For McCain, it depends on what the meaning of ‘marriage’ is

The link to the “Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment” appears to be broken.

Gay marriage? I say full rights for everyone. Just don’t call “gay marriage” by the word “marriage.” That flies in the face of what is traditionally understood as marriage. The situation needs a new word, so that gays can form unions and have rights, and traditionalist can preserve the word meaning of “marriage.”

Unlike McCain, I probably offended a few people on both sides of issue in the above paragraph. The point is McCain is so craven that he refuses to offend anybody (any possible voter). That’s symptomatic of “McCain courage” these days (see his cave-in on torture for Bush’s terrorist interrogation bill).

Isn’t this a bit like his spokesperson’s statement that, if he were the governor of South Dakota, he’d sign the bill banning all abortions, including in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, “but would also take the appropriate steps … to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included”?

McCain reversed himself minutes later, saying he has no problem with gays having whatever ceremonies they like in whatever religions will do it, but that the marriage would have no legal standing. Worse, I think he called the marriages “illegal”, which implies the police coming along and breaking the whole thing up with billy clubs.

The man was so pandering, it was disgusting. Matthews wasn’t much better over their little exchange about Obama.

Gee thanks Johnny boy. So very generous of you to say the homosectuals can throw a party if they want so long as they don’t expect any tax breaks or benefits or respect or um … RIGHTS. We’d kiss your feet for not calling for all out slaughter like the rest of your pals, but we’re too busy vomiting on our shoes. I bet some mealy-mouthed wanker made the same argument when people started suggesting that maybe the laws against mixed-race marriages were a stupid ass idea.

I believe it should be protected.

Protected from what you scaly faced arse-sniffing maggot! I’m still waiting for some one to explain how allowing consenting adults to get married “endagers” the special fancy holy union (har har har snort) between man and woman? I especially loathe the word sanctity from him. Not only are same gender marriages not allowed to be marriages but they aren’t sacred which makes them unholy. Screw. You. And the fighter jet you fell out of the sky in. Notice I’m too classy to mention his adultery & divorce…Oops.
Oh well.

I’ve joked about this before but I think there needs to be a national effort to show how fucking stupid he and his wimpy “won’t say no, won’t say yes, vote for me anyway” ilk are by petitioning representatives to put their money where their big stinking “we must protect marriage” mouths are and outlaw adultery and divorce. I know they won’t go for it and it will shine a big bright light on how assinine this whole debate is.

tAiO

All gramar mistakes should be blamed on ire.

“I’m still waiting for some one to explain how allowing consenting adults to get married “endagers” the special fancy holy union (har har har snort) between man and woman?” – TAIO

The value of something is dependent on it’s uniqueness. Already Hetrosexuals have to share the institution with 90% of the population. Imagine having to share with the last 10%.

Outlawing polygamy of course is just a matter of jealousy. Since good Christians would still be denied the opportunity to marry more than one person, they don’t want anyone else to have the fun (or pain) of it.

As for adultery, it is outlawed. There is not a state of the Union were it’s not at least some grounds for losing property in a divorce (I might well be wrong, but I doubt it). That means it’s illegal. Now if you make divorce illegal but don’t put in any criminal punishments for adultery, then you make adultery legal 😉

Wait a second here – I want to weigh in and defend Clinton here – McCain’s weasalness is on a completely different level and there really is no defense – but all Clinton is guilty of with the “I didn’t inhale” comment was being smug.

I was at Georgetown in the early 70s – just a few years after Clinton graduated. It was an interesting place to be – a sizeable number of kids there were like Clinton – ex-Student Government president types who had already decided on a career in politics. They were already earnest wonks in college and spent a lot of time interning on the Hill and practicing their networking. The MBA/career thing hadn’t kicked in yet, so the rest of us were a mix of rich Euro- and Latino-trash, preppies, and middle class kids from Jersey, most of whom were stoners who spent a lot of time partying. Being college, there were always dorm parties on Saturday nights and being the early 70s (I don’t know how it is now) there was usually more drugs than alcohol. People like Clinton, with that need to fit in and be liked by everybody, would show up at parties, often still in their suits from dinner or a party up on the Hill or somewhere networking and, not trying to be complete geeks, when the joint would come around would put it to their lips, pretend to smoke, and then pass it on. We thought it was hysterical, because there were so earnest and out-of-place and tried so hard to fit in – but they weren’t fooling anybody. But you could see they had it all worked out in their own minds – to preserve their future political careers and options they thought they were keeping themselves drug virgins. Should anyone in the future bring up that they were seen in college smoking pot, they could truthfully reply that they “didn’t inhale”. It was all just for appearances and self-deception.

Little did earnest types like Clinton realize that by the time he was old enough to make a serious run for president, the political climate had become so poisonous and nasty that a man’s word wasn’t accepted on its face value regardless of how true it was. No one believed Clinton because no one could imagine themselves being in that situation and *not* inhaling. No proof was ever offered, but the CW seemed to have the opinion that “he must be lieing” and therefore he must be a weasal. And the whole idea behind “I did not inhale” entered the zeitgeist and automatic proof of weasalry. Reagan used to lie continuously that he didn’t die his hair, but everyone went along with that because that was a *wink wink nudge nudge* kind of white lie that everybody told – George Bush refuses to talk about his drug use and no one is allowed to call him on it – but Clinton told the truth – and didn’t count on the fact that the American public wouldn’t buy it.

I’ve related the story several times when the phrase has come up – and there’s always those who refuse to believe it and are convinced that Clinton *had* to be lieing – offering no proof except that he just *had* to be – in other words substituting their pre-conceived ideas and biases for the truth – and that’s pretty much the way they’ve treated Clinton since day one. Like the meaning of “is” – taken out of context and ignored for the fact that what was said was actually the truth – these kind of sliming of Clinton have entered the public discourse and taken on a life and meaning of their own without any thought being given to how they were politically used to delegitimize and redicule the most successful Democrat of our generation. People who continue to use them just continue to perpetuate a destructive myth.

Call it “marriage”, call it “union”, call it a “rose”… The name matters less than the *reality*.

If *two adults* are willing to enter a long-term (hopefully life-long) relationship — with all the attendant benefits and obligations — they ought to be allowed to do so. And their right to do so *ought to be protected by law*. It’s as simple as that. If a church refuses to “sanctify” or “bless” such a union, on religious grounds, it’s their right to refuse. But there are *no grounds* to refuse *legal* protection to such unions. At least, not until we screw up the Constitution even further…

As for McCain… He ought to apply to VA for treatment for the delayed post-whatever syndrome; he seems to have survived his incarceration in Vietnam with his balls intact but, in the past 3 yrs, seems to have come unglued as well as un-manned. Rot in Peace.

DDD (@#15) — great story, thanks. I can now see how Clinton’s “didn’t inhale” might have been worth more than a chuckle. But, at the time… Marijuana was such a rarity in Poland, that I couldn’t *imagine* anyone having a chance at a puff (to find out what the Yanks were raving about, if for no other reason ) and passing up on it. Though, to be sure, I myself must have killed a good number of houseplants in my late-teens/early-twenties by pouring some of my vodka into the pots, when I felt things were getting out of control…