This Story is Archived
John McCain: Gay marriage should be allowed »
Posted by: Karina 1 year, 10 months agoThe presumptive front runner for the Republican nomination in '08 made the comments on Chris Matthew's "Hardball".
Read Full Story at youtube.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 95
-
mamasan
Oct. 19, 2006, 6:39 p.m.He does not mean made legal, He says having a "ceremony" is Ok.
He is not about to deviate from the party law of "no gay marraige".
-
dr-don-from-denver
Oct. 20, 2006, 9:07 a.m.No, he sold his soul for the party endorsement long ago! So sad - I used to think he, of all politicians, had some integrity!
-
TednGilbertAZ
Oct. 22, 2006, 6:26 a.m.The "Slippery Slope" theory is dead-on correct. Once marriage is redefined, every group and their brother will be on the bandwagon... Polygamists, PETA people who want to have legally recognized marriages with animals (and yes, that is on many members' agenda), NAMBLA and other simialar groups for pedophiles, etc. Marriage in this country will quickly become a farce and irrelevant... why? because of our constitutionally-provided wacky court system that allows so many civil challenges not done in most other countries or governments. John McCain FULLY supports gay rights to the extent of legally recognized civil unions with tax status, etc. - just not REDEFINING the institution of marriage.
-
TednGilbertAZ
Oct. 22, 2006, 6:33 a.m.I know what you are thinking... this guy is a homophobe... well, look at my custom-made avatar... it's the state of Arizona in Pink, Purple and Blue colors... BISEXUAL colors. Pink=Gay, Blue=Straight and Purple=Bi. Yes, I am a self-acknowledged bisexual who does NOT support redefining marriage... I do FULLY SUPPORT legally binding civil unions with tax exemptions and estate privledges as if married... just not same-sex marriage. If I wanted to, I could claim being born bisexual and say I NEED to be married to BOTH a man AND a woman, thusly reaffirming the "Slippery Slope" theory... and before you say anything... yes, Bisexuality does indeed EXIST... I am living (or loving) proof of that. LOL. I could be instrumental in having the courts reintepret all laws defining marriage all over again and so could hundreds of others. Do we really WANT that? Our overloaded court system fighting over the definition of marriage ad infinitum? That's what would happen, trust me.
-
-
TerranceDC
Oct. 19, 2006, 7:04 p.m.And we've been having ceremonies all along anyway. No one, yet, is trying to stop that from happening. The issue is that those ceremonies afford us none of the legal right and protections that other families enjoy.
And John McCain is NOT saying that we should have the same right and protections as other families.
He can't, if he wants to be the Republican presidential nominee. For that matter, he can't if he wants to have a career in the Reupblican party at all.
-
Harbeas
Oct. 19, 2006, 7:30 p.m.Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. You want to find another way to get "those" rights go for it.
-
jordan11
Oct. 19, 2006, 7:38 p.m.Sorry. It's perfectly legal in Mass., as well as religious ceremonies performed all over the country. You lose.
-
-
mamasan
Oct. 19, 2006, 7:42 p.m.What do you care who marries or not.
Who cares.
Feel lucky if you find love.
-
-
dr-don-from-denver
Oct. 20, 2006, 8:57 a.m.Right! Why do these people who claim they want "government out of our lives" insist on interfering with other people's lives through laws?
-
-
lfergie812
Oct. 19, 2006, 7:55 p.m.WOW Are we getting desperate for votes. What's that going to do to the votes of the bible thumpers.
He said that he thinks that gay marrage should be allowed. There is no other way to take that because marriage is just what it implies, two people joining together in marriage.
-
david_nwpa
Oct. 19, 2006, 8:30 p.m.Why shouldn't gays and lesbians be allowed to marry? I have heard ridiculous arguments about gays not being allowed to marry because it would lead to adults marrying children or their pets, or marrying children's pets. Some have argued we would end up marrying lamps or other inanimate objects. Here I thought marriage was a legally binding agreement or contract between two people. As such, children cannot consent to enter into a contract or marriage )nor can any of those other things.)
-
bubba2
Oct. 19, 2006, 9:12 p.m.Ostracizing gays by passing regressive laws against them is DISCRIMINATION - period.
More than that - it is UN-Christian! The people that want to ban gays from society are NOT reading the New Testament, or they sure do NOT understand Jesus.
Jesus did NOT ostracize gays or any other 'sinners' - he MINISTERED to them, and he LOVED them!
Remember what he said to the Pharisees? He did NOT come to tend to the 'well', but to the 'sick'. He meant that he did not come for the 'righteous' but for the sinners, to help them and teach them.
Religious beliefs do NOT belong in Government! CIVIL marraiges do NOT threaten heterosexuals, except in their own heads.
Religions cannot manage HETEROSEXUAL marraiges! The divorce rate is over 50% among heteros, with MILLIONS of children living in single-parent families. Millions of heteros also live together without getting married.
If 'churches' can't even manage hetero marraige issues, maybe they need to OUTLAW Adultery and Fornication!
-
samsara15
Oct. 19, 2006, 9:32 p.m.Not intent on sacrilege (on this post, at least), but some people say Jesus was homosexual. Pair the words together, do a web search, and I bet you can find (at least) a handful of websites that state the case. Some say Mary Magdalene was a hooker. You can find a wide variety of opinions out there.
-
Mintyfunk
Oct. 20, 2006, 9 a.m.Bubba: You make the case against yourself. Based on what you say, Jesus came to tend the sick not the well. Doesn't that in itself imply that he came to heal or change the sick into being well. By your own assertation he is trying to get sinners to repent? Jesus did not make them outcast or encourage that type of behavior, but he did not condone their actions or else he would have had no need to heal/tend or change them. So saying that Christ would have supported gay marriage is false. Why would he encourage them to continue in a behavior that we was attempting to heal/tend/change?
-
-
-
JenMurdock
Oct. 19, 2006, 10:06 p.m.Judging by all the gay republicans out there, is John McCain gay too? So hard to tell these days, isn't it? Yeah, he just wants to be the next president, that's it. He's just starting early. Since republicans will be throwing elections from now on, I guess he's next in line to the throne.
-
agentX
Oct. 19, 2006, 10:12 p.m.I'd like to see McCain stick to that statement if he runs for Prez, then play it as an ad campaign. Then, I'd like to see all those racist sexist and homophobic Republitards handle that voting decision.
-
dr-don-from-denver
Oct. 20, 2006, 9:18 a.m.Careful, the "make nice police" will get you for being mean! Check out who posted this story!
-
-
jordan11
Oct. 19, 2006, 10:41 p.m.Neither of those couples can produce children.>>>>
Not between themselves, obviously; however, through the magic of science, and insemination, many homosexual people do have children. I've been lucky to know three families, that are all extraordinary. Wish my 'heterosexual' parents had given me half the attention, concern, opportunities, or time.
-
surething
Oct. 19, 2006, 10:46 p.m.Is there any sanctity left in America besides the marriage of husband and wife?
-
dr-don-from-denver
Oct. 20, 2006, 9:24 a.m.Is there such a thing? When over half of the marriages now fail, I kind of doubt it. We now "sanctify" serial polygamy.
Marriage, as it is presently defined in most states, is a very recent innovation in human evolution, and has served more economic ends (support of children, children's support of older parents) than any religious function.
-
-
stephen-johnson
Oct. 19, 2006, 10:52 p.m.McCain-Feingold was one of the worst pieces of legislation passed in this century.
Fot that abomination alone, McCain should NEVER step foot in the White House, except as a janitor
-
bubba2
Oct. 19, 2006, 11 p.m.Well, here is the marital history of Republicans who claim that they support a ban on gay marraige because of the sanctity of marraige "between one man and one woman" --
Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced.
Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced.
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona - divorced.
Sen. John Warner of Virginia - twice divorced (once married to Liz Taylor).
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced.
Rep. Bob Barr - not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. HE authored and pushed the "Defense of Marriage Act."
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced.
Rush Limbaugh and his latest wife, Marta, have six marriages and six divorces between them.
-
marufio
Oct. 19, 2006, 11:11 p.m.Legalizing gay marriages is inevitable. Sooner or later its going to happen so I dont see why Bush is trying to stop it. Its discrimination.
-
dr-don-from-denver
Oct. 20, 2006, 9:27 a.m.Bush is just pandering to right-wing conservative "christians" (Small "c" intentional, as in those who pervert the teachings of Christ for their own ends).
-
-
Locky12
Oct. 19, 2006, 11:57 p.m.Marufio: It isn't discrimination, it's definition. One man, one woman. Anything else is not marriage. It would be like the difference between a book and a magazine. They both have words and pages and pictures. But yet as a society we define them differently. Gay marriage is not real marriage. I don't care what MA says, that gay marriage is not recognized in other states.
-
StarBright
Oct. 20, 2006, 12:10 a.m.As Bubba2 points out, the straight marriage statistics are probably worse than the gay stats.
I really find Gingrich interesting: his wife dying of cancer, and he's out campaigning. He leaves her. We don't even know what finally happened to her---maybe he doesn't either!!
And since he was thrown out of Congress for his conflict of interest problems, he is still yak-a-yak. But, yet, he is on TV almost every day claiming to represent America. he should go to his (fake) outhouse, and take a (REAL BIG) dump!!
America would be thankful!!
What a stupid slimeball!!
-
StarBright
Oct. 20, 2006, 12:14 a.m.P.S.: Sorry to get off on a Ginrgrich tangent!! It is so difficult to avoid such putrified controversy!!
Actually, the real point is that power corrupts!! The bushes and shrubs have had too much to eat. Now, let's move the branches and leaves.
Time to show the Republicans out---and hope that the Democrats figure out WHAT to do!!
-
ErichKaestner
Oct. 20, 2006, 7:45 a.m.Rest easy. IF we can get the Democrats in:
[] they will steal only 0.01% as much as these greedy and corrupt Republican vermin;
[] Conyers will have a shot at impeaching this NeroInChief;
[] there will be a possibility of sending this MadCowboyDisease from Crawville to the Hague Court.
