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.”
Romney seized on the remarks.
“That’s his position, and in my opinion, it’s disingenuous,” he said. “Look, if somebody says they’re in favor of gay marriage, I respect that view. If someone says — like I do — that I oppose same-sex marriage, I respect that view. But those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be disingenuous.”
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.”
That hardly sounds like support for a constitutional amendment. In fact, in an Op-Ed last year in the Boston Globe, his abortion position sounds like classic federalism:
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.
Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state’s democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority. (Emphasis added,)
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?
Comments
6 responses to “Having what both ways?”
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.
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.
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.
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/
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!)
Open adulterers?
Any one hear of Ronald Reagan?