water Moccasin
        Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)
        Western Banded Gecko
        Whiptail Lizard
        Wood Turtle

        AMPHIBIANS
        Appalachian Woodland Salamander
        Black-spotted Frog
        Mountain Dusky Salamander
        Tengger Desert Toad

        INSECTS
        Alfalfa Weevil[61]
        Australian Parasitic Wasp
        Bean Weevil
        Bedbug and other Bug
        Blister Beetle
        Blowfly
        Broadwinged Damselfly
        Cabbage (Small) White (Butterfly)
        Checkerspot Butterfly
        Club-tailed Dragonfly
        Cockroach
        Common Skimmer Dragonfly
        Creeping Water Bug
        Cutworm
        Digger Bee
        Dragonfly
        Eastern Giant Ichneumon Wasp
        Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer
        Field Cricket
        Flour Beetle
        Fruit Fly
        Glasswing Butterfly
        Grape Berry Moth
        Grape Borer
        Green Lacewing
        Hen Flea
        House Fly
        Ichneumon wasp
        Japanese Scarab Beetle
        Larch Bud Moth
        Large Milkweed Bug
        Large White
        Long-legged Fly spp.
        Mazarine Blue
        Mexican White (butterfly)
        Midge
        Migratory Locust
        Monarch Butterfly
        Narrow-winged Damselfly
        Parsnip Leaf Miner
        Pomace fly
        Queen Butterfly
        Red Ant
        Red Flour Beetle
        Reindeer Warble Fly (Hypoderma tarandi)
        Rose Chafe
        Rove Beetle
        Scarab Beetle (Melolonthine)
        Screwworm Fly
        Silkworm Moth
        Southeastern Blueberry Bee
        Southern Green Stink Bug
        Southern Masked Chafer
        Southern One-Year Canegrub
        Spreadwinged Damselfly
        Spruce Budworm MotH
        Stable Fly
        Stag Beetle
        Tsetse Fly
        Water Boatman Bug
        Water Strider

        Did God total F-up, or is it “normal” to have homosexuals in species even where you cannot possibly say it is a “choice.”

  5. Sam;
    I didn’t take any offense by your comments and could care less if you are offended by religion. As Josh stated she didn’t attempt to force her religion on anyone therefore I don’t see any point in getting into an in depth discussion about it either. It was a family matter until her sister decided to air it in public as a source of opprobrium.

    The point of my post was you need to adjust your intolerance toward those who don’t believe in the same beliefs you have.
    Conservatives believe that man is basically flawed while secularism is mans subordination of morality to his own earthly judgement. But the bourgeois society the Progressives hold in contempt was never so flawed as was the dream of a new kind of human being who could transcend it. As William Buckley once called it “immanentizing the eschaton” or establishing a Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. We currently see how that stratagem is going for President Obama.

  6. Bob – i probably should have used the word disappointed. Had it been me and Liz’s belief’s i would have simply said, “how i feel about Homosexuality is my business, and i support my sister and her companion completely – politics should have no opinion in personal liberties, it’s called the 1st Amendment.”

    My personal droning was simply to point out, religion (and their founders) do not determine morals. Your soul which is part of Source does. Or if your a Atheist you can try giving genetics a tumble.

    Josh – i agree with you 100% and my soul says those same words to me. Yes, you could say i’m turning a blind eye. I am a Deist, I believe Source created this and other universes (something so incredibly intelligent to create the intricacies of this planet and cells let alone the rest of just this universe). Blind eye? Maybe, each of us is in this incarnation movie to learn about emotions and everyone has their own lesson plan, and anyone else’s is none of my frackin’ business, unless they intend to bring harm to me or mine, then they will pull my Mini14 and Ruger SR9c from my dead cold hands and that includes your present butt-ugly POTUS. .

    • Sam: Thanks fer the invitation, and apologies for being silent. My power was out for a week because of the storm, and I’ve been without hot water for more than a month, and there have been other crises.

      Anyway, I agree totally with you. History will look back at us and laugh at the silly things politicians and the media considered to be “issues” so that we would be distracted from important matters.

  7. Goethe – don’t disagree with you on the name thing. Name doesn’t qualify or disqualify, but too many people trust names…its like a de facto monarchy.

    You should have followed the link. In the video the *first* thing she said is…the states should decide.

