« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
What McCain Meant to Say
In a statement to Andrew Sullivan, the McCain campaign decided to "clarify" what their candidate meant to say when he said:
I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.
According to his campaign, when he said he doesn't "believe in gay adoption" he really meant, "its a state's issue".
"McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.
McCain’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."
But John McCain's answer to the question didn't include even a mention of federalism or state's rights. So how, based on what the candidate said, can you claim that he was really talking about the issue of federalism?
Ah...but there i go again judging the candidate based on what he actually said and not what his campaign claims he meant three days later.
And btw, this whole "gay issues are states problems" is the biggest dodge I think i've ever seen on the issue. He doesn't want to deal with it so he passes the buck and the responsibility onto the state.
If we had left voting rights to Alabama and Mississippi, black people would still be having trouble voting.
And if you think Alabama and Mississippi are anyway near ready to recognize my rights as a human being, let alone my right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you're delusional.
Gay rights is and should be a federal issue. I'm not worried about the Californias or the Massachusetts that are out there. It's the states with a long history of discrimination and bigotry i'm worried about.
The South Carolinas and Mississippis and Alabamas of the world are NEVER going to find their way to equality unless we have federal leadership.
But John McCain wants to leave it to the states because he thinks its ok that a gay person in Tennessee can be legally discriminated against. And he doesn't want to change that fact.
On this issue, John McCain is a coward.
Comments (5)
Barack Obama, on the hand, favors full equality in family and adoption law.
July 15, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
on the ^other^ hand, that is..
July 15, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble is that the federal government does not regulate adoptions, marriages or other legal contracts of that sort. That duty falls to the states. Would I like to see adoptions granted solely on the fitness of the parent/parents regardless of gender or gender bias? Would I like to see marriages be gender-independant? Of course, but those are issues for the State legislature and possibly the state supreme court, not the federal legislature, the US Supreme Court and most certainly not the President.
We seem to forget that the Executive branch is there to enforce laws, not pass laws. That's the job of congress. Unitary Executive Privilege be d@##&d.
DOMA and the other crap like it are infringing upon the rights of the states to regulate their own affairs. It really isn't a cop-out, though I will admit it has been used as a 'convenient excuse'.
July 15, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the problem with adoptions and marriages being purely state issues is the question of what happens when you cross state lines. The "are we still married in Georgia?" question is delicate enough, but what about "are you still my mothers (or fathers) if we move to Georgia?"
This is where the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause steps in:
July 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We seem to forget that the Executive branch is there to enforce laws, not pass laws. That's the job of congress. Unitary Executive Privilege be d@##&d." Then where does presidential veto power fit in your conception of how it works? It seems you've missed something, something important.....
July 16, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment