Talk:Mary Cheney

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 July 2004. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). LGBTQ+ studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It seems that there has been some major revision of this part of the article. One reason why Mary Cheney is such a public figure (in addition to being the vice president's daughter) is the issue of her sexuality in regards to the policies of the administration for which she campaigned in the 2004 election. As of 29 November, 2006, this part of the article only mentions that John Kerry and John Edwards mentioned her lesbianism, but that seems insignificant outside the context of the issue of homosexuality during that campaign. The article used to reference Cheney's own admission to having mouthed "Go fuck yourself" to John Edwards when he mentioned her lesbianism, as well as the controversy surrounding the apparent incongruity of Cheney's lesbianism and the Bush/Cheney administration's attempt to forestall homosexual marriage. I would like to see a reversion (for this section at least) to what it was on 29 August, 2006. --User: livesayd 7:23, 29 November 2006

Added the quote from Cheney regarding Mary from the same debate. MistressI

The section doesn't really capture the dynamic of the debate, but not having a tape of the encounter I'm probably not the right person to edit it. Vice President Cheney was clearly very angry that Senator Edwards was using Mary Cheney as a political football, and the tone of his answer clearly conveyed that. I don't know about anything he might have mouthed to Edwards, but the impression I describe was widely reported. The current article makes it sound like Cheney was genuinely appreciative. If we clarify, we'll need some strong sources to cite, though.

Wellspring (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone show me compelling evidence for the following statement in Mary Cheney's bio? If not, I'm going to delete it because is smells of pure opinion. --Ryan Knoll 12:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In 2000 the Cheney family had insisted that Mary was a private citizen and off-limits to the press. Even so, her presence seemed to bolster the compassionate conservative image that the Republican ticket wanted to convey to voters. --Ryan Knoll 12:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is accurate but I have not looked for a citation. It could be tricky to find one on the Internet because it is old. I think someone should track down a citation and the sentence should be left in. The second is an opinion. I wouldn't have a problem with its deletion. Nysus 17:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I found a citation. An exact citation. A too-exact citation, in fact. The two sentences flagged by Ryan Knoll, along with the succeeding paragraph, were lifted almost verbatim from a Newsweek article reproduced on the MSNBC website. I'm undecided whether to paraphrase the original or to just quote it with attribution. While I'm thinking about that, I've added new heading here; Ryan, I hope this doesn't put your comment in a false light, but it was confusing to have it under the "From VfD" heading. JamesMLane 17:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

James, the phrase "and some Republicans' use of anti-gay themes" seems a bit strange. Can you name an elected officials or official Republican Party documents that set forth clear anti-gay themes? --67.163.8.148 14:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about Senator Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum, who stated his belief that private homosexual conduct should be illegal?? OR, you could just go back and read the Mary Chaney article which mentions George W. Bush's support for amending the US Constitution to prevent gay people from ever having equal marriage rights in America?? Or the Official platform of the Republican Party, which every 4 years renews it's anti-gay language. Or Bush's father who, while in the Oval Office, said a homosexual relationship could never be the moral equivalent of a straight relationship. If you need more examples, they ain't that hard to find. How about all the official Republican support for all the state amendments aimed at preventing equal marriage rights for gays?? Or the very recent example of the nastiness expressed by Senator McCain (recent head of the Republican Party) toward the gay people who are serving honorably in the US Military. Not to mention the fact that ALL Republican US Senators threatened to filibuster the latest Defense Spending Authorization (Sept. 2010) because it had language requiring the Military to treat gay service men equally with straight ones. These examples only scratch the surface. I cannot believe anyone could be so ignorant of homophobia in the Republican Party as to ask such a ridiculous question! And by the way, yes, gay people consider that being discriminated against by their own government is "anti-gay". And those politicians who insist that this discrimination must continue are being "anti-gay". Perhaps that is where your misunderstanding arises from. -William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL 70.126.98.155 (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Republican National Committee, but they didn't sign their names. If you go to http://dearmary.com/ you can see the front of the mailing that DearMary cited in its criticism of Mary Cheney, and if you follow the link to [1] you can see the whole thing. I think you raise a good point, so I've changed the reporting of DearMary's criticism of this mailing to specify whose mailing was being criticized. JamesMLane 06:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your wording is better. As a side commentary note, the only relevant mention on the flier is "allowing same-sex marriage". Not sure how supporting the definition of marriage is using anti-gay themes or gay baiting.

