Gay means two different things in this country.

Well, three things. Webster still offers the antiquated definition of gay as “happy, excited, merry, keenly alive and exuberant.” When’s the last time you heard anyone use the word gay in that context? Just try it, I dare you. Walk up to a couple of Red Sox fans and say “I bet Boston is just FULL of gay people!” Or, not.

Then, there’s the other definition of gay. Webster has that one, too: “Homosexual; of, relating to, or used by homosexuals.” We’re all familiar with that definition of the word gay, and it’s probably the most commonplace context for the word these days.

But then, there’s a third definition of gay While it’s not one I found in Webster’s, it’s probably the definition that media elites, academofascists, and political activists mean when they use the word. For them, gay means “a homosexual who clings to the ascribed liberal doctrine of perpetually perceived victimization and government dependence.”

Yesterday, my local paper and sworn enemy, The Roanoke Times, published a commentary about Mary Cheney by a writer named Dirk Moore. It supports my belief about the changing definition of the word gay.

Point and counterpoint:

(The Cheneys) have some questions to answer. How can they back a president whose policies are a grave assault on their own daughter?

Believing that marriage is, and has always been, a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of starting a family, is, of course, not an assault on gays. Just for the hell of it, I’ll refer to Webster again. According to the dictionary, marriage is “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.”

Pretty cut and dry, if you ask me.

What gays want (and by “gays,” I mean that third definition, homosexuals who asribe to the liberal doctrine of perpetual oppression) is for reality to change. They want the world to pretend that marriage can possibly become something other than what it is and has always been. By insisting that marriage is exclusively a heterosexual affair, conservatives aren’t trying to make it an exclusive arrangement. They’re simply stating the obvious and asking gays to recognize reality. Marriage is the wedded union of a man and a woman. Don’t want a relationship with someone of the opposite sex? Fine, have it your way. Just accept the fact that you don’t want marriage, either. And don’t expect the rest of the world to pretend that simple truth isn’t simple truth. Nobody is going to force you to live a heterosexual life. Just don’t you try to force the rest of the world to pretend that homosexuality is something that it isn’t.

Mr. Moore’s charge that the Bush administration's support of a Federal Marriage amendment is a “grave assault” against homosexuals is indicative of the liberal doctrine of perpetual victimization: “If you disagree with me, you are oppressing me.”

Moore continues:

To most openly gay citizens, Mary Cheney's behavior is an insult and perhaps the real outrage of this debate.

That’s exactly my point. If you want to see real exclusionary elitism in practice, don’t look to the Bush administration. Look to liberal elitists. Because Mary Cheney doesn’t fall in line with people who are gay by that third, political definition, her behavior is an insult and an outrage to them. Remember, if you disagree with us, you are our oppressor.

Unlike millions of homosexuals in this country, she enjoys a life of privilege. And unlike other ordinary gay Americans, she has the opportunity - and the protection - to live openly with her sexuality and to address gay issues.

I don’t need to point out how silly this is... but I will. This is a country with all-gay television networks, hit TV shows like Queer as Folk and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and homosexuality celebrated as a socio-political fashion statement. If you’re gay (by any definition) and you’re American, you’re life is every bit as privileged as Mary Cheney’s.

It may be that Mr. Moore begrudges Mary Cheney’s political and personal success in life, another typical liberal attitude. Liberals hate to see someone succeed on their own terms. It proves that personal accountability trumps government dependence very time. But that’s a topic for another post.

Moore concludes:

Mary Cheney might find it unfortunate that she was singled out by Kerry for this public discussion, but millions of other gay Americans would gladly endure that kind of uncomfortable exposure for the unique opportunity she has neglected: to make a real, positive difference in the lives of their homosexual brothers and sisters.

And with that, Moore makes my point more clearly than I might have myself. Socio-political gays, the ones who see liberalism as a requirement for homosexuality, are outraged by Mary Cheney because she is her own person. She makes her own decisions and has a unique perspective, rather than the cookie-cutter perspective that they share. By succeeding on her own terms, she is, to their way of thinking, failing them. After all, they feel, she owes it to all liberal homosexuals to represent their agenda. Surely they can’t be expected to be accountable for making a positive difference in their own lives!

I don’t know much about Mary Cheney other than that she’s a lesbian, she’s successful, and Kerry/Edwards sees her as a card to be played during this campaign. From what I can tell, she seems to be a person of substance, with more than one facet to her personality. Mary Cheney doesn’t seem to wear her sexuality on her sleeve. Others, like Dirk Moore, have decided to wear it for her. If you ask me, that's really gay.