It's been a month and a half. The Brody File reports that John McCain has finally responded in a big way to the California Supreme Court's May 15 decision to legalize gay marriage, sending a statement of solidarity to the California group pushing for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:
"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."
Brody is impressed:
Not only is he now on record FOR the constitutional marriage amendment in California, he also put HIS name on it.... This is a good move by McCain. It's not a pander at all.
But because he was so slow on the uptake, McCain's late-breaking support for the California amendment risks looking like a pander. What matters now, at least so far as the Christian Right is concerned, is how strenuously McCain helps promote the California ballot initiative. He's piled up heaps of doubt among conservative evangelical activists.
3
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
"because of the inevitable procreation that male/female relationships bring about"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
J Koos said,
"We in CA will definitely reject the usurption of rights by our Supremes."
Patently wrong. The Supreme Court is there to ensure any voter-passed legislation does not go against the Constitution, specifically the equal protections clause. That's their job. The (now 8 year old) Prop 22 did just that.
"The Dems have really miscalculated on this."
Wrong again. Six of the seven judges were Republican nominees.
"Instead of being patient, they are playing piggy and wanting it all now without democratic means."
Third time wrong. The California Legislature (the "democratic means" you purportedly tout) voted twice to lift the ban. Seems pretty "patient" to me. And as for "piggy", please explain why heterosexuals need special rights. They "want it all", apparently.
Whatever happened to the 'promises' that all citizens were created equal, that all citizens have the right to the pursuit of happiness, and that liberty (!) and justice is "for all", not just the betterosexuals in America??? They've been sorely missed for the past 8 years. Oops, make that 16 - Clinton was no friend of gay Americans with his horrendously unjust "Defence" of Marriage Act and the ludicrously discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (even though the military insists on 'asking' anyway).
Bonnie,
You typed:
"Ron, you completely ignored the argument that marriage is historically a duty, rather than a right."
Neither the article nor Ron, nor any other poster made any such an "argument". Whence cometh this strange assertion that "marriage is historically a duty"? And a "duty" to whom? Loving v. Virginia makes it clear that marriage is, in fact, a right. But I would still like to read your thoughts on marriage as a liberty.
"Thirty years ago, brides DRAGGED their grooms, kicking and screaming, to the altar."
Maybe in your case. All 3 of my (very) heterosexual sisters' marriages (approximately 30 years ago, btw) were completely voluntary on both their and their husbands' parts.
Also, a reminder, we're still waiting your reply as to why heterosexuals "need" marriage?
And yes, you are right, McCain did show Ellen respect. Some from you would be apprecited, as opposed to the ugly incest 'link' and the absurd "inevitable procreation that male/female relationships bring about" comments.
Dan,
Your "(Finally)" editorial comment in the headline leads me to believe he should have backed the ban all along.
Why that?
Because he's a Republican?
Heck, Mary Cheney is nominally a Republican and I'm sure she's not thrilled that McCain finally wants to make sure she can never marry her partner.
Or is his backing simply a long overdue expectation, in your opinion?
And if that's the case, why that? Can't/don't/shouldn't Republicans uphold the Constitution (the one you have, not the one Focus on Some Families wants to change it to)?
Gawd, don't bother to challenge or try to 'debate' someone - they just shut up about it. Maybe they realize they've taken on a 'no-win' stance on the issue, but occasionally, we comboxers would like an answer to our questions. 'Specially from Dan.
Or am I holding my breath for something tha ain't never gonna happen?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.