Alan Keyes talks to AddieStan
about Mary Cheney, sex organs and journalists
NEW YORK, NY--After Dick Cheney concluded his manly-man speech, your blogstress made for the door; a nicotine break was surely in order. And as she re-entered the building (after removing all her jewelry and her black leather jacket and opening her handbag and all but displaying her fillings), who should your cyberscribe run into but Alan Keyes, the erstwhile Senate candidate, late of Illinois. Earlier today, Mr. Keyes kicked up some dust when, during an interview with Sirius radio (see "Republican Party Imploding" on Daily Kos), he described the vice president's lesbian daughter, Mary Cheney, as a "selfish hedonist", a charge that brought an immediate response from the Log Cabin Republicans, who "blasted" Mr. Keyes for condemning the child of a candidate. (See the Washington Blade).
"First of all, that is not what happened," Mr. Keyes told your Webwench as she followed him out of the building, tape recorder angled at her subject's face. So she asked him to set the record straight. "What happened is that I gave an exposition, which is quite accurate, as to the justification for the Republican [platform] plank that opposes gay marriage because gay sexual relations are about the self-gratification of the parties involved who are using the organs intended for procreation for pleasure. That is to say, selfish hedonism. That's a description, not a pejorative. And that kind of a foundation, that kind of understanding of sexual relations is incompatible with marriage which, in heterosexual relations, is pointed toward childbearing, child-rearing and family. And that involves not just pleasure and self-gratification, but sacrifice, pain--a life-long commitment--
"Does that--," your cybertrix tried to interject.
"Now let me finish," the ambassador continued, and then picked up exactly where he left off. "--and that includes all the ups and downs of life to the rearing and strengthening of the child and the family. So, if you can't procreate, then you cannot, in principle, marry. And two men, two women--they can't in principle procreate, therefore in principle they can't marry."
We had now crossed 33rd Street, making a turn to take us toward Seventh Avenue. Your blogstress tried once again to challenge this logic.
"Let me finish," he said. "Then, because you asked how it happened--then the journalists--so called--who were asking me the questions, they mentioned Mary Cheney, and they asked if that would apply to her. Of course, since I was giving a definition of homosexual relations, then homosexual relations would apply to her. I don't think we can exempt our own people--children, friends--from the logic that supports the party's platform. And to do so would be claiming special privileges for ourselves that are not justified. So it's really very simple. And it was not a pejorative; it was simply a description. But, of course, the way the media operates today--you know what happens."
So much for our gay friends in the red states.
"Well, the thing I'm wondering about the logic of your position," said your blogstress, "is, if two married people are found unable to have children, should they not be able to have sex?"
"What I said very carefully was--
"Yeah," your cyberscribe replied, "'in principle'--I got you--"
"--in principle cannot marry, Individual decisions, individual health situations, they do not change in principle the understanding of marriage. But if you take two people who cannot in principle procreate and you say that they are married, you have changed the meaning of marriage, and that is unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Every time it is put to the people of this country, they say no to this change in the fundamental social institution because they understand how devastating it could be."
One would hope the party genius who recruited Keyes to run against Barack Obama is about to lose his job. Everything the party pooh-bahs had hoped to avoid talking about in public--abortion, queers, sex--has been thrust (if we may use such a vulgar term) back into the spotlight as schtick in the Alan Keyes sideshow.
Note the use of the word "schtick" as a description, not a pejorative.
Canine capers
Your blogstress turned back, once again subjecting herself to a near strip-search to get back into the Garden, whereupon she stumbled on Triumph the Insult Dog, encircled by members of numerous law-enforcement outfits, baiting one of the actual bomb-sniffing canines. At that, Triumph was quite effective, and everybody was quite jolly about it.
He then asked a Secret Service type to talk to him on camera, and the poor guy didn't get a word in edgewise. (Would love to see Triumph interview Alan Keyes.)
"I've got a pound of marijuana up my butt," said the puppet to the G-man, who didn't crack a smile. "Have you seen Robert Novak? I want him to point out all the undercover CIA agents to me."
Now your blogstress is off to Tavern on the Green. Will report in later this morning, after a few hours of delicate blogstress sleep.
Comments