So, the biggest, most compelling non-issue of the Presidential campaign lately is:  was John Kerry out of line when he mentioned VP Cheney’s daughter, and her sexual preference?

     So I thought I would think about it, and since I can’t think without either writing or talking, and since my poor, longsuffering husband is out of town and can’t bear witness to my rambled nattering, I guess you all get to be subjected to it.

     When I watched the debate, it didn’t really register.  I saw it as an attempt to put a more specific face on the question…to show that he knew there were real people involved in the question, and to reference someone everyone could identify.

     But as I thought about it more, I began to reassess how he answered the question.  I rewound it and watched it again and it appeared to me a thinly veiled attempt to poke at a sore spot on the bond between the VP and the religious “base” of the Republican party.  It’s kind of something that they have let ride as a general rule, while still making an anti-gay marriage amendment part of the platform.

     I wish Kerry hadn’t done that.  I expect more from him, and I hope that he charts a better course in the future.

     He could have talked about how gay people are not a philosophical problem to be solved, or a moral problem to be addressed, or even a question to be resolved.

     Gay people are members of families, valued employees, soldiers, laborers, fathers, mothers, sister, children, and friends.  Their right to live as such; valued, supported and accepted by our society, as any citizen has a right to be, should not even be a question put to the populace.  The fact that it remains a question is a shame to our society.

     He could have said this without bringing his opponent’s running-mates family into it, and avoided the appearance of cynical, manipulative political gamesmanship.

     I’m disappointed by Kerry’s definition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman, as I am mystified by what it is about the love of a man and a woman that makes it different than the love of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

     I’ve honestly tried to see the difference and cannot see that my gay friends are any less committed, caring, supportive, or loyal to their partners than my hetero friends are to their partners.  I don’t see any difference in needs, arguments, struggles, temptations, failure of relationships, or what the elements of a successful relationship are.

     And while civil unions are an improvement…hasn’t our history proven that “separate but equal” anything doesn’t work?  Morally, ethically, practically…separate but equal is a cop-out, and everyone knows it.

     Does God make a distinction?  Does God say that the love of these two people is more sacred than these other two?

     I don’t know.  I don’t happen to think so…but I don’t know.

     What I DO know is that it is not a question for me.  It is not a question for our government…and it sure as hell isn’t a question for the wild-eyed guy down the street who channels Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.  It is a question for each person, their partner, and if they care to ask, God and their spiritual advisor of choice.

     But I have seen with my own two eyes, and with my heart that if two people can make a commitment to love, honor, cherish, support, comfort and make each others lives greater than they can be alone…then our society is made stronger by that, not weaker…and if our society cannot respect and support that commitment, then our society harms itself.

     I guess that’s the part of the whole thing that bothers me the most.

     How is it that the question before us is “Should Kerry have referred to Dick Cheney’s daughter as a gay person when answering the question?” and not “Couldn’t Kerry have answered the question better than he did?”

     My opinion is that Kerry indulged in an unworthy ploy that made use of people’s lower natures.

     But I wonder also at the reaction of the Cheney family.  Their anger seems disproportionate to me.  Surely they’ve been watching the news for the last several decades?  Surely they’ve seen every first child from JFK Jr. on dragged through the press and held up to scrutiny?  Remember Amy Carter being referred to as “awkward” and “homely”?  Maybe similar remarks about Chelsea Clinton will ring a bell?

     Surely the family of a politician whose party made a buzz word of “family values” expected that family would come into it at some point.  Surely they must understand that “family values” was designed to conjure an image that does not include a gay daughter, and that her presence in the family would invite comment when contrasted to the stated ideals of the party?

     And frankly, this ticket has got off easy, considering the not-so-distant past behavior of the first daughters.  Perhaps being pretty, well-proportioned, past the age of acne and good dressers makes up for a host of other sins.

     The fact that Dick Cheney seems to be a loving, supportive father, and does not shrink from the public knowledge that one of his children is gay, and that he supports and loves her as a father should is not a detriment to him in any way.  It’s actually the one thing I’ve learned about him that seems human at all, and even the most rabid of anti-gay right-wingers seem to respect a man who loves and supports his children above his own feelings and opinions.

     I think that Cheney could have continued to treat his daughter with dignity and let it lay, an unworthy manipulation to those who saw it as such, and as a harmless aside to those who took it at face value.  Neither will hurt Cheney, and one is a strike against Kerry.

     It appears that Kerry overstepped the bounds of good taste to use the love and support of a father for his daughter in a cynical attempt to chip away at his opponents’ political base by pandering to bigotry and hate…but Cheney seems to be taking that and playing it up, cynically using his position as a wronged father to his advantage…

…and in the end, no one is well served by any of it.

     We are no closer to overcoming our urge to deny the humanity of others, to subdivide ourselves rather than come together.  We are no closer to a decision if we will be an enlightened society or a bigoted one.  We have not moved one footstep forward or backward in this whole unfortunate shit-storm…and so much time and energy and emotion has been wasted while a host of real questions has been neglected.