|
November 21, 2006
Having what both ways?
In what's being described as a presidential "three man race" consisting of Senator John McCain, former Mayor Rudulph Giuliani, and Massachusetts Governor Romney, Governor Romney is complaining that McCain is trying to have it both ways on same sex marriage: Romney was less charitable to McCain, who on Sunday told ABC News: "I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states." McCain also said, "I believe that gay marriage should not be legal."I'd like to know how supporting the federalist principle constitutes having it both ways. According to Romney's logic, anyone who wanted to roll back Roe v. Wade to allow states to decide abortion laws and who also stated that "abortion should not be legal" would be having it both ways, but only those supporting a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion could correctly be described as anti-abortion. What about Romney's official position on abortion? According to ontheIssues.com, he's described as "personally against abortion, but pro-choice as governor." I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.But if McCain says the same thing about same sex marriage, he's having it both ways? According to Wikipedia, Romney went along with legal abortion in 2002, but since the, his views have "evolved" and "changed." I try to be fair, and I think people have the right to change their mind, so I'll leave it to others to decide whether Romney's abortion position should be called a "flip-flop." But I don't think he's in the best position to attack McCain for having it both ways. MORE: Via Charles G. Hill, I see that it's no longer a three man race. Former Congressman Bob Dornan has thrown his hat into the ring, and he's running on an anti-adultery platform: "I can't stand the thought of my party having as its three front-runners three open adulterers, Newt Gingrich, Giuliani, and McCain," Dornan said.Is it "my" party too? Can I cry if I want to? posted by Eric on 11.21.06 at 10:03 AM
Comments
I would agree with McCain. I am not in favor of same sex, nor plural, nor inter-species marriage. But it is a states issue, not a federal one. Ric in Oregon · November 21, 2006 02:48 PM McCain does not say (at least in the quoted material) that "I believe that gay marriage should not be legal under Federal Law", he says it should not be legal. This does not come across as McCain advocating Federalism, but rather him trying to duck the question. Billy Oblivion · November 22, 2006 02:46 AM The quote might not sound like federalism, but McCain's been fairly clear before (at least, for a politician): http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/ WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue of same-sex marriage, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice unnecessary -- and un-Republican. Eric Scheie · November 22, 2006 10:30 AM If a politician actually lowered taxes, shored up the Second Amendment, abolished the Welfare State, promoted free trade, and was in general significantly more pro-freedom than pro-State, he could commit adultery with cows, for all I care. (And yes, that includes Bill Clinton--who actually did it!) Bilwick · November 22, 2006 01:43 PM Open adulterers? Any one hear of Ronald Reagan? M. Simon · November 26, 2006 10:57 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The right to be irrational?
I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts art not codes?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
It seems like there are a lot of politicians who call themselves 'conservatives' or advocates of 'traditional values' who don't seem to know that marriage and age-of-consent laws have always been left up the states in American history, and that these laws vary radically from state to state.
When I was a kid growing up in Baltimore in the 1950s, there used to be wedding chapels all along Route 40 between the Pennsylvania line and Baltimore. That was because Maryland didn't require blood tests before a couple could get married, so people in New York City who wanted to elope or get married right away drove down to Maryland.
Leaving marriage laws up to the states is not flip-flopping or evasion. It is the American tradition.