John McCain Trying To Have It Both Ways With Gay Community
John McCain Trying To Have It Both Ways With Gay Community
Our guest bloggers are Winnie Stachelberg and Josh Rosenthal.
Last month on Ellen DeGeneres’ TV show, John McCain attempted to soften his stance on the California Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage:
I think that people should be able to enter into legal agreements and I think that is something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of insurance and other areas.
But on Wednesday, in his official declaration of support for California’s anti-marriage Constitutional amendment, McCain changed his tune:
I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.
The key word here is Arizona. Last year, McCain campaigned for Arizona’s Proposition 107, an expansive amendment against marriage. Same-sex couples have already begun losing domestic partner benefits (McCain’s “legal agreements”) thanks to similar amendments, and Arizona’s amendment was so broad that it would have covered all domestic partner registrations, including opposite-sex working couples and retired couples who don’t want to get married.
Senator McCain has gotten credit in the gay community for his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment due to federalist concerns. This argument might even have won over other conservative Senators, like John Sununu (NH), Chuck Hagel (NE), John Warner (VA), Richard Lugar (IN) and Ben Campbell (CO), to defeat the amendment. But if McCain would support California’s state marriage amendments even though Governor Schwarzenegger opposes it, the facts are clear. A few secret meetings with the Log Cabin Republicans doesn’t change the fact that John McCain is no friend to gay Americans.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“John McCain Trying To Have It Both Ways With Gay Community”
I’m pretty sure that means he’s bi..
June 28th, 2008 at 10:03 amI do not believe judges should be making these decisions.
Why is this so difficult for conservatives to understand?
We are a Republican Democracy with three qual branches of government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Judicial interprets the Constitution to assure equality for all people in cases when the majority is wrong. The Judicial Branch is the guardian for ensuring minorities get fair and equal justice.
We are not a plain Democracy because Thomas Jefferson understood the mob rule problems associated with plain Democracies - as well as the irrationality of the religious majority to impose their own brand of “morality” on minorities.
The judges are following the governmental system that our Founding Fathers set in place to protect minorities from mob rule. Period. You’d think someone who wants to be President of this country should know these basic fifth grade facts. Sheesh!
June 28th, 2008 at 10:11 amPlease, no wide-stance jokes.
I’m beggin’ ya’.
It’s as cliched as a Bush-Gore election joke.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:13 amMcCain wants to have his c*ck and eat it too. ;)
June 28th, 2008 at 10:15 amFourteenth Amendment is quite clear:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Making gay marriage illegal is ILLEGAL.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:17 amAnd, did Ellen sound like she believed him? She’s always so obsequeous, and non-confrontational. Let’s see him try that with Rosie, and see if he’s convincing.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:17 amI’m with barfly. Why is this woman smiling?
June 28th, 2008 at 10:21 amThe solution is simple: Have the federal government no longer recognize “marriage” but only “civil unions”. All current marriages would automatically be deemed “civil unions”. In a “civil union”, each person will have all the legal rights and benefits (including that of transferring property upon death) that all married men and women have today. The only difference would be that a “civil union” would be defined as a union between two, and only two people. (Sorry, Rick “Man-on-Dog” Santorum, you won’t get your wish.) Furthermore, all clergy and other people currently allowed to perform marriages recognized by their own state may continue to join people in civil unions.
One of the main arguments I hear conservatives make against same-sex unions being considered as “marriages” is that it would “violate the sanctity of marriage”. That is the wrong argument to use, for the word “sanctity” implies a religious aspect that has no place in law. My wife and I were legally married by a Justice of the Peace in a restaurant. There was nothing “sacred” about it. Yet no one would question that we are legally married.
As for whether or not civil unions can be performed in a church, that would be up to the particular religion involved. If they want to allow it, they can. If a church does not want to recognize a couple as “married” according to their rules, that’s up to them. The federal and state governments should have no say in that matter.