    The topic IS irrelevant because of the modern gay movement to force acceptance. It would be like polygamists going around the country trying to force acceptance of polygamy legally. Additionally, trying to make it ‘hate speech’ to say polygamists have strange relationships. And trying to indoctrinate society by sneaking books into elementary schools that says – tommy has 1 dad and 12 mommies.’

    People are concerned about this because they know there are people with a gay agenda who are trying to change laws, and people want to know where there representative stands. Because a representative government should represent the people.

    I didn’t see any comments anywhere from Liz that she ‘attacked’ her sister’s marriage. Liz only said she does not believe in gay marriage. It was Liz’s sister who did the personal attacks.

    That’s what supporters of the modern gay movement do. Anytime someone disagrees philosophically, they are attacked. Everyone in the country sees it, that’s why in the Bush years DOMA was passed…with huge bi-partisan support. Democrats only started supporting it recently when their coffers were running low.

    I agree with you on those outrages. Even though I don’t think being gay is normal. Most of the people who are gay have become that way through some kind of abuse. There is usually a lot of unresolved pain and confusion going on inside of them.

    But still, if there’s a gay couple, its just crazy that they don’t have visitation rights. Hospitals have to protect themselves, though. With the lawsuit lottery going on daily in this country, i really don’t blame them.

    There has to be some way for people to designate someone. I mean, what do single people do who don’t have any family, or there is no family close? They have to have some legal means to name people for all of the things you said, if not then it should be created.

    The gay marriage thing is *nothing* like the interracial marriage laws (don’t know about Alabama’s specifically – it must have been something unique because in 1967 the Supreme Court deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates). Prior to those days people could be jailed for just being in a romantic relationship inter-racially (no sex required), much less getting married. To compare the ‘gay marriage’ movement to that is just dishonest. In the interracial marriage people were arrested and put in jail. With gay marriage, they just don’t get a piece of paper from the government. Totally different.

    marriage didn’t start with the government, so you don’t need government to get married.

    • Josh: no, it is not dishonest to compare interracial marriage where it was illegal with gay marriage where it is illegal. It is exactly the same thing, especially when an opportunist carpetbagger throws her own sister under her campaign bus.

      But let me ask you this–do you have any CLOSE personal friends or CLOSE relatives who are in a committed relationship? As I said earlier, I am not pushing gay marriage, because it has no effect on me, one way or the other.

      But I do know how easy it is to pontificate when you’re talking about other people’s lives and those people are not even “real” to you.

      • It dishonest to compare it that way for the simple reason that gay marriage is *not* illegal, it never has been. With miscegeneation you could be thrown in jail, with gay marriage nothing happens if you have a ceremony and live committed lives. You just don’t get a document from the government….so what! The polygamists do it all the time.

        I know people who are gay, yes, family, yes. None of them have any fear of government coming after them for being gay like the black people did for being black. There are no ‘straight only’ water fountains, not ‘sit at the back of the bus’, no ‘come to the back door’…etc none of that. There is no government coming to them stopping their relationships. And their relationship is *not* illegal…so its very different.

        If anything, there is discrimination the other direction. Liz Cheney’s sister is a perfect example of the discrimination against those who don’t believe in gay marriage. If you say you don’t believe in gay marriage then the gay agenda KKK (both straight and gay people in that group) come out and start burning proverbial crosses and making a big public stir in order to intimidate you and anyone else from speaking out.

        Very different than the treatment of black people.

        • Josh:

          “Marriage” is a legal contract–which is not legal in most states. So how can you honestly say that “gay people have always been able to marry everywhere?? That is not only dishonest. It’s an outright lie.

          And that contract is referred to thousands of times in other laws. So Gays and lesbians are written out of a TON of laws.

          And now that I think of it, DOMA did make gay marriage “illegal.” And while the Roberts Court declared such laws unconstitutional, many states continue to may gay marriage “illegal.”

          Tell ya what. We’ll cut you a break. You don’t HAVE to marry a gay. Does that make you feel better?

          • Funny…

            Marriage is not a legal contract, marriage is a life long commitment between a man and a woman to each other forsaking all others. If marriage required the legal blessing of the USA to exist, then that means the US government invented marriage for all mankind, right? Obviously not. I think marriage existed before 1776.

            Agreed, that was an overstatement about always everywhere. However, today gay people can commit to each other for life, share property, designate inheritance…etc. Everything that is involved in a marriage they can do. What they don’t have is a piece of paper from the government saying they are married, in some places they can, but in others they cannot. But regardless of a license from the government, they can get married.