-
-
bubba2
Oct. 20, 2006, 12:25 a.m.Locky12: ok, "it's definition. One man, one woman".
GOOD. Its a definition, a perspective, a belief. It is NOT a LAW for CIVIL government.
There are PLENTY OF churches that can teach their flock that gay marraige is sin - there is NOTHING wrong with that at all.
But it is DISCRIMINATION and it is ANTI-CHRISTIAN to MAKE CIVIL LAW about who can marry who!
The Pharisees tried to trap Jesus by trying to get him to speak out against the Roman government. Jesus didn't go for it - he STAYED OUT OF GOVERNMENT, and he kept his preachings and teachings SEPARATE from any civil government.
Jesus REACHED OUT to sinners - he did NOT ostracize them or "stone" them (remember the parable of the adulterous woman?)!
Trying to ban gay marraige is like trying to make alcohol illegal - it won't work. Many people live together outside of marraige anyway! Having a piece of paper to recognize a CIVIL union has NO difference in 'influencing' anyone to "be gay"!
-
ErichKaestner
Oct. 20, 2006, 7:52 a.m.YES! Now that was an inspired reality-based statement!
Why couldn't YOU have been president for the last 6 years!
-
-
bobshotme
Oct. 20, 2006, 12:36 a.m.Good for him. Its not the governments place to tell people not to get married or outlaw it.
-
Locky12
Oct. 20, 2006, 12:38 a.m.Bubba2, did you take your meds? When did I say anything about stoning? True, Jesus did reach out to all people--especially sinners to follow the standard. Not to be happy with the standards they set for themselves, but challenge them to live in a better way.
Sure, people live together outside of marriage. That's not the standard Jesus talked about either.
All I brought up was definition. It is one man and one woman. It's not a fad, it's been around for THOUSANDS of years and is the building block of society itself. The problem with changing the definition comes when people in Utah and Kentucky say, well, I love him, him and her equally. Why can't the four of us marry?
BECAUSE IT'S NOT DEFINITION. It's something other than marriage.
-
bubba2
Oct. 20, 2006, 9:53 a.m.OK ... I understand what you are saying.
I have mixed feelings about multiple people being married to each other. On the other hand, it goes back to the same "living together" situation. People, in twos or in multiples, will LIVE together without being married and there is no law stopping that. Bad behavior aside (which most would think that it is), such 'living together' is not 'criminal' behavior and does not need LAWS to dictate it.
Our CIVIL law DOES 'define' marraige as between 2 people. That is ok AS IS. If the 2 people are of the same sex, some may see it as bad behavior, but there is no 'moral' impact on anyone else but those 2! If they are just 'living together', even with no civil 'certificate' to designate them married in the eyes of the GOVERNMENT, they will still be together.
The 'act' of gays being together will NOT stop just because there is a 'civil' law telling them they can't be 'married'.
-
-
Locky12
Oct. 20, 2006, 12:44 a.m.Don't forget..this whole fight to legalize gay marriage comes on the heels of the cheapening of marriage itself. Dopey people like Dennis Rodman and Brittany Spears having marriages that last all of a few hours. Donald Trump who can't stress enough that you MUST have a pre-nup if you're going to get married.
Getting married is not a social thing to do. It's a life-long committment and it's one man and one woman for a reason...it is the Fecundity. They become one and CREATE a new life. As strong as gay love may be, they can never do this. This is why it is definition, this is why it is the standard and this is why it is NOT discrimination.
When it is not one man and one woman...it is something other than marriage.
-
david_nwpa
Oct. 20, 2006, 8:36 p.m.Utter Rubbish.
In that case, tell all old married couples, that they are no longer married, since they can no longer procreate. Set a sunset clause on all marriages. Tell sterile couples that they cannot marry. No one can marry who will not consent to having children prior to marriage.
Furthermore, are the US orphanages and those of other countries not full enough? Do we need to add to their ranks with the children who come about from marriages in which the partners cannot afford children? Gay marriages should be ratified, asap.
-
-
Locky12
Oct. 20, 2006, 12:48 a.m.I am NOT against gay couples adopting children. If they can provide a loving home..that child is blessed to have them as parents... and you can call them a family. But it is still not a marriage.
-
mamasan
Oct. 20, 2006, 12:58 a.m.If you have at least 15 more years to live you will see gay marraige legal in all states.
So get over yourself.
Let love rule.
-
mamasan
Oct. 20, 2006, 1:18 a.m.Delta why the new picture...I am getting confused you change them so often...
why no hair in this one.....
-
MrChin
Oct. 20, 2006, 1:53 a.m.I wouldn't doubt this backstabbing Republican will lean more to the left than your average conservative. I'm a diehard Republican and there is no way this cow dung is ever going to get my vote.
The first 56 comments are shown. Show all 95 comments »
Submitted By:
Karina
Karina Longworth blogs about film at Spout.com. She co-founded the film blog Cinematical in March 2005, whilst simultaneously completing an MA in Cinema Studies ...
