Thursday, January 21, 2010

Cindy McCain "No H8" ad

Hey, look. Some political news NOT related
to my homestate's momentary brain-fart:

That's Sen. John McCain's wife Cindy posing for the pro-gay-marriage "No H8" campaign, which has previously run similar ads featuring the McCains' daughter Megan.

According to the McCain campaign-proper, the senator - previously known as a regular for of the "values-voter' crowd prior to his (apparent) turnaround during the 2008 election - "respects disagreements" within his own family, but still claims to be against gay marriage. Then again, so does President Obama. In fact, at this point just about the ONLY high-grade presidential-level player in American politics who OPENLY supports equal-marriage is still... Dick Cheney.

Like it or not, this will continue to be the "difficult" issue for both parties, because they're both on the defensive. Lots of inside-baseball stuff indicates that a solid majority of Democrats support it but are terrified of saying so, that's no surprise... but it's also becoming clear that plenty of Republicans are either for it or "don't care one way or the other" but feel they have to be "against it" publically in order to appease - for lack of a better word - the Palin-wing of the party. I have a feeling that what the leadership of both parties would like more than anything else would be for the Supreme Court to bang the gavel and say "It's legal now!" Then they'd still be able to agree or disagree but also tell the Palin-wing "look, it's kinda done, out of our hands now" etc.


Alcibiades said...

It's pretty clear that that majority of democrats and moderate republicans support marriage, but are scared of saying so. I imagine McCain and Obama will be on the forefront claiming they've revised their opinions in a decade when support for marriage ticks up from the 40% it's hovering at now to a majority.

Rubbav1 said...

Cowards, fucking cowards.

I usually have something more to say here but goddamn. Why is it that only Republicans stick to their values against the tide, and it's always the values you don't want them to have?

Phil Ochs was right, you got to love liberals.

Good job Mrs. McCain, maybe you can give me back the John I loved to vote for.

Anonymous said...

It's a war of semantics (however words do cause prejudice). Just about everyone is in favor of civil unions, which from what I understand is legally the same as a marriage. So really what we should be doing is getting rid of marriages as a legal institution (keeping it a private one) and instead make everyone get a civil unions if they want a relationship recognized by the government.

Harry said...

Hey Bob, I'm kinda curious about your take on the Supreme Court's latest decision.

I think it's pretty hilarious.

tyra menendez said...

at this point, i wish the supreme court would do that, myself. i'm sick of the arguments. this topic has been in campaign rhetoric for, what? nearly ten years, now? and it's already peaked. it's time to move on. it's a basic question of civil right, either gays are equal citizens with full rights (including marriage), or they aren't. if they aren't, it sets a precedent that "if we don't like how you live, we can take away your liberties".

Khaki Hat said...

I have to side with Anon on the semantics of marriage, though I approach from my Christan faith; by defining marriage using human law, I fear that many conservatives are losing touch on the real value of the institution, especially within the faith. I fear the church is replacing the bride and groom before God with the two before the state, saying that it is or not a marriage unless Uncle Sam says so.

tyra menendez said...

well, the issue is a legal one. you don't have to be religious to get married, as it is a legal institution as much as a spiritual one. the idea isn't to force churches to marry gay couples, but to give gay couples the same legal opportunities as straight couples. things like taxes, next of kin, and spousal privilege.
in these terms, religion has fuck all do with it, because we are talking about secular marriage and secular law.
one's religion may be against eating meat on friday. does that mean we should ban the sale of meat on friday? no, because not everyone follows that religion. and to try to do so, is unconstitutional.
it doesn't mean that any church would have to recognize the marriage, any more than it would the flying spaghetti monster; it just means that the law would (the marriage, not the flying spaghetti monster).
again, marriage in this case is *only* a legal institute. legally, we honor marriages born of non-christian religions and secular ones, so why is this any different? because christians have drawn a line in the sand as this being their last bastion of legislating religious beliefs. they lost with evolution, they lost with abortion, they lost with abolition.

Khaki Hat said...

