Sunday , December 2 2018
Home / Star Parker Aims Straight for Homosexual Mary Cheney
Star is all crossed over a book she hasn't read.

Star Parker Aims Straight for Homosexual Mary Cheney

Star Parker readily admits she didn’t read the book she decries; rather she skimmed it for all of five minutes. She recommends the same practice to others. Given Ms Parker’s thumping, it’s a safe bet she doesn’t advocate this approach to the Bible.

Ms Parker isn’t happy about Mary Cheney’s book, Now It’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life, or Cheney’s insistence that gay marriage has a rightful and, what should be, a legal place in our society. Ms Parker chides Ms Cheney based on “a few breezy sentences” Ms Cheney wrote. Let’s try that again. Ms Parker chides Ms Cheney based on “a few breezy sentences” Ms Parker bothered to read:

Cheney effortlessly transforms traditional marriage and family from the core institution on which our free society is built into an instrument of oppression.

The core institution on which our free society is built? Wake up and smell the History Channel. Let’s review those good old days of yore when our “free” society was being built. (Enter melodious harp music here) Ah yes, when every native person was subject to death, rape, torture, and, if they were lucky, simply driven off of their own land. When Blacks were enslaved, beaten, starved, raped, and their families torn apart over nothing more than economics. When Blacks, Catholics, Irish, Germans, Italians, Mexicans, Jews and women were denied education, housing, employment, and the right to own property. When Blacks and women were not allowed to take their issues to the polls.

Not all people had rights equal to those who made the laws. That’s oppression. The instrument? The United States Constitution. Read it and weep. Seriously, don’t just skim. Ms Cheney didn’t transform tradition into an instrument of oppression, but that is certainly what a Federal Marriage Amendment would do. Go ahead; tell me how it wouldn’t.

Ms Parker and a glaring lack of evidence concludes that,

Growth in black lesbianism is generally the product of a culture where families already have been destroyed. These aren’t pioneers venturing out of an intact family that has given them a good life, to discover a new “lifestyle.” The injustice and discrimination they feel is to never have had the opportunity to grow up in an intact family and to understand what it means to have a man in your life who is responsible and from whom you can receive love and respect.

Do I read this correctly to say the only reason a girl child would choose to be homosexual is because she was poor and her father was absent? Break out that psychology degree, Ms Parker. I think you might be on to something! (I’m sorry, break out that marketing degree.) Could all those wife-beating, child-molesting, family-abandoning, child-support-ducking, unemployed layabouts be the reason for all these lesbians running around?

If heart disease doesn’t kill every last no-good man, the irony of this breakthrough could certainly do it.

When Chris Wallace of Fox News sparred hard with Ms Cheney, he asserted,

Once we say that gay couples have a right to have their commitments recognized by the state, it becomes next to impossible to deny the same right to polygamists, polyamorists, (which I learned means group marriage) or even cohabiting relatives and friends.

Ms Cheney countered,

It’s one thing that I don’t take very seriously. You know, look: What we are talking about are relationships between two consenting adults. I think that is the debate that we need to have. That is the discussion that our country needs to have.

Upon hearing this, Ms Parker fell over some straight white Republican in her sprint to the keyboard. Presumably she fell. Maybe. Hell, I don’t know, I wasn’t there — in much the same way Ms Parker wasn’t there for every page of Ms Cheney’s book before waxing conservatively:

Now it is absolutely clear that legalization of gay marriage opens the door to every imaginable possibility. Once the authority for defining marriage moves from biblical tradition to politics, marriage will be defined by whatever might be deemed so by a court or that can be passed into law.

Yes, thank you for clearing that up. If it’s not biblical, it must be political. It can’t possibly be about equality or basic human rights.

As have many conservatives before her, Ms Parker uses one of the most overused and under-proven arguments of all time: (insert issue here) will open the door to “every imaginable possibility.” Crikey. Someone call the fun police — the Blacks want to be free, er the Irish want jobs, er women want the vote, er the homosexuals are about to knock down the walls of depravity. (Everyone knows the porn industry wouldn’t exist if not for the gay dollar.)

Wallace’s assertion, with Ms Parker’s backing, that once gays have recognized commitments it’ll break open the floodgates to all manner of God-awfulness, is a sorry attempt to class-up a still-classless act. It wasn’t that long ago when people like this thought it was logical to make the leap from a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults to one person insisting themselves upon an animal and/or a child. When that didn’t work, they moved on to polygamy. But just in case, props to the poor vs rich approach:

Now, admittedly, I come from a different place than Mary Cheney. Sure, there are lesbians in the ghetto. But they generally don’t “discover” their sexuality one post-pubescent day and break the news to their doting parents, amidst tears and hugs.

No, probably not. I’ll tell you the price of tea in China if you can tell me how a Federal Marriage Amendment will make the lives of lesbians in the ghetto any better. Oh, wait, that wasn’t your point. What was your point?

The gay movement is but a new chapter being written by liberal elitists who brokered the displacement of tradition and personal responsibility with disastrous welfare state policies. Blacks paid dearly and still are paying.

Liberal elitists took away tradition and personal responsibility? Powerful force, they are. You’d think with all that strength, they’d get to marry. One thing’s for sure: they’re not powerful enough to invade every institution of our society because if they were, well, just think of the impact:

Such changes would impact every institution of our society, and Ms Cheney’s uninformed casualness about the scope and seriousness of this is frightening. We’ve already seen the impact in adoption. How about in our public school system, our military, our churches, or our corporations?

Man, Ms Parker, you sure scare easy. As a U.S. Marine wife of more than 20 years, I gotta say, I’ve not heard of America’s gay finest causing more trouble than their heterosexual counterpart. Might be different in the Army. They all seem to have bigger things on their minds — like living through war. The few gay teachers my children have had through the DoD school system were never quarantined for cooties, nor were any of the gay military chaplains I’ve met. Maybe some day, Ms Parker, you’ll share the experiences you’ve had or present the evidence you’ve found to illustrate your point and support your contentions. I do hope you start with the line between homosexuality and welfare because I’m still unclear on that one.

But I digress. It’s really all about religious values, something that has never had to be supported by a body of evidence to be considered superior to all other viewpoints. Ms Parker biblically challenges Ms Cheney, apparently forgetting the same was done many years ago in an effort to maintain the tradition of slavery and keeping women in the home.

With little thought, she glosses over the truth that this is not about freedom but about the exchange of one source of authority for our laws and values for another. Will it be the Bible or Mary Cheney’s youthful passions and impulses?

I’m thinking it’s not going to be your bible, Ms Freedom Rings. While you have every right to your beliefs, you have no right whatsoever to force those beliefs onto others — personally or constitutionally. This white heterosexual agnostic woman (who grew up poor at the same time you did) would rather you stayed the hell out of everyone’s marital goings-on before you start using scripture to force every woman on this planet into the missionary position in preparation for her barren sister’s husband.

About Diana Hartman

Diana is a USMC (ret.) spouse, mother of three and a Wichita, Kansas native. She is back in the United States after 10 years in Germany. She is a contributing author to Holiday Writes. She hates liver & motivational speakers. She loves science & naps.

Check Also

Doug Hall Author of Eureka Innovation Engineering

Interview: Doug Hall, Author of ‘Driving Eureka!’ – Innovation Engineering

Interview with Doug Hall author of Driving Eureka! Problem Solving with Data Driven Methods & the Innovation Engineering System.