When the "definition of marriage" allows straight people to marry the person they are in love with and want to marry, but FORBIDS gay people from doing the same thing, how can you possibly not see this as "anti-gay"? The argument "but we've always done it that way" doesn't mean it isn't anti-gay. For a fuller explanation of all the ways it is anti-gay to prevent gay people from having marriage equality, see the judge's ruling in the August, 2010 decision in the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. 70.126.98.155 (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is she the first pregnant lesbian child of a sitting US Vice-President? --Vladko 05:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes.BobCubTAC 03:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following unsubstatiated line from this section: "Many Republicans are in fact accepting or accommodating of bisexuals and the concept of bisexuality, but view homosexuality as wrong, or improper. [3]"

First of all, this is patently false. I do not know where the author got his information, but I do know that many right-wing Republicans actually view bisexuality as being worse than homosexuality. Many others feel it is just as bad. Secondly, the source article for the accompanying footnote makes no mention of bisexuality, let alone how Republicans feel about it. So, into the Wikipedia trash heap you go, o' misinformed statement! BobCubTAC 04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford's son was gay, but he is self-loathing like Scary Mary.

The above unsigned comment is unclear. By Ford, I guess it refers to the former President, but he has three sons. I guess it refers to Steven Ford, but claims that he was gay is strange - it suggests he no longer is, because Steven is alive. Can anyone clarify what the above comment actually means, and/or provide some evidence for his claim? Werdnawerdna (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our previous text said Cheney lives in Denver. According to this article in USA Today, Cheney lives in Conifer. I don't think this is just a neighborhood of Denver. Our article on Trey Parker calls it a small town. The Conifer Chamber of Commerce website refers to "Jefferson County" government services, so I suspect that it's an unincorporated town or the like. (The Chamber also says that Conifer is "a few miles southwest of downtown Denver". [2]) I'm changing her stated residence to the red-linked Conifer.

Conifer is roughly 40 miles southwest of downtown Denver and well into the mountains, although the commute has gotten shorter with the widening of the highway over the last 8 years.MarnetteD | Talk 02:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She received her MBA in 2002. According to an article in the Denver Post, she joined her father's campaign in July 2003. It would be nice if we could add some information about whatever she did in the interim. JamesMLane 06:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane, I am not convinced. Please supply more proof. 216.153.214.94 04:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RyanKnoll claimed that Mary Cheney resigned from the RUC because of the increasing public discussion over same-sex marriage. Mary resigned in early 2003, when same-sex marriage was not a major issue (the major issue at the time was sodomy laws and right to privacy -- Mary resigned because of the furor over Rick Santorum's remarks and because fundamentalists were more and more outspoken about the GOP not being harsh enough on gay rights -- this was around the same time that RNC chairman Marc Racicot was transferred after speaking to a group for gay Republicans). I also removed "pro-family" because these organizations spend little time focused on family, unless you believe that banning wills and hospital visitation rights for gay couples or putting gays in jail somehow strengthens the family. I also edited the part about Mary "flaunting" herself at her father's victory rally, unless Ryan has seen some footage of Mary and her partner making out or cuddling onstage (they weren't even standing together in the photo I saw) and this somehow did not make the evening news.

--JamesB3 12:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The gay marriage debate was increasing when Mary resigned in July 2003[3]. But you're right about the issue not being quite as high profile nationally until 4 months later. Courts in Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont ruled that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and the Mass case was filed in 2001 and speculation about the State Supreme court decision was mounting. Most pro-family groups beleive homosexual choices (gay sex, gay marriage, etc.) should not be equally endorsed and supported by society as hetero relationships...regardless of your particular views about the recommended influences and dynamics of family. The "flaunting" word was the exact language used in the linked artcle. --Ryan Knoll 17:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The other court cases (AK, HI) were in the early-mid 90's and most discussion of them had stopped by the late 90's, partially because of the Defense of Marriage Act. MA didn't become a major issue until November 2003. The main reason that Mary resigned was because the well-funded anti-gay zealots who make up the base of the party were spreading rumors that Bush was involved in the "gay agenda" because he appointed a few gays to minor administration positions and Marc Racicot met with a few gay groups. So when the sodomy law stuff became an issue, the GOP had to start the attacks in order to keep their base happy.

Vermont was never really a big national issue in 2000 that I can remember, since so much at that time was focused on the Presidential race and gay rights were barely discussed by either campaign (whereas in 2004 one campaign seemed to run almost entirely on gay-bashing). I realize the viewpoint of the people in the article -- I would recommend that those words like "flaunting" have quotation marks around them, as they have now, if they ever went into the profile. I forget to do that myself too often.

Anyway, we have gone around in circles so many times and obviously we have very different viewpoints on this issue. So, have a nice day, and I will not keep changing or re-editing the entry as long as it seems fair.

--JamesB3 12:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The current article says she lives in Portland, OR. Earlier discussions indicate Conifer, CO. The Dick Cheney article says Denver, CO. Anyone know what is currently correct? Gwimpey 04:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Far as I know she still lives in Conifer, I would think it would have hit The High Timber Times or the Canyon Courier if she had moved. EnsRedShirt 00:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In her book's About the Author, it says Virginia Beach. - SS

Also, it's quite unlikely to be Portland. It would be major news around here, not because we lack for news, but because of the political climate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.67.106 (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on Alan Keyes belongs in the Alan Keyes article (if anywhere). Someone issuing random unwarranted insults toward Mary Cheney is not notable in terms of any article on her 9in most cases). If no one has a good reason, I plan on removing this and cleaning up this article which is currently mostly a series of slams against her for being a homosexual, or being a homsexual and having certain opinions which others think are invalid for a homosexual to have. Also, since Mary Cheney is only a marginal public figure, I plan to edit the excessive amount of personal information available on her to be more in line with accepted norms for figures of her position and visibility. Anyone who wants to help with this, please post your availability. Frankly, I was shocked at some of the stuff on this page when I started the cleanup. Caper13 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've made a quick first pass, but there's still much work to be done. I will help where I can. --Psiphiorg 07:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, she is currently expecting a baby and this should as well be included. I noticed someone had earlier updated the article to include this new information but it was quickly pulled out. Looks like an edit way is rooming [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.24.112.56 (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Read the article. It is there. The only thing that was reverted was a post that suggested Kevin Federline was the father? Please...try reading the article first. Caper13 16:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did she get pregnant?!? -- Jokes Free4Me 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably artificial insemination. Therequiembellishere 00:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With whose semen? >:-) I mean, if sourced, that piece of info could very well be added to the article... Even though i myself couldn't find any mention of it anywhere. -- Jokes Free4Me 06:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't those usually unknown? Therequiembellishere 07:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope it wasn't Richard Nixon's seed.209.244.42.193 04:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look up Sperm Bank and some of the links. Typically, donations are anonymous. However, some donors can arrange as being "willing to be contacted". In those cases, the donor is not identified to the mother; however, when the child turns 18, the sperm bank contacts him/her and (if and only if the child wishes) arranges a meeting with the donor. Neither the donor nor the mother have any contact at any point, except I guess if the child arranges it at this point. The other possibility is a private donation; in which case Mary or her partner would know because they arranged it themselves with a friend or colleague.

With all that said, unless the person is some kind of celebrity or there is some future controversy surrounding the donation, I would be very inclined to say that the point is non-encyclopedic and leave it out. WP:BLP figures in very strongly here. Wellspring (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence stating that, "circumstances surrounding the conception were not reported" should be deleted. If it wasn't reported it shouldn't be noted. It's unencyclopedic and supposition. If we included everything not reported in the articles they'd be huge and unreadable. I will remove the sentence unless someone else shows me where I'm wrong. Thank you. Portia327 (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is Heather Poe's career, if any?

• I don't know, but the article summary box lists her as Cheney's "spouse," which she certainly is not.

209.244.42.196 05:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about Heather Poe being wikilinked, when the link does nothing but redirect to Mary Cheney's article. It does give the impression that Ms. Poe has an actual article of her own. In fact, I clicked twice on her link before I finally figured out what was happening. It's not a big thing, and if it's common practice in Wikipedia, then fine; I just found it a bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.26.136 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not sure sexuality should be in first section. Move to personal life?? Does not state in her sisters bio that she is heterosexual. Just be consistent Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.19.249 (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how important the fact is to the subject. In her case, it is a a large part of her public identity. Dovid (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to improve this by adding the second sentence, which is about her work in politics rather than her sexual preference. I think that helps. Also added sections about her political work in 2010 and 2014. 3dimen (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mary Cheney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79119.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016185418/http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/01/mary/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/01/mary/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She can't be "politically conservative" since she is lesbian. Sexual deviancy is leftist thing, I suggest removing the reference to her being "politically conservative" 73.121.228.133 (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute BS. According to your twisted logic, Peter Thiel and Milo Yiannopoulos are "leftists," a notion which is absolutely laughable. The whole world (except you, obviously) can see they are both gay and intrepidly conservative. The same is true of Mary Cheney. End of story. Joe Bethersonton (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]