CNN's Zahn Zings 'Furious' Conservatives, 'Unfriendly' Virginia in Mary Cheney Stories

Photo of Tim Graham.

Mary Cheney’s announcement of her pregnancy and upcoming lesbian parenthood has inspired national-media stories playing up "furious" conservatives in the Vice President’s Republican base, even as activists on the gay left use the news to lobby against defense-of-marriage policies in Virginia and other states.

CNN’s "Paula Zahn Now" took up the permissive cause on Thursday night with a supportive news story by Mary Snow on how Virginia is "unfriendly" to gay rights, followed by an imbalanced panel discussion in which one liberal insisted homosexuals had to fight for their cause or "You're going to get dragged behind a truck otherwise." MRC’s Robert Knight, featured in the Snow report, told me that CNN didn’t use his remarks that "every birth is a blessing," or that loving fathers are important. Why? Because it wouldn’t match the "furious" conservative template? Paula Zahn started with the conservative fury, right from the beginning:

"Our top legal story is touching off a furious controversy in conservative America tonight, after Vice President Cheney's openly gay daughter announced that she's expecting a child with lesbian partner. Now, some of Mr. Cheney's staunchest supporters are very upset about this, and instead of congratulations, some conservative groups reacted by calling it disappointing and a disservice to the child. Others issued a terse no comment. But that may be the least of Mary Cheney's problems. She and her partner plan to raise the child in one of the most unfriendly states when it comes to gay rights. Here's Mary Snow."

Snow began with the gay-left complaint against Virginia:

"It is a pregnancy sparking intense interest, not just because of who is pregnant but because of where the mother-to-be lives. Mary Cheney, the vice president's lesbian daughter, is pregnant, expecting her first child with long- time partner Heather Poe. The couple live in Virginia, a state that's long billed itself as a state for lovers, but not if they're gay."

She then turned to left-wing Jennifer Chrisler of Family Pride, a gay advocacy group, but didn’t use the liberal label, even as the trashing of conservatives commenced: "It really makes real how aggressive the right and fundamentalists have been about attacking gay and lesbian families. And here, the vice president's own daughter is about to become a part of that in an even bigger way that she already is."

Snow relayed that Cheney’s daughter was a high-profile part of her father’s re-election campaign in 2004, and that earlier this year, she condemned President Bush’s support for a federal marriage amendment:

Cheney, from May footage on CNN: "The notion of amending the Constitution and writing -- basically writing discrimination into the Constitution of the United States is fundamentally wrong."

Snow: " And it's not just the country she lives in. The state of Virginia has long denied many rights for gay couples. Cheney recently supported a campaign that fought a ban of same- sex marriage in Virginia, but the ban was approved."

Snow then explained several Virginia custody clashes over lesbian mothers, but spotlighted a recent controversy between lesbians: "But a more recent case may determine how modern gay families like the Cheneys [why the Cheneys, and not the Poes?] are treated in Virginia. Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller had baby Isabella in Virginia in 2004. They moved to Vermont shortly after to get a civil union and cement their family ties."

Jenkins: "Of course, we were ecstatic about that, because we knew that we wanted to be together. We knew we wanted to have a future together, be married."

Snow: "But then the couple split, and Lisa took the baby back to Virginia, where same-sex unions are not recognized.

Lisa Miller Jenkins, Gay Parent: "I am Isabella's mom. I did conceive her. I birthed her. I'm raising her. And in my opinion, Isabella needs to stay with me 100 percent of the time. Because I'm -- I'm the only person that she identifies as a mom."

Snow: "Janet, who has no parental rights in Virginia, has not seen Isabella in more than two years, as the women continue battling for custody. Meanwhile, conservative groups continue discouraging laws protecting gay families."

Robert Knight, Culture and Media Institute: "Mary Cheney and her personal life shouldn't be the driving force behind public policy. If we distort the law because some people have made decisions in their lives that don't comport with that, then that will not be good for society."

Snow: "How the courts rule on the Miller-Jenkins case will help decide not just Isabella's fate, but how Virginia will treat the gay families of the future. Mary Snow, CNN, New York."

Now wait a minute. What’s with describing conservatives as one the ones "discouraging" the "protecting" of "gay families"? Talk about using the left-wing interest-group lingo. If CNN said conservatives were still favoring "laws that uphold the traditional family unit," then maybe you could suggest CNN was conservative instead of liberal.

Isn’t it interesting that Snow seems to portray the custody squabble between the Virginia lesbians as a case of injustice by Virginia conservatives, but it’s not portrayed as evidence that some of these relationships end quickly – pitching the child into a broken home of two mommies and their lawyers?

Knight told me that his soundbite was "fine," as he usually finds his interviews are treated at CNN. But he found it curious that when he arrived in Washington for the interview via satellite, "the New York producer asked me to shift in my seat to look upward and to the left instead of on an even level to the left of the camera." He was looking above the camera and at the wall, not at a producer. Perhaps more curious was what CNN didn’t use from the interview. Knight told me he said "The birth of every child is a blessing," but complained they were "creating a fatherless household by design." Why couldn’t both of those thoughts be included?

