Blitzer misrepresented McCain's position on "a constitutional amendment on the issue of marriage"
SUMMARY: While discussing Sen. John McCain's position on gay marriage, Wolf Blitzer said: "Because on that issue, he doesn't really disagree all that much with [Sens. Hillary] Clinton or [Barack] Obama. He opposes a constitutional amendment on the issue of marriage, is that right?" CBN's David Brody replied: "That's right." In fact, McCain supports amendments to state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage and would also support under certain circumstances an amendment to the federal Constitution banning same-sex marriage.
On the May 27 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Christian Broadcasting Network senior national correspondent David Brody asserted: "[S]ome social conservatives are not happy about [Sen.] John McCain's statement on the California gay marriage ruling, because, in essence, it came out as just kind of what they call a milquetoast, some sort of just generic statement, rather than really taking the issue as one about judges and one about marriage and taking control and being more forceful in that area." Host Wolf Blitzer responded: "Because on that issue, he doesn't really disagree all that much with [Sens. Hillary] Clinton or [Barack] Obama. He opposes a constitutional amendment on the issue of marriage, is that right?" Brody replied: "That's right." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, according to remarks McCain made on the March 13 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, he supports amendments to state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage and would also support under certain circumstances an amendment to the federal Constitution banning same-sex marriage. McCain stated: "I believe that states like mine and other states ... should amend our state constitutions. And I will stick to that position until such time, if ever, a higher court says that my state or another state has to recognize the other stat -- another status of marriage." He added, "I'm committed to maintaining the unique status of marriage between man and woman. I think it can best be accomplished, and in keeping with my federalist philosophy that states should do as much as possible to have that done at the state level. ... But if it is overturned by a superior court, I will then obviously support the other path."
As Media Matters noted, in 2006, McCain supported Arizona's Proposition 107, a state constitutional amendment that would have banned both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Indeed, McCain has reportedly continued to oppose civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, unlike Clinton and Obama, who have said they support them. According to an April 27, 2007, New York Sun report, McCain stated of a civil-union bill in New Hampshire: "I am opposed to that legislation." According to the Sun, he said further: "If I were a citizen of New Hampshire, I would oppose it. ... Anything that impinges or impacts the sanctity of the marriage between men and women, I'm opposed to it."
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the May 27 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: So, what should the McCain strategy be in being seen with the president, not being seen with the president, distancing himself? What do you think?
BRODY: Well, there are a couple things. First of all, the chatter among social conservatives right now is that John McCain -- one of the reasons John McCain is not as popular with evangelicals is because he has not been getting on his soapbox, talking about the life issue, and embryonic stem-cell research, and some of these other issues. So, in answer to your question, if he can go ahead and not just give a policy speech, not just talk about judges -- check list and that's off the table -- actually engage social conservatives like George Bush did a little bit, that would be helpful.
Real quick, Wolf -- you know, some social conservatives are not happy about John McCain's statement on the California gay marriage ruling, because, in essence, it came out as just kind of what they call a milquetoast, some sort of just generic statement, rather than really taking that issue as one about judges and one about marriage and taking control and being more forceful in that area.
BLITZER: Because on that issue, he doesn't really disagree all that much with Clinton or Obama. He opposes a constitutional amendment on the issue of marriage, is that right?
BRODY: That's right. And so, therefore, he's going -- they're going to just want that to slide by. The problem is, as you know, in November that issue is probably going to come up on the ballot in California. It's not going away. Also, on embryonic stem-cell research, you know, there was a discussion about six months or so ago about adult stem-cell research and this idea that, you know, there was progress in that area and that embryonic stem-cell research may not have to be needed as much anymore. And so, therefore, there was a situation by social conservatives that they wanted McCain to speak out more forcefully against embryonic stem-cell research and he didn't do it.
John McCain should be asked to clarify, "if ever, a higher court says that my state or another state has to recognize the other stat -- another status of marriage."
Did McCain mean federal court when he said "higher court"?
The highest state courts in MA and CA have said their states have to recognize gay marriages.
Civil unions? What's the point, it's not even an assault on traditional marriage?
But full serve gas stations.... hmmm
I find his position very clear Tommy. McCain says he belives this is a state issue and state constitutions are the place for this ammendment. Only a Federal court could nullify a state constitution and force one state to honor the laws of another state. If that ever happens all state laws would become invalid on this issue and an ammendment to the federal constitution would have to be enacted.
Let's have a Constitutional Amendment that rescinds the Presidential power to make Judicial and other appointments, while the Senate is in Recess... it's an archaic power anyway, from a day when the Congress met less often than they do now, and when transportation was such that they could not reconvene in an emergency, in much less than two weeks, maybe a month... today, they can all jet back to Washington D.C. in 48 hours, 24 hours, even less than that! Besides, President George W. Bush has abused that Constitutional authority: let's rescind it in his memory.
Let's have a Constitutional Amendment that alters the "Electoral College", and changes the representation of any State in a presidential election, from the number of Senators and Representives that State has (it's Congessional Delegation), simply to the number of Representatives... that would restore to a great degree the proportion of each State's Electoral Ballot to it's actual population, and remove the imbalance that presently exists in favor of a dozen or so small States, over some of the more populated States. It's a great idea: Think About It.
Let's have a Constitutional Amendment that repeals the 22nd Amendment (that limits our Right to Vote, by refusing us to return to Office a President for three terms or ten or more years, if we like)... it's simply an undemocratic infringement on our Right to Vote, and besides, if we don't want someone for a third term or 10+ years in that Office, then wouldn't a simple majority of us accomplish that in the election? Why have an Amendment that infringes our Rights, when we could just decide for ourselves on a third term for FDR or Bill Clinton or George W. Bush? Repeal the 22nd, I say.
Let's have a Constitutional Amendment that reads something like this:
"That all Power is vested in,
and consequently derived from,
the People;
that magistrates are their trustees and servants,
and at all times amenable to them.
That Government is, or ought to be,
instituted for the Common Benefit, Protection, and Security
of the People, Nation, or Community;
of all the various modes and forms of Government,
that is best
which is capable of producing the greatest degree of Happiness and Safety."
Does that sound sound like a good Constitutional Amendment to you? It does to me! And it did to our Founding Fathers, to the extent that they wrote that into Virginia's State Constitution... and Pennsylvania's and Massachusetts' State Constitutions also, and maybe New York's and Delaware's and the other Colonies too, I'm not sure... and it still is in those States' Constitutions today! It's Sections 2 and 3 of Virginia's Constitution, 4 and 5 of Pennsylvania's, and Articles 5 and 7 of Massachusetts'... it should be an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because We the People deserve it, don't you think?
