McCain (Finally) Backs California Marriage Amendment

Obviously, he doesn't really care. Much like me.

I can see no reason why gays should not be as miserable as hets. They should be allowed to get married.

God o meter try spit you out my mouth bible you know

To J. Koos: Which "usurpation of rights by our Supremes" are you referring to? The 1948 decision allowing for inter-racial marriages or the 2008 decision allowing for same-gender marriage? Or are you equally upset at both "usurpation of rights"? Just curious... P.S. Which rights of yours are being usurped?

Usurpation of rights by our Supremes…I think not J Koos. That is precisely their job!
They, the state or federal Supreme Court, is to determine is a law is unfair or unconstitutional. Judges are to determine fairness in a law, not whether or not it’s popular or supported by a majority or a minority but rather what is right for ALL citizens. They are doing their job. Most of the California Supreme Court was appointed by Arnold, a Republican and they, themselves, are Republican. I’m sure that they didn’t want to approve what they did but they did their job, plain and simple and now there are people, who think that it is their right to determine what or rather what a group of people in this country should have the right to have.

Bonnie,
You stated: “Gays simply need RESPECTABILITY, they don't really NEED marriage and should be glad of it!” Why, that’s rather magnanimous of you! Every human being deserves to be respected for who they are regardless of whether someone approves of them or not. Every Gay man or woman deserves to the same right to marry, if they so choose to do so. The benefits that a marriage brings to the couple and the survivor, should not be denied simply because some, even if it is the majority, don’t think that a specific group deserves. Our country is a Republic, which means the laws are established for and to protect all its citizens, not for a few. Some people like using a “slippery slope” argument but when that argument is dissected, there is no basis for it; it ends up being either based on ignorance or prejudice.

In ending, I’d like to quote the Justice Minister of Canada; “Human Rights should never be left up to a popularity contest. Civil Rights should never be a matter of public opinion.”

Bonnie,

The "hate" shows its ugly head every time someone bears false witness against God's gay and lesbian children. Your allusions to incestuous 'marriages' are not only irrelevant to this discussion, it is a bald attempt to somehow link us to the "ick factor" inherent in incest, sorta like those frequent (and equally odious) comparisons of committed gay relationships to polygamy, beastiality, necrophilia, murder, cannabalism, rape, child-molestation, etc. (etc., etc., etc.) that are found so easily elsewhere on this 'religious' site. They are untrue, aka false, aka a lie, aka a sin.

As for your argument about "rights", how about you address people's freedoms instead. No one has the "right" to drive a jet-ski, but they have the freedom to do so (mostly). No one has the "right" to buy or sell a house, but they are largely free to do so.

America touts itself as the "land of the free" (TM), but those freedoms are abrogated by religious right-wing zealots who are much more interested in limiting the freedoms of others than in any rights.

And if you insist on dqwelling on (your entirely ficticious) false comparisons of "rights", then please address why gay citizens do not have the "right to the pursuit of happiness".

"With gays, there are no inevitable offspring."

Nor were there any in my youngest sister's 2 heterosexual marriage. (Did she "need" marriage?) It isn't a requirement of any marriage. How it is pertinent here escapes me.

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).

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)?