McCain on Gay Rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

henny -> McCain on Gay Rights (7/2/2008 2:15:17 AM)

This is an offshoot of the "Obama on Gay Rights" thread.

It was suggested that we have a seperate thread to discuss McCain, so here it is.

I'll start out with a generic breakdown of McCain's stance on the issue, and then I'll repost my posts from that thread and let people respond as they like.

McCain's stance:

Supports DOMA

Supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Has voted against most legislation when it comes to things like adding "homosexuality" to hate crimes.

Opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, saying that it should be left to the states

Supported the Arizona Amendment banning gay marriage (it was narrowly voted down).

Rather vague on the issue of civil unions, although he officially says that he opposes them.

I wasn't able to find anything he's said either way on Gay adoption and Lawrence V Texas, so if anyone has info on that, please post it.

Also please feel free to post anything else in regards to his history on the issue that you find.



henny -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/2/2008 2:17:00 AM)

This post is entirely out of context, and was written in reference to the previous thread, so make of it what you will:

There's nothing wrong with condemning gay marriage, if someone is oppossed to it.

That's people's right.

I do think if politicians are going to condemn it, though, they should have a clear and concise reasoning laid out as to why they are condemning it, and I rarely see any of the politicians oppossed to it do this. They merely state their opposition as if it is self-evident.

I really don't think they need to have a compeling case against it right now, though, just because there is a majority of people in this country who are oppossed to gay marriage -so they simply heed this sentiment knowing that they aren't going to be pressed to give a good reason, or at least by the voters, anyway.

McCain especially, is no exception.

He parrots the party line, when asked, and repeats stuff about the "sanctity of marriage" (although I can't question his commitment on this point. Clearly his zeal for the sanctity of marriage is so great that it compelled him to engage in it twice. That's twice the sanctity of your normal marriage for one low, low price!) and marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman, but again I really don't get the sense from anything he's said that it's an issue he feels strongly about. He clearly loathes speaking about it, and I really think he's just cow towing to the party line out of fear of offending conservatives.

All someone has to do is ask him "yes, but why exactly?" and I guarantee you he'd put his foot in his mouth.



henny -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/2/2008 2:19:03 AM)

But in terms of McCain's views on gay marriage, he did support DOMA, and he supports "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (although he has said in the past that he doesn't think gays should be banned from the military as long as they abide by DADT policy), but in other areas it really seems as if he wants to have it both ways.

From an interview with George Stephanopolous:

quote:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say you believe that marriage should be reserved for between a man -- McCAIN: Yes. STEPHANOPOULOS: -- and a woman. You voted for an initiative in Arizona that went beyond that and actually denied any government benefits to civil unions or domestic partnerships. Are you against civil unions for gay couples? McCAIN: No, I'm not. But the -- that initiative I think was misinterpreted. I think that initiative did allow for people to join in legal agreements such as power of attorney and others. I think there was a -- I think that there was a difference of opinion on the interpretation of that constitutional amendment in Arizona. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're for civil unions? McCAIN: No. I am for ability of two -- I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people who have relationships can enter into.


http://www.bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3551

So he's not against civil unions: "Stephanopolous: Are you against civil unions for gay couples? McCAIN: No, I'm not."

But then he's against them: "STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're for civil unions? McCAIN: No."

But then he's for gays joining together in a legal, one might even say "civil," manner: "I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people who have relationships can enter into." Recently on the "Ellen Degeneres" show he expressed a similar sentiment, "I think that people should be able to enter into legal agreements, and I think that that is something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of insurance and other areas, and any other decisions that have to be made ..I just believe in the unique status of a marriage between a man and woman."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=203YqfxzpVw

This obviously seems an awful lot like a "civil union" in everything but name, although he obviously leaves himself a football field of wiggle room if the right calls him on it via his entirely vague repetition of, "and other areas."

He uses the same sort of wishy washy, "please everyone," double speak on Hardball.

From a Vanity Fare article:

quote:

Matthews wants to know McCain’s views on the prevalence of gay people in all walks of life, a subject whose predicate is the scandal involving Representative Mark Foley and his come-hither instant-messaging with congressional pages. “Should gay marriage be allowed?,” Matthews asks.

“I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that,” McCain answers, searching in vain for the less loaded phrases he knows are out there somewhere, such as “commitment ceremony” or “civil union.” “I don’t have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of the union between man and woman.” It may not be clear just what McCain is trying to say, but it’s easy to see how his words could be skewed in a direction that the Republican right might not like at all.

Fast-forward to the next commercial break, during which McCain and Matthews reposition themselves from the stage to the auditorium floor to take questions from the students. McCain’s longtime political strategist, John Weaver, a lanky, laconic Texan, moves in to whisper some advice. The next question is about the pending federal farm bill, and McCain repeats his long-standing opposition to certain agricultural subsidies.

But then, out of nowhere, he adds, “Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe if people want to have private ceremonies, that’s fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal.” There: he said it, the right words for his right flank. It might seem that this audience, the sons and daughters of a socially conservative and culturally traditional bellwether state, would accept, if not approve of, what McCain has just declared. But they are the Wi-Fi wave of the future, and they can smell a pander bear as surely as they can a hog lot. They erupt in a chorus of deafening boos. “Obviously some disagreement with that last comment,” McCain says tightly. “Thank you. It’s nice to see you.”


So here again, when asked if he's for gay marriage, he says "yes -if there's a ceremony, if you want to call it that."

Then cut to commercials.

His advisers descend, and he changes his tune to:

"Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe if people want to have private ceremonies, that’s fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/02/mccain200702

I may not agree with someone like Santorum, but at least he stands to his convictions with absolutely no regard for their repercussions. But it seems that in these cases either McCain is seriously confused and having a hard time talking (which I admit could be the problem), or he wants to have it both ways in a very bland "please everyone by being vague and trying to avoid the issue" way.

He's taken the same sort of "please everyone" approach to the Log Cabin republicans in the past.

He was the first ever Republican presidential candidate to meet with Log Cabin republicans openly back in 2000 (something which he took a lot of flak for, but stood by his convictions anyway: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,34754,00.html ). Also, after his very vocal denunciation of and opposition to the Federal Marriage Ammendment, the Log Cabin republicans endorsed his senate run in 2004 (and his campaign issued a statement saying they were proud to accept this endorsement).

Cut forward to 2008:

He met with the Log Cabin republicans this year, but I guess he learned his lesson last time around, as this time he did it "in secret" without including the meeting in his public schedule. Or at least according to the president of the Log Cabin republicans, who confirmed that they met with McCain sometime in the past few weeks in an e-mail he sent to "gay patriot" a republican gay new site that I won't link to because it might violate TOS (google it if you want. it was on Drudge as well).

All aboard the straight talk express!



henny -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/2/2008 3:02:04 AM)

From a full (and better) transcript of the entire Stephanopolous interview, the section on the Military's classification of homosexuality as a "defect," something which he not only seems to be entirely unaware of, but also in disagreement with.

Here's the segment on Don't ask Don't tell and the military's classification of Homosexuality as a defect:

quote:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I know you're not pro-choice. You're pro- life. Are you pro-gay rights?

SEN. MCCAIN: In the respect that I believe that the don't ask, don't tell policy is working in the military. I don't know how you view that. I do not believe that marriage between -- I believe in the sanctity and unique role of a marriage between man and woman. But I certainly don't believe in discriminating against any American.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But on that don't ask, don't tell policy, the military now classifies homosexuals. They classify homosexuality as a defect. Do you agree with that?

SEN. MCCAIN: No, I don't think they do that.

(Cross talk.)

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: It actually is. Yes, they do right now.

SEN. MCCAIN: I don't think it's a "defect", but I do believe the don't ask, don't tell policy has been very effective. We've got the best military we've ever had in our all-volunteer force. So I think the policy is working.