As far as any "marriage amendment" goes, I think it's silly, and beneath us... it would make We the People look like homophobes, to have such a thing in our U.S. Constitution... agree?
We do not need a constitutional amendment to deny people rights, it is ridiculous. The states are perfectly capable of deciding this for themselves.
The sanctity of marriage will not be eroded one iota if two men or two women commit to one another in marriage, or whatever the state wants to call it. Those that dispose of marriage like it's yesterdays newspaper have done a fine job of de-sanctifying marriage all on their own. To blame gays for that is about as misplaced as it comes, and utterly preposterous.
Tommy,
The age old definition of marriage requires that there be one man and one woman. It is preposterous for society to have to redefine marriage just because some people of the same sex want to be called "married". It doesn't matter if affects any married couple or not.
I have no doubt that many same sex partners do love each other and want to spend their days together. They are more than welcome to do so and I wish them every happiness. Gay couples can establish the same legal rights as those accorded traditional married couples. That is fair. A heterosexual relationship does not have to be redefined for the benefit gays.
I wish to heck they would legalize gay mariage so we can start dissecting all the statistics in 20 years about who stays with whom. I'm betting that if the hetero marriage failure rate is at 50%, two men together will fail about 30% of the time and two women together will fail about 70% of the time.
That's just an edumacated guess based on behavioral patterns I've observed on how easy people are to live with, broken down by gender. ;-)
Thanks for volunteering for infantry, Bruce. Put your helmet on. ;0)
(BTW, not that you asked, but I did 4 years with my last attempt. Personal record)
Where it has been legalized, same-sex marriage decreases the total number of marriages while increasing illegitimacy. Nine European nations have had same-sex marriage since the early 90s—and just 2 percent of same-sex couples in these countries ever bother to marry, while there has been a 46 percent increase in out-of-wedlock births. Same-sex couples simply do not marry in significant number when given the legal right to do so, while more heterosexual couples will not bother to get married before having children. In these nations, 70 percent of all births now take place outside of marriage, and among first-time mothers, 80 percent are unmarried. Same-sex marriage will result in fewer total marriages and more children born out of wedlock.
http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankPastore/2008/05/28/same-sex_marriage_giant_leap_in_the_wrong_directionWhere it has been legalized, same-sex marriage decreases the total number of marriages while increasing illegitimacy
AA, that strikes me as a specious argument of cause and effect...that same-sex marriages have caused a decrease in heterosexual marriages.
AA, that strikes me as a specious argument of cause and effect
I agree, Irony. The figures clearly coincide with the years Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have been on the air.
Geez, some people will swallow anything.
BTW, AA, could I interest you in an Anti-Tiger rock?
(Can't find a clip of Lisa Simpson selling its virtues, unfortunately)
I noticed you conveniently left out Massachusettes, the state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation (for many years, I believe). Even with making same-sex marriage legal in Massachusettes, the divorce rates have dropped even more. Google it.
I'm sure Jeter can shed some light onto this, as well.
Your argument falls flat. European countries are not the same as the U.S.
CSL,
Massachusetts low divorce rates are not due to it's gay marriage stance but could be because of a number of other reasons:
Typically Massachusetts has a very hightly educated population. Those with more education tend to get married later and have more stable relationships. 1/3 of the population in Massachusetts has a college degree. That is the highest in the nation.
Massachusetts has the fourth highest median income in the country. Many marriages suffer from money woes. Having more income alleviates some of the money stress that can cause divorce.
Also Massachusetts has a large population of Catholics. Catholics have a lower divorce rate than the average. It also might be that fewer people are getting married to begin with in Mass.
Another reason could be the aging population.The young, the educated and the middle class are leaving. Baby boomers are aging. The Bay State has lost nearly 290,000 folks to other states since 2000. That�s on top of the 257,000 it lost between 1990-2000.
The divorce rate in Massachusetts is due to a host of other factors that offset the weakening of the institution of marriage that we see in our country as a whole.
"Where it has been legalized, same-sex marriage decreases the total number of marriages while increasing illegitimacy"
Proximity is not necessarily proof of causality. Memorize it. It's something you need to learn
The age old definition of marriage requires that there be one man and one woman.
What about Old Testament patriarchs with multiple wives? They don't meet your definition, do they?
(Also, anyone see Colbert totally pwn Tony Perkins on this issue this week? Snap!)
Dreamboat,
No they don't. For argument's sake, lets say we go back oh say about 2,000 years.
As well meaning as liberals are, (and I do believe they are,) many of their solutions have severely hurt millions of people. Since the sexual revolution of the 60's, divorce rates have reached the 50% level, out of wedlock babies account for half of Hispanic births, and 75% of Black births. Liberal policies on divorce and relaxation of prohibitions against pre-marital sex have increased the number of women and children raised in poverty. Those children with absent fathers are so much more apt to have problems in school and with the law, increasing crime and further eroding the family unit in each successive generation.
Where it is legal, only 2% of European gay couples marry. However many more straight couples do not. Redefining the concept of marriage effectively eliminates it as the desired social construct in our society. It means there is no true definition. Will it next be altered to allow close relatives to marry? The same argument used by people here will apply to those who wish to legalize incest. After all, it doesn't affect existing marriages. Who's to say what's next after that?
We need to learn that as a society, we have to uphold marriage and recognize it that it is the rock that holds society together. Gays now have all the legal rights of marriage in civil unions. People respect gays and accept them as valued members of society. That is good. We don't need to tear down heterosexual institutions just to appease gays.
People respect gays and accept them as valued members of society. That is good. We don't need to tear down heterosexual institutions just to appease gays-AA
That ranks up there with your belief that the Swift Boaters told the truth. Gays are more often than not shunned if not condemned, led by the assault by the right-wing religious freaks. You disappoint me AA with your errant view of society.
"Liberal policies on divorce and relaxation of prohibitions against pre-marital sex have increased the number of women and children raised in poverty."
AA, you can't be serious. When were there prohibitions against pre-marital sex? What would you like to see policy-wise regarding divorce? If you are going to continue using points that are unrelated to marriage failure, but have been instituted in the last 50 years, check on the divorce rates since interracial marriage has become legal. Are you going to blame divorce ratings on that too?
Remember, the "traditional" definition of marriage used to be one married only within their race. Why, if two people love each other and pledge their love forever, should they not be afforded the same rights and recognition as anyone else?
