When working on his piece on presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s letter supporting Proposition 8 which would enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the California constitution, LA Weekly writer Patrick Range McDonald contacted me for a comment on this decision.
As I considered my response, I came up with something a little longer than the sound-byte he may have sought. Given the time I took to craft the statement, I decided to include it below, but first wanted to comment on some of the things McDonald said in his article. Even though I don’t agree with everything he has to say (indeed take issue with the general thrust of his argument), I recommend you read in its entirety. He makes some good points and does so in a civil manner.
It’s nice to see a gay writer take on a Republican without the bile we are accustomed to see in such opinion pieces.
McCain may well, as McDonald puts it, be “making a national political play for fundamentalist Christians,” but the Arizona Senator has hardly blown any opportunity on the marriage issue, as McDonald suggests. Many people oppose gay marriage without harboring animosity toward gay people. The Hartford Courant noted as much in its article on gay marriage as the Connecticut legislature considered the state’s landmark civil unions legislation.
Simpy put, many people understand marriage as it has long been understood as the union of one man and one woman. And John McCain has been very clear to say he supports the traditional definition. In doing so, the presumptive Repubican nominee has also made clear his support of federalism and has refrained from attacking gay people as have all too many advocates of traditional marriage.
I focused on that in the statement I sent to McDonald (which I reprint here because he could not possibly have included all my thoughts in his post):
Obviously, I’d rather McCain had remained silent on the California ballot initiative on marriage. While he has shown a willingness to meet with gay people and showed some sensitivity to our concerns, he is not perfect on issues of concern to the gay community.
Remember, this is a man who attended the funeral of Mark Bingham, a gay man and hero of United Flight 93, and who wished Ellen DeGeneres “every happiness” in her relationship with Portia de Rossi. Indeed, in that interview, he, unlike some opponents of gay marriage, showed an understanding some of the basic issues involved in state recognition of marriage.
While, I — and many other gay Americans — applaud Senator McCain for leading the fight against a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, we have long known he does not support state recognition of gay marriage. In 2006, he backed the Arizona ballot initiative which would not only have prevented the state from recognizing gay marriage, but would have also barred civil unions, a measure far more draconian than the one on this fall’s Golden State ballot limiting marriage to its traditional definition.
Support for such a measure is not inconsistent with opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. He had opposed the latter because it would bar states from defining marriage. John McCain believes states should decide these issues. Right now, he’s just saying he believe the people of California should decide this issue — and not the courts.
the next president will nominate three justices,choosing the succesors of Stevens,Souter and Ginsburg.mccain will nominate justices very likely to overrul Lawrence and Romer,with a serious damage for the community.
#1 – Volpi, please cite proof of this claim. McCain was part of the Gang of 14 which did nothing to further the approval of pro-constructionist judges to the federal bench. How then will he nominate these same types of judges to SCOTUS?
Get a clue.
Regards,
Peter H.
Quote from McDonald’s article, bold is mine, for emphasis.
So McCain stands by the traditional definition of marriage, while staying respectful to gays and State rights. This can only because he is courting the Religious right vote. No way he actually might believe this.
On the other hand, Obama never states that he is for gay marriage. The closest we get from him is civil unions. So according to Obama, the CA Supreme court just wasted it’s time. CA already has Domestic Partner laws on the books.
Oh yeah, I forgot, Obama is a Democrat, he actually could have said he is entirely against any rights for gays, and it wouldn’t matter. They’d forgive him since of course he has to appease the Black vote, and just by being a Democrat he’s good, regardless of if he does a single thing to improve the lives of Gay Americans.
Ah, an empty assertion. Gee, we never see this from the left. [/sarcasm] Other than misguided paranoia, I see no evidence for this claim of yours. Yet looking at the records of the 3 Justices you mention, the very ones Obama champions as his models for future appointments, they are extremist liberals who have been on the wrong side of the Constitution in a number of cases, including:
1. Gonzales v. Carhart (concerning the Partial Birth Abortion Act)
2. Kelo v. City of New London (violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment)
3. District of Columbia v. Heller (2nd Amendment)
4. Grutter v. Bollinger & Gratz v. Bollinger (racial quotas)
5. Boumediene v. Bush (foreign terrorists have ‘right’ of habeas corpus)
McCain could screw up and appoint another Souter, who was appointed by Bush Sr., but at least with him we have a far better chance of more reasonable Justices than with Obama.
No, there’s perfection here, it’s just McCain’s policy positions are a clean sweep in opposition to every legislative remedy addressing gay rights. He opposes everything. That includes repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, civil unions (to say nothing of gay marriage), the Uniting American Families Act, Matthew Shepherd ACT and ENDA, to name the most popular.
If that’s “not perfect,” what would a BAD Republican candidate on gay issues look like?
So let’s see here, Erik.
— Military service is not a universal right and is in fact often denied to people based on inborn characteristics or behavior.
— Marriage is not a universal right and is in fact often denied to people based on inborn characteristics or behavior.
— UAFA discriminates against heterosexuals by allowing gay and lesbian people to automatically sponsor their multiple sexual partners for immigration to the United States without any enforceable legal requirement
— “Hate crimes” laws discriminate by providing different classifications of punishment based solely on the victim, just as similar laws under segregation discriminated by providing different classes of punishment based on the victim’s skin color
— Heterosexuals and homosexuals currently have exactly the same job protections based on sexual orientation — none. THAT is completely equal, versus ENDA, which creates an UNEQUAL situation similar to “hate crimes” laws.
In short, McCain believes in treating gay people equally. You simply have redefined “equal” to mean “special treatment based on sexual orientation”.
And if we were asking to make it such, that would be a valid point. Instead, we are asking that current and future members of the Armed Forces who are gay be evaluated solely on their job performance.
And if we were asking to make it such, that would be a valid point. Instead, we are asking that gay couples be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, allowing them to participate in this solemn and important institution.
That is factually false. Hate crime enhancements do not pertain to all crimes against a specific member of a minority class. What it does is allow the state to enhance the charges on the basis of motive. This has long been a common practice in American jurisprudence, as motive is the sole determining factor between first and second degree murder.
And under ENDA, heterosexuals and homosexuals would still have the same rights, as the bill forbades discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” not “homosexuality.” And while certainly gay and lesbians would be the primary beneficiary of the bill, ENDA protects sexual orientation equally and would allow a heterosexual individual to file suit against an employer if he or she were fired specifically for being straight.
His record and policy positions say otherwise.
Instead, we are asking that current and future members of the Armed Forces who are gay be evaluated solely on their job performance.
That is special treatment, given that the armed forces now regularly discharge heterosexual people based on their personal lives when such conduct could endanger unit cohesion, i.e. fraternization.
Furthermore, since men and women are not required to shower and live with heterosexual people of the opposite gender who may see them as sexual objects, requiring them to do so with people of the same gender is discriminatory and unfair.
Instead, we are asking that gay couples be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, allowing them to participate in this solemn and important institution.
Which makes no sense, since heterosexual couples are different biologically, physically, and sociologically, both in terms of the couple themselves and in terms of the potential impact of children, than are same-sex couples.
Heterosexual couples are the means by which society reproduces and perpetuates itself. Same-sex couples are simply a matter of social convenience that offer no long-term benefit to society as a whole.
What it does is allow the state to enhance the charges on the basis of motive. This has long been a common practice in American jurisprudence, as motive is the sole determining factor between first and second degree murder.
But, given that the state can already use motive as a determining factor, “hate-crimes” laws are both discriminatory and redundant, inasmuch as they allow “motive” to be automatically assigned based on the characteristics of a victim. Again, this is no different than a black man who attacks a white woman being automatically charged with rape in addition to assault simply because his victim is a white woman.
And under ENDA, heterosexuals and homosexuals would still have the same rights, as the bill forbades discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation†not “homosexuality.â€
If that were the case, affirmative-action laws would be illegal, since they are clearly discrimination on the basis of skin color or gender. But they are not — because, rather than forbidding discrimination equally, laws like ENDA create “protected classes” that receive preferential treatment.
Case in point; when Boeing’s former CEO was involved in a consensual relationship with a subordinate that had no impact on the business whatsoever, he was summarily fired. But when Minneapolis Fire Chief Bonnie Bleskachek, a lesbian, systematically sexually harassed and discriminated against those who refused her sexual advances, the city was forced to “demote” her to a highly-paid administrative position and pay a settlement — because they were afraid that her bringing a lawsuit under Minnesota’s ENDA law would result in her being returned to her position.
I’m not going to do a bullet point analysis again because we simply won’t see eye to eye.
However, I will say it’s unfortunate that your opposition to gay initiatives doesn’t extend to your panache for europop dance music (per your blog).
I mean, really? You’re going to argue that Ace Of Base should be legal and gay marriage shouldn’t be? THAT is an abomination.
You have it all backwards. 😉