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/McCain_Homosexuality_not_defect_or_sin_1120.html



Jhud -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/2/2008 10:08:48 AM)

There are two concerns when it comes to gay rights - the courts, and the right of the voters to determine the laws that govern their own states - McCain appears to be right on the money in both cases.



rcjames -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/2/2008 11:05:11 AM)

McCain 1, Obama 0


Thanks
RC



todd_t -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/2/2008 1:55:09 PM)

quote:

There are two concerns when it comes to gay rights - the courts, and the right of the voters to determine the laws that govern their own states


But obviously, that's just the problem - if a gay marriage is conducted in CA, it may be legally recognized only in that state and in no other.

Thus, until it is legalized nationwide or not, this issue can never be universally resolved on a state-by-state basis.



Jhud -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/2/2008 2:26:17 PM)

quote:

But obviously, that's just the problem - if a gay marriage is conducted in CA, it may be legally recognized only in that state and in no other.

Thus, until it is legalized nationwide or not, this issue can never be universally resolved on a state-by-state basis.


I am not sure why this is a problem - but you are right that the push will be to recognize it nationwide, probably through the courts - and only McCain will support justices that would oppose such a move.



Evangel70 -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/2/2008 10:23:14 PM)

quote:

I am not sure why this is a problem - but you are right that the push will be to recognize it nationwide, probably through the courts - and only McCain will support justices that would oppose such a move.


I understand that the Bush administration has lead many to believe that they can act as dictators and bring about any cultural change they promise the faithful, but McCain will have to get his nominees confirmed by a congress that is in a democratic majority. What do you think the chances are that he will get a far-right justice confirmed? And should this miraculous confirmation of an ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice occur, do you believe the justice will always vote with the far right? Most of the justices voting center-left were appointed by REPUBLICAN presidents.



henny -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/2/2008 11:25:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

There are two concerns when it comes to gay rights - the courts, and the right of the voters to determine the laws that govern their own states - McCain appears to be right on the money in both cases.



In essence, though, his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, his repeated statements that this should be a "state issue," and his statements that gays should be "encouraged" to enter into civil contracts that grant them such rights as "power of attorney, insurance rights, etc" (even if he is vague on the exact nature of these contracts), does make his stance on the issue quite similar in many ways to many past democrats' stances on the issue.

Of course I recognize the dilemma posed to anti-gay Christians when it comes to this election. Obviously McCain is much more conservative than Obama when it comes to issues relevant to gay marriage and gay rights, so in this sense he becomes attractive merely as a "lesser of two evils," even if these same anti-gay Christians might not agree with some of his stances and statements when it comes to the issue.

But I do see this as an encouraging trend. If McCain is elected he will undoubtedly be to the left of any previous republican president when it comes to the issue, and thus as the head of the party, he could reposition what is considered "normal" republican stances on the issue just as he could recast the terminology and form of republican rhetoric on the issue.

Indeed, I think his rhetoric on the issue goes as far as undercutting the basic republican party line on the issue. He pays service to the party line, yet in his zeal not to offend anyone, he undoes the very justifications for his own positions on the matter.

So, for example, he says he opposes gay marriage, but at the same time, he says he supports "gay marriage" when homosexuals decide to have private ceremonies and call it "marriage" -basically acknowledging a certain relativity in the usage of the term "marriage" that other Republicans have denied. Similarly, when talking about the definition of the term, he merely says, "I acknowledge the unique status of marriage between a man and a woman." This may not seem like much, but I think it is important for how limited the statement is. He does not say that marriage is only the bond of a man and a woman, just that he believes in the unique status of a marriage that consists of a man and woman. Along with this, I think it's telling that he's avoided entirely the usual republican rhetoric that casts the issue in terms of "protecting the family unit" or "erosion of the family" and anything like that (he might have used this sort of rhetoric in the past, but I haven't seen him use it thus far in his presidential election -unless I missed it).
Same thing with civil unions. He says he supports them and doesn't support them all at once -or in essence he supports civil unions as long as they are not called civil unions.

And then he undercuts all of this, by saying that homosexuality is not a defect, and that homosexuals should be "encouraged" to unite by entering into civil contracts, and even have ceremonies in which they unite in "marriage" (his word) even if he believes that "marriage" shouldn't be legal. Which obviously then begs the question of WHY exactly he opposes things like gay marriage, civil unions, an supports "don't ask, don't tell" if this is what he believes. He has yet to give a reason, and I doubt he will at all if he can help it.

As I said before, I really don't think this is an issue that McCain feels strongly about one way or another, and it really seems like he's just paying lip service to the party line (and if you look at the "issues" section of his website he doesn't mention gay rights or gay marriage at all).

So anyways, obviously I do think McCain is more conservative on the issue than Obama, but if elected it's possible he could improve the position of the movement by moving the republican party left. I don't see him highlighting and singling out anti-gay measurements for support with the same consistency as the Bush administration has, which obviously will decrease the media coverage of the issues while he's in office.

As to the issue of supreme court justices, I have no doubt he will elect more conservative judges than Obama. But he will also have to contend with a democratic senate/congress, and given his record of bipartisanship in the past, I see him breaking on that issue and nominating moderates at best. Although I admit that that's something we can only speculate on at this point -so your guess is as good as mine.



Jhud -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/3/2008 1:38:24 AM)

quote:

I understand that the Bush administration has lead many to believe that they can act as dictators and bring about any cultural change they promise the faithful, but McCain will have to get his nominees confirmed by a congress that is in a democratic majority. What do you think the chances are that he will get a far-right justice confirmed?


Infinitely larger than the chances that Obama will do so.



Jhud -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/3/2008 1:43:28 AM)

Henny, I don't think you quite get it; it doesn't matter how enthusiastic McCain is about this particular issue, it has nothing to do with being 'anti-gay', whatever that means, and it has nothing to do with who happens to be in congress - all that matters is that he has the correct view of the courts and will allow states to make their own choices. That is all that anyone who cares about this issue really needs to be concerned with.

To be honest, I have never understood your passion over this issue, Care to enlighten us?



henny -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/3/2008 9:32:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Henny, I don't think you quite get it; it doesn't matter how enthusiastic McCain is about this particular issue, it has nothing to do with being 'anti-gay', whatever that means, and it has nothing to do with who happens to be in congress - all that matters is that he has the correct view of the courts and will allow states to make their own choices. That is all that anyone who cares about this issue really needs to be concerned with.


I'm not arguing with you on any of this, just making the observation that if this is now "all that matters" and is now all that "anyone who cares about the issue" needs be concerned with, and John McCain's approach to the issue now is representative of the republican position on the issue, then it seems that the Republican approach has changed somewhat over the past couple years.

It is no longer about banning gay marriage via a federal amendment, refusing homosexuals all forms of civil unions, denying that a thing called "marriage" can exist in any fashion between a same sex couple even if this same "marriage" is not recognized legally, arguing that gay marriage would be the end of civilization through the destruction of the family unit, or claiming that homosexuality is a defect -or at least if you go by McCain's presentation of the issue.

It is now merely about electing federal judges who "will abide by the constitution in their rulings" (of course, that's just both parties code words for "liberal" or "conservative") and leaving the matter to the states -a position which seems very similar to many Democrats' past positions on the matter (their mantra a few years ago was, and for many still is, "I believe it should be left up to the states").



cow451 -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/7/2008 11:50:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Henny, I don't think you quite get it; it doesn't matter how enthusiastic McCain is about this particular issue, it has nothing to do with being 'anti-gay', whatever that means, and it has nothing to do with who happens to be in congress - all that matters is that he has the correct view of the courts and will allow states to make their own choices. That is all that anyone who cares about this issue really needs to be concerned with.

To be honest, I have never understood your passion over this issue, Care to enlighten us?


I agree that marriage should cont. a states-rights matter. Same with civil unions, power of atty, etc. McLobby seems consistent along those lines. Matters of insurance coverage, etc. are also dealt with by state laws. This is a dilemma for companies with operations in many states. But the free market will likely determine how "friendly" each is to non-marriage unions. Some employers are now making employees prove dependents are actually their biological or legal dependents. This actually affects more heterosexuals than homosexuals due to the amount of cohabitation. I don't think either party can muster much veto-proof legislation in these areas.