You lay a lot of blame at the the feet of "liberal policies", but don't really draw a line to connect them to the result you're after. I don't think you can convincingly blame liberal policy for the decline of traditional marriage as an institution. Straight, conservative folk have been in bad marriages, with bad results, producing bad communication, bad abuses, bad blood, and bad children ever since the "age old tradition" has been around.
Frequently, we hear from Conservatives about "personal responsibility". Just because divorce is more easily (i.e., less bureaucratic) obtained than in the past does not mean that anyone (including Conservatives) must divorce. Those entering into marriage should decide for themselves what is best for them, and their family.
The State has no interest or claim in it.
Nor should others decide against marriage because two guys down the street get married. The marriage is between them, in the same way as it is between Mr & Mrs Jones, the Hernandezes, and that new couple that just moved in, whose name I can't spell or pronounce. My spouse and I are not any less happy, our marriage no less sanctified, if just down the street, Adam & Steve marry, love, and live happily ever after (or not).
Mr & Mrs Dreamboat Skanky also have no interest in it. It's none of our business.
Is marriage so weak an institution that it falters and fails when "others" seek to embrace it? Not attack it, but embrace it, and accept it as their lifestyle.
As in everything, the only constant is change. It used to be that men had multiple wives (still do, somewhere). It used to be that men married girls as young as young as 12 or 13 (even within your 2000 year limit.) It used to be that first cousins were allowed to marry (still can, I think, in certain places). It used to be that you could only marry within your own "race" (whatever that means).
So, this notion that there is a monolithic tradition of marriage that has been one unassailable thing since its inception is false. It changes constantly, and now, hopefully, it may change to include two adult people who love each other, and seek marriage as an expression of their love.
I think both Fried and Dream bring up good points.
I gues I wasn’t clear. The prohibitions I spoke of were what I would call social prohibitions. They have broken down these past 50 years. Now kids and adults ‘hook up’. There was an Obama or McCain thread the other day regarding sex-education, abortion and stds. Many liberals were arguing for providing condoms and contraceptives as part of school’s curriculum on sex-ed. That is but one example of how attitudes have change in part because of well meaning liberal policies. Comprehensive sex-education has failed completely as std’s are at epidemic levels among teens as are out of wedlock births and abortions numbering more than a million per year.
No Fried, I am not blaming divorce rates on interracial marriages. Policy wise regarding divorces? I do not claim to have the answers. Perhaps counseling? Perhaps there could be more public awareness announcements regarding marriage counseling, financial counseling, school education programs, so marriages can be salvaged before they are irrevocably broken. I’d be happy to pay for those programs with my taxes. I am completely open to other suggestions.
What would you like to see policy-wise regarding divorce?
Fried wrote, “Why, if two people love each other and pledge their love forever, should they not be afforded the same rights and recognition as anyone else?”
Where would you draw the line? What about siblings? Parents and siblings? Adults and children? Gays have the same legal rights now. If gays want to create a similar institution called ‘Gay Marriage’ it is okay by me. But to redefine a heterosexual institution is not necessary nor desirable. As statistics point out, very few gays in relationships in Europe do marry. If only two percent of the population is gay (I think that is about right,) and only two percent of them marry, we’re talking a very small percentage of people to begin with. There is no need to change the institution for that small number.
Dream, I realize many conservatives have failed marriages too. I’ve been married 31 years and I know how tough it can be. We, as a society, decide every day what other’s can and cannot do through our laws. Marriage is no different. We’ve had laws regarding marriage since this country was founded. I am not saying your family is any less happy because gays form a relationship.
I would argue that others are not seeking to embrace marriage but redefine it to make it something it is not. It is a heterosexual institution, not an all inclusive institution.
Your examples are the exceptions rather than rule throughout most of Western civilization down through the last two millennia. The multiple wives thing is an anomaly in Western civilization. I only know of the Mormons who outlawed it a long time ago as once allowing multiple wives. It was the rare exception and still is. The young ages of marriage was when the average lifespan was much shorter. The age of the married couple does not redefine it. Because racism outlawed interracial marriages in some States at one time, also does not redefine marriage.
You say marriage only has to be two adults who love each other. Why do we have to accept you definition?
Your examples are the exceptions rather than rule throughout most of Western civilization down through the last two millennia.
A cursory review of History shows otherwise.
You say marriage only has to be two adults who love each other. Why do we have to accept you definition?
Firstly, I don't think I said that. Secondly, you certainly don't have to accept my definition of marriage. There's absolutely no good reason why you should.
I submit that further, and as a natural corollary, there is no reason for anyone to accept yours.
Dream,
Having a cursory interest in history, at least Western history, for the past 2,000 years where multiple wives have been the rule. Perhaps in Muslim countries as I just thought of them. Any others? Any major societies in the Western world?
I think you have read your quote now by now.
AA,
I appreciate your comments. As I have said here before, I believe the state should get the hell out of the "marriage" business altogether and redefine the term for everyone, civil unions is fine by me. The term marriage should be a religious term performed by churches and religious institutions as they see fit, with all the pomp and circumstance that couples enjoy. The state should be sanctioning legal coupling arrangements between two consenting adults with all the same legal rights afforded to all, regardless of sexual orientation. But that is not likely to happen, I don't know why, it seems perfectly reasonable to me.
However, nobody has convinced me that by allowing two consenting, mature, stable adults who wish to enter into marriage is somehow detremental to society, in fact I think by promoting committed relationships and fostering familial development and the bond that marriages bring together is a good thing.
Marriage is not just about the two people who get married, it is a celebration of bringing two families together, and that extended family and the love and shared experiences that that encompasses only breeds positive role models for children, while strengthening communities and neighborhoods. If it "redefines" anything, it enhances and expands lives, it does not deteriorate or demean relationships, it lifts them up for all to aspire too.
When I see people in committted relationships and families of all sorts happy and thriving, I am not threatened or worried in the least, I am glad for them.
Tommy,
I consider marriage a heterosexual institution, not an all inclusive one.
You wrote: "When I see people in committted relationships and families of all sorts happy and thriving, I am not threatened or worried in the least, I am glad for them."
Very fine sentiments and I agree. But by your standard any people who feel committed could also claim their right to marry.
Dream brought up polygamy. Should that be sanctioned? What about those in the FDS down in Texas? The State claims sexual abuse and underage forced marriages. Is that okay too? It looks to me like those people accept that arrangement. Should the State get out of the way there?
There is a slippery slope. I don't think as a society, we need to slide any further down. I think the institution of marriage is already weakened and this will further weakening it. We see society devolving right now in certain areas where marriage is no longer the standard for bringing babies into the world. Increased social costs to you everyone by poverty, lack of job education and job skills, drug use, and crime all flow out of the breakdown of the traditional marriage. Including gays as married, while benefiting a few, hurts society as a whole as it weakens the marriage institution even further.
