God-O-Meter

God-O-Meter


Gay Marriage Decision Puts Heat on McCain

posted by dgilgoff

gaymarriage.jpgIf John McCain wanted an opportunity to make common cause with the Christian Right, he’s just been handed it: the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the state’s gay marriage ban. One of the Christian Right’s biggest grievances against McCain is his steadfast refusal to get behind a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. This is a moment when McCain can reverse that opposition and make a plausible case that circumstance, rather than raw political calculus, forced his hand.
It wouldn’t be the first time a Republican presidential candidate tried such a thing. President Bush used the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s 2003 legalization of gay marriage as an opportunity to announce his support for the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment, now known as the Marriage Protection Amendment.
The amendment has gone nowhere in the years since then. But supporting it and roughly a dozen similar state-level constitutional amendments became the rallying cry for Christian conservatives who played a huge role in Bush’s reelection. The GOP’s evangelical grassroots have been unwilling to play a similar role for McCain for a litany of reasons. Will McCain seize this moment to try to change all that, reverting more to a Karl Rove style get-out-the-base strategy, or will he stick to running a much more centrist campaign by hedging on support for a constitutional amendment? This is a moment of truth.


7



Advertisement
Comments read comments(19)
post a comment
Charles Cosimano

posted May 15, 2008 at 3:30 pm


All McCain has to do is say that he does not like the California ruling and hem and haw about an amendment which has no chance of getting anywhere in the forseeable future anyway.
All he has to do is get the religious folks convinced that if Obama wins with a huge Democratic majority in Congress that gay marriage is going to be legalized by federal law. And he can let the 527s do that for him.
This is the best political present he has been handed thus far and he is probably doing a little dance of joy over it.



report abuse
 

Colin

posted May 15, 2008 at 5:40 pm


You overestime the opposition to gay marriage.



report abuse
 

ChrisNBama

posted May 15, 2008 at 6:19 pm


Of course, John McCain can argue that this is a “State’s Rights” issue and allow the CA decision to fade away into the vast panorama that is America. Just sayin’.



report abuse
 

James

posted May 15, 2008 at 6:34 pm


Obama is opposed to gay marriage, so I don’t see what opportunity this presents.



report abuse
 

reason trumps fear

posted May 16, 2008 at 12:08 am


This is a great opportunity for McCain to show off his leadership skills by siding with that portion of America who embrace superstition and intolerance in the name of morality. You GO John Boy!



report abuse
 

Patrick

posted May 16, 2008 at 12:38 am


This issue won’t be the front issue in the campain. As was pointed out, both McCain & Obama are aginst gay marrige.
Another thing. Realistically, Neither candiate can support a constituional amendment banning same-sex marriage. That would be embracing a idea put forth the previous administration & both men want to be the canditates of “Change”.
Don’t you love these Important-sounding names for this amendment?
The “Marriage Protection Amendment” or what many states call the “Defense of Marriage” Act. Will someone tell me what the institution of marriage needs to be defended or protected FROM?
My wife & I have been Married for 8 years. The fact that a gay couple has lived next door to us for just as long did nothing to threaten our marriage. When they can get married, that will not threaten my or anyone else’s marriage.
If your marriage feels threatend, defend it yourself! I think you will find any preceived threats to your marriage lie within rather that without.



report abuse
 

Jesus defined marriage as man and woman.

posted May 16, 2008 at 1:00 am


Changing the definition of marriage is all about evil triumphing over decent people. Hopefully Americans will wake up now to the evil enveloping this nation. Appeasers to the left and perverts even more left. It will get worse if decent people do not take this country back from the insane reprobates wanting Sodom and Gomorrah rising here from coast to coast. How many in the Castro are salivating to get to the schools tomorrow? Every school in California (as in Massachusetts) is a super market of produce for the Gay Agenda. Now they have they legal means to go get recruits.



