John McCain: Fickle Friend of Gays
Crossposted from The Moderate Republican
If one has followed this blog, then you know that I've been a follower and admirerer of John McCain. He seems like a modern incarnation of Teddy Roosevelt. He has come out against the how corrupt the GOP has become and has stood for pragmatism at a time when the Republican Party has become more ideological. He stood against the far right when he ran for President in 2000 and I was pleased to see a Republican do that. I knew that his views were more conservative than I am, but I still liked him.
And now, McCain has just stabbed me in the back.
McCain has come out in favor of a change in the Arizona constitution that would ban same sex marriages.
To say that I'm shocked, is an understatment. McCain has been a hero to gay Republicans like myself and he has a place on Log Cabin's Hall of Fame. It might be time to take him off that list.
To me, this smacks of pure politics. He's running again in 2008 and is probably fearful that the far right might attack as they did in 2000. If he thinks sacrificing gays is going to sway them, he has another thing coming. They can't stand him, and trying to shore up his far right bona fides ain't going to change things.
I have no idea why he is doing this, especially at a time when a growing number of Republicans, like Christie Todd Whitman and John Danforth, are calling for a more tolerant GOP.
This is a slap in the face to all gay Republicans who have supported McCain. I was all ready to support him in 2008, but I'm now going to have to rethink that. I would counsel all fair-minded Republicans to do the same and let McCain know that.
posted by Dennis Sanders @ 11:07 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
IMO, being gay in the Republican Party is like being Jewish in the Nazi party.
The concept of working for change from within may be an illusion.
Sam: What is the Liberal Gay Agenda? What ends does it hope to achieve?
I hear that phrase tossed around a lot and never know exactly what it means. I suspect it's just a clever phrase meant to make what is essentially a civil rights movement sound like a nefarious conspiracy. I can imagine "The Liberal Negro Agenda" having been used in the same ominous tones 50 years ago.
Here's the thing I don't get. You support fully equal rights for gay couples but can't stomach calling it marriage. If two men are living together and enjoying all the legal rights that my wife and I enjoy, exactly what changes if we call them "married" or in a "civil union?"
And don't tell me it's about the children. Maybe some scientists will tell you that children are better off in a home with a mother and a father, but I tend to think any loving environment is a pretty good one for children. If you believe gay marriage should be denied on the basis that it's not 100% optimal for children, then what do you propose to do about single parents? And do you think we should remove all the children that are currently being raised in gay households?
I do tend to feel that the government bestows rights and that religious communities (or even secular communities) bestow marriage. And for that reason (which I admit is purely political), I think moving towards civil unions is the best course. But from a completely personal level, I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage.
First, the "gay marriage will lead to beastiality," is a false argument. Same as the comparrison to polygamy. Gay relationships are not exploitative, all the others you mentioned are because they all involve one person asserting their will over another. Yes, that includes polygamy. It's a provactive argument to talk about a slippery slope, but it's not a real argument because it relies on a false comparrison.
And I fail to see how infidelity is the goal of liberal gays. Isn't supporting marriage a rejection of infidelity? As for changing social norms--yeah, that's the point. Ending segregation also changed social norms. Women in the workforce changed social norms. We are constantly changing social norms and doing so can be right or wrong. Sometimes social norms need to be changed.
Now, I am very aware that a lot of people are made very uncomfortable by changing the definition of marriage that has been in effect for as long as civilization. I do not suggest we go there lightly and I sure as hell don't support going their via the courts.
What it comes down to for me is: are homosexual relationships immoral and would accepting them harm our society. My answer on both is no. Cities, churches and neighborhoods that have welcomed homosexuals have not collapsed in a fit of hedonism. Infidelity has not skyrocketed. Children are still being raised well. Society has flourished.
There is no nefarious Liberal Gay Agenda. Or, if there is, it certainly does not represent mainstream liberal opinion--not amongst the many liberals whom I've spoken with.
Sam,
Holographic lover? Man, if you've invented that, you're going to be a rich man.
But seriously, comparing gay marriage to marriage with an inanimate object (and any computer program would apply) is not really accurate. I mean, an inanimate object can't love back. An inanimate object doesn't need survivor rights or property rights or hospital visitorship rights.
And beastility is cruelty to animals. The only argument that actually should give us pause is the polygamy argument. But, from everything I've read, that practice is almost always exploitative--making it unworthy of societal acceptance.
I dunno. I obviously have strong feelings on this issue. It's one I think will be hanging around for awhile. Good debating you. Always important to have a back-and-forth.
The thing to remember that love is defined by the ability of the loved one to love you back. Inanimate objects cannot. Animals are thought to have "cupboard love", meaning it's more of a dependence upon the caretaker for survival. So, by that, then shouldn't we allow legal marriage (or whatever you may call it) for all CONSENTING adults who love each other?
Post a Comment
<< Home