AA,
Please, that is ridiculous. Where in anything I said do I condone polygamy or forced underaged marriages? When people stoop to those examples as some basis for defending your own arguments, I am often suspect as to why? You are better than that, I am sorry.
And please explain to me how granting two gay committed, consenting mature men or women who wish to commit to marriage, no polygamy, no forced underaged minors involved, no slippery slope, none of what you have suggested, please tell me how that weakens the institution of marriage? Specifically, not theoretical platitudes. I have never heard a convincing argument and I am open to hearing it.
You've never heard a convincing argument, Tommy, because there's not a convincing argument to be made. The slippery slope argument is a stupid argument - in all debates. It begins with the strawman that (in this case) people will want to marry animals and children and all that nonsense. First of all, animals and children do not have the capacity to consent to such a thing, so any marriage other than age-appropriate, human with human, is impossible. In order to marry in this country, you have to (1) consent to marriage; and (2) be heterosexual.
The only thing that needs to change is (2) - and there's no argument out there, other than an argument based on hatred of others, that can refute that.
Tommy,
I was simply making the point that if you (or anyone else,) start redefining marriage, who's to say your definition of marriage is the point where the redefining stops. Apparently there are some people who feel that marriage can include many wives to one husband. (I've not heard of many husbands to one wife.) As far as a logical argument goes, their redefinition is as valid as yours.
you and Fried find yourself arguing the same point as me except you have shifted the goal line to include gays in your definition of marriage. Other redefinitions are not okay in your book. However someone else might come along and use the exact same arguments against your point of view. Why isn't their argument as valid as yours?
AA,
The slippery slope argument can be used for just about any societal tradition or law. What about drinking age laws, what is the argument for 21 as opposed to 18 years of age, all other adulthood responsibilities are afforded 18yrs olds, why not legalize their drinking age? Because there is a real societal effect that lowering that age can have, a verifiable impact. I see no such demeaning impact for gay marriage - if your chief argument is it will lead to other expanded definitions, I just can't buy that. Show me the groundswell support or the serious societal push for polygamy? There is none. Show me the same for forced underaged marriages, or man/animal unions? There is none.
Society would not allow it, it would be shunned and not accepted. That is an important component in what is acheivable and what is not.
I still have not seen a clear reason demonstrated to me on what negative impact on straight couple #1 there will be if gay couple #2 is married. If you can't do that, and have to use some future anomaly or outlandish occurence down the road that has no basis in serious discussion, then in my opinion the opponent's argument is incredibly weak.
Tommy,
I find your argument curious. Regarding other non-traditional marriage examples you provided, you said, "Society would not allow it, it would be shunned and not accepted. That is an important component in what is acheivable and what is not."
That is the same argument as traditional marriage advocates right now! I've seen a Pew reseach poll saying that only 39% of the population is in favor of gays and marriage. You are arguing their point!
I do believe I have provided statistical evidence that in countries in Europe where marriage has been redefined to include gays that marriage rates are dropping and 70% of babies are born out of wedlock. America is following and at a huge cost to our society.
Redefining marriage only leads to further breakdown of the institution and will lead to further breakdowns.
(Interesting discussion. I guess we don't all march in lockstep as is so often claimed by our friends here.)
further more... I wrote Redefining marriage only leads to further breakdown of the institution and will lead to further breakdowns.
Please excuse the redundancy.
AA,
You're still comparing the other "non-traditional marriage arrangements" with gay marriage, yet they are wildly different, and there is no supporting evidence anywhere that I have seen that the non-traditional arrangements you introduce have any societal push or backing in any sense. And that is because they are so fringe, so far down this slippery slope that their only use is as some scare tactic example of what may happen, when you and I both know it never will.
To equate polygamy, which can be argued quite effectively that it is injurious to an institution of marriage between two consenting adults, as opposed to expanding that to three, or four or twelve....is just disingenuous.
To keep saying that gay marriage will breakdown the institution is fine to say, but without some backup and serious reasoning as to why, it's just a statement - or rather an opinion, which you definitely entitled to. We disagree but I respect your viewpoint, as always.
Tommy,
So your argument is that it is okay to redefine marriage as long as a lot of people are for it?
I disagree that polygamous marriage is not that far down the slope. I am not sure but isn't there PM at that FDS compound?
Research says gays account for approximately 2% of the population (some say 3.5%, some say 1%. The Kinsey 10% figure has been discredited). That right there says they are a small subset of the overall population. I would argue that the gay population number does not meet your criteria.
So if our numbers are so small, please explain to me this massive institutional destruction that you claim will take place...
I still don't see it...and you STILL have not come up with any viable reasons to not allow same-sex marriage. And that doesn't surprise me. It's a train of thought based on inequality and hatred.
You are quite liberal in your use of pejoratives. Claiming that my position is based on hate is pitifully weak. I don't know why think you are the morality judge of me and I'm surprised you lower yourself to that level.
As an aside, I believe your small numbers are trying to impose your will on the majority. It is a sad state of affairs when four judges can arbitrarily make a ruling that has vast and profound changes for 300 million people.
The reality is, and I've explained it more than once, that redefining marriage to include homosexuals weakens the institution of marriage. With that weakening, fewer people get married (and as has been evidenced in Europe where gay marriage is allowed,) and more babies are born out of wedlock. The statistics of out-of-wedlock children and the problems they are more likely to encounter is something I do not think is good for society. In case anyone is interested beside you and me, I have listed elsewhere on this thread other reasons that cascade from this redefinition that I think are bad for institutions in our society.
ps.
Tommy I did provide reasoning for my view. I provided statistics based on countries in Europe who have redefined marriage to include gays. I have shown how out of wedlock births have skyrocketed since the definition of marriage has changed.
The very act of redefining marriage reduces the importance of it to the point where it is irrelevant. Marriage is part symbolic, part legal, part moral union of heterosexual couples. Most marriage vows include, "till death do us part" although somehow that got lost somewhere along the way.
Redefining it as simply another living arrangement that any two people can take advantage of, further diminishes those vows and makes the institution of marriage just one of many different living arrangements. I think as a society we are unwittingly and slowly tearing down the basic social structure that holds our society together.
Fried,
To which arguments are you referring? Second, I am not familiar with the arguments against interracial marriage, having never heard them. Do you have any proof backing up your assertion? Thanks.