report abuse
 

Paul Shiras

posted May 16, 2008 at 1:52 am


Californians are putting the Marriage Act back on the ballot this Nov. This time it will be worded correctly so that the supreme Court can’t kill it as they have done in the past.
This is a bi-partisan effort to preserve the sanctity of the Marriage as traditionally accepted. As as Patric stated, Obama and McClain both oppose gay marriage as law and I feel that while Bush only gave it lip service and saber rattling, the next president will take a stronger action.
Bush failed to get his Republican buddies in the House to pass a bill in 2003 so you can’t blame this on the liberals. Maybe now we can get members of both parties to accept the will of the majority of Americans, Christians, Jewish, Islamic and Commoners of all Walks of Faith.



report abuse
 

Barry L. Cohen

posted May 16, 2008 at 6:15 am


Initiate a Constitutional ban against all government sanctioned marriage. First, opposite sex marriage is statistically less than 50% successful. If the role of government includes a duty to protect citizens by ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, governmental involvment in marriage is contradictory, self-defeating, unhappily destructive and socially costly. This is demonstrated by immense volumes of time, energy and social resources expended in Court systems seeking to fulfill expectations and fulfillments of mismatched,unhappy and frustrated individuals.
If people want to “marry” they may self-define their desired property rights in writing and celebrate themselves to their hearts content in any Church, Synogogue, Mosque or social hall of their pleasure. Government needs to play no role protecting others from having to pay again and again for couples bent upon religous teachings and cultural traditions.
Two or more consenting competent adults should not have to beg for government recognition of their behavior nor be allowed any expectation to impose social costs to underwrite their behavior. Remaining laws protecting minors from rape, incest and abuse provide all required socially required protections



report abuse
 

ChrisNBama

posted May 16, 2008 at 7:04 am


Barry L. I couldn’t agree more.
This is one of these distracting debates where religion and government needlessly collide because government has inserted itself in an arena where it ought not be.
The California decision also suggests, helpfully, that if the government decides to maintain some role (lest we forget, lots of revenue is raised through license fees, etc) then they can create a civil unions scheme and leave marriages to the purview of religious institutions to recognize or deny as they see fit.
I’m open to either solution: government completely divorcing itself from involvement in the marriage market, or creating a civil unions scheme that is non-discriminatory.
Either scenario passes constitutional muster. The current situation though is unsustainable. It angers religious conservatives who see marriage in a religious context, and it angers those who are left out of the process for the same reason.



report abuse
 

JRW

posted May 16, 2008 at 8:08 am


I cannot disagree more with “Jesus defined marriage…” First, Jesus defined things like love and peace and sharing, not marriage (show me the scripture). The California court did the right thing. The issue is one of equality, and one couple’s private relationship has nothing whatsoever to do with another’s.
As to McCain, it will be interesting to see how much he again flip-flops in order to try and win a modicum of support from his party’s base.



report abuse
 

judy l

posted May 16, 2008 at 9:58 am


Hurrah for California! When will we begin to treat each other with respect, no matter what our choices in life? I hope this is just the first of many states who will step forward and give all people the right to choose. Marriage should be just that: a joining of two people without specification of sex as a qualification. The only requirement for “marriage” should be love and committment.
If the Christian Right would actually live by Jesus’s only commandment
then they would support all forms of union by “loving one another as I have loved you” and that is unconditionally. All religious fanatics in all religions want to control the beliefs and actions of others: I look forward to the day when people will live and let live without judgment and condemnation: and that,my friends, IS what Jesus would do.



report abuse
 

Kristi Winters

posted May 16, 2008 at 11:20 am


Since when has ‘because I don’t like it’ been a reason to deny people their civil liberties? American ideology is about increasing the liberty of the individual, not oppressing them. Stop punishing others because of your own personal bigotry and stop trying to use the state to enforce your bigotry. The sooner people stop imposing their religious views, not on themselves, but upon others, the sooner America can be the ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of HAPPINESS that the founding fathers wanted for posterity.



report abuse
 

jr

posted May 16, 2008 at 12:07 pm


If “love” is the determining factor for who has a “right” to marry, then I would assume that you all agree with the “right” for the following marriage relationships:
– An adult male that loves an underage child should have the “right” to marry.
– A brother that loves his brother or sister should have the “right” to marry.
– A group of men and women who love each other should have the “right” to marry.
Not everyone has a “right” to marry…and there are plenty of reasons that government should uphold the marriage being between only One Man and One Woman. It is not imposing one’s religious beliefs on others. Same-sex couples can contractually enter into a legal aggreement and receive the benefits that married opposite sex couples receive. Also, same-sex couples have the opportunity to share in their own “religious commitment” ceremony. So, I don’t see how supporting One Man and One Woman marriage is “imposing religious views”. I think the overreacing actions of the California Supreme court should be something that we are all concerned about because it is detrimental to our democracy.



report abuse
 

God-o-Meter

posted May 16, 2008 at 12:28 pm


James writes that:

Obama is opposed to gay marriage, so I don’t see what opportunity this presents.

Sure, but John Kerry was also opposed to gay marriage, and look how Bush and the GOP nonetheless used his refusal to back a constitutional amendment to bludgeon him in ’04. The difference this time around is that McCain, like Kerry, says he opposes gay marriage but also opposes an amendment. Yesterday’s ruling presented him with an opportunity to change his position and support an amendment, but it doesn’t look like he will. That tells God-o-Meter that he doesn’t think the Christian Right can be nearly as influential as it was 4 years ago.



report abuse
 

Paul Shiras

posted May 16, 2008 at 2:16 pm


Don’t confuse California voters with California judges. We have passed a gay marriage ban before and we will pass a new law this Nov. to protect traditional marriage again. The gay community can have their “civil Unions”, but they can’t call it “Marriage”, to do so is to redefine the dictionary and create “good speak”.
McClain is fence straddling and being just like the Republicans for the last eight years, all talk and no action. The Religious Right better look to the Christian Left (Progressive Christians) for the future. The Democrats have found God.



report abuse
 

M.T.

posted May 16, 2008 at 4:03 pm


This is to the so called. Bible readers! That uses. Only what they
want to believe! Read God”s Bible. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Homosexuality.
Leviticus,Romans 1:26 Then tell me . God , In his own written words.
Changes His mind on what , He has wrote!!!! Or, do you pick and choose?
M.T.
Monggomery, Al



report abuse
 

M.T.

posted May 16, 2008 at 4:18 pm


Thanks , For allowing me to post my comment . On you’r page!
I do however have a correctoin. It’s M.T. From Montgomery AL.
Not monggomery. Thanks, For you’r time . And, Consideration!
M.T.



report abuse
 

God-o-Meter

posted May 18, 2008 at 10:58 am


Paul,
You’re supportive of both a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in California and the Christian Left? How do you square those conflicting loyalties?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Closed for the Season
With Election Day finally having come and gone, God-o-Meter is closing up shop till 2012--or at least 2010. Till then, get your faith and politics fix over at Beliefnet editor-in-chief Steve Waldman's blog. 7

posted 4:32:33pm Nov. 19, 2008 | read full post »

On The Religious Left, Great Expectations
The first priorities for Barack Obama's administration will be the economy and a variety of foreign policy issues. But the burgeoning religious left, which worked so hard to get Obama elected, expects some movement on its issues, including a robust White House office of faith-based initiatives, pove

posted 1:49:31pm Nov. 07, 2008 | read full post »

Howard Dean's Vindication
God-o-Meter wrote a piece for today's Roll Call on the vindication of Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean's much-derided 50-State Strategy, which is largely about reaching out to the nation's more religious voters in the red states: Years before Barack Obama showed that a liberal Demo

posted 2:01:06pm Nov. 06, 2008 | read full post »

A Post-Election Chat with Ralph Reed
Amid today's talk that Barack Obama has narrowed the God Gap, God-o-Meter checked in with Ralph Reed, who spearheaded religious outreach for George W. Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns and who pioneered such outreach for Republicans as executive director of the Christian Coalition. What surprised you i

posted 3:09:07pm Nov. 05, 2008 | read full post »

More Innacurate Faith Storylines From the Media
God-o-Meter is struck by the number of faith-based storylines the news media appear to have gotten dead wrong this year. One was the line that Obama was poised to make big gains among white votes, especially evangelicals, who were undergoing a generational shift in their political thinking and reexa

posted 11:53:20am Nov. 05, 2008 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.