McCain pressed on gay rights, contradictions take center stage

May 22, 2008

John McCain chatted with Ellen DeGeneres this morning in an interview recorded yesterday, and the lesbian talk show host pressed the Republican nominee on same-sex marriage. He didn’t seem especially happy to deal with the subject, though in light of last week’s California Supreme Court ruling, he had to know this was coming.

McCain said he thought “people should be able to enter into legal agreements, and I think that that is something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of insurance and other areas, decisions that have to be made. I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue.”

“Blacks and women did not have the right to vote,” DeGeneres responded. “I mean, women just got the right to vote in 1920. Blacks didn’t have the right to vote until 1870. And it just feels like there is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people, all of us. You’re no different than I am. Our love is the same. To me — to me, what it feels like — just, you know, I will speak for myself — it feels — when someone says, ‘You can have a contract, and you’ll still have insurance, and you’ll get all that,’ it sounds to me like saying, ‘Well, you can sit there; you just can’t sit there.’ That’s what it sounds like to me. It feels like — it doesn’t feel inclusive…It feels — it feels isolated. It feels like we are not — you know, we aren’t owed the same things and the same wording.”

Said McCain, softly, “Well, I’ve heard you articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness.”

“Thank you,” responded DeGeneres. “So you’ll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you’re saying?”

McCain laughed.” Touche,” he said.

This was awkward for McCain, not only because he had to sit there and tell an American to her face that her rights are worth a little less than his, but also because the discussions are a stark reminder that McCain has been all over the place on this issue.

Brave New Films has this helpful clip in which McCain said he would support and oppose gay marriage within the same interview.

What’s more, while McCain expressed tacit support for civil unions today, Amanda at TP noted that McCain has previously taken the extreme position that even civil unions are wrong.

* In 2005, he supported an Arizona amendment that would change the state’s constitution “to ban gay marriages and deny government benefits to unmarried couples.”

* On Nov. 19, 2006, ABC’s George Stephanopoulous asked McCain, “So you’re for civil unions?” McCain replied, “No.” He instead said they should be able to only “enter into contracts” and “exchange powers of attorney.”

* In 2007, McCain said he was opposed to New Hampshire’s bill legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples. “If I were a citizen of New Hampshire, I would oppose it,” he said. “Anything that impinges or impacts the sanctity of the marriage between men and women, I’m opposed to it.”

No wonder McCain looked uncomfortable this morning.

May 22, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Again and again. The bigots get to show their hipocracy when confronted.

“Anything that impinges or impacts the sanctity of the marriage between men and women, I’m opposed to it.” — John “Wetstart” McCain

So he’s against men who discard the wife who raised his children for a younger, richer wife?

So he’s against men who discard the wife who raised his children and endured the stress of waiting for him while he was in captivity for a younger, richer wife?

fixed it for ya.

McCain’s just mad because Ellen’s got Porsche de Rossi and all he has is that harpy with ice chips for eyes.

What’s sad about this is that on this issue, Obama’s answers wouldn’t be
much better (nor would Clinton’s). All three support the same position:
separate but equal. Which isn’t to say a Democrat wouldn’t be better on
gay rights overall — clearly they would. But on this issue particularly, all
the candidates are pretty lousy.

People Emergency on Democracy now!

Ickes: We want the Michigan uncommitted to stay uncommitted

In a conference call with reporters, Clinton Senior Adviser Harold Ickes clarified their position on Michigan — they don’t want the 55 “uncommitted” delegates to go to Obama (his name did not appear on the ballot in Michigan).

There have been reports that some of the uncommitted delegates in Michigan already selected are union supporters of Clinton. This solution, unsurprisingly, would make it much harder for Obama to clinch a pledged delegate majority.

Last week, the Clinton campaign was agnostic on the issue — but they seem to ratcheting up the noise, or at least their negotiating position.

Ickes also mentions that the co-chairs of the Rules and Bylaws Committee — which will rule on Florida and Michigan on May 31 — have been holding “informal meetings” with leaders of both of the campaigns.

That means Obama gets nothing! How much of a fair vote is that!
Scorched Earth in progress people!

NEWS FLASH!

Hannity to Rove: ‘Are you now an unpaid adviser for the Hillary campaign?’

