I'm just now catching up on my Late Show episodes from a few weeks back. Last night, I saw David Letterman's interview with Mary Cheney. I'm sure it's been blogged a good bit, but I think it's worth bringing up again, because of the dialog we can generate from it.
On one level, the interview was a bit creepy. She answers inquiries similarly to her Dad -- straight-faced and toward the minimal.
But I thought Dave asked some very good questions, the thrust of which (in my words) being: "If you're gay, how can you in good conscience be a Republican?"
First off, I'm NOT trying to make this about bashing Mary Cheney. She has gone through a lot - and she's courageous for coming out, especially given her family's background in wingnut politics. I'm mostly curious to hear from gay Kos members - to see if in the main, it's possible to walk the line she's treading. I'm just trying to learn.
Anyway, here's a good chunk of the exchange (my paraphrasing):
Dave: As a member of a minority in this country, do you feel like gay rights are being adequately represented by this administration?
Mary: I make my views known in my book. So you should read my book.
Dave: Let me ask you this. Gay couples can not file jointly on federal taxes. Is that true?
Mary: Yes.
Dave: And your feelings about that?
Mary: I think it's wrong
Dave: Did you talk to your father about this? (laughter)
Mary: We've had conversations.
Dave: And gay couples cannot receive partner's social security benefits. You would be against that as well?
Mary: I would be against that.
Dave: Is there any forum to talk about this inside this administration? Can you go to your father?
Mary: I would hope that this is a debate not just for the administration. I would hope it is a debate all Americans would have.
Dave: But that's the key though. I think the Americans who care about this mostly ARE engaged. And they're trying to get the attention of the administration, which is in a position to actually do something about it. Am I being a little nuts here?
Mary: I think you're being a little nuts here.
Dave: But if you were a gay woman and your father wasn't the vice president in 2004, would you have voted for this campaign?
Mary: Yes I would. What you have to understand is that I care very deeply about the federal marriage amendment. I do think it's fundamentally wrong, as I write about it. But I couldn't afford to be a single-issue voter in 2004. We were a country at war. I voted for who I thought could protect the country - and no offense to John Kerry, but he wasn't it.
Dave: You make a valid point. But one of the best ways to protect the country is to correct inequities within it. So you can't dismiss that either.
Mary: I didn't dismiss it - and if you read the book, you'll see that I (laughter). I do care strongly about these issues. I almost quit the campaign over these issues.
Dave also asks her directly why it wouldn't have made more sense to bring these issues up DURING the 2004 campaign, rather than later on in a book. She answers the same way - it wasn't my role to do that, etc. OK, fair enough.
So for people out there who can help me understand, here is my question:
Can you be gay in this day and age and honestly -- both intellectually and emotionally - be a Republican?
Clearly, there are gay people who align with the GOP on other policy matters, on issues like regulation of business, etc. But is this enough to outweigh the basic fact that Republicans want to use the constitution to discriminate against gay people? Is it enough to outweigh the fact that the party is run by far-right Christian zealots who think you're going to hell if you're gay - and who want their resulting crusade codified into law?
Thanks.