View Full Version : John McCain ,what the heck????
01-23-2008, 04:00 PM
and now? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeBw28tX5Nw
01-23-2008, 04:53 PM
John McCain opposed the federal marriage amendment on the grounds that the federal government was thus stepping on the power of the states. The mantra there was "states' rights." Not LGBT person's rights. States' rights.
In 2005/6 (no longer remember which year) he made an official announcement that he endorsed the proposed Protect Marriage Arizona, later known as Prop 107, which was AZ's attempt to enshrine discrimination in the STATE Constitution. THAT he supported, on the grounds that states have the right to define marriage as they see fit. I had a correspondence going with his office for a while regarding his endorsement of Prop 107 and the letters I received indicated that McCain believed voters had the right to determine the "definition" of marriage according to their wishes. I responded to those arguments point for point, but doubt my letter ever got past the staffers' desk (trashcan.)
McCain's opposition to the federal marriage amendment alienated a lot of the right wing, then his support of the state marriage amendment alienated many of us on the left.
Anyway - that's McCain's history regarding marriage discrimination.
01-23-2008, 05:30 PM
Zerbie you probably do have more clarity on this issue and are probably better informed on this than I am. I guess I saw Mc Cain as waffling on gay rights.
01-24-2008, 07:12 AM
Historically, "state's rights" has often been used as a way to protect bigotry and discrimination.
01-24-2008, 02:02 PM
I have corresponded with my senators in the past, And I usually get letters in the mail or email from them. Most of the time they respond to my letters although we may not see eye to eye on certain views. But my senators don't see gay marriage as viable, they are hardcore republican... Really right wing..
Hillary Clinton is coming to Texas, so we'll see where that goes.I wouldn't vote for McCain, for one reason his views on the war... WE CANNOT have this war going on indefinitely, too many lives are at stake, When I saw Hillary and Obama tonight on 60 minutes I agreed with alot of their views. This war is draining America, costing too much and will not solve the problems over in the Mid East between the differing factions. our troops are worn out , and have been taxed to their limits, being re-deployed over and over again. Admitting that the war could be a mistake right now is not one of Bush's strong points.... Mc Cain only promises more of the same, and wants to ingratiate himself with the right and evangelicals.
The war prolonged is only going to get us into steeper debt and nothing can be gained by it., more lives lost... and what about rebuilding Iraq? The Iraq gov and people need to get their act together if they want to stop the bloodshed and violence between them...
I know people here are concerned with gay rights, but you have a better chance with a dem than a repub... go to the dem website and it will tell you where they stand on issues like gay rights.....I'm not being critical of republican voters here, but do you honestly want more of the same???????? When they say war is hell , that is not an exaggeration...
Obama stated with all the billions being poured into the war machine , we could be rebuilding our bridges, helping with college tuition, the economy and doing other things to help America.. All the money that is going to keep this war ongoing in other words could be put to better use, and since we destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq ,we will have to help rebuild it.... I don't think that can happen until things get better between the Iraqis fighting each other. We also have to look at what resources we have being dwindled here to fund more war... what has been cut into like mental health care, domestic programs, vet healthcare and benefits,outsourcing of American jobs overseas , the growing poverty of many Americans , lack of health care among other things...We are going to be dealing with the after affects and costs of this war for quite a while...including treating vets and the costs that will be generated by having many of these vets come home disabled or maimed for life,among other things... Enough is enough . MORE OF THE SAME does not cut it.