Yesterday, Karl Rove appeared on Fox News’s Hannity and Colmes to discuss the presidential election. During the segment, Sean Hannity mentioned that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) recently pointed to electoral maps made by Rove to show that she was the “stronger candidate.” Hannity joked, “Are you now an unpaid adviser for the Hillary campaign?”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/22/hannity-to-rove-are-you-now-an-unpaid-adviser-for-the-hillary-campaign/

“Well, I’ve heard you articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion.”

I have to say he was right about that. She spoke very well.

At first I thought this issue would be like dropping a bomb on the Democrats. Now I don’t think so. I have a feeling both sides will want to avoid it as much as possible.

Good for Ellen for bringing it up! I thought she was into “nice-nice” topics only on her talk show. When candidates can’t sure any tv venue might be controversial for them, that’s a good thing. Of course, the so-called sober Sunday morning stuff is probably the safest bets for them anymore.

Hmmm. We have a McCain — who is, give him this much credit — willing to appear on Ellen, knowing who she was and what the topic was We have a candidate who shouts her support for the GLBT community to them — but somehiw never says the word ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ in “mixed company.” And we have a candidate who challenges black homophobia in front of the very ministers that, in many cases, foster it.

Tell me if you find the following scenario implausible:
Obama comes on to Ellen and fairly quickly says the following:
“I have an announcement to make. As you know, I have consistently said that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. But when the California Supreme Court made its ruling I read the whole thing.” (insert joke about Obama’s having been a Constitutional Law Professor — something he should be reminding people of — and therefore it was easier for him than for most people.)
“I’m convinced. This is a matter of civil rights, of equality. Now I think the Federal Government would be as wrong to pass laws declaring that same-sex marriages are automatically legal as they were when they passed the Defense of Marriage Act. Marriage has always been a matter left to the states — with the Supreme Court stepping in if they take obviously unconstitutional stands as they did in the Loving decision which would have made my own parents’ marriage illegal in many states.

“But I can, and do promise you that, when I am President, I will see that the Federal Government treats equally all marriages accepted by the individual states. That includes making sure that partners in a same-sex marriage get all the benefits they would be entitled to were they in a heterosexual marriage.”

I don’t think it would cost him votes he would have gotten anyway, and it would definitely raise his standing not just in the LGBT community but in the large numbers of straight supporters of gay rights — particularly in the new voters who went to schools that had GSAs (Gay-Straight Alliances).

What is McCain thinking, going on Ellen w/o shoring up his position on gay marriage.

What did he think they were going to discuss ? His stance only inflames both sides, neither side wants contracts or unions. His base wants them all burned in hell and gay people want marriage, there isn’t much wiggle room.

But that’s were McCain’s genius is overlooked. He will float around and never get pinned so he can pretty much claim and stand on any point. No one can say this is what John McCain stands for because now one, including McCain, knows where he stands. His whole campaign boils down to vote for me because I am a republican.

As a fervent believer in equal rights–and a committed Obama supporter–I wish the distinction between the two candidates was a little clearer.

I mean, I know that Obama would be vastly better for the LGBT community in terms of judicial appointments, and I greatly admire his political courage in calling out the black church for its ugly tradition of homophobia (something, btw, that it’s impossible to imagine the panderrific Clintons ever doing). But he’s behind the curve on this one. I think what Prup proposes at #10 would be a great start.

I’ve thought a lot about this issue and I’ve come to a conclusion: the US government should NOT be in the marriage business at all. They should simply be in the business of domestic contracts between any two consenting adults not already in such a contract…period. Such contracts would simply be the means by which the government registers and acknowledges the couple’s status in order to secure certain rights like medical decisions, inheritence, children, etc.

If a couple wishes it, they can go to their church, temple, mosque or whatever and participate in whatever religious ceremony which their religion offers to sanctify their union as a “marriage”.

Sad.
Remember McLame v. Bush in 2000? Sure, he was still a conservative bonehead if you bothered to look, but be honest– didn’t you have a certain amount of respect for him?
Look at him now, though. Pitiful. He’s repudiated everything that made anyone respect him in the first place. The only question left to ask is this: is he just a craven panderer to the Repub wacko base, or is he just a decrepit senile old fart? Or is that even a dichotomy?
And at last, even the MSM can’t ignore his flips and weasel words. He may even end up being a better target than Obama, Wright notwithstanding.

Obama, in a walk.

Independent thinker #13 – I’ve often thought that, too, but it will never happen. And if it did, how would you address the prohibition against polygamous “marriages?”

Here’s something interesting, too. What is to prevent two people from exchanging marital vows when marriage is forbidden? It’s still a contract between the two, whether it’s sanctioned as a marriage or not. Will the state uphold the contract between them? After all, what is marriage but a legal contract between two people? Of course, in this situation they’d get no legal benefits, but still . . .

So, can polygamists just exchange vows among themselves, and carry on as if it were a marriage? Will that contract among them be upheld?

Gets kind of thorny. Especially when you consider that vows in traditional marriages take on all kinds of variations these days, usually to make them looser unions.

You wind up wondering what the hell the government is doing meddling in our personal affairs.

I’m not any kind of lawyer, but it was my understanding that the CA decision did not affirm the rights of homosexual couples to marry, per se, although it had that effect. What they said (and I believe the same happened in MA) was that the state cannot pass a law declaring that some couples may enter into legal relationships which are indistinguishable from marriage, and yet deny them the right to call themselves married. The distinction here is that it is not ‘activist’ judges who are writing new law, it’s the actual legislature being called on the idiocy that ‘civil unions,’ are somehow different than marriage. These civil union statues are born of the fact that large majorities see the status quo as obviously unfair. If this understanding is correct, it might be more instructional to ask opponents why they disagree with the courts decision, but are in favor of the legislation. At the very least this might take some heat off the poor jurists.

When three Republican appointees and one lone Democratic appointee on CA ‘s SC decide gay marriage is constitutional in a national election year I have to be suspicious. I understand that the decision is well reasoned and has a firm legal basis, but that hasn’t stopped the Rethugs before from caving to ideology when they wanted to. This issue is again an obvious distraction that serves one side more than the other, and motivates the bigots to get out and vote even if all the candidates are more-or-less in agreement.

McSame lets the media define him despite all his flip-flopping, contradictions, outright lies, and prevarication, because he has made the ‘right’ impression on the MSM and all is forgiven. The MSM makes his excuses for him, and no one really expects a cogent answer from him. But they do expect rational answers from Clinton and Obama.

Obama needs to say that all unions are civil unions first, and religious endorsement is optional and not legally binding. Civil Unions are the law of the land for everyone. That’s the constitutional amendment we need.

@15
Maybe we shouldn’t worry about polygamy. i mean it exists now, and states don’t really enforce any laws against it (you really can’t since the second wives don’t have marriage certificates, and trying to marry two people results in bigamy. i heard on npr the atty gen of utah and the atty gen of somewhere else (AZ, NM, CO, NV?) saying to polygamist families they weren’t going to be like the Texans, unless there was solid proof of abuse.

i always thought the contract idea is the most elegant. you can marry who you want, get the standard benefits, and the state has very little to say about it. minors can’t marry cause they don’t have capacity to enter contracts, same with santorum man on dog stuff.

DL got my joke in #4.

Though I was going to say:

“We are all the same people, all of us. You’re no different than I am.” – Ellen to John

Nope Ellen. You’ve got Porshe. You’re way ahead of John.

Black males have been eligble to vote in the US since 1791 in Vermont, and well before that in the independent Republic of Vermont. It was enshrined in both constitutions.

Actually, it’s Portia de Rossi, not Porsche.

Thanks, MichaelW, @21. I was wondering how ownership of a car — however fancy — could be compared in value to a legally recognised marriage…

Declare marriage to be a religious institution (no government involvement, due to the separation between church and state), and just call all long-term monogamous cohabitations “civil unions,” whether homosexual, heterosexual, formal, common-law, etc.; then everybody’s on the same legal footing, and the religious integrity of marriage becomes a non-issue, at least as far as civil rights are concerned. It’ll never happen, of course, but it would solve the problem.

“Declare marriage to be a religious institution (no government involvement, due to the separation between church and state), and just call all long-term monogamous cohabitations “civil unions,” whether homosexual, heterosexual, formal, common-law, etc.; then everybody’s on the same legal footing, and the religious integrity of marriage becomes a non-issue, at least as far as civil rights are concerned. It’ll never happen, of course, but it would solve the problem.”

That’s precisely what the “religious Right” is fighting against. If marriage is declared to be definitively the property of the church, then it will be up to the individual denominations to decide whether or not to recognize marriages, gay or otherwise. After that, it’s only a matter of time until the Episcopalian church (or somebody else) formally recognizes same-sex unions and the whole notion of Christianity being defined by what Southern Baptists who vote Republican think it ought to be will be gone.