@ Tyra
I agree that the meddling of Christianity (evangelical and otherwise) has severely messed up our legal system, though I would say the chain of losses is as long as the concept of Christendom: we lost Rome, Europe, Asia, Africa and a small island nation in the south pacific. The radio and television fell after the "destruction" of the Hays Office and now were trying to grasp the smallest of straws that we were never meant to grasp. Somehow mainline Christianity has this idea that it must control a world that is spiraling out of control.

One example: their is a strain of end times doctrine in evangelical Christianity that states that Christ's return will come when the world is good and perfect. The path to this 'Republic of Heaven' would be paved with great social institutions and programs. Many were common sense, such as job training, soup kitchens and orphanages. But the programs had an ecclesiastical heavy handedness that killed their effectiveness as ministers and laymen sought to sodomize the souls of the needy with the cross rather than just being a good neighbor and example. Ordeals such as the hollering minister and being locked in a mission "for your safety" only made the Bible into a ball and chain. No wonder nobody reads it anymore, even for literary value. I suspect that all this is because of a focus on numbers rather than on individuals, a competition of ministers trying to win a new kite the with 'I'm going to heaven' ticket stubs that I see in a lot of tract literature.

But back to the point: Trying to win over the hearts and soul of a nation is not done with laws but with the gentle example of Christ. Prop 8 (and others like it) is a continuation of this delusion that the Church can establish a Republic of Heaven. Sorry for the hastiness of this missive, but I got to go pick some people off a floor, Hinn is at it again.

GamerFromJump said...

Just as a disclaimer: I'm not a Christian.

Isn't Prop 8 a California thing? Since when is California a bastion of Christian hegemony? Or has the term "Prop 8" simply graduated to memetic shorthand for any and all opposition to gay marriage?

Personally, I don't think the state should have a role in defining marriage. Have a contract that allows one to define inheritance and next-of-kin status. That's a contractual issue, and thus with the state's purview. Anything else between consenting adults is up to them.

I kind of disagree with Bob that Brown's election can be characterized as a "brain-fart". Apparently a majority of people decided the Ted Kennedy model was not working for them. A quick Wikidive doesn't turn up anything especially objectionable. Maybe a couple, but nothing really humongous. Maybe to the "Kennedy-wingers", but otherwise...

Khaki Hat said...


You may want to read the analysis at FiveThirtyEight. Basically its cause of the old people that come here for the weather, which is a lot.

tyra menendez said...

i think prop 8 has become a symbol, so yeah.

ironically, jesus said he would be back within in decades of his death. he warned christians not to start families, as the children would not have a chance to grow up and that those who knew him would still be alive. but then considering that the gospels weren't even written until a century or more after the events they describe.

Kev said...

It was the meddling of both the religious christians and the socialists who have screwed up our legal system.

But you know, Bob. You mentioned your homestate's 'brain fart'. I suppose this was opposed to the entire country's momentary brain fart two Novembers ago? It wasn't a brain fart, it was a harbinger. Just name me one credible poll that has the majority in favor of this president's socialist agenda? Your party's own arrogance was its undoing in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts and nowhere will they pay for it more dearly than the rest of the country this November...and that's just the truth, but this dark cloud has a silver lining: Mr. Brown has more in common with John McCain than Ronald Reagan, so take heart, he IS a RINO open to corruption just like the guy he's replacing (except for the RINO part) and remember, there's only one thing that this administration actually manages to do without fucking it up and that's corruption.

For the record, I support a health care reform bill. Just not the kickback-riddled bureaucratic clusterfuck currently calling itself one.

As for gay marriage, I support it. They can't possibly ruin the institution any worse than heterosexuals and the status quo already have. Gays deserve to be miserable, too.

Linranis said...

Well, i am a democrat, and i do support gay rights, and im not afraid to say so. i just wish that some people wouldn't be afraid to take criticism over a choice that needs to be made: give homosexuals rights. they are humans, therefore they are equal to any other human. they are neither superior nor inferior to anyone else. why cant people just understand that?