Knight said he also noted that "We can see in the character of Joseph in the current film The Nativity Story a clear picture of why fathers are essential as a masculine, protective presence…. Fathers are very important."

Zahn went back to noting "hard-line" conservative fury when the discussion began, saying to conservative Joe Watkins: "So, Reverend, help us understand the tough position the vice president is in here. First of all, as a father, who apparently has a pretty close relationship with his daughter. And yet he knows that this decision that she's made will alienate a lot of the hard-line conservatives." Watkins tried to praise the Cheneys and cite the Bible, including that it says we’re supposed to judge and not be judged. Zahn pounced on that to unload some Cheney-hating boilerplate from the left:

"Well, a lot of people certainly are judging tonight. Michael, Family Pride, a group that advocates for gays and lesbians had this response, which we're going to put up on the screen right now. ‘Grandfather Cheney will no doubt face a lifetime of sleepless nights as he reflects on the irreparable harm he and his administration have done to the millions of American gay and lesbian parents and their children.’ Do you really think gay parents harm their kids?"

Watkins said yes. (Zahn didn't ask the liberals if they really think Dick Cheney is an enemy to gay advocates, considering his public remarks.) In jumped former ACLU lawyer Michael Gross:

"Women, blacks, all of those civil rights movements which this country forward ran, went great. What's wrong with the civil rights movement when it comes to gay people? Why is it that homosexuals don't get equal treatment?

The law is real clear, and those states, Massachusetts and New Jersey, that have looked at it, there isn't any doubt, no doubt at all. People have rights, you can't take them away from them because of their sexual preferences. So why not?... Because this man thinks that the president, who what, talks to God? Tells us what -- that marriage is between a man and woman.

Watkins: "That's the Bible says. I mean..."

Gross: "Then what you're saying is that God wrote the Bible and God tells George Bush what to do."

Watkins: "I believe the Bible. I believe the Bible."

Gross: "If he heard that through his earpiece, we would know we had a serious, certifiable maniac. But that he tells us he knows what God wants for us, is something that frightens me and it should frighten you."

Then lesbian activist Rachel Maddow, a talk-show host for Air America, chimed in, and claimed all the lesbians want is privacy – an odd argument as the activists parade around Mary Cheney as their cause celebre:

"Let me jump if here. I think the way most people are reacting to this is to say, it's sad this has to be politicized. Mary Cheney and her family and the Cheney family and what they're dealing with here, this is their private family decision. What gay people want is we want to be left alone, really. We want to be left alone to make our family decisions. Whether it's we want to get married or we want to get divorced or we want to kids or we want to not have kids, we want to do those things privately the way that straight people get to do those things privately. And we want to have the same rights that everybody has. We want to be able to..."

Gross: "And you got to stand up and fight for them."

Maddow: "Well, thank you."

Gross: "You're going to get dragged behind a truck otherwise..."

Maddow: "We want to be left alone in order to do those things. The problem is that our private lives have been dragged out into the public so we can be used as Willie Hortons every time the Republicans decide that gay rights are a good bugaboo issue for an election. We need to be left alone."

Strangely, Zahn didn’t jump in at the thought of homosexuals dragged behind pickup trucks by conservatives (must have sounded plausible to her), but she did object gently to Maddow: "No one dragged this out. Mary Cheney was very happy to announce she was pregnant." She then turned her passion back on Rev. Watkins, leaning aggressively over her podium to ask:

"Do you think that a marriage constituted by same-sex partners is ruinous to a child they would raise, whether they choose to have the child themselves or adopt a child?

Watkins: "I know this much. I know my wife and I have been married for a good period of time. We have three children. And it's a challenge for a mother and father to raise children, who love each other and who love their kids."

Zahn: "What, gay people can't love each other?"

Watkins: "No. I'm sure that gay people love each other. I'm sure that gay -- that women raising a child love each and they love their children. And I'm sure the same is true with men who are raising, they love their child. However, that doesn't give me the right to change the word of God, which says that marriage -- the institute of marriage is between a man and woman."

Zahn: "I got to, unfortunately, leave it there."

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I've been a resident of Virgi

I've been a resident of Virginia since 1976, and it's a wonderful state.  The descritipon these snobs ascribe to it make it sound like Saudi Arabia.  I wonder if any of them have actually lived here for any appreciable length of time. 

Heythere fellow Virginian! 

Heythere fellow Virginian!  Isn't it great to be stereotyped?

The dictionary definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  It's nice to see that the states are taking up for themselves and letting the populace decide whether they want to let gays "marry".  IMHO, I would be all for adapting the "common law" statutes to allow for gays to benefit from the same things as hetero couples (taxes, life insurance beneficiaries, etc.).  Even if it didn't happen in VA, I'm sure there are other states that would do this and allow gay couples to be "married" in the eyes of the state.  Churches, since they are not beholden to the government of the state, could feel free to sponsor joining ceremonies at their discretion.

Too simple?

--Hokiecon

paula

Paula Zahn---another left wing oracle who knows just what others are thinking. Truth be told, it's what YOU are feeling and hoping, Paula. The game's up. We see right through you dumb liberals. Go back to your penthouse and stop telling conservatives whether they are  "furious " or not. You don't know what you're talking about; stop pretending you do.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

what bothers me about this is

what bothers me about this is that they are calling me mean because i go along with both mother nature and with studies done by left wing institutions that find more behavior disorders in kids raised in gay/lesbian families. 

the vice president's daughter appears to have a long and stable relationship.  good for her.  i personally know hundreds of gays and lesbian people and many are wonderful nice people.  many have personal qualities that I admire and that I lack.  i do not think they are evil, awful or that I am better than they are.    the gays/lesbians who are adopting, or having children by artificial means care more about themselves than they do their children.   

what i believe is that mother nature/god/whatever intended that children be produced and raised in a male/female relationship.   gays/lesbians are only 6% of the population.   mather nature prevents them from having children  naturally.   if others think that is mean then i feel sorry for them. 

i am also very concerned because based on the studies i have read and upon my personal experiences, lesbian/gay relationships are even more unstable than hetro marriages.  gays/lesbians may think it is cute but what about the poor kids that have to go school where 99% of their peers have male/female parents? 

i don't think i am mean.  i think paula zahn has a staff and a peer group that is  narrow minded and that has lost touch with reality.  they have caused her to think anyone who disagrees with her on this issue is mean or angry.  

do two female dogs have produce puppies?  do two mother robins produce chicks?  do two female salmon produce smolt?  do two female polar bear produce cubs?  do two male whales produce baby whales?   are the studies wrong?  why punish the kids?   adults may ignore reality but kids won't. 

personally i think it is cruel and mean to the kids.  you are sacrificing their emotional well being at the alter of political correctness!

PAULA LOOK AROUND AT THE WORLD YOU  LIVE IN.  READ THE STUDIES!

i would suspect she would not have her job at cnn if she spoke up and pointed out the emperior had no clothes on.

while I agree with you, the

while I agree with you, the same can be said if my wife and I (both white) adopt a child who isn't white. Forbidding a couple based on it being odd is not enough, and not always right. That being said, a child needs a father and a mother who are both responsible healthy adults. I agree totally that the gay couples who take on kids are selfish, because they are having them for the same reason some people adopt from third world countries (status) (I have the same beef when parents buy kids only to have the nanny or daycare to take care of the raising).

Its a life-style choice, no one is keeping them from getting married to the opposite sex. As such keep the kids out of it. I would say the same for a person who isn't faithful to their spouse, dont get married until you are ready for the responsibility. Give any kids born up for adoption if you are not willing to take on the responsibility.

It is better for the child, not because he doesn't have to deal with the "weirdness" but because a father and a mother balance each other. Going with stereotypes, fathers tend to push their kids, and mothers tend to nurture them. From day one they teach their kid how to have a healthy relationship and how to raise the next generation. The family is what holds society together.

Am I crazy, or is Paula sti

Am I crazy, or is Paula still as hot as ever?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Who are these "furious

Who are these "furious" conservatives? This is Mary Cheney's business, not mine and not Paula Zahn's. I'm sure there are conservatives who don't approve, but that isn't the same as being "furious." I don't care if she has a baby, good for her; babies are blessings. It is none of my business nor anyone else's...except, of course, for the liberal media, Democratic spokesmen and gay rights activists. Then they are allowed to intrude in Mary Cheney's privacy and condemn those evil conservatives who are supposed to be...intruding in Mary Cheney's privacy, but in reality are not.

I'm not aware of a study that concluded that children with gay parents have more behavioral problems, but if this study is legitimate and scientific, then I wonder if the behavioral issues have more to do with being different than some nebulous "gay effect" that ruins lives. Gays and lesbians are just as good and just as bad at parenting as hetero parents. Do their kids face some obstacles that kids from traditional families don't? Sure, but so do bi-racial kids, kids with mentally disabled family members or anything else that makes kids different and likely to be teased and bullied. 30 years ago, kids with divorced parents faced the same issues.

To say that all conservatives are "furious" and, by implication, all liberals are accepting of "gay rights" is sloppy journalism. I know many die hard Democrats that are also Catholic and are completely against gay marriage and gay adoption, but that angle will NEVER be explored because it changes the template from conservatives=homophobes and bigots and liberals=open-minded and tolerant to one showing that this issue, along with several others, crosses party lines.

Conservatives aren't talking about this; liberals are. Rachel Maddow is complaining about Mary Cheney's privacy being violated as if conservatives are the ones doing it. She needs to look at her own party and the liberal media for that one. I am surprised that the comment about children being a blessing was edited out. That is really disappointing. I guess I still have a hard time believing that the media deliberately manipulates like that and is so blatantly biased-- and is so proactive about it. Why did they have Knight look up and to the side of the camera? Wouldn't that make him look funny? What was the purpose of that? Or was it to make him look silly?