Jhud is correct that many battles will be fought through the courts. But no Supreme Court appointee is a lock on every case as we've seen with the GOP-appointed justices.



Jhud -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/7/2008 3:57:03 PM)

quote:

I'm not arguing with you on any of this, just making the observation that if this is now "all that matters" and is now all that "anyone who cares about the issue" needs be concerned with, and John McCain's approach to the issue now is representative of the republican position on the issue, then it seems that the Republican approach has changed somewhat over the past couple years.

It is no longer about banning gay marriage via a federal amendment, refusing homosexuals all forms of civil unions, denying that a thing called "marriage" can exist in any fashion between a same sex couple even if this same "marriage" is not recognized legally, arguing that gay marriage would be the end of civilization through the destruction of the family unit, or claiming that homosexuality is a defect -or at least if you go by McCain's presentation of the issue.

It is now merely about electing federal judges who "will abide by the constitution in their rulings" (of course, that's just both parties code words for "liberal" or "conservative") and leaving the matter to the states -a position which seems very similar to many Democrats' past positions on the matter (their mantra a few years ago was, and for many still is, "I believe it should be left up to the states").


I am not sure how much the Republican ‘approach’ can be said to be typical in that the issue itself is fairly new, and has proceeded as one would expect – when radical homosexuals sought to get state courts to ratify their ‘marriages’, the electorate overwhelmingly voted to amend state constitutions to prevent this. The Federal government passed DOMA so that the rare state whose electorate did allow marriages to occur between two men or women could not impose it’s will on the other states.

This was a commonly accepted state of affairs amongst the majority of the electorate. With the CA Supreme Court negating the will of California voters, the focus moves to the courts, as it should, since there is now some concern that the US Supreme Court might do the same. Ironically, the homosexual lobby may have overreached, in that the CA court used civil unions as a justification for shooting down the marriage ban, and so the electorate may now be even suspicious of even those.

Should the Supreme Court usher in gay marriage on the federal level, then it would be time to amend the Constitution, and this would be certainly be the result of the radical homosexual lobby shoving it's agenda down our collective throats.



cow451 -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/7/2008 5:30:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Should the Supreme Court usher in gay marriage on the federal level, then it would be time to amend the Constitution, and this would be certainly be the result of the radical homosexual lobby shoving it's agenda down our collective throats.


The court does not rule on cases that involve state law unless there is a federal statue (such as discrimination) involve. The Supremes refused to hear a challenge to the Mass. law in 2004. I don't envision the Supremes intervening in state marriage laws regardless of the make-up of the court. So, how might they "usher in gay marriage"?



Jhud -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/7/2008 6:15:04 PM)

quote:

The court does not rule on cases that involve state law unless there is a federal statue (such as discrimination) involve. The Supremes refused to hear a challenge to the Mass. law in 2004. I don't envision the Supremes intervening in state marriage laws regardless of the make-up of the court. So, how might they "usher in gay marriage"?


A couple of ways. If marriage was considered as a fundamental right for all people regardless of the sex of the participants (like speech, or worship, or press, etc) and then the court could indeed invalidate state statutes against it. Especially if the appeal is by married gay couples wanting recognition in other states, making it an interstate issue.

This would be even easier if, as Obama has stated he wants, DOMA is repealled.



cow451 -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/8/2008 10:52:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The court does not rule on cases that involve state law unless there is a federal statue (such as discrimination) involve. The Supremes refused to hear a challenge to the Mass. law in 2004. I don't envision the Supremes intervening in state marriage laws regardless of the make-up of the court. So, how might they "usher in gay marriage"?


A couple of ways. If marriage was considered as a fundamental right for all people regardless of the sex of the participants (like speech, or worship, or press, etc) and then the court could indeed invalidate state statutes against it. Especially if the appeal is by married gay couples wanting recognition in other states, making it an interstate issue.

