Video: DeGeneres makes McCain squirm over gay marriage
posted at 12:09 pm on May 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Visibly uncomfortable, although not as much as Bill Richardson when Melissa Etheridge put him on the hot seat at that gay forum last year. All she wants here is a reason for drawing the distinction, and Maverick, ever mindful of the base, can’t do better than agree-to-disagree. But credit him as always for going on the show knowing that he’d have to take the question. It’s of a piece with his upcoming visit to the NAACP convention: He’ll be received coolly (but cordially), it won’t win him many votes, but the mere fact of attendance demonstrates that the disagreement has to do with policy, not with some sort of visceral distaste. The latter is a great weapon in the left’s arsenal for demagoging Republicans. McCain’s smart to bite the bullet and take it away from them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Nor me less hateful I guess. Can’t stand it when someone uses a senseless murder in that way.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Next time just try a yes or a no or say you don’t know. I have no idea what you were trying to say.
I was referencing your “norm” statement, and then you started dancing about words.
I was talking that marriage (which is an action) between a man and a woman is a “norm”.
Focus, focus…
But it is not important, you showed me your lack depth in the couple of previous posts.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Ahem it was determined after the fact that Matthew Shepard was not a hate motivated crime.
I’m not sure I get what you mean….and you just called me a vulgar name, am I wrong??
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Hey, give all those military guys a big thanks from all of us stuck here.
God Bless them.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 3:06 PM
For what it’s worth, I consider gay marriage to be a facsimile of, or approximation to, ‘traditional’ marriage.
The ritual is the same, the loving betrothal, the sincerity, yet it is devoid of the underlying rationale for such unions - procreation. Sure, IVF and adoption are options, but these really are peripheral avenues that only exist as a luxury thanks to more modern advances. Our binary essence as human beings dictates that men and women must bond to continue the species.
Regardless of my viewpoint, I will always adamantly defend the right of gays to ‘marry’ and pursue happiness as they see fit, and always vehemently oppose any attempt by fascists to impose their will upon others by abusive government force. The english language, and affairs of the heart, are not yours to legislate.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 3:09 PM
You got it.
Let’s just all remember the terms of the debate here, folks. Shouldn’t be any name calling, or assuming you know about your opponent’s life when you don’t (sorry r2b). But, it’s always good to know we do agree on most of the important things.
OK, I really have to go.
Badger in KC on May 22, 2008 at 3:09 PM
NAMBLA is done, they are almost non existence basically because of law enforcement putting them in the spotlight, thanks to Bill O’Reilly, and they have been banned by most gays.
They are not allowed to participate in PRIDE anymore and they are complete outcasts in the gay community.
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Your limitations are not my concern.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM
For what it’s worth, I will add my comment - that of a 49 year old white hetero male.
Both McCain and Ellen handled themselves with grace.
Well done and well said to both of them.
jake-the-goose on May 22, 2008 at 3:17 PM
BRAVO!! WELL SAID!!
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Opponents of gay marriage are quick to espouse the history of Western Civ which doesn’t include it, yet they fail to take into account more recent developments in the opposite direction. Gays have the right to marry in many developed, Western nations such as Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and South Africa. I’m guessing they don’t count as part of the Western Civilization which you so eloquently defend?
crr6 on May 22, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Fascists want to change the status quo. They don’t like peace and prosperity.
They will use the government, and if not the government then the judicial to get their way.
What they won’t do, is take it to the people. Calif. took it to the people and the fascists were turned back. So the fascists went to the government, but that was turned back (actually that came before the proposition). The only thing left for the fascists to do, is to take it to the most overturned court in the land; the Calif. judicial system.
So who is the fascists? The ones that took it to the people, or the ones that had to use 4 appointed judges?
I think the answer is clear; gov. jurists enforce the fascists laws.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 3:27 PM
“Ahem it was determined after the fact that Matthew Shepard was not a hate motivated crime.
I’m not sure I get what you mean….and you just called me a vulgar name, am I wrong??”