Just for the heck of it I thought I'd enclose these websites :http://www.democrats.org/
http://www.rnc.org/ (Republican website) They give you a general idea of the issues...That each party stands on.. Note: civil rights, LGBT Issues are included on the dem site but not the republican website...http://www.democrats.org/a/communities/lgbt_community/
http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/06/gay_rights_group_evaluates_the.html (Candidates on LGBT issues and score card for both democrats and republicans , above link) Excerpted from this article:
According to the report, all Democratic candidates are supportive of the majority of LGBT issues, including transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination and hate crimes laws. Only two Democratic candidates support marriage equality for same-sex couples, however, yet all of them are in support of other partnership recognition rights, such as civil unions
Statement by Matt Foreman, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
“The differences between the Democratic and Republican fields of candidates on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues are shockingly stark and profoundly depressing. Over time, the majority of Americans have moved to support basic fairness for LGBT Americans, including nondiscrimination and hate crimes laws, repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t’ Tell,’ and protections for our families. Sadly, the Republican field has gone in the opposite direction, still clearly pandering to the venom of the so-called ‘religious right.’ This only means that they will continue to use our lives as cultural wedge fodder whenever it’s deemed politically expedient.
“The public statements and voting records of the Democratic candidates show that they are clearly light years ahead of the Republicans on almost every issue important to the LGBT community. Nevertheless, the lack of courage on marriage equality is disturbing on both political and moral grounds. Politically, being for civil unions but against marriage doesn’t bring a single voter over from the other side. Morally, it’s hard to understand how a Democratic candidate can say to people they know individually and to one of the most loyal and generous voting blocs the party has, ‘Sorry, I just can’t go there — you understand, right?’ Actually, we don’t.”
01-24-2008, 10:13 PM
Yeah, well, the South cried states' rights, too, with the issue of slavery. It was moral and societal outrage, but the South claimed states' rights, and look where it got us- a bloody, costly, ungodly, and splintering Civil War. Gay marriage does not in any way shape or form cause straight marriage any harm. Believe me, straight people do enough damage to their right as anybody. They don't need gay people to help them out. :rolleyes:
Steven E. Webster
01-24-2008, 10:17 PM
Historically, "state's rights" has often been used as a way to protect bigotry and discrimination.
No, I think it cuts both ways. "States Rights" was certainly the refrain of bigots in the 60's who did not want to obey Federal Law on civil rights.
On the other hand, if the Federal government tries to impose an anti-same-sex marriage policy on the States, than bigotry is on the side of Federal imposition and "states rights" may be on the side of LGBT equality.
It all depends. . . .
One of the benefits of our Federal system is supposed to be the freedom of States, "states rights" to pass legislation to their liking. On the positive side, this makes the States "laboratories" for new ideas. I'm glad Massachussetts has the "states right" to support same-gender marriage---it may lead the way for the rest of the country, as long as the right wing doesn't change the Federal Constitution to suppress state choice on this question.
On the other hand, it's a good thing that the Federal government guarantees civil rights to people of all races no matter what state they live in.
01-24-2008, 10:32 PM
Good points Stephen! These are issues I have not learned about, so what you said was very helpful to me.
02-08-2008, 11:13 AM
I happen to agree with John McCain that marriage is not a matter for the federal government. I agree with the concept of state's rights in a lot of ways. But then, I don't like big government, state or federal.
The war of the 1860's was costly, ungodly, bloody, and splintering, and that is for sure.
I am an independent voter. In NC, independents can pick a party primary to vote in. I think I might actually vote in the GOP primary this year and vote for McCain. The reason being that I can deal with either Barack or Hillary, but the idea of Huckabee is scary. I'd vote for MCCain to take a vote away for Huckabee.
02-09-2008, 08:32 AM
I am with Redneck. If it came down to it, I would vote for McCain over that fascist Huckabee-(I shudder to think what would happen to glbt people if he got into the White House, hell, I shudder to think what would happen to the already beleaguered Constitution)
But if Obama or Clinton get the Democratic nod, that is my vote, clearly. We may never get marriage, but if we get civil unions I would be happy. I know it isn't equal. But it's better than nothing and it is the landslide into full marriage rights with civil unions. There are enough people, myself included, who know civil unions are not equal, and all it takes is a few years of that discrimination to see how UNEQUAL it is. For the time being, given the reality of how it works in this country, I think we have to get used to civil unions, if that is all we get. The pendulum is swinging and I think it will be within my lifetime that we see full marriage rights for the glbt community.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.