People magazine recently asked the president about Mary Cheney’s pregnancy. To his credit, Bush was relatively supportive: “I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I’m happy for her.”
Apparently, Peter LaBarbera, a prominent anti-gay activist, was hoping for a little more.
President Bush has been too timid about using his Bully Pulpit to promote pro-family values, but occasionally he stumbles and uses it to advance the opposite. In this case, he could have declined comment altogether or, better, used this situation as a teaching moment to reaffirm the natural superiority of the God-ordained family.
Maybe the latter is asking too much of Mr. Bush given his relationship with the Cheneys, but I do wonder why a president who talks so openly about his Christian faith was unprepared or unwilling to apply it logically to this touchy situation. Assuming that as an evangelical Christian, Mr. Bush believes homosexual practice is sinful, are we to believe that this man who faced down Islamic radicalism and launched the War on Terror is afraid to say what he really believes about lesbians having children to be raised in homes that are fatherless by design?
You know, it’s almost as if LaBarbera was comparing terrorists to gays, suggesting that Bush is afraid of one but not the other.
Wait, it gets better.
LaBarbera added:
The whole Mary Cheney-baby episode typifies how the “gay” agenda advances in our emotionally-driven culture. The personal becomes political, and “open and proud gays” use their relationships with family members, friends and co-workers to persuade them to embrace behaviors with which they once disagreed — or at least go silent about them. This is the goal of homosexual activists’ “coming out” strategy, which is brilliant in its manipulation of human nature.
Yes, as far as this far-right activist is concerned, Mary Cheney is the one politicizing her pregnancy. That would be the same Mary Cheney who hasn’t said a word publicly about her personal life, being accused by a man who has attacked her for being, in his word, “immoral.”
I suppose some of these religious right nuts deserve some credit for not being hypocritical. I’m sure there are a handful of partisans in the movement who thought, “Let’s take a pass on this one; she’s a Cheney.”
In this sense, these clowns are at least consistent. They’re so filled with hate, they’re not terribly concerned with whether the target of their ire as a “D” or an “R” after his or her name.