This would be even easier if, as Obama has stated he wants, DOMA is repealled.


Since marriage is a civil matter, just as a ohysicians license, a driver's license, etc., there is no precedent for compelling a state to accept a license granted in another state. Sometimes states can have reciprocity agreements, where they accept the license credentials from other states. E.g., If I have a drivers license in Kentucky, I can get one from Indiana should I move there. Coversely, if I have had my license suspended in KY, then I would likely be unable to do so in IN. I think all states recognize licenses from all others, voluntarily. Alabama might be the exception, being a foreign country.

I don't see a strong case to support a federal override. In fact, I question the constitutionality of DOMA since it meddles in states rights.

OTOH, the feds could use grant moneys as a carrot-stick to "encourage" states to change their laws. It is common practice to use federal Highway dollars to get states to comply with safety regs.

McLobby will leave well enough alone on these matters. Obama might test the waters but I think he will be disinclined to stir up a hornets nest. He won't have to really do anything to get elected, or, he will do a W and do lip service and some symbolic pandering (as W did to the Christian conservatives).



Jhud -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/8/2008 11:43:49 AM)

quote:

Since marriage is a civil matter, just as a ohysicians license, a driver's license, etc., there is no precedent for compelling a state to accept a license granted in another state. Sometimes states can have reciprocity agreements, where they accept the license credentials from other states. E.g., If I have a drivers license in Kentucky, I can get one from Indiana should I move there. Coversely, if I have had my license suspended in KY, then I would likely be unable to do so in IN. I think all states recognize licenses from all others, voluntarily. Alabama might be the exception, being a foreign country.

I don't see a strong case to support a federal override. In fact, I question the constitutionality of DOMA since it meddles in states rights.

OTOH, the feds could use grant moneys as a carrot-stick to "encourage" states to change their laws. It is common practice to use federal Highway dollars to get states to comply with safety regs.

McLobby will leave well enough alone on these matters. Obama might test the waters but I think he will be disinclined to stir up a hornets nest. He won't have to really do anything to get elected, or, he will do a W and do lip service and some symbolic pandering (as W did to the Christian conservatives).


Well, on the face of it obviously states treat marriage licenses quite differently than occupational or drivers licenses - if they treated them the same, then one would have to obtain a marriage license in every state in which one resided.

And there is court precedent for this - Loving v. Virginia (1967), which ruled that states were obligated to recognize the marriage of people of a different race even if there were state laws against interracial marriage. Thus the need for DOMA, and thus the need to guard the courts, and thus the need to vote against Obama.



henny -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/10/2008 12:39:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Should the Supreme Court usher in gay marriage on the federal level, then it would be time to amend the Constitution, and this would be certainly be the result of the radical homosexual lobby shoving it's agenda down our collective throats.


I thought the "time" to ammend the constitution was 4 years ago (or was it 2? I can't remember) when Republicans tried pushing the FMA through? No body said back then, "let's wait and see what the supreme court does before we pass a constitutional amendment." It seems republicans have become much more prudent over the past couple years when it comes to amending the constitution.

But McCain certainly isn't talking about a federal amendment anymore and I don't see him ever supporting one given that he so strongly oppossed the FMA last time.

The FMA is really irrelevant, though. It'll never have enough votes to pass, and the likely hood of one ever passing gets smaller everyday as the over-60 demographic dies off.



thomas2008 -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/12/2008 1:09:42 PM)

I have seen some reports that credits McCain with saying that he supports civil unions between gay couples, but opposes same sex marriage. Between that and his stance on embryonic stem cell research, I can't vote for him, or Obama.



SILVERNAME -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/16/2008 12:38:36 AM)

McCain is another homophile coddler, he is not opposed to homophile behavior, that is why Christians, Real Christians should not vote for him.



Jhud -> RE: McCain on Gay Rights (7/17/2008 1:12:17 AM)

Other than the absurdity of McCain being homophilic, who should a Real Christian vote for?



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI