Post-Gazette Editorial – 12/15/06

This page was last updated on December 17, 2006.

Baby and bluster: Mary Cheney deserves compassion, not criticism; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; December 15, 2006.

As far as I can tell, this editorial is simply a smear of conservatives.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“There’s something about babies that defines this holiday season. A lot of the credit belongs to an infant born to an unmarried girl in Palestine 2,000 years ago in the back roads of the Roman Empire.

“It was more a scandal then than it is today; the young woman had to convince her fiancé and her community that she was a good girl, despite the swelling of her belly.”

[RWC] Read the Bible and you find it took a tad more than Mary herself convincing Joseph. It took “an angel of the Lord.”

According to Matthew 1:18-21, “Now the origin of Christ was in this wise. When Mary his mother had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. But Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wishing to expose her to reproach, was minded to put her away privately. But while he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to thee Mary thy wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.’”

“Surrounded by farm animals, the teenager gave birth to a healthy baby boy. Christians have celebrated the blessed birth ever since. The Nativity scene became the symbolic heart of the season because it was a supreme example of compassion overcoming shame and social ostracism.

“That birth was also a repudiation of moral presumption and finger-wagging, reminding us that we aren’t always in a position to know what goodness can come from ‘social deviance.’

“Recently, Mary Cheney, the vice president’s unmarried daughter, announced that she and her lesbian partner of 15 years are expecting a baby.”

[RWC] With no offense intended to Ms. Cheney, is the PG serious in trying to draw an analogy between the Virgin Mary and Mary Cheney? Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t recall hearing/reading anyone referring to Ms. Cheney’s immaculate conception.

“Even as Nativity scenes and crèches were being erected to celebrate the baby Jesus, Christian conservatives were condemning Ms. Cheney for conceiving a child out of wedlock and for being in a sexual relationship with a woman. To their credit, however, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife said through a spokeswoman that they ‘are looking forward with eager anticipation’ to the arrival of their sixth grandchild.”

[RWC] Granted I don’t travel in the same circles as the PG editorial author(s), but to date I haven’t heard any conservatives – Christian or otherwise – condemn “Ms. Cheney for conceiving a child out of wedlock and for being in a sexual relationship with a woman.” Don’t get me wrong; I’m sure those people exist. My point is I don’t believe the position is widespread, as the editorial would like us to believe. I listen to my fair share of conservative radio/TV and have yet to hear ay condemnation. The same is true for the conservative print media.

“To their credit?” When have the Cheneys ever showed anything but love and pride for their daughter? The way this editorial is written, you’re led to believe Ms. Cheney’s parents somehow think less of her because she is a homosexual.

“Picking up stones to fling at Ms. Cheney and her partner during a holiday season rooted in another unconventional pregnancy should have made more than one moralist ponder the uncomfortable irony. But, lately, dogma has been trumping compassion in religious circles. A deep antipathy for gays in particular is distorting the message of hope and reconciliation that should dominate the season.”

[RWC] “A deep antipathy for gays?” Here are a couple of questions.

Who exposed his true feelings about homosexuals when he brought up Ms. Cheney’s homosexuality during the 2004 campaign? Why Democrat VP candidate John Edwards, of course.

Who bashed Republicans for letting a known homosexual [former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL)] have contact with male congressional pages? The implication was that homosexuals are predisposed to be pedophiles and/or ephebophiles. Why Democrats, of course.

“Ms. Cheney is not a homeless girl looking for a decent place to have her baby. Her child will come into a world where it will be loved by two parents and a very large, politically connected family.

“But let’s pretend otherwise. Would Mary Cheney and her child be worthy of a little more compassion from those who condemn them if they had no place to lay their heads?”

[RWC] I probably shouldn’t write about the specific beliefs of the various Christian denominations, but I suspect it’s fair to say most of them disapprove of producing children outside of the marriage of a man and a woman whether the mother is heterosexual or homosexual.

While I haven’t heard any condemnation of Ms. Cheney, that doesn’t mean all people approve. But disapproval is far from condemnation. We all disapprove of certain behaviors, but that doesn’t mean we always condemn the person.

Don’t let the PG and its ilk try to equate disapproval with condemnation.