            Its like ‘joe the plumber’. Joe said he was a plumber and had been doing so for years, was thinking of starting a plumbing business. One of the things the democrats threw at him was…he wasn’t really a plumber because he wasn’t licensed by the state, wasn’t part of a plumber’s union..etc. But that somehow didn’t stop him from doing plumbing work over the previous years and in truth *being* a plumber…even without the state piece of paper or union membership card. As far as I know he wasn’t arrested for any crime…because he had committed no crime in doing plumbing work without a license or lack of union membership.

            Similarly, gay people will not be accused, or convicted, of any crime for having a lifelong commitment to each other…therefore gay marriage is not illegal in the same way that inter-racial marriage used to be illegal.

            Similarly, there isn’t anything gay couples can’t do that straight couples can’t do…well, except have each other’s children. They can raise a family together, but it is impossible for them to create children of their own with each other.

            So it is a dishonest comparison between the 2.

            • If marriage is not a legal contract, why are so many lawyers getting rich in the process of dissolving those contracts?

              And if you don’t see the dishonesty of your statement that “there isn’t anything gay couples can’t do that straight couples can’t do,” then you’re really off the rails.

  8. Sam, Josh, Bob, and Godfrey:

    I am speaking to you directly,because the way this system works, you have to opt-in to a discussion. And that means, if you don’t post, you won’t get new posts about that topic. And, because while I have disagreed with all of you, at one point or another, including this thread, I think you have integrity.

    OK, so here’s the deal: I was suspicious of “Gulag1972” for a number of reasons.
    (1) Stalin built the gulag system, and Kruchev began dismantling it in 1953, so that the number of people in gulags dropped precipitously after that. Gulag1972 claims to have escaped in 1972.
    (2) If YOU had been in a gulag and then escaped to the United States, do you think you’d call yourself “Gulag1972”? No, of course not. It would be like calling yourself by a prison name if you had been incarcerated. You would call yourself “ProudAmerican,” or “FreeNow,” or something like that, right?
    (3) If you really suffered under the Soviet system, wouldn’t your memory of it get worse as time goes on? Yet, “Gulag” claimed that things are worse here, now. There are so many things that are better here, how could any person who suffered under Soviet repression possibly claim things are worse here?? I spoke with REAL Russians a few years ago, and when someone at our table said our president was like Stalin or Brezhnev, they shook their heads–couldn’t someone would say that.
    (4) If you really went through Soviet repression, wouldn’t you be AFRAID to criticize the government here? Wouldn’t you be afraid of being “sent home,” even on a subconscious level? Would you really want to look like such an ingrate?
    (5) “Gulag1972” only posted on the “Bold Predictions” page, and then disappeared. I have goaded him several times, asking for information, saying I’ve read articles in Pravda, and want to know more. He went suddenly dark after that ONE day (Dec 27). I think he was afraid of saying something to blow his cover.
    (6) Nobody else–except Surfisher/Obvious–has seriously claimed that the US is becoming the USSR. (Sam, I know you were not serious in such comments.) It is such absurd hyperbole.
    (7) While Obvious was very active in that page, he did NOT reply to Gulag. How could that possibly be,since Gulag was saying the sort of thing that he would have said, “SPOT ON” to anyone else, such as to Betty, on the same page. I don’t believe that Obvious could have missed that chance–and he DID post after that (Dec 29). The ONLY reason Obvious wouldn’t chime in is if HE is Gulag.
    (8) NOBODY else on here, as far as we know, has made up a new identity, because his old one had become so discredited.
    (9) Nobody else has such low integrity that he would make up a story like that, just to manipulate us.
    (10) He has never fessed up to being both Surfisher and Obvious.

    I have one other important piece of evidence that I don’t want to share.

    How about if you guys go to the “Bold Predictions” page and saying to Gulag, “yeah, I agree that I would also like to hear the real story inside the USSR,” or something like that.

    I am 90% sure that Surfisher/Obvious is also Gulag, and I resent being duped. I even posted a couple of sympathetic comments to him, until my suspicions were aroused.

    Please help me expose this jerk, but don’t confront him directly right away. Let’s see if he tries to worm his way out of it–or just doesn’t reply.

  9. Sam, Josh, Bob, and Godfrey:

    Have you noticed that we have not heard from “Gulag” for the same time as we have not heard from “Surfisher/Obvious”?

    It will be interesting if they both suddenly reappear “together.” Stay tuned.

Comments are closed.