Everybody wins.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:22 amAlthough after having seen the clip, she did do an adequate job of presenting her argument, and exposing the shallowness of his, so kudos. But I still like to see him make that argument with Rosie. She’d mop the floor with him.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:24 amThat has got to be one of the all time best Headlines I have ever read here. “McCain trying to have it both ways with Gay Community.” Priceless.
Kudos to Winnie and Josh.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:25 amWayne A. Schneider Says:
Everybody wins.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Channeling a batshit insane wingnut: “That’s not fair!!”
June 28th, 2008 at 10:25 amWayne A. Schneider Says:
Everybody wins.
Wayne! How did you like Felix?!
June 28th, 2008 at 10:27 ambarfly Says:
Although after having seen the clip, she did do an adequate job of presenting her argument, and exposing the shallowness of his, so kudos. But I still like to see him make that argument with Rosie. She’d mop the floor with him.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Actually, I prefer the way Ellen interviews. She’s polite, but makes her point.
Rosie’s “take no prisoners” style makes people pay more attention to her “b!tchiness” than to the point she’s making.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:28 amThe solution is simple: Have the federal government no longer recognize “marriage” but only “civil unions”. All current marriages would automatically be deemed “civil unions”.
Some municipalities are refusing to marry altogether, and if the trend continues, it might bubble up to the county, and state levels. Which wouldn’t make sense, or pass constitutional muster. But it would make Christians very happy to at least temporarily deny “marriage” to gays, and that’s really what it’s all about: their cultural comfort level.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:31 amThe reason we need certain laws is to protect us from fanatical religious groups. Unbelievable, I agree with you about them imposing their will on the rest of society. I think also the older generation is having a harder time conforming and many have archaic ideas. The under 40 generations; the majority don’t have an issue with gay-marriages. They haven’t been brain-washed into thinking there is only one way to live and all the rest are “a sin”, so to speak.
I loved it when Ellen said this to McCain to throw some humor at him:
So, you’ll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you’re saying?” she asked.
“Touche,” McCain said.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:36 amWayne A. Schneider Says: As for whether or not civil unions can be performed in a church, that would be up to the particular religion involved. If they want to allow it, they can. If a church does not want to recognize a couple as “married” according to their rules, that’s up to them. The federal and state governments should have no say in that matter.
Gavin Newsome had to point out to Wolf Blitzer that Calfornia was recognizing gay marriage as civil marriage and not as religious marriage. He explained that California’s ruling isn’t requiring religious organizations to marry anyone they do not wish to marry, but simply forbidding government run agencies from denying marriage to anyone - gay or straight - per the Constitution.
It would be interesting to see the divorce rates among religious marriages versus civil marriages…
June 28th, 2008 at 10:36 amI’m a little tired this morning, gummitch. I don’t get it. “Felix”?
June 28th, 2008 at 10:38 amWayne A. Schneider Says:
…Everybody wins.
Not really. The “fear everyone who is not like us” politicians won’t have one of their “best” arguments to vote for them.
Of course, I don’t care if they win. I completely agree with your proposal. If government can regulate a marriage, what is to stop government from enacting laws that favor or promote other brands of religious ceremonies? As unbelievable notes, all Americans have a Constitutional right to equal protection to pursue their own happiness, associations and affiliations, and religious expressions. Proponents of the DOMA want to protect only their own views.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:38 amYou are right, PLC. I should have phrased that “Everybody who thinks in terms of what’s best for humanity at large wins.”
June 28th, 2008 at 10:40 amAnd - John McCain wants to have it “both ways” with every American on every issue.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:40 amWayne A. Schneider Says:
I’m a little tired this morning, gummitch. I don’t get it. “Felix”?
Last Monday night?
June 28th, 2008 at 10:46 amFreedom Rebel Says: The reason we need certain laws is to protect us from fanatical religious groups.
Ultimately - you’re right. In every case it seems to boil down to some religiously manifested sense of exclusivity that these nuts feel enables them to deny rights to anyone who doesn’t fit their ideology of what is ‘right’.