You are correct I called you a vulgar name. I should’ve called your use of Matthew Shepard type imagery as an argument a POS argument, not you as a person. You may be very nice but not in this argument.
After the fact is pointless. Your argument that these loons (whom I guess is anyone who disagrees with your view) needs someone to bully and tie to a whipping post was meant to invoke Matthew Shepard’s heinous death….conciously or subconsiously. I’m judging you harshly for doing so.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 3:30 PM
On the contrary, Spain has the same sex law. And in the past 5 years less then 1% of the marriages are same sex. So why change for less then 1%? We would never get anything done if we catered to every block of 1% that wants “rights”. It is more practical then biblical or social. It is, sorry to say this, an insignificant number of people to change a thousand year old norm.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 3:30 PM
I don’t understand your point. Specifically, why is it impractical to grant equal rights to minority populations? Blacks were and are a pretty small minority. They now make up about 12% of the population, many estimates peg the gay population at about 10%. Even if gays made up .0001%, why should that prevent them from obtaining equal rights?
crr6 on May 22, 2008 at 3:38 PM
I meant no such thing, you are assuming something that never happened. I haven’t thought of Matthew in years.
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Words can have many definitions, and often do depending on context and tone. But this misses my point.
How I personally choose to define marriage and how the state defines the legal realities associated with it need not be the same thing. They aren’t the same thing as it is. They never have been.
The government exists to restrain the evils that men would otherwise perpetrate on each other, not teach us what is good. After all, government cannot make man good. Only prevent him from being evil to others.
Defining marriage in secular government is an overreach of government’s authority.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 22, 2008 at 3:46 PM
On the contrary, Spain has the same sex law. And in the past 5 years less then 1% of the marriages are same sex. So why change for less then 1%? We would never get anything done if we catered to every block of 1% that wants “rights”
right2bright
Yep, and less than 3% of the Marriages in the USA are interracial. No idea what the percentage of people availing themselves of a service have to do with anything.
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 3:47 PM
“Our binary essence as human beings dictates that men and women must bond to continue the species.”
So if two men bond together and two women bond together but biologically can’t continue the species what is the essence of them being together then? Other than really hot guy on guy porn.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Other than really hot
guy on guygirl on girl porn.sheryl
Fixed!
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 3:52 PM
That 2000 ballot initiative against same-sex marriage passed 70-30. How about the will of the voter? What happened in California was nothing more than liberal advocacy by the courts.
DanKenton on May 22, 2008 at 3:52 PM
“I meant no such thing, you are assuming something that never happened. I haven’t thought of Matthew in years.”
I sinceley apologize to you then for my harsh words.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Oops meant “sincerely” apologize!
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Spiritual, and to that extent just as wholesome as my hetero marriage.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 4:04 PM
What about it? People can easily behave like a collosal dumb stampede.
We are not a democracy. The dumb masses do not, by simple virtue of their number, have the authority to create arbitrary law. Period.
Of course, there is nothing magical about the Constitution. Given sufficient ignorance of it, there is no holding back the grunting tide.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Why are you questioning the wholesomeness of gay relationships? No one said they aren’t wholesome.
And why is it that a few posts back you were not a fluffy thinker but a cold constitutionalist philosopher but now it’s an ignorant magicless document that can’t hold back grunting people.
“We are not a democracy. The dumb masses do not, by simple virtue of their number, have the authority to create arbitrary law. Period.”
No we are a republic but even that doesn’t save your argument. Because if those “dumb masses” don’t reelect the representatives that aren’t upholding their beliefs then democracy will eventually have taken place.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 4:26 PM
No matter who the dumb masses elect to impose their will, such impositions will always be illegitimate in a constitutional republic.
It really just depends on how many people are prepared to ignore the Constitution to achieve their agenda. The tide will win eventually.
And we’d better think of a new name for the country, because it won’t be ‘America’ anymore.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Yeah, a policy of pandering to those with a visceral distaste. :-)
Mark Jaquith on May 22, 2008 at 4:38 PM
But we are expected to cater to the Christian Right?
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Correction:
But we are expected to cater to the Religious Right?
