I’m sure you’ve all wondered why I have not blogged about Alan Keyes, particularly after he promised to make an inflammatory statements every day and every week until the election. He let me down; he’s been discussing tariffs. ( The Chicago Tribune reports Keyes supports tariffs, and more specifically: “the conservative Republican advocating a position that runs counter to his party and more in line with stands advocated by some on the left” ). But that’s hardly an Alan Keyes story worth blogging about.
Today, things changed. Jason Kuznicki, of Positive Liberty, alerted me to a rumor (and possible hoax) about Keyes’s 19 year old daughter, Maya. The story is running at Modern Vertabrate, Josh Clayborn and The Daily Kos. For a variety of reasons, I was reluctant to blog about the young woman, who is not, after all, running for office. However, the story now appears in 365Gay.com, so the story is “out there”.
Here goes: Keyes daughter may be gay. Some stories about her life may be being posted by a user named “Xmisled0youthX ” at a blog hosted by xanga.com. (The final post seems to be dated April 24, 2004.)
Many will recall that Keyes commented on Cheney’s gay daughter, calling her a “selfish hedonism.” Not surprisingly, Keyes was questioned about the rumors about his own daughter. 365Gay.com reports the response Keyes gave at a Town Hall meeting somewhere in the South Side of Chicago:
Maya Keyes has also been asked whether she is the author of the web site or a lesbian. She is refusing to answer either question.
The Daily Kos has suggested this web page may be a hoax. If it is, it is a cruel one; no 19 year old woman deserves to be made the center of a political controversy not of her making. If it is not a hoax, and Maya is gay, I understand Alan Keyes even less than I previously thought.
“Maya” (Keyes’ daughter?) in the photos of her kissing and hanging out with her squeeze (now widely reproduced) looks highly similar to the Maya Keyes shown in the official Keyes family photo of the campaign.
If there is a hoax here, perhaps it is Maya playing one against her father.
Never try to understand the thought processes of wingers – your head might explode!
The Maya playing one on her father occurred to me. I don’t want to speculate toooo much in the article though. I think we’ll all hear more soon. After all, now that the issue has come up, and reporters asked during the Town Hall meeting, the reporters are just going to keep asking.
You know…I’ve been trying to experience a Keyes event in person. Unfortunately, I missed Keyes’ appearance in Wheaton, because I was helping my husband and brothers in law pack for their annual vacation, and I missed the parade in Naperville, because I was cooking brats and drinking beer with my family and in laws. One of these days, I need to make one of these events and see things first hand! (The Wheaton event featured free lunch! I bet dozens of supporters came out for that. Dozens!)
Since I’m a 3 minute walk from Naperville and a 5 minute drive from Wheaton, I figure I’ll get a chance sometime between now and the election.
None of us choose our parents. Whether she is or isn’t will have no affect on Mr. Keye’s dismal polls. That her website has been pretty much purged is a good indication that the content was not in keeping with candidate Keye’s “family values” image. That she still supports her father’s campaign, well, maybe she loves him, despite his faults, but she definitely was trying to spread the message on her website that diversity is ok.
I agree that the Maya Keyes story will have no effect on the polls. It may have an effect on the campaign rhetoric. The imflamatory nature had been kind of fun to comment on!
“The Daily Kos has suggested this web page may be a hoax. If it is, it is a cruel one; no 19 year old woman deserves to be made the center of a political controversy not of her making. If it is not a hoax, and Maya is gay, I understand Alan Keyes even less than I previously thought.”
How is this controversy not cruel, even if she is, in fact, a lesbian? Does she deserve to be made the center of a political controversy if she is really gay? Does soliciting shock about her (real or fictional) sexuality serve any purpose other than reinforcing gay-baiting?
I’m with Rad Geek. The only thing that you can say conclusively about all of this is that Maya Keyes chose neither her father nor her sexual orientation. I can’t quite figure out why she’s considered fair game or in fact why anyone thinks this is worth talking about. And frankly, given that Keyes has exactly no chance of winning, it just seems kind of gratuitously cruel to invade her privacy.
The censored version of her blog offers less information but it’s still pretty clear where she stands.
The original version isn’t ambivalent in the slightest. She’s out and proud. This isn’t rumor or experimentation. She talked considerably about the struggles of being lesbian in her family, and yes, she did have “the picture” up along with an equally touching story of their time in DC.
The original blog was a very compelling read indeed, if only because the notion of a pro-life lesbian anarchist still boggles the mind.