This issue is poison for McCain. If conservatives don’t put this particular worm back in the can, he’s going to get killed by it, and so are they.

Hark @15:

Polygamy is unlikely to become a civil marriage issue for several reasons, legally speaking:

1. So few Americans engage in consensual polyamorous relationships (having an affair doesn’t count!) that the state doesn’t have a compelling reason to change the law to allow it. Unlike coupled gays, who make up a decent chunk of the population, people in successful long-term poly relationships are rare.

2. The state does have a compelling interest in leaving the civil tax code as it is because changing it to allow for multiple spouses filing jointly would be a HUGE drain on manpower and time.

3. Ditto #2 for family courts. Who decides which parent(s) have which rights with which kids, etc?

4. Ditto #2 for insurance purposes.

Multiple-partner marriages and the families therein are not something our civil law is ready to even think about handling yet. The whole “slippery slope” argument Republicans like to quote just isn’t there. Civil laws are already in place for two-person marital relationships. It’s just a matter of changing marriage licenses from “Husband” and “Wife” to “Spouse 1″ and ‘Spouse 2.” Which is why civil gay marriage should be no big deal.

As for the religious aspect, I don’t get why Republicans scream about polygamous marriages as being so evil. Their own scripture is stuffed with stories about men having multiple wives.

My favorite exchange about same-sex marriage was between Elizabeth Birch (when she was ED of the Human Rights Campaign) and then-Rep. Bob Barr. They were debating the Defense of Marriage Act and Birch ask Barr which marriage was he defending, his first, second or third?

McSame has to pander to the Religious Right in his party, so he will not support same-sex marriage. Obama will take the stage with a homophobic bigot, but won’t have his picture taken with the Mayor of San Francisco. The only candidate I trust to do the right thing is Sen. Clinton. She has long been an advocate of LGBT civil rights.

BAC

rstaff

“I was on the forrestal July 29,1967. I was on the flight deck and saw my squadrons Phantom fire the Zuni into Nc Cains plane. He did not do a hot start. His tailpipe was hanging over the flight deck. There was no aircraft behind him. That is not how aircraft are staged on the deck prior to launch. You people who have never been on a carrier need to get a life, you have no idea what you are talking about. McCain was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. When we went back to Norfolk, He Volentered to transfer to the Oriskany to finish his tour.”

There are many points about this post which are disputed by eyewitnesses and other known facts. One is that McCain wasn’t transferred to the Oriskany until you went back to Norfolk, while many others say he was transferred right away. The reason he was transferred is that the crew knew what had happened but, just like on the USS Liberty, were threatened with imprisonment “or worse” if they ever spoke up. Please don’t say this never happens in the US Navy, because we now have the entire surviving crew of the USS Liberty as witnesses that it DOES happen, and DID happen.

Your statement “You people who have never been on a carrier need to get a life, you have no idea what you are talking about” is based on pure ignorance and supposition. I flew jets before McCain flew jets and have some idea of how likely it is that my fellow WHITE pilots would have been given a second chance, much less five chances, to crash multi-million dollar airplanes–ZERO. I was also on the USS Enterprise and witnessed firsthand how badly it was damaged [the “news” could never present it correctly].

I also saw how those who questioned why such dangereous, obsolete bombs were allowed on BOTH the Enterprise and Forrestal were simply SHUT UP. Not only were the criminals responsible never punished, they were promoted, just like affirmative action general Colin Powell was *promoted* while the WHITE man he gave the illegal orders to, William Calley, was imprisoned.

With all these promotions swirling around, isn’t it interesting that McCAin returned from being a POW as a Lt. Commander while many of his peers had been promoted to Captain, two ranks higher? What did they know then that we don’t know now? He entered the Navy with the objective of becoming an admiral as his father and grandfather had been, and the reason he left is that this failure to be promoted on time meant he would never make admiral!

And now the jewsnews determines this loser is “qualified” to be “president”?

The statement “His tailpipe was hanging over the flight deck. There was no aircraft behind him” is disputed by the following POOR video [and I’m positive that the ones that really indict McCain can be found somewhere] which prove this not to be the case:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=chuiyXQKw3I

At the very time that the flames erupted, McCain’s .ss-end was pointed straight back, not “hanging over the flight deck”.

If you WERE there, certainly you’d have KNOWN this?!

Comments are closed.