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 4:50 PM
No, read my posts. I am saying (again) if something is the norm for thousands of years, then it is foolish to state that if less then 1% of the population wants it changed, to state that the 99% (the historical norm) is imposing its beliefs on the 1%.
No one caters to the Religious Right, unless they want those votes. But don’t confuse RR with mores, beliefs, culture, that would be a mistake to dissect that marriage between a man and a woman is only a religious belief, the majority of gays in California voted not to have the laws changed. So it also crosses into culture (you can have both beliefs, religious and culture).
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM
“And we’d better think of a new name for the country, because it won’t be ‘America’ anymore.”
So if your argument is imposed by a handful of judges this is still America but if the argument is ratified by all those dumb masses who cling to their guns and their religion its no longer America.
Let me guess, you were one of those kids that took the toys away if the other kids didn’t play the way you wanted.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 5:01 PM
So you think it is okay for 1% to demand from you what you don’t want to give up? They already have contracts that give them everything they want.
And a few posts back I prophesied that some one would bring up slavery, well I was wrong, someone brought up another racial matter. Surprise, surprise…
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 5:05 PM
And I say it is to keep order. Sometimes it has nothing to do with evil. A stripe down the center line of a highway keeps order, nothing evil about not having it. My street doesn’t have stripe, and it is not evil.
Keeping marriage, drivers license, business license, birth certificates, deeds, keep order. We are a nation of laws. One of the laws is a marriage is between man and woman.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 5:10 PM
“And I say it is to keep order. Sometimes it has nothing to do with evil. A stripe down the center line of a highway keeps order, nothing evil about not having it. My street doesn’t have stripe, and it is not evil.
Keeping marriage, drivers license, business license, birth certificates, deeds, keep order. We are a nation of laws. One of the laws is a marriage is between man and woman.”
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Great….perfect!
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Unlike, say, a tax break for a special interest group or affirmative action, I’m not being asked to “give up” anything in order to let someone else marry–whether that marriage is same sex or interracial.
My marriage is unaffected whether the gay couple in the house down the street is cohabitating, has a domestic partnership, or is married.
dedalus on May 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM
The stripe down the center line keeps things separate but equal.
dedalus on May 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM
No. In this instance, the judges successfully prevented the imposition of unconstitutional law by the will of the dumb masses.
Another important consideration is this : “anti gay marriage” amendments (as passed in Virginia) mark a disturbing shift in constitutional underpinnings. Observe the US Constitution - it is a set of constraints upon government, not people. Similarly, State constitutions follow the same pattern, until now, when the dumb masses have swung the tide around such that constraints upon the people are now legitimate articles within constitutions.
There is nothing to prevent this - it is simply a departure from constitutional philosophy as championed by the Founding Fathers - but it destroys a vital bulwark between the supremacy of individual rights and government power. Now, the door is cracked open for any critical mass of people to treat the constitution as a battleground for their personal squabbles.
And it is a ‘bullet in the head’ for America - as originally envisioned. I guess people care more about whether two guys exchange vows than the essential DNA of America.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 5:33 PM
It must be very special not to be part of the “dumb masses”. Even though the dumb masses have thought this way for thousands of years, in most every culture. Fortunately for you, you have 4 appointed judges that will do your thinking for the “dumb masses”. You put your faith in 4 appointed judges, and I will put my faith in the “dumb masses”, even the dumb masses of the most liberal state in the union. Imagine one of the most liberal states didn’t support the proposition.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Exactly, it keeps order.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 5:45 PM
It depends if your tradition is a European Christian one or if you go back to the Romans and the Greeks. In most past societies women have had a difficult, if not impossible, time divorcing men and retaining rights to any property.
dedalus on May 22, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Hey AprilOrit
Trollin, trollin, trollin…….
RobCon on May 22, 2008 at 5:53 PM
And we have laws that protect all the citizens. The gays can have a contract between them that give them everything they need. Give them a civil ceremony (or religious) and call it a gayliage, or couple contract, it just isn’t a marriage.
They have their gay pride parades, call it gay pride contract. Like most liberal, fascists organizations (not gays, but the organizations that represent them), they want to take what isn’t theirs to take, and when denied, they whine and carry on.
They have what they need, a contract with each other.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 6:07 PM
The issue has always been about the term marriage. Legal benefits should be equal but the term applies to male-female relationships, and it has for thousands of years.
Right now gays have equal rights as I do: I can marry a member of the opposite sex, and they can marry a member of the opposite sex. To call both the same thing is changing the definition.
Its very telling that they can’t live with civil unions or some other term-no they *must* have the term marriage which was a religious term since the beginning of recorded history.
When you are inventing new morals as you go, its easy to justify changing things to suit yourselves.
DavidM on May 22, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Even if I was the only person to hold the opinion, I would still be right, and Constitutionally righteous. This is what separates men from sheep.
As for the ‘dumb masses’ thing, I’m a life member ;-)
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 6:13 PM
This week a U.S. district court ordered the U.S. Treasury to change the way they print money since blind people can’t distinguish between the denominations. One could have argued that the blind had the same opportunity to see the numbers as sighted people, but the court didn’t accept that.
About 3.1 million Americans are blind or severely visually impaired. Though they are only 1% of the population, we’ll be spending taxpayer money to subject all Americans to redesigned bills with special features to help this 1%.
The changes are costly but important to help the blind fully participate in society. By comparison allowing gays to marry seems less expensive but similarly reasonable.
dedalus on May 22, 2008 at 6:33 PM
McCain wants to let gay marriage be legal but he knows he can’t and be the nominee.
This squirming has been going on for a decade. Remember the Chris Matthews forum where McCain said he thought it would be OK if gays married and then 10 minutes later said he thought gay marriage should be illegal?
EJDolbow on May 22, 2008 at 6:36 PM
“Even if I was the only person to hold the opinion, I would still be right, and Constitutionally righteous. This is what separates men from sheep.
As for the ‘dumb masses’ thing, I’m a life member ;-)”
You sound like a dictator, albeit a humble one!!
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Marriage is a contract covered under contract law. The rules governing contract law is decided by the people. If the people want to define marriage as any 2 people they can, if the people want to define marriage as any 3 or more people they can, if the people want to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman only they can. Setting or changing contract laws must be done by a vote of the people or their elected representatives in state government. Entering into a contract is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Getting a marriage license is no more a right than getting a drivers license is.
Dollayo on May 22, 2008 at 7:12 PM
No, but if a state government said that it wouldn’t issue a drivers license to anyone who was gay, they’d have a federal problem.
dedalus on May 22, 2008 at 7:20 PM
“I would still be right, and Constitutionally righteous.”
Disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution granting authority what marriage is or is not. Plus what these judges have done is blurred the separation of church and state by defining what is marriage. And on top of that, they have messed with the balance of power and have given the judiciary too much. The irony is that this decision gives more weight to a Constitutional Amendment.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 7:26 PM
I assure you I am the antithesis of dictator. I want government to stop intruding where it has no authority to.
If anything, I’m more aligned with an anarchical philosophy than anything else - in the correct sense of the word, not the shaved head, chaos & mayhem dimwitted sense. Yet another term that has been usurped ;-)
Correct. Which is why no law may be crafted to that effect.
Incorrect. These judges have maintained the separation of church and state by preventing a law that attempted to unconstitutionally foist a (subliminally) Christian definition upon us.
I’m not picking up any irony, but it is true that an amendment is the legitimate way to go. It would destroy the underpinnings of our constitutional republic though…and make us look like a bunch of Salem webfeet IMNSHO ;-)
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 7:47 PM
As a tangent - I actually have a real problem with this whole concept of the judiciary being able to ’strike down’ law. I have no idea where the judiciary got the idea that it has some supreme veto power over the legislature.
It seems to be some sort of ‘mission creep’, but I don’t know how it started.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 7:51 PM
But those judges just imposed their authority on the religious definition (btw, not just a Christian one) of marriage.
I wonder what the first court case is going to look like when a gay Muslim couple sues a Mosque because it refused to perform a marriage ceremony. You think they get mad when cartoons are drawn……
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 7:57 PM
I don’t see it that way. You remain free to consider “marriage” as “one man, one woman”, they simply denied the possibility of using the law to impose that definition on others that think differently.
I wouldn’t put anything past muslims right now. However, I doubt there’s any grounds for a lawsuit - nobody has any claim or right to a religious service.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 8:03 PM
“IMNSHO”
LOL….there aren’t many of us here that couldn’t say the same thing…me included!
Gotta run….nice chatting with you today. I’m sure we will talk again :)
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 8:04 PM
“I don’t see it that way. You remain free to consider “marriage” as “one man, one woman”, they simply denied the possibility of using the law to impose that definition on others that think differently.”
No they imposed a new definition, that’s the rub. I guess we should be like McCain and Ellen agree to disagree….we’ve come full circle!!
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 8:10 PM
I don’t see where they accomplished what you claim. As far as I know, they simply challenged the unconstitutionality of the law - maintaining that the legislature has no authority to define “marriage”. I am unaware of any subsequent asserted redefinition from the judges. You are free to consider “marriage” any way you choose, without fear of legal penalty.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 8:16 PM
So how was marriage defined before? Are you really going to try to claim that marriage is not being redefined with same-sex “marriage?”
I would hope not.
Bottom line: Marriage is not gender-neutral. All your arguments are based on the presumption that it is or should be. Your arguments start from a false presumption, and have no weight. It doesn’t matter if you devise an internally-consistent rationalization: you start wrong, so you end wrong.
theregoestheneighborhood on May 22, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Hmmm, I’m not the loon defending Man Coulter. Talk about real trollin’ I bet you think she’s hot, adams apple and all.
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 10:18 PM
In the video, Ellen says, we’re the same, our love is the same. See, that’s the issue. Is homosexual love the same as hetereosexual love. It’s a complicated issue. Certainly there are vast differences between men and women. To say gay and straight love is the same is glib and rather mindless IMHO.
Paul-Cincy on May 22, 2008 at 10:40 PM
I would think there would be a line around the block of people eager to “give” Ellen away….
Hog Wild on May 22, 2008 at 10:44 PM
So you think it is okay for 1% to demand from you what you don’t want to give up? They already have contracts that give them everything they want.
And a few posts back I prophesied that some one would bring up slavery, well I was wrong, someone brought up another racial matter. Surprise, surprise…
right2bright
What am I, the married father of 2, giving up? Is my commitment to my wife lessened simply because the gay dude I used to work with made someone a wonderful husband?
You brought up the notion that if not enough people take advantage of something, then it shouldn’t be government sanctioned.
Zoroastrians shouldn’t get any sort of religious protection in the USA because there are, like, 12 of ‘em. Or should they?
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Not good enough for them, they are not willing to give up anything they think they are being forced to give up.
Even something so simple as seeing our neighbor, who happens to be gay, happy.
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 11:28 PM
I’ll say one thing, that man has class. He faced the question and he handled it with grace.
Off hand I think there should be a small paradigm shift. Churches marry people. But the people still must explicitly enter into a civil union contract, all people, even those who stand up in church to get a church marriage. The state recognizes the civil union contract. The church recognizes marriages for its own purposes. Different churches can have different rules. But the state has a one size fits all contract for any two people who wish to join their lives together. Leave the church the name “marriage”. Leave each church and church leader determine who may and may not be married in that church by any given church leader. Then nobody is bound to do something they feel is odious, however small their minds.
And in the process call the bluff of those who insist gays can have a civil union that is the same as marriage but cannot call it a marriage. Officially NOBODY can call the state recognition of their state as a marriage. And anybody who can find a church that will “marry” them can satisfy their need to be “married”.
{^_^}
herself on May 23, 2008 at 6:41 AM
How about EVERYONE gets a “civil union” from the state, and if they want “marriage,” they get it from their church?
Ludwig on May 23, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]