Alex Blaze

John McCain, everyone's favorite pro-gay homophobe

Filed By Alex Blaze | July 01, 2008 10:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Media, Politics, Politics, The Movement
Tags: ballot initiatives, California, John McCain, marriage, marriage amendment, maverick, Patrick Range McDonald, same-sex marriage

John McCain released a statement on the anti-gay initiative in California last Thursday:

I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.

Not much of a statement, completely in line with Republican ideology, and poorly released. Par for the course for the McCain campaign.

What is interesting is some of the analysis from Patrick Range McDonald's column on the statement, linked above. It's along the lines of what I've been hearing from many LGBT people, that John McCain would be a step in the right direction on LGBT issues from the Bush administration because deep down inside he's with us:

McCain didn't have to make that uneasy alliance. Instead, if the senator really wanted to stick out as a man of change and blow the minds of millions Americans--even Obama's--he could have used his post-California Supreme Court ruling appearance on The Ellen Degeneres Show to proclaim, 'Hey, I've been wrong. I'm for love, I'm for the pursuit of happiness, I'm for same sex marriage.' That didn't happen. McCain sat next to the popular lesbian talk show host, grinned awkwardly when she asked him about gay marriage, and said he had a "respectful disagreement." Opportunity blown.

Now a window opens for the other side. It's not hard to imagine a political advertisement popping up some day soon featuring a Vietnam veteran who served with McCain, or spent time in the same North Vietnamese prison as a fellow prisoner of war, wearing a silver medal on his lapel and shedding a tear from his eye. Next to the gray-haired vet, a gay son or granddaughter sits on a stool and looks up at him reverently, while the man stares straight into the camera and says, "Senator John McCain has let my family down." It could be the "Willie Horton" ad for a new generation, and it could have been avoided if John Sidney McCain III, a man known to make some very righteous and difficult decisions in his life, looked into his heart and stood up for something that he probably knows is right.

Underlying the idea that John McCain should have done the right thing and stood up for what he "probably knows is right" is the assumption, based on absolutely nothing and counterintuitive to everything McCain has said and done on the subject, that deep down inside he's OK with gay rights.

It's part of the larger narrative that McCain's been constructing for years - that he's a moderate Republican straight-talkin' maverick. So when he does things like support anti-gay constitutional amendments, he's only doing it because he has to, or because he thinks he has to, in order to get the Religious Right's vote. McDonald doesn't seem to consider that maybe, just maybe, when McCain speaks out against same-sex marriage, says that it's "one man and one woman," supports his state's and other states' marriage amendments, supports DOMA, and promises to nominate judges who'll prevent gay rights, that he actually opposes same-sex marriage.

Here's another example from America's third-favorite gay Republican, Jamie Kirchick, on why nothing McCain does that's homophobic counts:

But while McCain has racked up an unimpressive voting record in Congress -- he supports "don't ask, don't tell" and DOMA, and opposes adding sexual orientation to the federal hate-crimes bill and ENDA -- what distinguishes him from many of his Republican colleagues is that he has also taken some courageous stands.[...]

McCain's opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment is emblematic of his tempestuous relationship with the religious right. After the bruising 2000 Republican presidential primary in South Carolina, McCain labeled the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance" and "corrupting influences on religion and politics." Sure, McCain spoke at Falwell's Liberty University in 2006, but he didn't pander.

At the end of the day, McCain loathes the religious right, and the feeling is mutual. A notoriously stubborn man, he will probably not feel the need to appease the anti-gay wing of his party, especially considering how outspoken its members have been in their denunciation of him.[...]

Some gays will ask why they should support McCain over presumptive Democratic nominee Obama, who -- at least in his rhetoric -- promises to do more for gay rights. To be sure, McCain will not win over single-issue gay voters. But if you're concerned about Obama's foreign policy naïveté or his proclivity for raising taxes, give McCain a serious look. Obama's pleasant speechifying about gay rights is belied by his thin legislative record, and it didn't stop him from parading around the hateful "ex-gay" preacher Donnie McClurkin to win black votes in South Carolina.

You see, McCain doesn't really like the Religious Right. He opposes everything they stand for, and he won't appease them while in office. There's no evidence to support this, other than the fact that he's a "notoriously stubborn man," which you can see because he doesn't flip-flop. Except when he does, but when he does he doesn't really believe it.

The Log Cabin Republicans also bought into this, running primary ads against Mitt Romney and then promising to work for McCain to get gay votes for him. Doesn't matter that Romney's sin against the gays - opposing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts - is pretty much what McCain did by opposing same-sex marriage in California and Arizona.

I just can't get my mind around the fact that McDonald is publicly fantasizing about McCain doing something that goes completely against everything we know about him and then saying that he "probably" wants to do it. It's frustrating, because the answer to why he didn't just say he supported same-sex marriage on Ellen is rather simple: he doesn't.

No, McCain isn't breathing hatred of gay people 24/7, but neither is Bush. Any argument that McCain is just pandering makes just as much sense for GWB, considering that the latter said he supported civil unions back in 2004.

In the end, it doesn't matter much why McCain supports the ballot initiative in California, just that he does. It makes a whole lot more sense than making McCain into an empty vessel into which people pour their own beliefs, constantly wondering why he does the things he does, because they just know he's one of them.

No matter how much he tries to prove them wrong.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

"None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see."
-- Mathew Henry --

You know, Airzona had a marriage amendment before, one passed to stop "Liberal, Activst Judges"

It read:
The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro, Mongolian, Malay, or Hindu shall be null and void.

So, John McCain is not such a maverick after all. He is just supporting an old Arizona tradition.

BTW, as early as 1912 and then again in 1913 the US COngress voted on a Federal Marriage Amendment
It read:
"Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians... within the United States... is forever prohibited."

An earlier one had been introduced in the 1870's as well because of belief that the 14th amendment would lead to marriage equality, fired by fear o actist judges.

Our friends in Arizona and Clifornia might want to play on this particular history.

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | July 1, 2008 8:33 PM

The denial of the American voter should never be underestimated.

It sure makes it harder for LCR to keep up the McCain farce, eh? I saw somewhere that the President or former President of LCR actually issued a rebuke to McCain. Was that Jamie Kirchick's statement?

McCain supported the Arizona marriage amendment because he supports the affirmation of the core of marriage:

1. Integration of the sexes.
2. Contingency for responsible procreation.
3. These combined as a coherent whole (i.e a social institution).

No one-sexed arrangement can fulfill these essentials of marriage. That is so whether the arrangement is L, G, B, T, or Q. The lack of the other sex makes it sex-segregative not integrative; for instance, if children are involved, the scenario would expressly segregate fatherhood from motherhood. The contingency of the marriage presumption of paternity cannot apply to an all-male nor to an all-female combination of individuals.

Of course, those who favor treating SSM as if it was marriage would abolish the man-woman criterion and the state's recognition of the nature of marriage -- its essentials, its core. They actually favor recognition of something other thing -- and seek to expropriate the special status that arises from the core of marriage which they'd reject.

In any case, John McCain has opposed the federal marriage amendment, and voted against it twice, because he thought that the man-woman criterion could be, and should be, protected against judicial activism, especially at the state level.

* * *

From a CNN report of June of 2006:

Sen. John McCain on Tuesday told the Senate that he would oppose the amendment despite his belief that "marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman."

"I disagree that the current Constitutional structure provides insufficient mechanisms for ensuring that the public meaning of marriage is not tampered with by activist judges," the Arizona Republican said, according to prepared remarks.

* * *

What occured in California -- and previously in Massachusetts -- occured in the judiciary where the slimmest of majority of justices voted in favor of the merger of SSM (i.e. nonmarriage) with marriage.

The four pro-SSM supremes on the California high court imposed their will against the will of the governed. The marriage statute is explicit about the man-woman criterion. The state marriage amendment will not ban one-sexed arrangements and is not a ban on domestic partnerships. But it will prohibit the judiciary from over-riding what was said in Proposition 22 and approved by Californians -- and that will be said anew in the marriage amendment.

And what that says is what John McCain supports.