AA,
I hope I didn't miss you. The arguments that I am referring to are the breakdown of marriage as an institution has been used against interracial and gay marriage at different times in history. I hope you take the time to read this link, heck, I hope everyone does:
http://www.vtfreetomarry.org/pfds/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf
http://www.marriageequalityny.org/facts.html (look under "historical look")
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_1_55/ai_57046411#continue
Those should be a good start, especially the first one.
Fried,
I realize there were bans against interracial marriage at one time in parts of the United States. However you did not answer my question as to which arguments I offered that were the same as the ones used against interracial marriage.
I looked at the first link and found in the first example that it was from the trial judge in a case in 1967 who was overturned by the SCOTUS. I checked one more at the bottom and it was a dissenting opinion by another judge on what I think was another case. So obviously that opinion did not carry the weight of law.
Interesting just the same.
The opinions did carry the weight of the law until 1967.
AA,
I never said the weight of the law had anything to do with it. I just pointed out that the same arguments that are used by folks against gay marriage were used by the opponents of interracial marriage like
1) Its against God's plan. The trial judge in Loving used that rhetoric to uphold a ban on interracial marriage before the SC overturned it. Its listed as an example because that is how many in society saw interracial marraige at the time: as an abomination against God's will.
2) Its unnatural and unhealthy. Interracial marriage opponents used that line pre-Loving. Gay marriage opponents use it now.
3) Its perverted and abominable. Used against interracial marriage then, gay marriage now.
4) Slippery slope, again, used in the link by opponents of interracial marriage then, gay marriage now (you yourself used it).
5) Allowing ____ marriage would lead to the breakdown of society. Again, you used this one for gay marriage, the link showed it was used against interracial marriage
6) Can't have children, although biologically possible for interracial couples, opponents of interracial marriage used the line as well.
7) Founders were against it. Again, used by both.
8) Degrades traditional marriage. Used by opponents of both interracial marriage and gay marriage.
9) Stigma on the children, used by both.
I am not sure what you are looking for, AA. The arguments you yourself made against gay marriage were used by opponents of interracial marriage as I have showed you. Court cases were used because they were recorded more concretely at a time where interracial marriage was taboo.
Although religions were not formally against interracial marriage, much opposition to interracial marriage came from clergy as well
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/10/29/gay-marriage-and-interracial-marriage.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm
I'm wondering where you can connect gay marriage to babies born out of wedlock...(your response earlier that European nations that have "redefined" marriage have a higher divorce rate).
Would you mind showing us the connection - because as of now, I cannot see how the two are even remotely related.
It's funny that, again, right-wingers bring up how sacred the institution of marriage is, but then show how, time and time again, they cannot even respect the institution which they claim to be "protecting".
Let's face it: allowing same-sex marriage is the "mainstreaming" of what right-wingers call the "gay lifestyle" - and they just cannot handle that. So, in order to keep homosexuality from becoming mainstream, they begin with same-sex marriage. It's anything to keep them f*gs down, right? All right-wingers have proven is that they're hateful, their beliefs are hateful and their chuches (which preach this bs) are hateful as well. I'm sure Jesus is proud of you all.
I'd love to marry my partner, when the time is right - and in the future we will, now that it's legal in my state. :)
CSL wrote: “I'm wondering where you can connect gay marriage to babies born out of wedlock...(your response earlier that European nations that have "redefined" marriage have a higher divorce rate). “
You are mistaken; I said the marriage rate has declined. The following is from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
With a few exceptions, marriage rates have decreased in the region from 1980 to 2001… …The 1990s have seen a modest increase in the divorce rate in western Europe…
The number of births to unmarried mothers has increased in all countries since 1980, but the proportion still varies substantially among countries. In Iceland, Estonia and Sweden more than 50 per cent of children are born out of wedlock, …
For the countries where data are available on marital status, there are more divorced women than men. This is usually explained owing to a higher rate of divorced men remarrying. In addition, there are far more widowed women than men, which is partly due to women’s longer life expectancy and men’s higher age at marrying.
http://www.unece.org/stats/trend/ch2.htm
I am not sure whom you are referring to when you say right wingers “do not even respect the institution which they claim to be “protecting”. Yes, some politicians have botched up their personal lives and families due to extra-marital affairs. Politicians have been guilty on both sides.
Your rant generalizing about right wingers, hate, and Jesus is just plain bigoted.
I wish you and your partner happiness.
If you truly wished me and my partner happiness, you wouldn't stand behind proposals to take rights away from us. Your "wish" rings hollow - and borders on insulting.
And you're calling me a bigot for pointing out where the hatred for gays comes from? Really? Give me a break. I'm not a bigot for pointing out bigotry - you are, for you are the one perpetuating bigotry and inequality for an entire class of people.
If you don't like same-sex marriage, AA, don't marry someone of the same-sex. It's as simple as that.
CSL, You are wrong. I am not taking away any of your rights.
Your generalization is biggotted. You lump all right-wingers together simply because the disagree with you and accuse them all of 'hate'. Obviously that is biggotted and as untrue as unenlightened comments regarding gays. I harbor no ill will at all toward gays. I believe we are all God's children and it is not for me to judge anyone's lifestyle - straight or gay.
While I disagree with the idea of redefining marriage, I am very much do respect gay people and sincerely wish not only you but everyone, no matter what their political outlook might be, happiness. :-) I am sorry that it came out so that it looked insulting. I simply was moving down your post and responding.
YOU might not be taking away MY rights, but you are for making sure that gay folks don't have the ability to marry. To me, that is the same as taking away rights - just trying to nullify them before they even become law.
You still haven't given ANY reasonable explanation as to why and/or how same-sex marriage will hurt heterosexual marriage. Since you cannot (or even refuse) to give an explanation leads me to believe that you truly don't support everyone's happiness, as you claim you do. I believe that if you did, you would (1) be a liberal; and (2) support others' rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But instead, you want to "defend" an institution that 50+% heterosexuals do not even respect.
I see your point. However I am not everyone. I have been married once, and it is going on 32 years. That being said, there have been many times that I didn't know if the marriage would last. My marriage has endured good times and bad. Not all things in my marriage are as I would wish, but we work on it. I have made a commitment and plan to keep it.
I do not say this to pat myself on the back, but only to show you that I do respect marriage as an institution.
-Gotta run. Thanks everyone for the discussion.
I provided statistics based on countries in Europe who have redefined marriage to include gays. I have shown how out of wedlock births have skyrocketed since the definition of marriage has changed. - AnotherAmerican
Actually, the above is a quote from you just a few comments above this one. You DID say that there is a correlation, then you lied and said you didn't. Do you not read what you type? The number of out-of-wedlock births has NOTHING AT ALL to do with same-sex marriage - and I'm still asking you to show how it does. These two "facts" that you've thrown out there just do not mesh with each other - and have, actually, nothing to do with each other.
CSL,
I don't know why you are now engaging in name calling? If you see a contradiction in my posts it would be nice if you would show the contradiction rather than just accuse me of lying. (Up to now It has been a long discussion and a good one.) I have accused you of being wrong with your facts, and we have substantial disagreements, but I don't believe you are deliberately trying to mislead. I know I am not.
AA,
Good point, here is where I draw the line: Marriage can be between two, and only two people, who are not related any closer than second cousins (depending on the state).
I should add two, and only two, unrelated people (see the second cousin reference) who have reached the age of 18.
AA,
Perhaps the Bible Belt is more to blame than liberal policies for divorce. If liberal policies are the cause, why are divorce rates highest in the South and lowest in Mass.?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/
I posted this earlier, but it is appropriate here too.
Massachusetts low divorce rates are not due to it's gay marriage stance but could be because of a number of other reasons:
Typically Massachusetts has a very hightly educated population. Those with more education tend to get married later and have more stable relationships. 1/3 of the population in Massachusetts has a college degree. That is the highest in the nation.
Massachusetts has the fourth highest median income in the country. Many marriages suffer from money woes. Having more income alleviates some of the money stress that can cause divorce.
Also Massachusetts has a large population of Catholics. Catholics have a lower divorce rate than the average. It also might be that fewer people are getting married to begin with in Mass.
Another reason could be the aging population.The young, the educated and the middle class are leaving. Baby boomers are aging. The Bay State has lost nearly 290,000 folks to other states since 2000. That�s on top of the 257,000 it lost between 1990-2000.
The divorce rate in Massachusetts is due to a host of other factors that offset the weakening of the institution of marriage that we see in our country as a whole.
Actually, AA, you're quite incorrect. Marriage didn't come to be defined as union between one man and one woman until quite recently in world history. Many years ago, a book came out entitled, "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" (the author's name escapes me). It was a scholarly work which basically put to rest any notions that marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman. It's incorrect and dishonest to advance the idea that marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman. Do some research.
Evidently you don't believe in the rights of individuals to make decisions for themselves, as you obviously want to force what you believe onto others, even to go so far as to amend the Constitution to deny rights to an entire class of people. That's really American of you.
CSL,
Forgive me but I find it laughable that your source is unnamed and you want me to do the research. Good one.
I am not denying anyone their Constitutional rights. After all, any two adults of the opposite sex can marry, (provided they are not already married.) I am simply not in favor of changing the heterosexual institution of marriage.
I realize that gays do face discrimination in many areas and some religious people look down on gays. I do see it changing and getting better. I do believe gay couples should be able to have the same legal rights as married couples. However this is one area that I think not be changed.
Well, your beliefs go against what the CA Supreme Court found...who knew that you're totally right and the justices on the CA SC are totally wrong.
As to the book's author, I mentioned that his name escapes me. If you Google the title of the book, I am sure you can find the author. Nevertheless, the fact that I couldn't name the author right away doesn't negate the fact that same-sex unions were prevalent long before the Christian church came into being, and were even prevalent in Europe up until the Middle Ages. Your effort to say that marriage is solely a heterosexual union is flat out wrong...unless you know more than a Ph.D. in history.
So, evidently AA knows more than the justices of the CA Supreme Court - and a scholar with a Ph.D. in History. Nice ego there, buddy.
CSL,
Your attempt at sarcasm is appreciated although I don't think it hit the mark.
You keep claiming unsupported proclamations as facts. I find it ironic that twice you have told me to go look up some author when you won't do so yourself. I long ago stopped trying to look up unsubstantiated arguments by others. If you have proof show it. If not, it could be you are misremembering. :-)
I don't doubt there have been homosexual unions since the beginning of time. There probably have been times and places where homosexual relationships have been accepted. That is not the issue. The issue is how is marriage defined. You seem to be conflating your generalizations regarding gay unions through the ages with the institution of marriage. If you can show a society where the institution of marriage also included gay couples, that would be interesting. Until then, you have not made any point except that you are not providing your sources. :-)
The author of the book was John Boswell. I 'Googled' the title and it is the first hit. It wouldn't have been that hard for you to look. But since you are so adamant that I find the author, I did so. My apologies for not remembering the author of a book I read 15 years ago.
That being said, during the Roman era, same-sex unions were granted, in large part, for financial reasons, such as succession of property (and these are some of the reasons gays want marriage). The institution of marriage was not a one man/one woman institution. Your attempt to define marriage as between one man and one woman is a religious attitude espoused by the Christian movement in the Middle Ages. It was this movement that defined marriage as between one man and one woman (although some areas did allow same-sex marriage, knowing that the Church could come down quite heavily on them). So actually, it was the Christian Church that changed the definition.
Our country is founded on the separation between Church and State. If churches want to force their views on others with regards to political issues (such as this), they should begin paying taxes. Keep your religious dogma and archaic notions of right and wrong out of my life.
CSL,
I appreciate you taking the time to find the author. It is a sticking point with me when so many times I am told to go look stuff up to support someone else's claims. I do my best to provide my reasoning and support here and then link in case someone wants to check on it.
I'll have to book the book on my ever growing list. :-)
So you have a doctorate in History? Cool. What did you specialize in? BTW my comment on my cursory interest was simply that. I enjoy history, especially around the time of founding of the Christian Church. I am by no means a scholar.
Like I said earlier, I am not arguing that there were gay unions throughout history. I had heard of them in the Greek culture too. My point is that I have not heard of them being regarded as the same as heterosexual marriage. Not a single moral or philosophical system that I know of has ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
If the law is changed, schoolbooks will have to be changed in order to not discriminate. Teachers will be telling Children that their religion is wrong and possibly their parents who believe in heterosexual marriage only, that they are wrong, thereby undermining the families and religions. To argue that marriage should be heterosexual will be regarded as hate speech. Teachers will be required to include same sex unions whenever talking about families. Moral confusion will result with children. the concept of marriage as an institution, which already is severely damaged, will be further erorded. Religions will be required to change their precepts in hiring or face prosecution. Organizations will be required to change in order to avoid being prosecuted for discrimination. A whole new set of tort law will have to be created. Traditional religious adoption agencies will have to cease. The construct of "male" and "female" will have little meaning.
