(Rose)Mary's Baby

June 04, 2007 by susan
Lynne and Dick Cheney, holding latest grandchild

Remember in Rosemary's Baby, when Mia Farrow's baby turns out to be the child of the devil, and the cult of creepy old people move in and take over? Well . . .

Posted in

Comments

Anonymous (not verified) | June 4, 2007 - 9:22am

I'm conflicted about this couple. That is, it's good that they openly accept their daughter, partner and baby. And that they're willing to be photoed with, etc etc.
But........how dare they!! All the other gay couples in the world don't deserve the same acceptance? Their babies aren't welcome to join the huge parade of "non-traditional" families?
It's okay for their daughter, but no one else?
Have they learned anything from this experience or not? And if so, why not preach their new gospel to the world, including their Christian right base?
But then........why am I not surprised?

»

barbara aka babs (not verified) | June 4, 2007 - 10:57am

Think Morticia and Gomez.

That said, this poor child deserves better than it's gotten. (I say "it" only because I can't remember its gender.) What a stinking deal to begin life in the critical spotlight, shined on it mostly by the hypercritical right-to-lifers. And thereby hangs the tale.

Right to life up to and including the moment of birth. After that, the kiddos are on their own. Too poor for health care? Should have chosen different parents. Too poor for college? Lazy scumlets. Too poor to get out of Houston and back to New Orleans? Well, Barbara Bush (bitch of the Bush litter) suggests they should have enjoyed Houston while they had the chance. Kind of a vacation, dontcha know?!

All of that said, have been looking at our trip photos and wondering who the bloated hag is who appears in them, wearing my clothes and snuggling up to David. Mote in the eye, old thing.

»

susan | June 4, 2007 - 2:48pm

Anonymous, I'm conflicted about a lot, but not about this couple!
I know, they appear here to be the proud accepting grandparents, the barnacle is actually smiling, etc. etc. and I suppose that indicates a level of acceptance. But it seems to me their options were somewhere between total shunning, or speaking out loud and clear for "non-traditional" familes, and they chose a sort of squishy middle -- staged photos, "we love our daughter", but it's a family matter -- that sort of thing.
Remember when Lynne Cheney went off on John Kerry for mentioning that their daughter was a lesbian in a committed relationship? Don't recall her exact words, but had to do with his violating their family's privacy and so on. It reminded me of the way people used to keep their maimed or mentally ill family members under the wraps of shame. She was livid, as if he'd revealed the family's most sordid secret, which seems to me to tell the tale on how they really feel.
And if they don't really feel that way, then shame on them for not speaking up about the "normalcy" of gay people, and their right to marry, have families -- their new gospel, as you put it.
Good of you to have a whiff of conflict, anon, but I hope you can get over it. The only conflicted people here are the senior Cheneys.

»

perhansa (not verified) | June 4, 2007 - 3:54pm

No conflict feelings at the Perhansa residence. Look up hypocrite in the dictionary and you should see this photo.

With lots of gay friends, fellow artists, and some gay relatives I find it appalling that a person's sexual preference/orientation is even an issue in the twenty-first century. I take comfort that the younger generation is far less "hung up " about it. Someday day two mommies or two daddies will be so passe...someday no one will remember or give a rats behind about The Dick and Lynne and their smarming little smiling "proud grandparents" pose, someday all these ridiculous amendments to state constitutions will be revoked, someday no one will recall where the term "coming out" originated. We won't see it, but some day.

»

Randi Reitan (not verified) | June 6, 2007 - 11:43am

"someday all these ridiculous amendments to state constitutions will be revoked, someday no one will recall where the term "coming out" originated. We won't see it, but some day."

Please, please don't say that .... it is time we all demand equality now. I want ... no, I need to see that blessed day when my wonderful gay son has equality. True equality that includes marriage and family.

It will not happen if we passively say "some day" it will come.

It will not come until we demand it.

It is time for those with intelligence .... which I know you all have been well gifted to say ....

The time of waiting for this country to get it right must end now.

We must all speak out for equality like we want it now not just hope for it at a future time.

I am just so tired of hearing we will never see the day.

»

susan | June 6, 2007 - 7:29pm

I hear you Randi, and I agree that waiting and hoping is not good enough. I shouldn't speak for Perhansa, who does a great job speaking for himself, but I think the intent of his statement (sorry Per) was more in tune with MLK's "I may not get to the mountain top with you" than "Be patient, people aren't ready."
People are ready, it's time, and, as Perhansa said, this is such a non-issue to most younger people.

You know the drill -- we change the laws and the minds will follow. We must change the laws now, not in the future, but I think Perhansa was reflecting the fact that for many people -- certainly not all -- of the older generation, the minds will be slow to follow.

And so those of us of a certain age "will never see the day" when no one blinks at two mommy or two daddy families, or at the marriage of your wonderful son Jake to the man good enough for him. (a very small pool)

Most of us live with various "blinks" of disapproval about our lifestyles, and we can handle that. But we don't live with laws that restrict our most basic rights. The laws need to change yesterday, the blinks will disappear over time.

»