God Bless her. I hope her and her partner have a happy little baby.

The Republican Party has no business in this matter, nor do the Democrats nor anyone else.

Leave the family alone and give the kid a chance for a real life outside of the fishbowl of politics and media.

I agree with Garibaldi.

She has worked in politics for years. I agree the government has no business in our families, that is why it becomes a story.

I can't believe Dick Cheney really supports the president on family issues when it can hurt any of our families.

If you google Mary Cheney pregnant there are already over a million hits. Nothing that we say here will change if it is a public story.

If any other daughter of a POTUS or Veep was pregnant it would be a story, why can't this be one?

"Will it change any minds in or out of the Republican Party ?"

Do you really mean to insinuate that those within the Republican Party who oppose gay marriage do so without ever having thought about it? If so, that's quite a patronizing remark. As if the only problem was that it was missing a familiar face attached?

I am amazed I haven't heard a simple God Bless or best wishes.

You are acting like there is some shame in the story. I see none. Owen, I don't see why you brought up gay marriage. Was that in the title?

What problem does the Republican base have with the Dick Cheney and his family?

She is a public figure.

http://cgi.ebay.com/NOW-ITS-MY-TURN-AUTHOR-MARY-CHENEY-LESBIAN-NON-FICT_W0QQitemZ300055872748QQihZ020QQcategoryZ377QQcmdZViewItem

I find it out that when talking about public figures there is a line only when we are talking about a lesbian. If she was straight and was having a child not a single one of you would be worried that we shouldn't talk about her private life.

1. She has talked about it.
2. Her family is proud of her.
3. Her Dad is not ashamed of her.
4. She is open about her private life as she worked in Gay outreach for Coors.
5. SHE HELPED FORM A POLITICAL GROUP TO ADVANCE GAY RIGHTS!
6. SHE WROTE A BOOK ABOUT HER LIFE INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SHE HAS A LIFE PARTNER.

Why won't you people allow Dick Cheney to be proud of his daughter?

Looks like Mitt Romney is faling behind because of his tolerance of all families. Maybe he should come out and say he was right back then.

If you didn't mean gay marriage, which is the most topical interpretation, then what, pray tell, should Republicans change their minds about?

How come Owen can't jsut say God Bless her and wish her the best? Why is he treating Mary Cheney different then other politicians? I bet of Mitt Romney was having a child he wouldn't hesitate. Actions speak louder than words. But silence can be even louder.

Seems to me the government ain't got no right to be telling two people who love each other what they can or can't do. Let em' get married if they want, seems better for the kid and keeps government outa our lives! Ain't this the land of the free and the home of the brave anymore?

While you're at it Hank, why does the government have the right to limit it to just two people who love each other? Why should the government be able to tell three people who love each other what they can and can't do?

The government DOES recognize the right for more than two: it is called divorce and remarriage. (I suppose for reasons of legal orderliness, it just insists on serial monogamy instead of the more ambiguous legal aspects of polygamy.)

Mr. Owen I command you to stop comparing my daughter to the dirty things in your mind. If you want to talk about it we can go to my private resort in Cuba.

Sounds like Owen prefers living in a dictatorship where people have no freedoms. Of course with a divorce rate in this Country of 50% what is the "sanctity of marriage" you are trying to protect?

When, exactly, did I say that I approve of the high divorce rate? Was it before or after I spoke of my love for dictatorship? I was simply pointing out that you're reasoning for 2 people was the same as 3 or more. You provided no reason for distinction between them. Instead of giving one, you put up two straw men. I would be glad to examine the case on its merits, but apparently you would not.

Brian, I'm actually quite disappointed by the lack of serious discussion on here. I expected more from people interested in politics at the local level. Alas, instead of significant argumentation we resort to hysteria and invective.

No Owen, You did not respond to the question on why the government should get between two people who love each other if it hurts no one else. In terms of a marriage of three people, you threw something into the argument that was not mentioned. Answer the original question if you can.

Owen,

When I asked if this story would cause Republicans to change their mind I wasn't talking about marriage laws.

I was talking about using families as wedge issues. I am hoping that children could grown up with the support and legal protections due to them as American citizens. I want a country where the top issues include education, security, and liberty. Not one where every election comes down to an issue that is just thrown out there to divide people/attack gay people. I can't fathom the fact that terrorists are trying to get WMD's but the biggest issue is what rights should some people not have.

Did you hear the one where Mitt Romney promised to do mroe to support gay people then Ted Kennedy? I can't wait to see how that plays out in the primary. I am hoping he stays with his own pledge instead of using it as a wedge issue. In the Republican Primary having the Log Cabin Republicans back him could be a disaster. Why?

I remember a guy running as a uniter, not a divider in the recent past. I wonder what happened to him?

Instead of talking about marriage list the rights you think Dick Cheney's daughter should or should not have...

I am very interested in your list.

Such an ambiguous term "wedge issue." What does that mean, "something that people disagree on?" So in this last election was the war in Iraq a "wedge issue?" Since it divides people, should it not have been used?

Can you fathom the fact that terrorists are trying to get WMDs, but the new chair of the House Intelligence committee has no idea who those terrorists are?

Moreover, I find it interesting that you all assume I'm opposed to gay marriage. I never said that. I'm not a fan of government intervention into the personal lives of individuals, though it happens on a daily basis. I simply pointed out that arguement given above would be the same applied to three or more people - exactly the same.

I'm not about to give a list of the "rights" that a given individual citizen has for two reasons. First, with the possible exception of convicted felons, all citizens should have the exact same "rights." Second, you present a framework in which people have or do not have "rights." It puts the impetus, the locus of motivation, on the individual. The government can or cannot do something to that individual on the basis of their rights. I perfer to see it the other way around. The individual is not the appropriate frame of reference for determining whether or not an action is justified. Instead, it is the government which has the right to act or not based on the merit of the action. The assumption should be that government is not free to act expect in the areas specified, and not the reverse, which is the understanding necessary for me to create a "list of rights."

On a sidenote, since you seem to be worried about WMDs, what side of the Iraq invasion did you come down on? After all, the preponderance of evidence pointed to his possession and pursuit of advanced WMDs. And how do you think we should deal with Iran's clear desire to obtain nuclear weapons? Or is that another "wedge issue?"

As for the uniter, I would claim that the political atmosphere changed drastically following September 11th. If you'll remember, up to that point, he was pretty bipartisan. Take "No Child Left Behind," a bill written by Ted Kennedy. Given that the security of the country was directly threatened, I don't think it entirely appropriate to water-down one's actions to appease a hostile minority. If you'll indulge in a little historical comparison, the situation under Wilson was eerily similar. The Democrat who "kept us out of war," almost immediately got us in it, and then went on an Idealist mission of democracy promotion against the wishes of an extremely hostile Republican Party.

I knew a guy named Owen in the second grade who used to eat paste and anything he could find in his nose. Where did you go to elementary school Owen?

Instead of argumentation you respond with an ad hominem attack, imagine that.

Yep, same Owen.

Owen,

Currently if you are fired for your race or religion you ahve legal recourse by federal law.

Do you think gay people should also have this right?

In the run up to the last election Bush knew his amendment had no hopes of passing but that ti would divide America. I call that a wedge issue.

The government shouldn't be in the business of telling companies who they can hire and fire. We don't have the "right" to a job. If a company wants to fire someone because of their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc., so be it. Let civil society take up the cause and the business will suffer for it's actions.

If the President knew it wouldn't pass, doesn't that mean that the majority of Americans were opposed. If that's true, then wouldn't his bringing it up only hurt him? Once again, are you saying that we shouldn't talk about controversial issues?

And here's what he had to say about Mary being a mother: "'I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child,' Bush said in an interview with People magazine. 'And I'm happy for her.'"

For the record Owen is in direct conflict with every major Republican running for President in 2008. I can't believe if a company fires a man because he is black you think the free market will fix it.

Owen, should federal workers have protections from workplace discimination based off of sexual orientation? They currently have it based off of race. Should we extend more rights?

Lastly, Bush said she would be a great Mom. But you didn't say anything. If a child has two Moms but no Dad is that immoral?

The title says it all: Bush Happy about Mary Cheney's pregnancy.

Question: Does Owen agree?

Discrimination of race and sexual orientation are two different things. Stop trying to lump everyone who is different into a protected classes....

I suppose if I have brown eyes, I need certain entitlements too as most people with blue eyes tend to get better jobs?

What if I'm a short-tempered employee and keep noticing nice employees keep getting raises and promotions?

Can I get a carve out of entitlements for all the short-tempered employees who have been discriminated against?

Gays and Bisexuals basically already have more rights than the rest of us as it is. In most corporations they can put someone on their domestic partner on their insurance and cost the rest of us in higher premiums.

Hollywood and the metrosexual effiminate male movement continue to try to reduce masculinity as culturally incorrect or unrefined.

Gays and Bisexuals have equal access to water fountains, recreation, stores, schools, and equal access to jobs.

Actually, most the time it doesn't even come up. Of course, what is being argued here is codification of liberal morals on everyone else, so as to make communication in civil society more silent on topics we consider non-pc.

I believe this is why this is even a topic. Liberals want to silence regular people on the subject by calling them bigots and jamming their liberal morals on everyone else.

Only liberals believe that success in life should be decided by the government!!!

They believe that if your gay, it entitles you to better housing, better jobs, better education and better everything else than the rest of us.

They want you to focus on wrongful termination issues, but the real issue is if they get what they want, gays will move to the front of the line to the trough of federal entitlments.

In this regard real minorities will lose out on federal contracts, pensions, housing, student aid, and all other things because being gay is now considered tax beneficial.

People can be protected from unfair practices based off of their race, religion, age, and gender.

Owen is against these "silly" rules? I wonder if any presidential candidate agrees?

Remind me again why gay AMERICANS don't deserve the same job protections?

I didn't ask you for a review of Hollywood movies, so just answer why they shouldn't have the same job protections.

I dare you all to say it...

1. Mary Cheney will be a great Mom with her partner.
2. Their family deserves all the same legal protections as other families. Not more or less, just the same.
3. There is nothing immoral or shameful about their family.
4. Merry Christmas!

Not more rights than the rest of "us", but rather the same.

I can't believe you want to deny basic human rights to another group of people.

I can't believe that Mary Cheney's partner shouldn't have the same access to her healthcare as your partner/wife/husband.

Tell us, what have you done for your nation and God that make you worthy of seeing a doctor whenever you feel like it but a gay family has not?

Why don't you believe in equality?

You talk about all these special rights, but why don't you ever talk about human rights?

Mary Cheney's partner doesn't have health insurance???

Is health insurance now a right?

You all are trying to cloud the issue up and condemn anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot. The ultimate PC-type nonsense that has caused more division than ever before.

The problem with you people is you turn everything into a "right", so we can't even have a real discussion on the topic.

When everything is a "right" and everyone different is given protective class status, civil society suffers because no one can even talk about the issue anymore without offending...

I noticed that you just ignored the Brown eye example. If Blue eyed people get better jobs, do I, as a brown eyed person, have a right to get protective status?

What about geniuses or billionaires or someone who has fame?

There aren't many geniuses in the world. Should they be a protected group and given special treament?

How about people who have been inflicted with billios of dollars? Why should they be burdened with paying more taxes while they are in the minority? Should they be given protective rights?

What about people who have been inflicted with fame? They can't go to a movie or go to a drinking fountain, unlike gays, without being harrassed by paparazzi or fans? How come they are considered a protected group.

Look, let's just make everyone protected groups, then we'll have true equality... Sorry, it just doesn't work because we all are differnt...

Jim Dantona, the Ventura democratic leader, and most democrats running for President don't even believe in gay marriage, so I hardly think you liberals should be running your mouth about conservative viewpoints as most democrats have those same views.

How can you ask millionaires to pay more than what others pay, then say everyone has to be equal in the same breath?

Our tax structure is totally unequal. If you believe in equality, you should let millionaires pay the same as the poorest person in our society?

Wouldn't that be equal?

I have green eyes. What about me? It's pretty clear if you talk to others that have green eyes as I have, that we've been discriminated against. We need green eye affirmative action to correct this inequality.

Would you agree that if all these protections are not needed we should remove them from covering people based off of their race?

Please put your real name so every candidate you support will go down in flames. I know you tried to amke this a left vs right but it isn't.

Every Republican leader agrees that people deserve job protections. You and Owen are so far out there it is more like 99% of America and you two.

How does it feel to be far to the right of Bush and Cheney? Arnold and Jeb? Rudy and Mitt?

Your club could have its National Convention in Rush Limbaugh's "medicine" cabinet and still have leftover room.

Admit it. You might be roght but you guys are extremists.

Mitt Romney said he would do more than Ted Kennedy to create equal rights for gay people.

Do you think this hurts or helps him in Cheney's Republican Party?

If Cheney's partner workded for the federal government should her healthcare benefits extend to their daughter?

If you don't agree you are saying it is because she is a lesbian she has different rights.

The Taliban would agree with you.

Just sayin'

I am confused. Wasn't this topic about Mary Cheney?

Anyways, I hope they have a happy life together as a family and may this bring them closer together.

I agree with Mitt Romney ( of 1994, not today) more needs to be done to extend the American promise to all Americans.

Good Luck to the proud mothers!

Once again I must ask, what right does the government have to tell two people who love each other what they can, or cannot do, as long as it hurts no one else?

People must be scared if they are taking shots at front runner Mitt Romeny already!

Looks like Republicans are on top of the problem.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52984