There is no need to go into all this just to appease the 0.0004% of the population in America who might be gay and want to marry.
ps. You are wrong. Marriage was defined as heterosexual by the Christianity since Jesus. But Judaism goes back even further.
It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him. . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs. . . The Lord God then built up into a woman the rib he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called 'woman', for out of 'her man' this one has been taken." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. The man and wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame (Gen 2:18, 21-25).sorry for the small print. It is a quote from the first book of the Bible, Genesis (2:18, 21-25). That above comment was for CSL regarding his earlier statement about marriage being regarded exclusively as heterosexual only since the middle ages.
I hope this quote comes out correctly. My apologies if it doesn't.
It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him. . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs. . . The Lord God then built up into a woman the rib he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called 'woman', for out of 'her man' this one has been taken." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. The man and wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame (Gen 2:18, 21-25).
CSL,
FYI - The Bible is made up of many books, some of which are historical accounts. You are bringing up a straw man argument regarding Jesus not condemning homosexuality, because I never claimed he did.
Regardless of how you classify the Bible, the point I was making is that the various books in the Bible were written over 1800 years ago. Also my reference was in context of heterosexual marriage. Your claim that up until the middle ages that gay marriages were common is in error. (Again, I am not saying gay relationships did not occur, but only that they were not considered to be the same as heterosexual marriage.) The Bible in both the Old Testament and the New Testament explicitly talk about marriage as being between one man and one woman. Nowhere does it say marriage can be any two consenting adults.
And no, I never said that I have a Ph.D. in history. I believe it is Dr. Boswell, the author of the book I mentioned to you in a previous post.
My Ph.D. is in Linguistics, if you must know. :)
It's too bad you see it as "appeasing" people like me. I find that comment quite insulting.
It's also too bad that you would rather limit peoples' rights instead of allowing them to make their own decisions about their lives, especially since they have no bearing on yours. I don't ask about your marriage, and I would appreciate it if you would leave my (future) marriage alone. Furthermore, I live in CA. It's legal here, as it should be everywhere. As I said earlier, if you're against same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It's as simple as that.
You don't have the right to judge me based on some archaic book. If you really did read and follow the book, you might realize that the way you use Christ is truly against how he taught and what he stood for. This is one of the reasons I am glad for the separation of Church and State in this country. While I am all for Christ-like attitudes and actions, I cannot and will not allow myself to be subjected to the myriad misinterpretations and perversions of your book by myriad ministers and parishoners.
CSL,
My objection to redefining gay marriage is not with you personally, nor how it affects me and my marriage, (which it does not.) I do believe redefining marriage is bad for society, (which includes you,) as I have said before I think it weakens the institution of marriage, (which our society is based upon,) and will lead to more out of wedlock births as more people will feel marriage is irrelevant since marriage will now be definable by whomever wants to define it. Single parent homes have shown that those children have higher incidences of drug use, behavior problems, problems in school, pre-marital sex, and trouble with the law. All of these are bad for society.
I have shown that this has occurred in Europe where same sex marriage has been in place for a while now. You are free to disagree but I think the same thing will happen here.
I think the gay community should create it's own version of marriage and leave the heterosexual institution alone. That gay institution should have all the legal rights as traditional marriage.
AA,
Why are gay people, in your mind, not allowed the same wonderful day you had on your wedding day? Why do gay Christians deserve less?
Nice strawman argument there - all of it.
None of these things have come to pass in Massachusettes, or any other state that even allows civil unions. You cannot use "This might happen, that might happen..." as a rebuttal to an argument. It's more than one logical fallacy.
The federal courts are going to have to rule on this issue the first time a gay couple married in a state that recognizes that union legally moves to a state that doesn't. There is no other way to resolve this kind of dispute except in the federal courts.
Which means that McCain is again using a false hypothetical to conceal his true positions and make them seem more palatable to left leaning and moderate independents.
This is the same routine that got him caught up in the "100 years in Iraq" statement. I don't think there are many Americans who would have a problem with us being in Iraq for that imaginary 100 years if it was a peaceful base like the ones in post war Japan and Germany that McCain was trying to compare "post war" Iraq to. But I also doubt that there very many Americans who believe that Iraq is going to be that kind of a country for a very long time.
Pretty convoluted logic and speech from a supposed "Straight Talker," don't you think?
Well here is a scenario.
Lets say the state of Arizona adds an ammendment to it's state constitution to recognize marriage as between one man and one woman only. The ACLU on behalf of a homosexual married couple in San Francisco files a case in the very liberal Federal 9th circuit court claiming that the new ammentment in Arizona's state constitution violates the US Constitutions interstate commerce clause in that the San Francisco couple now has been denied the ability to relocate to Arizona because their marriage would be unrecognized. No matter which way the court rules the losing side appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court. If the Court rules in favor of the ACLU then all state ammendments similar to Arizona's would be nullified.
This is a situation where a federal ammendment would be required, and before you say it is an unlikely scenario - this is what has happened wioth many state welfore reform issues.
Forgive me for not walking you through each individual step in the process. I made the false assumption that those reading this would have the ability to follow along while skipping a few steps.
Well I didn't talk about pre trail motions and jury selection either but most understand those things happen.
In review of my initial post I did not make the jump to the court of Appeals - you did. The Federal 9th Circuit District court system is where the case would be filed. You Loose!
The Federal 9th Circuit District court system?
That's not what you said. You said:
"the very liberal 9th circuit court."
You right wingers just can't help yourselves. It's in your nature to misrepresent things even when you don't have to. Pathetic...
You are simply trying to deflect attention from getting caught intentionally or stupidly misrepresenting judical procedure. If it was not intentional then apparently I know more than you about federal procedure inasmuch as I am the one who corrected you.
If you do know anything about the judicial system in this country, you would know that you would have to file your petition in Arizona first. Once (and if) that is denied, THEN the ACLU could file an appeal (based on certain events and principles where the judge erred). You seem to believe that the "very liberal" 9th Circuit CoA would possibly deny any petition and it would go to the SCOTUS.
What you might not know is that if you want to file an appeal, you have to have grounds. You cannot just file an appeal because you don't like the outcome of the trial court's findings. You must show where the judge erred during the course of the trial (granting or denying certain motions, excluding witnesses, incorrect interpretation of the law, etc.). If there was no error to be found, then the CoA petition would be denied.
You seem to believe that the "very liberal" 9th Circuit CoA would possibly deny any petition and it would go to the SCOTUS
I was responding to a comment that the issue of gay marriage would not find it's way into federal court. I laid out an overview of how it could realistically happen. Whether or not it ever get's to the SCOTUS would have to be tested.
