McCain nixes marriage measure

The Washington Times ^ | 6-22-06 | Robert Stacy McCain

[Aetius]

McCain nixes marriage measure By Robert Stacy McCain THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published May 22, 2006

Sen. John McCain said yesterday he would vote against a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, saying to do otherwise would be to act from "political expediency." "I will vote against it because I believe very strongly ... first of all, on the sanctity of a union between man and woman, but I also believe that the states should make these decisions," the Arizona Republican said. "The states regulate the conditions of marriage. And unless there's some decisive overruling by the federal courts, then I will continue to believe that the states should decide."

[Aetius]

This whole idea of opposing the proposed Federal Amendment on the grounds of states rights, or federalism, is not in my opinion w/o merit. I know many genuine conservatives hold such a view, but unfortunately its also a cop-out position for many, especially for some Republicans and Democrats in Congress. I'm interested in separating those who genuinely hold this view, and who would thus vote for some form of an Amendment should SCOTUS once again stick its nose where it doesn't beling, from those who say it for political expediency.

I wonder which group McCain falls into. At another time, he said the following;

---"If," McCain said, "the Supreme Court of the United States rejects the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional; if state legislatures are frustrated by the decisions of jurists in more states than one, and if state remedies to such judicial activism fail; and finally, if a large majority of Americans come to perceive that their communities'values are being ignored and other standards concerning marriage are being imposed on them against their will, and that elections and state legislatures can provide no remedy, then, and only then, should we consider, quite appropriately, amending the Constitution of the United States."---

He's got so many "ifs" in there that its hard to keep up with the circumstances required for him to prove he's the conservative he claims to be. Most of the 'ifs' are fine, but one in particular strikes me as noteworthy. He says "if a large majority of Americans come to perceive that their communities'values are being ignored and other standards concerning marriage are being imposed on them against their will..."

Maybe its nothing, but this sends up warning flares to me. Polls go back and forth on the matter, with public opposition to gay marriage ranging from a small majority to and overwhelming one. Its probably a safe bet that the general trend is towards more support of gay marriage (no surprise considering the overwhelmingly pro-gay messages of Hollywood, the media, etc), with large spikes in the opposition whenever the latest group of judges decides to act like kings. So what does McCain define as "overwhelming?" What if only 51% oppose the inevitable Sup Court imposition of gay marriage when it finally arrives? Would the unjustified, unconstitutional, arrogant act of the Court somehow be justified if opposition is not higher? I'm sorry, but this sounds like a weasel line if I've ever heard one.

Again, such an act and decision by the Sup Court would not be justified. It would be an unconstitutional decision. So why would it matter to McCain what the level of opposition is? Either the SCOTUS decision is correct, or it is not. Either we should meekly accept judicial supremacy or we should not. If McCain believes so strongly that the matter is properly in the realm of state authority, then he should oppose a SCOTUS imposition of gay marriage/civil unions regardless of the polls. Why would he suddenly accept the views of Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy as superior to his own, especially with his ego?

And it ignores regional opinions and views. Whenever the people have actually voted directly on the matter, they have usually rejected gay marriage by larger margins than polls put the overall national level of opposition at. Its ranged from a low of 56% in Oregon to over 80% in Mississippi. Even if the public becomes, for some reason, more pro-gay marriage, and even if a majority in some states come to support it, then its still a safe bet that many states (in the South, Southwest, Midwest, and Rocky Mtn West) would still oppose gay marriage/civil unions by large margins. What would McCain say to them if the overall national mood was different?

Has anyone ever asked McCain point-blank -- yes or no -- if he would support an Amendment to overturn a hypothetical SCOTUS imposition?

I try not to read too much into things that may not have been intended to carry much meaning, but with comments like these and the recemt ones by the First Lady (basically saying that its not a subject fit for politics), I think the groundwork for ultimate betrayal is being laid by the GOP elite/leadership. I think that many of them are increasingly embarrassed by the fact that they rely so much on evangelicals/conservative Catholics to win elections, and would love to be rid of the need to pretend to care about the views of wishes of this base. The Court could be there way out. If so, how long before we start hearing our own leaders say 'the courts have spoken, the issue is settled, time to move on...'

It would be interesting to know what other conservatives think about this. What do you think, for example, will be the response from the GOP if/when the Sup Court imposes gay marriage/civil unions? Would anyone be surprised if instead of a of vigorous campaign to overturn/thwart the decision, we'd instead have a half-hearted effort doomed to failure? In this scenario, I don't think that conservatives would be blameless, as its easy to imagine division over how to word an Amendment to overturn the High Court with one side preferring a ban, while others prefer one that stops short of that and instead explicity empowers the states and takes power from the courts. Its easy to see this division resulting in no Amendment at all, and then we'd have another Roe.

[Gay State Conservative]

Geeze.McCain would have a better chance of being on the correct side of an issue by just flipping a coin before each vote.

I'm beginning to think that he does this on purpose. Or that the North Vietnamese were successful with him back in the 60's.

[ElkGroveDan]

This whole idea of opposing the proposed Federal Amendment on the grounds of states rights, or federalism, is not in my opinion w/o merit.

...sort of the same way states used to regulate abortion? Like that?

[boomop1]

This squirrel has lost his nuts.

[Michael Goldsberry]

McCain and Hillary are trying to figure out which party they belong to?

[Aetius]

If not for our renegade judiciary, a lot of things would be better.

[wmileo]

When I originally read the title of this thread, I thought was going to announce his marital intentions towards Senator Graham.

[ncountylee]

Since when is McCain concerned about state's rights?

[CWOJackson]

Geez, the media is really trying to prop this clown up: "McCain nixes marriage measure..."

McCain is one vote, not the deciding authority.

[MaDeuce]

I hate to say this (I should bite off my pinkie finger for doing so), but I have to agree with McLame (I still hate the skunk).

It should be left to the states, like many other issues. And states should be able to also have the right to not recognize a same sex marriage from another state.

But!!! And this is a big BUT (no jokes please) ... when a state passes a "one man, one woman" marriage amendment, NO JUDGE should be able to overturn it ... period. Any attempt to do so by a state judge should subject him/her to be drawn and quartered in a public square in font of the court house.

[michigander]

Since when is McCain concerned about state's rights?

Since he's convinced himself which state took the strawberries.

[Paladin2]

More like "Marrage measure nixes McCain".

[Reactionary]

The Nut acts like a communist yet again.

[JCEccles]

"I will vote against it because I believe very strongly ... first of all, on the sanctity of a union between man and woman, but I also believe that the states should make these decisions," the Arizona Republican said. "The states regulate the conditions of marriage.

He was for traditional marriage before he was against it.

Or, stated another way, "I believe strongly in the sanctity of traditional marriage, almost as strongly as I believe in allowing government to destroy it and to force all citizens to stand and salute the carnage and destruction."

[tortoise]

This does not belong in the Constitution. It sets a very, very bad precedent when one starts legislating through Constitutional Amendment. Let the States do it if they want, but the Federal government has no business or stake in this (at least not by any sane understanding of the intended structure of our government).

Republicans deserve to get beaten with the "stupid stick" if they try and do this. The majority does not support gay marriage, which is precisely why an amendment is unnecessary.

[Past Your Eyes]

"This squirrel has lost his nuts."

And now he's nothing but a weasel.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Oh, he'll be a fine candidate for President allright...

[true_blue_texican]

I think McCain is Hillary's only chance for getting elected.