If this was anyone other than Alan Keyes’ daughter it might not be relevant. But it is, especially since she is not only working for him she’s getting gay friends to do the same.
http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=stokedgfx as case in point. More than a few interesting quotes in there. My favorite:
“Oooh! Dr. Keyes sounds awesome in the bathroom. They had the program tuned in every room of the WGN studios. I was unzipping when suddenly I was startled to hear his voice, as if God was calling me from the urinal. There was a cannister light over the urinal so I looked as if I was being bathed in a heavenly glow. You know what? From now on, the voice of God in my head will be that of Dr. Keyes.”
Wow.
Why they are active in the campaign is a fair question. Given that Keyes only has two real points, it’s relevant that his daughter and her friend disagree with one of them wholesale.
These kids have the balls to speak out, but they happily work for Alan Keyes all the same.
And illusions of privacy do not apply – they’re not only speaking out in a public forum, “Jerrykins” above has now published the cell phone number of someone in the press, inviting a tit-for-tat privacy war. Fair response, but only if you admit this isn’t private and never was since you posted all this on a freaking public blog.
It’s less a scandal than a incredibly bizarre soap opera played out for all who care to follow.
I wish the kids well. They’re doing alright. They just have to realize if they’re fighting for change in the system, they have to put up a fight, since they’re associated with the lunacy that comes out of Alan Keyes by default.
Ahhh, Rad. So many ideas to respond to three questions!
I don’t think it’s her sexual orientation that dictates whether the controversy “of her making” and/or whether public discussion is cruel. It is publicatin of a web page! Maya may have published a web page discussing a controversial issue publicly. If she published the web page, her voluntary public act makes a stupendous contribution to the making of the news story.
Now, she has every right to publish a web page, but pubishing blogs create public discussions. So, if the web page is not a hoax, I think she contributed significantly to the making of the controversy. In that case, public discussion cannot be cruel.
On another idea, I am not shocked at the idea she might be gay, and I don’t think I am soliciting shock at the possibility Maya might be gay. I think most Alas Readers also think it’s fine if Maya is gay; it would also be fine if she is not.
I am shocked at the idea that Alan Keyes would publicly criticize Lynn Cheney in the manner that he has chosen, if he knows, or suspects his daughter is gay.We still don’t know if Maya is gay. So, that just leaves me wondering about Keyes. ( Of course, I disapprove of Keyes’ stand in general– but it would be even stranger if it turns out his daughter is gay. )
But, I do admit to is this: If the web page is a hoax, then I am, adding to the the heap of cruelty. And the coverage is cruel whether or not she turns out to be gay.
So… yes, if she didn’t write the web page, I may be contributing to the collective cruelty that is occuring.
I find it amazing that people even suggest it’s a hoax.
In both current and pre-censored iterations, Maya’s blog is not a single-issue, stand alone page.
If it was some page that simply stated “I’m Maya Keyes and I’m a lesbian”, well, any idiot could fake that.
No, her blog is a deeply personal diary touching on countless subjects, and is strongly intertwined to other equally personal diaries touching on similar subjects of interest and shared events. Some friends still have pictures from these events, including Keyes campaign events, that prove connections.
Given the very limited importance of this issue in the grand scheme of things, it’s difficult to assume anyone would go to such lengths to fabricate such an elaborate web of stories complete with a supporting cast of fakes who continue to perpetuate their fake existence. If this is a hoax, it’s more complicated than most JFK conspiracy theories. Hard to believe.
Both her girlfriend and her friend working on the campaign have updated their blogs with pleas for privacy, with her friend giving a number of a journalist out if you’d like to share your concerns on that.
They should not be unduly hounded and they certainly have the right to say what they will, including nothing at all – but if you (still!) bare your naked soul for all to witness, acting indignant when people actually look is disingenuous.
I’m not sure that I think the relative shockingness of her being gay is really the issue. I’ve chosen to keep my medical problems private from the people I work with, not because I think they’re embarassing or shameful, but because I’m worried about the fallout if people knew about my health status. I think it’s just groovy that she’s gay, assuming that she is, but I also think she ought to be able to decide when and with whom to discuss it. It just seems to me that any 19-year-old gay kid (hell, any 19-year-old kid period) has enough on her plate trying to figure out her place in the world without it being front-page news that her daddy thinks she’s a hell-bound sinner or selfish hedonist or whatever the slur of the day is. That’s a lot to deal with even if you don’t have to deal with it in public.
I don’t claim to understand Alan Keyes, and I’m not sure I want to. It seems to me that he’s performing a worthy task with admirable skill: he’s systematically dismantling the carefully-constructed “moderate” facade that the Illinois Republican party has built for itself. I think he’s doing a good enough job at that without having to drag his kid into it.
Maya is posting on her blog again, and seems not too much worse for the wear — although some have theorized she might now be “helped” by Keyes’ staffers or consultants. I hope for the best for her. She’s a darling kid. (I mean “kid” relatively speaking; she’s only a third my age.)
Her Dad is an A#1 schmuck. He plundered ahead with his anti-gay position, likely knowing his own daughter was gay, but to hell with the consequences for her.
My parents are the same. They’re the Alan Keyes’ and Dick Cheneys of the world. They voted for Stephen Harper (Canada) who was very anti-gay — but they still love me.
They can’t get their heads around why I’m gay and blame themselves for it. It’s a horrible thing to go through. I’m thinking I might write a book about this… Gays and Lesbians is rabidly anti-gay families are quickly (and happily) becoming the minority in this western world, but it can be hard for gays and lesbians to see all their friends and partners accepted into their families no problem, and then struggle with their own families who can’t see past the sex issue.
Regardless of whether she is or isn’t gay and whether she is or isn’t the author of that weblog, it would be much more appropriate for the world to stop ogling at this 19 year old girl’s and friends of this girl’s sites and trying to figure out what is what. There is a thing called privacy. A thing called respect. Apparently nobody remembers what those things are anymore. One reporter even stooped to questioning an 8 year old on the person-in-suspect’s orientation. The press and the weblogs online have become a bunch of schoolkids on the playground holding someone’s diary above their heads and screaming with delight at having found some “secret” out. Shut up and butt out, because you have no clue how cruel life has already been to these Anjuls.
We can’t run from the issue of the legal definition of the covenant of marriage. We might want a “live and let live” attitude to prevail in all of our interpersonal/family/friendship situations, but that won’t work for society as a whole.
I support the biblical, historical, natural, commonsense, and abiding definition of marriage very strongly: yet, if they are not asking the government to bless their unions with official sanction, I’m just as willing as any liberal or libertarian to leave the personal lives of fellow citizens alone, on the issue, so long as we’re talking about consenting adults, wanting to be left alone.
Paul Richard Strange, Senior
Waxahachie Texas
dadprs@hotmail.com
yet, if they are not asking the government to bless their unions with official sanction
Why should the government sanction any type of union at all?
If it does recognize these unions for the purposes of taxation, regulation, welfare, medical and retirement benefits, why not recognize all functional unions equally?
I am firmly against biblical marriage being legal. If I were ever to marry, I would not wish my husband be allowed to take one of my slave girls as a concubine in the event that I am infertile.
Amanda: “I would not wish my husband be allowed to take one of my slave girls as a concubine in the event that I am infertile.”
Come on Amanda — you don’t think you should sacrifice for the good of your “real man”?
I know my brothers-in-law don’t want to marry me in the event my husband dies, no matter what the Bible says!
Not even one, lucia? What about the one always trying to play footsie under the dining room table?*
*Attention: I do not actually know this. I am merely guessing.
Well… Jim’s two brother’s are identical twins born minutes apart from each other. That’s why you can’t remember which one you saw playing footsie with me.
What’s the rule that says which one is stuck with his brothers widow? (Or, ahem, has the honor, or marrying his brother’s widow?)
I need to learn the rule from a true old testament scholar.
My guess is that the family figures it out from family circumstances. Not every single thing is regulated by the Bible. Yes, frequency of intercourse between spouses is, but they don’t recommend a position.
Ok. I’ll bite! I grew up Roman Catholic, so, naturally, we didn’t read a tremedous amount of old testament. Leviticus in particular seems to be superceded by later teachings.
So, what’s the recommended frequency? And, how do I get to enforce my fair share should hubby declines claiming head aches or come up with some other lame excuse? Do I get to present my case to a tribunal?
It’s gone beyond “don’t ask,don’t tell”.
Marriage has many centuries of strong support, and it’s not “bigotry” nor “persecution” of anyone to insist that it remain defined as it has traditionally between a guy and a gal.
There have been committed homosexuals who have argued just as powerfully as any traditionalist or conservative that their relationships should not be called “marriage”. Certainly, they aren’t motivated by bigotry, are they?
We’ve become too much of a society inclined to presume too much about the sincere motives of anyone defending important moral definitions, except for politically correct ones.
The government clearly has a vested interest in the definition of marriage. What people want to do sexually as adults may be of little interest or concern to sane persons, but what the counties and states call “marriage” does, in fact, matter!
paulrichardstrange, sr.
It’s gone beyond “don’t ask,don’t tell”.
So?
Marriage has many centuries of strong support, and it’s not “bigotry” nor “persecution” of anyone to insist that it remain defined as it has traditionally between a guy and a gal.
I don’t think I’ve ever suggested it’s persecution. However, it’s non-equal treatment, which is unfair.
There have been committed homosexuals who have argued just as powerfully as any traditionalist or conservative that their relationships should not be called “marriage”. Certainly, they aren’t motivated by bigotry, are they?
There have been committed heterosexuals who prefer not to marry. (Some post comments her at Alas.) That’s not seen as a reason to prevent heterosexuals who want to marry to marry.
Enacting SSM would put heterosexuals and homosexuals on the same standing: Committed couples who wish to marry could do so. Those who don’t, don’t.
We’ve become too much of a society inclined to presume too much about the sincere motives of anyone defending important moral definitions, except for politically correct ones.
Have I impugned your motives?
The government clearly has a vested interest in the definition of marriage. What people want to do sexually as adults may be of little interest or concern to sane persons, but what the counties and states call “marriage” does, in fact, matter!
I agree that what we call marriage matters.
The government’s interest should lead them to extend marriage to same sex couples, for most of the same reasons it permits opposite sex couples to marry. What countries call marriage does matter, and countries should call committed relationships between couples who choose to marry, marriage. They should do so, because it is in their interest.
I was going to boil down the anti-gay marriage arguments to a a bunch of types but then I realized there’s really only two–pithy but meaningless catchphrase–“It’s gone beyond don’t ask, don’t tell”–and the peculiar argument that since gender roles are inborn they have to be legally enforced.
the peculiar argument that since gender roles are inborn they have to be legally enforced.
This is one of my favorite arguments. Often, people don’t realize they are making it. Obviously, if it were literally true that men and women were dramatically different, always wanted to do different things, and needed separate spheres, we wouldn’t need laws or rules to enforce differences.
We don’t need laws forbidding bunnies from hunting cats!
But, I think there are more than two arguments set forth. Some appear in comments above. I see these:
* The argument a whole group should be forbidden something because some in the group don’t want to do it. Well, letting party A do something isn’t going to force B to do it!
* The argument we’ve always done something this way, we should keep doing it. Yet, everyone accepts that if we have been doing something stupid, counter productive or unjust, tradition is no reason to continue. (It’s also the case that often, we haven’t always done something the way the person arguing claims.)
• The biblical argument.
• The proactive “I am not a bigot” argument. Even is a position is not bigotted, it can still be incorrect, unjust, unfair, or flawed in many ways.
Maybe they are more. We did see the “box turtle” quote from the transcript of the Senator’s speech. The idea seemed to boil down too: You can’t marry a box turtle, so ssm should not be permitted. People can get creative. (Point of accuracy: he skipped that part when speaking.)
Well, I put the biblical argument into the “gender roles are inborn so we have to enforce it” category, because that’s essentially what the Bible is arguing–man should not lie with a man “like a woman”.
Since the bible is not supposed to be a source of law outside of a church, any quotes referencing the bible can be dismissed summarily in any discussion of SSM. So the question boils down to; “What is the legal reason for marriage laws?” If it is to ensure responsibility of a couple for the family that is created by the act of marriage, then that responsibility is shared by same sex couples as well as the rest of us. If it is to establish a clear line of inheritance, again SSM would be fitting the description. Without religious connotations, there can be no logical argument against SSM that stands the test of Constitutionality.
BTW. The quote saying a “man may not lie with a man as a woman” obviously doesn’t apply to the Keyes case, because it say nothing about a woman lying with another woman.
i know for a fact that this blog is not a hoax-i know maya’s girlfriend and her blog is not a hoax either. it’s hilarious and you can’t believe 9/10s of what she writes on it, but all the same, those pictures of her and maya together were posted months ago. this is all just too much. if maya is so concerned with her father’s image, she shouldn’t have had a public online journal. she and her girlfriend are hyprocrites to the max-spouting about anarchism and freedom, but then working and taking what they can from keyes and anyone else who will give them anything.
Pingback: BoiFromTroy