The ACLU on behalf of a homosexual married couple in San Francisco files a case in the very liberal Federal 9th circuit court...
Actually no - it wasn't. The 9th Circuit is made up of western District Courts in California, Arizona, Washington, Idaho, alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Montana, and Oregon. I then commented on the appeals process up through the SCOTUS. Therefore my original comment includes both District and Appellate courts.
You loose again! Perhaps your inability to comprehend should preclude you from commenting on any subject.
No matter which way the court rules the losing side appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court.
As both California and San Francisco are in the 9th Federal Circuit that's where the case would be filed. As for what I pasted above from my original post I favor no side in the decision but am laying out the scenario in which state ammendments get nullified.
You really have a hard time with reading comprehension. At this point I just have to assume you are embarassed by you original inability to understand - so just get over it and move on.
"As both California and San Francisco are in the 9th Federal Circuit" - DEMS_SOL
DUH...since San Francisco is a CITY in CALIFORNIA, it would be the 9th...
Idiot.
DUH...since San Francisco is a CITY in CALIFORNIA, it would be the 9th...
Idiot.
Yes - my bad. I indeed meant to say Arizona and California - but I think you already know that. But I rejoice in your calling me names - for that is the true indicator that a liberal has lost the argument!
...for that is the true indicator that a liberal has lost the argument!
No, it simply means that another right winger has revealed himself to be an idiot.
Irony,
Dems original point was valid even if his starting point was at the appeals level instead of the lower Court. He has shown you that. Your only point is that it starts at a lower level. Fine. Move on.
There really wasn't an argument to lose there, buddy. It was basically an observation - mostly that you have no damn clue what you're talking about.
The 9th Circuit is made up of western District Courts in California, Arizona, Washington, Idaho, alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Montana, and Oregon.
So, in effect, you are saying that California, Arizona, Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Montana and Oregon all have liberal Federal Courts. You got anything to back that up?
Side A files against side B in Federal District court - Side A looses and appeals to District Appelate court. Side B looses and appeals to Circuit Appealate court. Side B looses and further appeals to Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules against a state constitutional ammendment, all similar state ammendments become nullified.
If you can't follow that simple process that I am wasting my time debating a fool. Your attempt to nullify my point by parsing my words is a dismal failure.
Save your breath...or fingers. I am quite familiar with federal procedure. The fact is that you couldn't even state correctly something that was so basic that a high schooler would have known better. You said the ACLU could bring an action in "the very liberal 9th circuit court". When I pointed out to you that you were incorrect, the ACLU could not go directly to a court of appeals you said you meant the 9th Circuit Court SYSTEM that included a number of district courts in Western states. I challenged you to show that the district courts of these Western states were liberal. In effect, you tried to give the impression that it was a simple matter for the ACLU to file a suit in the liberal 9th Circuit Court and obtain a favorable ruling...however, in reality, it's more complicated than that. You got caught misrepresenting judicial procedure trying to score a cheap point...AND YOU GOT CAUGHT. Now you're dizzy trying to spin your way out... You were wrong...I was right.
I repeat - your attempt to nullify my point by parsing my words is a dismal failure. My post was a response to a comment that a challenge to a state constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage would never get to a Federal court. I laid out a scenario where it could. With all you posts in you have failed to prove my premise is wrong. You loose once again.
Nobody can be as stupid as you are trying to be.
Congrtulations Irony - You have indeed proven me wrong about something I wrote to you in ths thread.
Keep repeating as much as you want...it doesn't make it true, W.
...I don't think McCain himself has any idea what he thinks.
If McCain wasn't such a straight shooter you might even get the impression that he is purposely engaging in obfuscation...that his amorphous positions are designed to fool a dumb electorate into voting for him. But certainly that couldn't be the case...McCain was a POW, and a former POW certainly couldn't be capable of dishonesty. <heavy sarcasm>
McCain stated: "I believe that states like mine and other states ... should amend our state constitutions. And I will stick to that position until such time, if ever, a higher court says that my state or another state has to recognize the other stat -- another status of marriage." He added, "I'm committed to maintaining the unique status of marriage between man and woman. I think it can best be accomplished, and in keeping with my federalist philosophy that states should do as much as possible to have that done at the state level. ... But if it is overturned by a superior court, I will then obviously support the other path."
If a court says that some states have to recognize marital laws in another state, then he'd support a constitutional amendment. He was quite clear, thank you just the same. He can't be "committed to maintaining the unique status of marriage between man and woman" unless he'd be willing to support a constitutional amendment to ensure that unique status should it be challenged by a court ruling!
But if it is overturned by a superior court, I will then obviously support the other path.
Typical McCain double-speak... He won't say specifically that he would be in favor of a U.S. Constutional Amendment...he refers to it obliquely as the other path. Therefore, he can court moderate voters with his double-talk about favoring a federalist, states rights approach and no one can ever say he specifically said he'd go along with a U.S. Constitutional Amendment...because he never specifically said that.
Always in favor of something make any personal relationship feel more secure.
The Sweet Moma Express may out last the termit infestation into November. Regardless I don't think its going to be pretty sight in late summer.
Gay couples can establish the same legal rights as those accorded traditional married couples.
No they can't, AA. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits that straight couples do. Also, civil unions are not recognized in every state so they lack the portability of marriages. You may wish gays every happiness but remember that there is no equality.
Carn,
What exactly are the federal marriage rights that gays are prevented from getting by the DOMA law? Thanks.
BLITZER AND THE REST OF THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA ARE DOING THE SAME THING AGAIN THAT IS IN THIS NEW BOOK FROM SCOTT. THEY LAYED DOWN AND LET THIS WHITE HOUSE DO AND SAY ANY LIE TO GET US INTO THIS WAR AND THEY ARE DOING THE SAME THING WITH MCCAIN. I LOVE HOW THEY ARE ALL UPSET BECAUSE SCOTT TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE RIGHT-WING PRESS, HELL I WENT TO BBC, DEMOCRARYNOW, MEDIA MATTERS HUFFINGTON POST AND SMALL INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER WHO WAS NOT RUN BY THE RIGHT-WING TO GET THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT THE WAR. THESE PEOPLE DID THERE JOB!!!!!
Carn,
What exactly are the federal marriage rights that gays are prevented from getting by the DOMA law? Thanks.
The three major benefits are related to filing federal taxes, health insurance, and social security survivor benefits. You can read it in full at this site: http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
Perhaps Blitzer should touch HIS tv screen for a miracle and call that toll-free number for prayer and healing and send those gluttonous hate-filled frauds some money too.