McCain endorses state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in California

posted at 9:35 pm on June 26, 2008 by Allahpundit

Didn’t he already do this a few weeks ago? Well, no — his campaign did, which evidently is an important distinction for social cons wanting to hear more values talk from Maverick himself. Prayers answered. David Brody thinks it’s a big deal, and that it’s “not a pander at all”:

The Brody File has learned that John McCain has sent a statement supporting a California constitutional amendment to the group trying to get it passed this fall.

Here is what he said on June 25, 2008:

“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 only is he now on record FOR the constitutional marriage amendment in California, he also put HIS name on it.

Sounds like his campaign re-wrote its earlier statement in the first person and re-released it. I can’t fathom why evangelicals would place more stock in this than when he went on “Ellen” and stood his ground on traditional marriage, but evidently he was told in a meeting with social con leaders this afternoon that he “needs to make the issues he agrees with us on very clear” if he wants to avoid electoral disaster, so consider this one fully clarified. He was also reminded, incidentally, that Christians will be paying close attention to who his running mate is, so it’s probably safe to consider Ridge and Crist (and Mitt?) out of contention. Exit question: If he’s going to redouble his efforts to woo values voters, what was the point of meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

States have a right to decide such things. It’s that simple. I still have not read anywhere in The Constitution there’s a right to marriage. If you find it, please reference it!

SouthernGent on June 26, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Guess that log cabin republican meeting didn’t go so well.

lorien1973 on June 26, 2008 at 9:41 PM

I can’t fathom why evangelicals would place more stock in this than when he went on “Ellen” and stood his ground on traditional marriage

Because he didn’t stand his ground… he mumbled and squirmed through that interview. (Tepid!)

gxpgxp on June 26, 2008 at 9:41 PM

SouthernGent on June 26, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Full faith and credit.

lorien1973 on June 26, 2008 at 9:42 PM

He needs the evangelical vote desperately.

jencab on June 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM

The prop might not pass this time around.

Per radio commentators, even the conservative ones, there is a plurality who is now ok with gay marriage in CA. Plus, Gov. Schwarzenegger has changed his mind on it, or changed it back to where he was all along, even though he doesn’t like to talk about it.

McCain is providing lip service on this one, knowing that what he says will have little effect in CA and can only help him elsewhere.

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM

Well the gays have had it their way here in Kaleefornia for now. The State Supremes believe it is their duty to enlighten the lower classes. Since gays can also adopt children, I’m waiting for the day when they have to face “Mother-Daughter Teas” and “Date with Dad Night”. If the gays continue to have their way, I’m sure those events will be canceled for the sake of “tolerance” and being “non-judgemental”. Ever notice how gays demand “tolerance” from others….a trait they don’t show?

GarandFan on June 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM

Forgot to add that a big chunk of those who no longer oppose it are in the extremely lucrative wedding business, even if they are not in favor of it otherwise.

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 9:47 PM

Senator McCain, why don’t you secure our borders first, us citizens in California are amending our “State” Constitution to deal with the definition of marriage, “One Man, One Woman”, and we WILL overturn A##-Hat judges…….

Again, the borders are Federal responsibility, and stories like this don’t help you or your friends at La Raza.

Seven Percent Solution on June 26, 2008 at 9:50 PM

GarandFan on June 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM

Beware the coming Gaypocalypse.

Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 9:50 PM

I won’t trust McLame till I see the borders sealed and all the ILLEGAL immigrants on busses crossing back over the border going southbound!

Pander all ya want, big boy! We know what you’re up to!!!

Vntnrse on June 26, 2008 at 9:55 PM

He was also reminded, incidentally, that Christians will be paying close attention to who his running mate is, so it’s probably safe to consider Ridge and Crist (and Mitt?) out of contention.

I don’t know many “Christians” (pretty vague term) that have an issue with Mitt.

malan89 on June 26, 2008 at 10:00 PM

what was the point of meeting with the LCRs?

The same point as meeting with Ellen & with the NAACP–you put a human face on your viewpoints & hope to charm a few to your side. Avoiding them allows them to portray you as the Evil One.

jgapinoy on June 26, 2008 at 10:00 PM

seven percent solution:

I was just reading the other day that the court overturned and threw out environmental challenges to the wall and it is going to be built. But even with a wall and more people on the border and high tech sensors there will still be some people who fin a way in. This is a big country.

And besides, this post is not about the border, it is specifically about gay marriage. It had to be specific because another group of one issue voters is insisting that they two get exactly what they want from McCain.

Terrye on June 26, 2008 at 10:02 PM

malan89 on June 26, 2008 at 10:00 PM

I asked a very religious Republican friend of mine back during the primaries what he thought of Mitt Romney and it was obvious he didn’t like him solely because he was Mormon. I think it’s a more obvious bias the more religious person you ask.

Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 10:03 PM

Exit question: If he’s going to redouble his efforts to woo values voters, what was the point of meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans?

Tsk, tsk. Don’t stereotype, AP.

Why must the LCRs have been in favor of gay marriage? Maybe they wanted lower taxes, drilling in ANWR, a robust foreign policy, judges who will enforce the Constitution, not distort it.

Maybe they’re against special rights for special groups of people. Maybe they just want the same rights as all American citizens.

misterpeasea on June 26, 2008 at 10:03 PM

Vntrse

That is absurd. You will not see all the illegals on buses no matter who the president is. 8 in 10 Americans do not support mass deportation anyway. But, hey sit home and pout. Let Obama win, I bet he will be a hard ass when it comes to immigration. You betcha.

Terrye on June 26, 2008 at 10:05 PM

I can’t say that I’m a one issue guy. I don’t trust anything McLame says! I’m almost hoping Obama wins because they GOP will reconsider their logic behind tossing conservative christians to the dogs!

Vntnrse on June 26, 2008 at 10:06 PM

Vntnrse on June 26, 2008 at 10:06 PM

Wow, very witty sarcasm there. Wait, you are serious?

carbon_footprint on June 26, 2008 at 10:08 PM

Exit question: If he’s going to redouble his efforts to woo values voters, what was the point of meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans?

He missed BillyJeff’s Triangulation Seminar?

hillbillyjim on June 26, 2008 at 10:09 PM

I don’t trust anything McLame says! I’m almost hoping Obama wins because they GOP will reconsider their logic behind tossing conservative christians to the dogs!

Um, how exactly did the GOP toss conservative Christians aside? We’ve nominated an anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage guy.

terryannonline on June 26, 2008 at 10:09 PM

You will not see all the illegals on buses no matter who the president is. 8 in 10 Americans do not support mass deportation anyway.

Terrye on June 26, 2008 at 10:05 PM

I agree you won’t see all illegals on buses, but let’s not make policies on what polling firms say. Just under 8 in 10 Americans don’t like the president, either, and a massive chunk want us out of Iraq.

amerpundit on June 26, 2008 at 10:10 PM

what was the point of meeting with the LCRs?

Oh, was the meeting with the social conservatives off his schedule too?

The same point as meeting with Ellen & with the NAACP–you put a human face on your viewpoints & hope to charm a few to your side. Avoiding them allows them to portray you as the Evil One.

jgapinoy on June 26, 2008 at 10:00 PM

Can’t agree. The public meetings/tv appearances are to make a public stand. They are meant to address people who aren’t at the meeting.
A private meeting has a different purpose.

JiangxiDad on June 26, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Exit question: If he’s going to redouble his efforts to woo values voters, what was the point of meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans?

I think we can rule out “principle” as his motive for wooing either group. But this is Mavericky!

Weight of Glory on June 26, 2008 at 10:15 PM

Per radio commentators, even the conservative ones, there is a plurality who is now ok with gay marriage in CA. Plus, Gov. Schwarzenegger has changed his mind on it, or changed it back to where he was all along, even though he doesn’t like to talk about it.

McCain is providing lip service on this one, knowing that what he says will have little effect in CA and can only help him elsewhere.

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM

A plurality? What were the several choices?

Also, it may have little effect on the outcome of the referendum in CA, but it may have an effect on McCain’s chances to win CA.

JiangxiDad on June 26, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Sorry Jiangxi, a majority.

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 10:24 PM

Also, agree with your last statement, Jiangxi, and that is more important to Mr. McCain, and it still a possibility, for many reasons. The more independents learn about Obama, the less they believe what he says.

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 10:25 PM

That is absurd. You will not see all the illegals on buses no matter who the president is. 8 in 10 Americans do not support mass deportation anyway. But, hey sit home and pout. Let Obama win, I bet he will be a hard ass when it comes to immigration. You betcha.

Terrye on June 26, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Yeah, yeah. Now tell us how popular amnesty is, and ignore that Chris Cannon in the corner. And tell us how your tough-on-immigration Representative lost because he was tough on immigration, even though the Democrat that beat him ran to his right on immigration.

misterpeasea on June 26, 2008 at 10:28 PM

He missed BillyJeff’s Triangulation Seminar?

hillbillyjim on June 26, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Billy Jeff is so passé.

He needs to watch the current world chamption in triangulation, aka the Liemaster extraordinair, Mr. Obama, now.

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 10:25 PM

Fwiw, my San Diego and Bay Area side of the family, all liberal dems, seem to be leaning towards McCain, with only two Obmaniacs holding out.

JiangxiDad on June 26, 2008 at 10:30 PM

McCain maybe is figuring out that running like he is now- Arnuld-lite, is gonna get him no enthusiasm from conservatives and less than expected support from the mushy moderates.
Maybe he saw what happened to that wimp in Utah.
The right does the heavy lifting and wallet opening in the GOP- good luck trying to win without us.

jjshaka on June 26, 2008 at 10:32 PM

McCain maybe is figuring out that running like he is now- Arnuld-lite, is gonna get him no enthusiasm from conservatives and less than expected support from the mushy moderates.

I think he is taking a page right out of Arnold’s playbook, and trying to put CA in play. If this had happened elsewhere, in New Jersey, for example, where gay marriage is anticipated to be legal next, I wonder if McCain would have said a word.

JiangxiDad on June 26, 2008 at 10:35 PM

JiangxiDad, let me know when you come to visit. We might be related. Lots of Californians will go with McCain.

Above champion and extraordinaire

Also, I have not seen or heard of a poll, but the radios talk about them…Also, there are no ads about it, yet.

Off topic, and I apologize up front, related to illegal immigrations/shamnesty, the big deal in CA is that a Latino assemblyman has introduced a bill to get rid of eVerify, which is a voluntary program to verify legal status for potential state employees. Only Illinois has a voluntary one too and they also want to eliminate it. Also he’s added to it that private companies should follow the same. Arnold so far has not signed such, but might do that now. A few other states enforce it and it is not voluntary.

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 10:37 PM

McCain is providing lip service on this one, knowing that what he says will have little effect in CA and can only help him elsewhere.

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM

Now wait just a second, Ent! I though McCain was competitive in California! I thought his immigration stance was wildly popular there. I thought Californians were overwhelmingly supportive of amnesty.

I’m completely confused.

misterpeasea on June 26, 2008 at 10:42 PM

while i disagree with mccain’s position on this (see the first comment from southern gent), if it helps him put california in play i will grudgingly accept it.

although i live in thailand (hopefully not for much longer…), i am registered in CA and i want my vote for mccain to mean something.

homesickamerican on June 26, 2008 at 10:42 PM

I can’t fathom why evangelicals would place more stock in this than when he went on “Ellen” and stood his ground on traditional marriage, but evidently he was told in a meeting with social con leaders this afternoon that he “needs to make the issues he agrees with us on very clear” if he wants to avoid electoral disaster, so consider this one fully clarified.

It’s not good enough for certain members of the evangelical right to simply be pro-life and anti-gay marriage. They’re trying to say that they want him to talk publicly about God more. They don’t seem to understand that there’s a difference between voting for a President and a preacher.

Hollowpoint on June 26, 2008 at 10:43 PM

I’ll unconfuse you misterpeasea. Californians are crazy about him for many reasons, which I explained before. I’ll list a few, again:

- the state has a huge amount of independents
- Arnold supports him and will help him
- the conservatives and the liberals are in the 40 percentile, none of which could ever win without the independents
- outside of SF and LA/Hollywood, the state is pretty normal
- many legal Latinos are not for Obama

His support of the issue will not hurt him here but it will not pass/fail because of him either. What I meant is that it might help him in more conservative states, while not hurting him here either.

On immigration, Californians are as opposed to illegal immigration as many other states, even more so because we pay billions for services, have lots of crime and other problems. On the other hand it’s not the only issue and the folks know that Obama would speed amnesty up even more so than McCain. It’s not like there’s a 3rd and better choice on it.

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 10:50 PM

although i live in thailand (hopefully not for much longer…), i am registered in CA and i want my vote for mccain to mean something.

homesickamerican on June 26, 2008 at 10:42 PM

Here’s wishing that you can come home soon!

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Beware the coming Gaypocalypse.

Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 9:50 PM

Speak English! I don’t know the meaning of half those long words, and I don’t believe you do either!

Sigy on June 26, 2008 at 10:59 PM

misterpeasea, I explained more why they’ll vote for him rather than why they’re crazy about him, but it s/b obvious why the independents like him.

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 11:01 PM

States have a right to decide such things. It’s that simple. I still have not read anywhere in The Constitution there’s a right to marriage. If you find it, please reference it!

SouthernGent on June 26, 2008 at 9:40 PM

As far as i can tell the people of California have voted against it everytime..

The COURTS are the ones JAMMING down their throats, to turn a phrase..

Chakra Hammer on June 26, 2008 at 11:07 PM

McCain confuses me.

Jay on June 26, 2008 at 11:09 PM

McCain confuses me.

Jay on June 26, 2008 at 11:09 PM

He’s nothing but a pack of cards!

Sigy on June 26, 2008 at 11:14 PM

In the political world everything is nonsense. In McCain’s world nothing is what it is, because everything is what it isn’t. And contrary wise, in Obama’s world what is, it isn’t and what it isn’t, it is. You see?

Sigy on June 26, 2008 at 11:18 PM

Finally, something good from the Maverick

Roger Waters on June 26, 2008 at 11:40 PM

…can’t. take. it. anymore…working. too. many. sides. of. the. street…

MB007 on June 26, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Entelechy on June 26, 2008 at 10:50 PM

If you think McCain is going to get within 10 points of Obama in California you’re kidding yourself.

Nonfactor on June 27, 2008 at 12:16 AM

Finally, something good from the Maverick

Roger Waters on June 26, 2008 at 11:40 PM

What? He’s dropping out? We’re getting a real candidate? Oh..sorry. Just woke up..must have been dreaming. And Roger, a Republican calling McCain ‘Maverick’ is like coming up with a petname for the guy that’s giving your wife better sex than you; you’re degrading yourself. McCain got that nickname for p*ssing on his own party. That’s why some call him ‘backstabber’; my personal nickname for him is ‘Backdoor John’. I even made up a song.

Nonfactor on June 27, 2008 at 12:16 AM

Tend to agree with you there. I have a hard time seeing California flipping to red for someone like McCain. Stranger things have happened, but I don’t see this as a miracle on 34th street kind of year.

austinnelly on June 27, 2008 at 12:26 AM

Dont worry, dude. I dont like the crusty old back-stabbing stand-for-nothing lifelong politician either.

Roger Waters on June 27, 2008 at 12:45 AM

What a pander bear! He opposes a US constitutional amendment, which is the only thing that can stop this nonsense. Just more of the “Double Talk Express”.

flenser on June 27, 2008 at 2:12 AM

The McCain-Feingold law abridging freedom of political speech — it restricts the quantity, timing and content of such speech — included a provision, the Millionaires’ Amendment, that mocked the law’s veneer of disinterested moralizing about “corruption.” The provision unmasked the law’s constitutional recklessness and its primary purpose, which is protection of incumbents.

The amendment, written to punish wealthy, self-financing candidates, said that when such a candidate exceeds a particular spending threshold, his opponent can receive triple the per-election limit of $2,300 from each donor — the limit above which the threat of corruption supposedly occurs. And the provision conferred other substantial benefits on opponents of self-financing candidates, even though such candidates cannot be corrupted by their own money, which the court has said they have a constitutional right to spend.

Declaring the Millionaires’ Amendment unconstitutional, the court, in an opinion written by Alito, reaffirmed two propositions. First, because money is indispensable for the dissemination of political speech, regulating campaign contributions and expenditures is problematic and justified only by government’s interest in combating “corruption” or the “appearance” thereof. Second, government may not regulate fundraising and spending in order to fine-tune electoral competition by equalizing candidates’ financial resources.

The court said it has never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different financing restraints on candidates competing against each other. And the Millionaires’ Amendment impermissibly burdened a candidate’s First Amendment right to spend his own money for campaign speech.

This ruling invites challenges to various state laws, such as Arizona’s and Maine’s, that penalize private funding of political speech. Those laws increase public funds for candidates taking such funds when their opponents spend certain amounts of their own money or receive voluntary private contributions that cumulatively exceed certain ceilings. Such laws, like McCain-Feingold, rest on the fiction that political money can be regulated without regulating political speech.

The more McCain talks — about wicked “speculators,” about how he reveres ANWR as much as the Grand Canyon, about adjusting the planet’s thermostat, etc. — the more conservatives cling to judicial nominees as a reason for supporting him. But now another portion of his signature legislation has been repudiated by the court as an affront to the First Amendment, and again Roberts and Alito have joined the repudiation. Yet McCain promises to nominate jurists like them. Is that believable?
- George Will

MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 2:37 AM

Is that believable?
- George Will

Only to those who believe in six impossible things before breakfast, George. Only to them.

Sigy on June 27, 2008 at 2:41 AM

what was the point of meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans?

To tell them to join the boarder security Republicans on his list of voters who can “Get Bent”.

SuperCool on June 27, 2008 at 5:16 AM

The state of california decided not only in their constitution but also in a vote that gays were not to be married legally. The judges overruled that..and I hope the voters keep voting it down to send a message to these judges that they can’t keep overruling the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

diaphanous on June 27, 2008 at 5:21 AM

Gee, wouldn’t it be easier to have a Federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, if you were supportive of Constitutional Amendments? I mean, after the Senate approved it, then all you’d need is 2/3rd of the States to ratify it?

No, McCain won’t go that route, he won’t support that plan, it’s too hard to do that. Instead he panders to the base by supporting State Constitutional Bans, so we have the screwed up issues we have now. Where Gay Marriage is allowed in some states but not others, and when a couple does get married in say, California, they can’t get Divorced in Arizona where it’s prohibited.

I still say McCain is a jacka$$

Snake307 on June 27, 2008 at 7:46 AM

The state of california decided not only in their constitution but also in a vote that gays were not to be married legally. The judges overruled that..and I hope the voters keep voting it down to send a message to these judges that they can’t keep overruling the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

diaphanous on June 27, 2008 at 5:21 AM

The only way to stop the State Supreme Court Justices, and the 9th Circuit Court of appeals is by Constitutional Amendment. Yet, McCain won’t support that, instead hoping to keep it in the Status Quo. That means the mess we’re in now. So Republicans can keep using Gay Marriage as a way to turn out the base in November, and the Democrats can keep using Gay Marriage to turn out the Base in November. The same with Abortion, and Gun Rights.

Both of them play with our emotions and neither of them fix anything, instead doing everything they can to keep from fixing anything.

Then the Press acts surprised when the polls show that both parties are detested by the public. Gee, I wonder why?

Snake307 on June 27, 2008 at 7:50 AM

The only way to stop the State Supreme Court Justices, and the 9th Circuit Court of appeals is by Constitutional Amendment.

Let the states decide. This does not belong within 20 feet of the US Constitution.

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 8:17 AM

David Brody thinks it’s a big deal, and that it’s “not a pander at all”

Not a pander? So in other words “no guys, he really is a bigot like us!”

Mark Jaquith on June 27, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Snake, you sound like the pro-lifers back in the 1980s who insisted that abortion could never be rolled back without a consitutional amendment banning it. They succeeded in getting that into the Republican Party platform and the Democrats went to town, making every Republican candidate from city council to President defend it. This played a large part in turning many suburban areas from Republican to Democratic.

Voters do NOT want social and behavioral issues addressed in the U.S. Constitution, period. They view any effort to do so as too extreme. The quickest way for Republicans to lose the few independent voters we have left is to demand a Constitutional amendment on marriage. It is far better to take it on state by state, and only in response to judicial fiats which can rally people to be outraged by courts acting anti-democratically.

rockmom on June 27, 2008 at 10:17 AM

Exit question: If he’s going to redouble his efforts to woo values voters, what was the point of meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans?

That’s probably why the meeting was secret, but they are still Republicans.

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Why exactly shouldn’t queers be able to marry each other?

Ares on June 27, 2008 at 10:34 AM

I still have not read anywhere in The Constitution there’s a right to marriage

Did you manage to read all the way down to the 9th amendment?

LimeyGeek on June 27, 2008 at 10:48 AM

Apparently some people think that the dictionary is a legitimate battleground for enforcing religious principles.

Ron Paul had a point when he mentioned something about fascism carrying a cross….

LimeyGeek on June 27, 2008 at 10:51 AM

An amendment such as this would mark a black day in US history – the day that a constitution was used to constrain the people and not the government.

I suspect the significance of this is lost on most people.

LimeyGeek on June 27, 2008 at 10:53 AM

The solution.

Vaporman87 on June 27, 2008 at 11:11 AM

To the fools who think this can be decided on a state-by-state basis, do I have to explain how group marriage is now possible again?

corona on June 27, 2008 at 12:18 PM

To the fools who think this can be decided on a state-by-state basis, do I have to explain how group marriage is now possible again?

corona on June 27, 2008 at 12:18 PM

Selective Federalism….

nice

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Why exactly shouldn’t queers be able to marry each other?

Ares on June 27, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Wrong question. The question is, why should they be?

The liberal agenda has wreaked havoc on America and the family. Why in the world do we want to advance yet another item of the liberal agenda? Why is it up to opponents of the liberal agenda to justify their position?

misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 1:18 PM

misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Why should gays have to ask your permission to marry?

Where do you derive the presumptive authority to segregate the dictionary?

Do you think that words can be ‘owned’ and therefore have their usage constrained by law?

LimeyGeek on June 27, 2008 at 1:53 PM

misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 1:18 PM

No the question is, if the people of State A want to grant gays the right to enter into a marriage union contract, what business is it to the Federal Gummint.

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 2:13 PM