I didn’t find anything yet on divorce rates among civil versus religious marriages, but I did find this, which is most likely the same thing at this point in time:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
recent study by the Barna Research Group throws extreme doubt on these estimates. Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on 1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The margin of error is ±2 percentage points. The survey found:
11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am#20 PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
And - John McCain wants to have it “both ways” with every American on every issue.
That is exactly what he does, he is like a chameleon. He changes his speeches and his rhetoric to suit the people he is addressing.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:48 amAlso from the same article on divorce rates:
June 28th, 2008 at 10:49 amOT — there’s a new foreign policy Rice in the mix. Susan Rice, Obama’s advisor, schools Scarborough on North Korea; and catch David Gregory parroting wingnut talking points!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 10:58 am#24 unbelievable
The US has the highest divorce rate of any country in the world.
http://www.nationmaster.com/ graph/ peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate
The next one is Puerto Rico, they are very close.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:01 amrogerse,
backup,
tanqueray,
s_mart,
and many other
tp trolls are
log house republicans.
•
what do they think of
mccain’s postition on same sex
marriage?
*
thanks.
>
June 28th, 2008 at 11:01 amunbelievable Says:
Fourteenth Amendment is quite clear:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Making gay marriage illegal is ILLEGAL.
Well, that is the difference between Flag Wavers and Constitutionalists.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:04 amSince it is getting harder to find issues that Krusty hasn’t been on both sides of, when does that tendency take him from nuanced to shameless political whore? Honorable my ass.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:06 amunbelievable
It would be illuminating to know the reasons for these divorces in the devout Christian context. I’m just trying to imagine them relative to the boiler-plate terms used in dovorce cases such as “irreconciliable differences” and “abandonment” and so on.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:06 amThanks Freedom Rebel!
#1 United States: 4.95 per 1,000 people
June 28th, 2008 at 11:07 am#2 Puerto Rico: 4.47 per 1,000 people
#3 Russia: 3.36 per 1,000 people
#4 United Kingdom: 3.08 per 1,000 people
#5 Denmark: 2.81 per 1,000 people
#6 New Zealand: 2.63 per 1,000 people
#7 Australia: 2.52 per 1,000 people
#8 Canada: 2.46 per 1,000 people
#9 Finland: 1.85 per 1,000 people
#10 Barbados: 1.21 per 1,000 people
#11 Guadeloupe: 1.18 per 1,000 people
#12 Qatar: 0.97 per 1,000 people
#13 Portugal: 0.88 per 1,000 people
#14 Albania: 0.83 per 1,000 people
#15 Tunisia: 0.82 per 1,000 people
#16 Singapore: 0.8 per 1,000 people
#17 China: 0.79 per 1,000 people
#18 Greece: 0.76 per 1,000 people
#19 Brunei: 0.72 per 1,000 people
#20 Panama: 0.68 per 1,000 people
to paraphrase Woody Allen, being willing to have it both ways just doubles your chances of a date for Saturday night
June 28th, 2008 at 11:11 amFreedom…
What a great resource! Just added to my fav’s. Thanks!
June 28th, 2008 at 11:14 am5th Estate Says: It would be illuminating to know the reasons for these divorces in the devout Christian context. I’m just trying to imagine them relative to the boiler-plate terms used in dovorce cases such as “irreconciliable differences” and “abandonment” and so on.
The article referenced younger age in marrying as well as lower incomes as a reason for increased divorce rates (sounded like excuses to me).
Being a denizen of Georgia, I think it fair to say that the lower education levels of people in these conservative places (I’m sure we could find stats on this as well) accounts for both their conservative religiousity, as well as their inability to solve problems in relationships.
