McCain tries to buddy up with Religious Right

[dalej42]

McCain comes out in support of California SSM amendment. Does McCain just not get it? The Religious Right do not like him and will not like him. They may hold their nose to vote for him as “Anyone But Obama.” But, they will never trust him.

McCain should have stayed out of the fight. That way he could actually pretend to still be a maverick. Now, he’s a phony. Maybe he can exhume the body of Terri Schiavo to drag along the campaign trail with him.

[mlees]

I thought that McCain has always believed that marriage (and SSM) is a State, not Federal, issue…

[Der_Trihs]

@mlees

I thought that McCain has always believed that marriage (and SSM) is a State, not Federal, issue…

No, he voted for the “Defense of Marriage Act”, which puts him firmly on the side of the bigots, and against state’s rights.

[mlees]

I hesitate to label the majority of the Federal government as bigots.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml The House vote (342 Yea, 67 Nay).

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 104th Congress - 2nd Session The Senate Vote (85 Yea, 14 Nay).

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia President Clinton signs into law September 1996.

@wiki

In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: " I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered.

@wiki

DOMA may be largely unnecessary, regardless of whether it is constitutional. If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to apply the law of another state in contravention of its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity.

From McCaine’s website: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

Protecting Marriage

As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question.

The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.

As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society. They did so to ensure that the voices of America’s families could not be ignored by an indifferent national government or suffocated through filibusters and clever legislative maneuvering in Congress.

[Der_Trihs]

@mlees

I hesitate to label the majority of the Federal government as bigots.

Well, I don’t. They decided to fight against same sex marriage, therefore they are bigots. Period.

[John_Mace]

What’s the debate? Sounds like a rant against McCain.

[jayjay]

Yeah, DOMA was a major black mark on every liberal/moderate senator and representative. Hell, even Paul “Lefter Than Feingold” Wellstone (rest in peace) voted for the damn thing. Wellstone’s a bellwether. When he votes with the Republicans, it means that the subject at hand has no chance. And it didn’t, then.

I have a feeling that a Defense of Marriage Amendment would have a different outcome today. I don’t think they’ll be able to get 2/3 of Congress to vote “Yea” on it. Especially when you realize the delicious irony and oppositional advertising possibilities of Larry “Wide Stance” Craig and David “Spank My Diaper, Madam” Vitters being co-sponsors of it. (And no, I am not kidding…they really are. This is what I call a 500-year hypocrisy flood, folks.)

[dalej42]

I do think stunts like these for McCain really might hurt him with independent voters. They’re going to take a look at him and try to see how he isn’t Bush Lite. Bush pandered to the bigots, McCain panders to the bigots. How is this guy such a maverick?

Same sex marriage won’t be a big issue in 2008. McCain has no chance in California. The only way to see this ploy is a pander to the nutty Religious Right. I certainly hope independent voters are growing sick of the RR with their anti-stem cell, anti-global warming, anti-evolution, and anti-gay agenda.

[Miller]

@mlees

I hesitate to label the majority of the Federal government as bigots.

I didn’t realize that a position could only be bigoted when it’s held by a minority of the populace.

[mlees]

I was a bit rushed with post #4, and I would like to expand a little more.

Reading the wiki entry, it sounds like the DOMA of 1996 was a grandstanding political gesture during an election year, and I think it didn’t really have any enforcable provisions, which is why I posted the second wiki quote.

I am guessing most of Congress (and the President) thought the same thing, and felt it was safe enough to vote the way they did, which is why I posted the first wiki quote.

I notice that of the Senate votes, the “nays” include the Senators from states that are more open to the idea of SSM. Those from states that are not voted “yea”. Pandering, or voting for their constituents? We report, you decide.

McCain, if he was the “glowing Paladin on a white charger” in favor of states rights, should have voted “nay” (or at least abstain), I’ll grant you that. But I am going to guess that he saw it as a harmless enough opportunity to voice his feelings (and his constituents feel similarly, IIRC) publicly.

Oviously, YMMV.

[mlees]

@Miller

I didn’t realize that a position could only be bigoted when it’s held by a minority of the populace.

