Lynne Cheney Outraged by Remarks

I do not consider myself a democrat. I would gladly support Bush if he was a true conservative. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I do plan on voting for Peroutka or to not vote at all.

It is amazing that while I supported a liberal candidate I was belittled constantly. Now I would like to support a conservative like Peroutka and still there will be the flack.

 

Well, I'm not the hottest Christian around, but this is not about me. What part of my argument can you refute? </font>[/QUOTE]You have argued around the question I asked like a seasoned politician. I asked, eons ago, what legal and constitutional grounds would you use to defend your actions to deny access and employment to homosexuals in Washington?

It was really a simple question.

 

My answer is that I wouldn't bother. I'd simply find qualified moral candidates and place them in positions.

There would be absolutely nothing wrong with that. If anyone raised it to a court issue, I would simply, as the Bible says, follow God rather than man. I think that many, many millions of Americans would come out to support that. I hope you would.

BTW...I earlier brought up the fact that our elected officials usually exempt themselves from following the hiring laws that they pass for everyone else. I don't think that the issues you raise even apply to presidential appointments. Do you know for sure?

 

Do you buy gasoline? If so then you indirectly support Islam.

 

I have said several times that I wish Bush had chosen a new running mate.

 

Hardsheller, I thought after accusing me of avoiding your question that you would reply when I answererd it, and added one for you.

 

Pa. Jim,

I have looked to see if what you say is correct about the hiring practices of the White House.

It is possible to fill out the Application for White House Appointment and also the National Security Forms without ever having to state that you are a homosexual.

I would think it might be possible for a quiet living, in the closet, homosexual applicant to slip through the application process and the background checks undetected.

Probably never happen for a ACT-UP or Queer Nation member.

I can find no stated policy on the subject as of yet.

 

Good work, thanks. I want to make something clear on this, too:

I understand that it is possible for, as you say, "a quiet living, in the closet, homosexual applicant to slip through the application process and the background checks undetected". Also, I realize that there are good people who struggle with homosexual tendencies, and my heart goes out to them. But please notice that I am not referring to them; I am referring to, as I have repeatedly said, "unrepentant homosexuals".

There's a world of difference.

 

Sodomy is not a sin. I can't find it listed as a sin in scripture. Most people who engage in sodomy are heterosexual, married, consenting couples. So, if that's how they want to express their love for each other, the, yes, I support sodomy.

Now, sexual activity outside of marriage, be it intercourse, sodomy, etc, that's a sin.

 

Wow. Don't believe I would have said that!

 

I know what Terry meant. I think John V did, too.

 

No, I believe you have a misunderstanding of the word "support."

 

Of course she is also speaking as the mother of a pervert. </font>[/QUOTE]Terry pretty much puts the view of the extremist religious right into succinct words in this statement.

The Cheneys signed on to the Bush campaign in 2000. It came out then that their daughter Mary was a lesbian. Unless they are incredibly naive, totally unaware or bottomlessly stupid, they had to know that a significant and powerful segment of the Republican party considered their daughter to be exactly what Terry says here, along with some other choice names. In spite of that, they signed on to the campaign and now find themselves in a very awkward position. Cheney has stated his opposition to Bush's half-hearted political proposal to come up with a constitutional amendment defining marriage, but had to concede in the vice-presidential debate that GWB sets the administration's agenda. Kerry simply used that as an example, correctly perceiving from the Vice President's words in the debate, that it was an issue open for discussion. Lynn Cheney's remarks are way out of line. Has she ever shot back at the extremists of the religious right who call homosexuals "perverts," "unrepentant sinners" and worse? She can't, not without endangering Bush's re-election chances. Obviously, she's choked down a lot of her bile and this remark is an outburst triggered by lots of frustration.

 

In what way is calling somenone who is homosexual and happy with it an "unrepentant sinner" radical?