It’s also pretty well documented that non-religious people are generally highly educated and intelligent (ever meet a stupid Atheist?). They probably choose better partners in the first place, marry later after they’ve established themselves, have realitic expectations of their relationship, and then work through their issues with logic and reason in most cases.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:15 amAlso from Freedom Rebel’s link:
Age at first marriage for women (most recent) by country
#1 Sweden: 30.4 years
June 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am#2 Denmark: 30.1 years
#3 France: 29.1 years
#4 Spain: 29.1 years
#5 Australia: 28.6 years
#6 Norway: 28.6 years
#7 Finland: 28.3 years
#8 Netherlands: 28.3 years
#9 Ireland: 28.2 years
#10 Switzerland: 28.2 years
#11 Germany: 28.2 years
#12 Austria: 27.9 years
#13 United Kingdom: 27.7 years
#14 Canada: 27.4 years
#15 Japan: 27.3 years
#16 New Zealand: 27.1 years
#17 Italy: 27.1 years
#18 Belgium: 26.6 years
#19 United States: 25 years
Weighted average: 28.1 years
Another flip-flop from the “flip-flop express”. You can’t trust anything McCain says. He is either for it before he was against it or he is against it before he was for it.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:22 amWhat a sad song. McCain to the “Log Cabin Republicans:” Please support me though I will do nothing to recognize you as people deserving of equal civil rights.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:25 amI do not believe judges should be making these decisions.
When religious conservatives use this cliché, they usually miss to mention the part were judges making “these decisions” is a-ok as long as they agree with said decisions.
Otherwise, judges magically become “activists”.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:30 amLi’l John McCain, he said to Sue,
If I was flipfloppin’, would you flipflop too
Sue told John, “I’m thirty two,
I was flipfloppin’ ever since I was two
They was flipfloppin’, they was flipfloppin’
They was flipfloppin’, we flipfloppin’
We don’t have no shoes on
We ain’t worried ’bout THE GAY, none, though
June 28th, 2008 at 11:43 amGood post’s all…..mcinsane is a good example of do as I say not as I do…To believe anything he say’s is insanety at the lowest level…The term gold digger or whore come’s to mind whenever I read what he speak’s…He and many polatician’s will pander to any group just to get the office..Deny people their right’s this week and soft peddle to another group next week.
Good interesting fact’s you posted Unbelievable..I must agree with the educated marry later and divorce less as well as the non believer’s being in that group..Having been less educated and forced relegion at the beginning was atleast a part of the reason’s for divorce in my case…Not shifting blame here just thought’s…Less educated have fewer coping skill’s and fractured famalie’s do not offer safety net’s for people to grow and improve their knowledge…
Don’t think being against gay right’s is as much an age issue as relegious..I know many in my age group that have been working for their right’s along with civil right’s and women’s right’s hand in hand for 40 plus year’s….The relegious seem to think in a one line group.”I’ve got mine” to hell with every one else and the closeted group are the worst….. Thank’s all for posting..Blessings
June 28th, 2008 at 11:48 amUnbelievable #34
Pretty broad assumptions as you’ve written them (I’m sure atheists can be stupid too). As an ahteist myself I eschew all religious notions but some people find them useful and do good things by them. In my view it is all very selective however, and the attribution of ‘good’ and veracity and so forth to parent relgious organizations by those who declare themselves of a religious faith but then use ot for their own satisfaction is disengenous and that selectively may help support other selective attitudes and actions in other areas and choices in life that are inconsitent with their declared faith–in other words they hedge their bets between a personal form of absoultism and an organized form of absolutism, as it were.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm#33 5th Estate Says:
Freedom…
What a great resource! Just added to my fav’s. Thanks
Your Welcome. Anytime I can be of help. :)
June 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pmOh TP, enough with the moderation on #41 already!
June 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pm#31 unbelievable Says:
-
Thanks Freedom Rebel!
It’s hard to find good resources sometimes. I like this one. There stats don’t seem to be biased like other sources I have checked out. Have a good day :)
June 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pmFreedom: Anytime I can be of help. :)
likewise, I’m sure. Umm…as recompense, if you need to know anything about English Civil War re-enactment to support an argument about Iraq/Energy/Reefer Madness/Unitary Executive Power/Hedghogs, come to me first. :)
June 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pmI do not believe judges should be making these decisions.
If they shouldn’t be doing their jobs, what should judges be doing?
June 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pm#45 5th Estate Says:
Freedom: Anytime I can be of help. :)
likewise, I’m sure. Umm…as recompense, if you need to know anything about English Civil War re-enactment to support an argument about Iraq/Energy/Reefer Madness/Unitary Executive Power/Hedghogs, come to me first. :)
They need to have a thread on the War on Drugs and what a complete waste of money it is…another way the government flushes our hard earned money down the drain.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pmI support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.
If judges aren’t supposed to make decisions regarding the equal application of our laws, I wonder then what decisions McCain believes judges should be making.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pmFreedom Rebel Says:
They need to have a thread on the War on Drugs and what a complete waste of money it is…another way the government flushes our hard earned money down the drain.
The “War on Drugs” and especially the Marijuana Prohibition only makes money for criminal cartels and the Bush Family (repeated myself there).
Prohibition has never worked and always creates a black market for organized crime.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pmPaul W Says:
I wonder then what decisions McCain believes judges should be making.
He thinks they should stick to redacting the first half of the 2nd Amendment.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm#49 Wayne Says:
Freedom Rebel Says:
They need to have a thread on the War on Drugs and what a complete waste of money it is…another way the government flushes our hard earned money down the drain.
The “War on Drugs” and especially the Marijuana Prohibition only makes money for criminal cartels and the Bush Family (repeated myself there).
Prohibition has never worked and always creates a black market for organized crime.
I couldn’t agree more with you Wayne. Plus the corruption in the police departments are on the rise now it is hard to tell the good from the bad. The backroom deals they are making with our funding dollars has also got to go.
Marijuana Prohibition just another way to throw people in prison who are convicted of a non-violent crime. Plus it allows the government to throw people to the curb in government housing projects if someone has been convicted that lives at the residence.
Have a good day Wayne :)
June 28th, 2008 at 1:48 pm“…McCain is no friend to gay Americans”
June 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pmWell, I’m gay & I wouldn’t even want him as a friend.
#32 dbadass,
And the chance for a 3-way goes way up too!!! Pile on!!!
June 28th, 2008 at 5:35 pm“I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.”
Senator McCain seems to be oblivious to the primary responsibility of judges to make decisions whether a particular law violates the Constitution of the United States or of a particular state. That is exactly what the California Supreme Court did — it made a decision that California’s statute prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state’s constitution because it violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the California constitution as well as the Constitution of the United States.
John McCain is not the friend of gays and lesbians and should be be entrusted with the keys to the Oval office.
June 28th, 2008 at 6:05 pmoops!
Last line above should read:
John McCain is not the friend of gays and lesbians and should NOT be entrusted with the keys to the Oval office.
June 28th, 2008 at 6:06 pm#56 - TrippleKick Says:
———————————————————-
“…supporting California’s democratic process to change their constitution to protect marriage …”
June 29th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I didn’t know that California was trying to outlaw divorce!
It’s widely believed, but completely wrong, to assume that extending marriage to same-sex couples will somehow threaten heterosexual marriage. The only threat to hetero-marriage comes from hetero’s who refuse to cherish their marriage and rush to get divorced at the first opportunity.
June 30th, 2008 at 7:16 am#58 - TrippleKick Says:
—————————————–
“Its all about judicial fiat with you people.”
June 30th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Oh, you mean like when Pres. Bush was “selected” in 2000 by judicial fiat?
The American people are opening up to equal rights, and eventually gay people will be treated the same in marriage. Don’t forget that about 50 years ago, a majority believed that inter-racial marriage would destroy marriage. It didn’t happen the, won’t happen now.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 am