It’s not a minority opinion, if you consider the number of states that have DOMA-like provisions, versus the ones that allow SSM.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@mlees

It’s not a minority opinion, if you consider the number of states that have DOMA-like provisions, versus the ones that allow SSM.

That’s precisely his point: reread his post and what he was responding to. You seem to be implying that, since a majority of government holds a certain position, that position must not be bigoted.

The position is clearly a bigoted position. I, too, would hesitate to label most of the folks who voted for it as bigots: it’s far likelier to me that they are cowards and opportunists who don’t really give a shit about gay people one way or another, and have no compunctions against denying them rights if it’ll lead to staying in office.

Daniel

[Miller]

Thanks, LHoD. That’s my point exactly.

[Troy_McClure_SF]

@mlees

I hesitate to label the majority of the Federal government as bigots.

Whyever would you do that?

[Der_Trihs]

@mlees

Reading the wiki entry, it sounds like the DOMA of 1996 was a grandstanding political gesture during an election year, and I think it didn’t really have any enforcable provisions, which is why I posted the second wiki quote.

Assuming that’s true, that makes it no less bigoted. Would it be unbigoted to pass an unenforceable “Defense of Racial Purity Act” forbidding interracial marriage as political grandstanding ?

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I, too, would hesitate to label most of the folks who voted for it as bigots: it’s far likelier to me that they are cowards and opportunists who don’t really give a shit about gay people one way or another, and have no compunctions against denying them rights if it’ll lead to staying in office.

Well, realistically it’s actions that matter. If you act on the behalf of bigotry, it’s not that important if you do it out of belief or out of opportunism.

[begbert2]

@Der Trihs

Well, realistically it’s actions that matter. If you act on the behalf of bigotry, it’s not that important if you do it out of belief or out of opportunism.

Functionally and with regards to the general effect you’re correct - but it does matter with regard to wether the person themselves is deserving of the label.

[mlees]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

That’s precisely his point: reread his post and what he was responding to. You seem to be implying that, since a majority of government holds a certain position, that position must not be bigoted.

Sorry for the confusion. I thought that Miller was saying that the anti-SSM opinion was a minority opinion. :smack: (Minority of the population to include only the Religious Right and the politicians that pander to them.)

@Left Hand of Dorkness

The position is clearly a bigoted position. I, too, would hesitate to label most of the folks who voted for it as bigots: it’s far likelier to me that they are cowards and opportunists who don’t really give a shit about gay people one way or another, and have no compunctions against denying them rights if it’ll lead to staying in office.

Daniel

I agree.

Is President Clinton a bigot, or merely pandered to bigots? Ditto McCain?

Both gave public statements on their feelings, as quoted by me… Both supported the 1996 DOMA.

Since I am not a mind reader, I defaulted to the “lesser of two evils”, given the limited choices available to me.

I cannot deny that if this same bill came up for vote today, it would fail. Indeed, the talk of a US Constitutional Amendment “protecting” traditional marriage failed not too long ago, and IIRC, that was when I heard McCain make statements about SSM being a state, not a Federal issue.

[UltraVires]

@Der Trihs

No, he voted for the “Defense of Marriage Act”, which puts him firmly on the side of the bigots, and against state’s rights.

Well, calling him a bigot is certainly debateable, but how is a vote for DOMA a vote against states’ rights? A state is free to allow SSM, but under DOMA a state which has prohibited SSM is not required to recognize that marriage. A state may recognize that marriage if it chooses. I fail to see how this violates states’ rights…

[monavis]

Both McCain and Obama are catering to the religious right.I just read on Refdesk this morning that Obama wants to enlarge the support for faith based programs.

Monavis

[Frank]

@monavis

Both McCain and Obama are catering to the religious right.I just read on Refdesk this morning that Obama wants to enlarge the support for faith based programs.

Faith based does not have to automatically equal religious right, though that’s become the accepted connection lately. If you’ll recall, large segments of the struggle against slavery, against the death penalty, for civil rights, etc., were and/or are faith based.

That said, I’ll be as leery about government support for left-wing faith based organizations as I am for the ones on the right.