First published at 365gay.com on July 21, 2008
Here's the latest for the "politicians trying to have it both ways" file: John McCain on gay adoption.
Asked about the subject by the New York Times, McCain made clear that he opposes it. Here's the relevant portion of the interview in full:
Q: "President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?"
McCain: "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don't believe in gay adoption."
Q: "Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents?"
McCain: "I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children; I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents."
Q: "But your concern would be that the couple should be a traditional couple?"
McCain: "Yes."
A few days later, after considerable criticism, McCain's director of communications issued the following "clarification."
"McCain expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."
Let's start by making something clear: nobody gives a flying wallenda what McCain's (or any other candidate's) "personal preferences" are. My personal preference is that children be raised by parents who dress them in tasteful Ralph Lauren sweater sets, but I'm not about to translate that into public policy.
Second, the follow-up question in the initial interview could not have been clearer - "Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage?" - and, at best, McCain punted on that question. Given the thousands of children in need of good homes - often due to heterosexual irresponsibility - and the number of gay couples selflessly stepping up to the plate to provide for them, McCain's response was nothing short of shameful.
McCain's "clarification" just added insult to injury. Through an aide, he went out on a major limb and said - are you ready? - that having "caring parental figures" is better for children than abandonment. Now there's some bold leadership for you. (Notice that the campaign couldn't even bring itself to mention gay parents- just "caring parental figures.")
Everyone knows what's really going on here. McCain is trying to impress the religious right by being against gay stuff. But in the year 2008, insulting gay parents isn't cool in the eyes of moderate voters. So he flip-flopped - but in a vague enough way that he can pretend he didn't.
Let's suppose one believes, as McCain apparently does, that all else being equal it is better for children to be raised by both a mother and a father. I think this is a defensible position, although the best available research on gay parents suggests that their children turn out just as well as those of straight parents. But let's grant the premise for the sake of argument.
What follows with respect to gay adoption? In practice, virtually nothing. That's because even if - all else being equal, which it seldom is - straight couples make better parents, gay couples clearly make very good parents, and adoption is one arena where we cannot afford to make the best the enemy of the good.
Indeed, parenting in general is such an arena. Otherwise no one would be fit to have children.
In general, children do better with more-educated parents than with less educated ones, but we don't conclude that all prospective parents must have college degrees. In general, children do better with comfortable financial resources than with meager ones, but we don't insist that prospective parents must have higher-than-average incomes. In general, children do better with grandparents around, but we don't tell orphans that they themselves should never become parents. And so on.
Here's another thing that research and common sense tell us: in general, children who are planned do better than children who are "accidental." And unlike straight couples, gay couples never say "Oops, we're pregnant." So perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that children of gay parents do as well as they do.
I'm not suggesting that children of gay parents don't face unique challenges. But the main one happens to be other people's ignorance. When such ignorance comes from an adoptive father, it's surprising. When it comes from a potential president, it's downright unacceptable.
55 Comments for “McCain’s Adoption Contradiction”
posted by tavdy on
“My personal preference is that children be raised by parents who dress them in tasteful Ralph Lauren sweater sets, but I?m not about to translate that into public policy.”
My preference is that children be raised by parents who aren’t excessively obsessed with the public image of either themselves or their kids.
😉
posted by Michigan-Matt on
John, I think you could have written your piece in a few sentences because you nail your concern and faulty thesis here:
“Everyone knows what’s really going on here. McCain is trying to impress the religious right by being against gay stuff. But in the year 2008, insulting gay parents isn’t cool in the eyes of moderate voters. So he flip-flopped ? but in a vague enough way that he can pretend he didn’t.”
You’re wrong on three counts, but don’t let that stop you from bristling and chortling.
First, McCain is voicing the collective sense of most rational people in our society that having a loving mom and dad is the preferable option for placement of kids in the foster system. Your nonsense that he’s trying to appease the farRight or religious types is gay demagoguery on your part –frankly, you’re a better writer and thinker than that, notwithstanding last season’s nonsense from you about Aquinas College leaders acting in a bigoted, unChristian fashion toward you and gay issues and gay students.
Second, there’s no flipflop. You need BarryO to do that little feat with some predictable denial waiting in the wings from IGF’s gayDemocrat chorus. McCain, like Romney and other former GOP prez hopefuls, think the traditional married couple in a stable home makes a better parenting environment for kids than placement in a nontraditonal setting. Adoption is a state issue, not a federal issue and, frankly, given my firsthand knowledge of both systems, I want Michigan’s policies decided here -not by some collection of PC-tasered bureaucrats in DC.
As a parent in one of those nontraditional settings -who also has adopted two sons and is working on a 3rd- I can tell you that I’ve gotten more disgusting flak from gays and gay couples (esp gay DIPNKs) than from traditional parents… although there’s lots of hassle awaiting gay parents and their kids on the school grounds, the ball field, the locker room and the church pew.
Hey John, as a gay partnered parent in a successful, stable enriching home, I can tell you McCain has it right. Dead on. And that’s from having engaged the adoption system from the inside… and “liberal” foster care workers and “liberal” probate judges and “liberal well-meaning” social workers (who I’d still like to pillory in the public square). In Michigan, as you well know, you can’t get anymore liberal than the social worker/probate structure in A2.
Third, there is absolutely nothing -NOT ONE THING- that you can point to even indirectly to suggest that McCain’s position is taken in order to appease the farRight, the religious whack jobs mudding up the GOP these days or anyone else. That doesn’t stop you from having the opinion you THINK that’s why he said that… maybe there’s more of you wanting to hear something that wasn’t even there?
It is McCain’s opinion about adoption and has been from Day One as far as I know. No flipflop -so you’re wrong there. No switch in opinion to appease the farRight- wrong there too.
Third, you’re also wrong about what the majority of American -moderate voters and others- think about gay parenting and adoption. According to Pew, moderates in both parties are split (with a slight edge toward opposition) to gay adoption. Or are you just readin gwhat Peter Hart and HRC are saying these days? Or is this more wishful thinking masquearding as opinion on your part?
I think the latter.
You write: “… the number of gay couples selflessly stepping up to the plate to provide for them….”
Finally, let’s take the blinders off for a moment… although the feds nor the states keep track of gay adoptions in the US, informed demographers at UCLA estimate the vast majority of gay parents have had kids biologically linked to them and only 4.9% of gay parents adopt outside their gene pool.
So let’s drop the gay demagoguery on gay adoptions about all these gay parents who you’d like project are selflessly saving at-risk, hard2place kids from foster care Hell with the drunken, abusive evil stepmother out of Cinderfella.
I applaud my gaybrethern and straightbrethern who step up to the plate and adopt kids from the foster system… but that ain’t the norm for gay parents and for you to flash that emotionally charged red flag –like lots of liberal MSM types do at the behest of gay activists– is disingenuos and intellectually dishonest.
You’re a better thinker and writer than this, John. McCain doesn’t deserve shame; you do for your gay demagoguery on gay adoption and McCain’s opinions on the matter.
posted by Jim on
This is exactly right, and I’m really glad to see an author on this blog take McCain fully to task for his opportunistic denigration of gays. I understand that we are not all Democrats here, but we need not bend over backwards to excuse the worst traits of Republicans. (As gays, aren’t we more comfortable bending over forwards? Sorry.)
The more sophisticated arguments against gay parenting always come down to this “all other things being equal” formulation (which gives you a sense of how sophisticated the other argumetns are). But these arguments are faulty in their premise. All other things are never equal when what we’re talking about are two human beings. The traits that make for good parents–patience, selflessness, intelligence, industriousness, courage, etc.–are, to say the least, unequally distributed among mankind. Certainly it is not the case that straight people possess these virtues in greater measure than gay people.
What, exactly, is it that people fear is going to happen to the children of same-sex parents? I’ve heard lots of vague stuff about children needing to understand the differences between men and women, but what the hell does that mean? If it is simply that children need to learn the differences between male and female physiology, I think gay parents are up to the task. If it means that children must be taught the subtle, ineffable, mysterious differences between the male and female spirit, I have yet to meet the person who can explain it (despite the fact that most people were raised by male/female pairs, as I was, and are thus presumed to understand). The opponents of gay parenting seem to think that the children of gay parents are likely to get screwed up in some way, but how exactly? Is that they may end up gay? And if so, would be a bad thing (all other things being equal, of course)?
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan matt, I read about half of your nebulous spinning before I got bored from your ability to say anything concrete. John Corvino told it like it is and you can’t handle that.
posted by Priya Lynn on
that should read “inability to say anything concrete”.
posted by DUMP on
I like how Matt says he has 3 points to make and then goes on to list 5 of them. For Matt, 3=5…which pretty much sums up his intellect, always over-reaching and never making much sense.
posted by Jorge on
Everyone knows what’s really going on here. McCain is trying to impress the religious right by being against gay stuff.
I do not agree with that at all. I think this was a maverick moment: his initial statement reflected his actual belief. John McCain is a good person when it comes to his views on gay Americans, but it’s a mistake to overstate how liberal his beliefs are or how little he is willing to stand for his beliefs.
Nor, frankly, do we have inertia on our side. The idea that gays can be parents is an idea that requires some re-education in order for it to make sense. The idea that gays are not parents and should not be recognized as parents makes more sense–by a lot–in this country and the society that raises us.
McCain’s statements are an example of a personal belief that gay people adopting children is so ridiculous it should not be seriously considered in policy. Most people, when they think about gay adoption, do not carry the research that gay parents are good parents in the front of their minds, much less the harsh weighing and trade-offs that come in practice with adoption and foster care. They have the ideology that there is something bizzare and inappropriate about gay parenting. Or that recognizing gay adoption makes the statement that gay parents are part of the ideal [which it does by the way; it’s very different from a law that states gays are not appropriate to be adoptive parents but in certain circumstances that rule can be waived].
posted by Carl on
“I think this was a maverick moment: his initial statement reflected his actual belief. John McCain is a good person when it comes to his views on gay Americans,”
Aside from opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment, I’m not sure how often McCain has been on our side on gay rights issues. And on a number of those issues, like gays in the military, his opinion is against a large majority of the public.
“Nor, frankly, do we have inertia on our side. The idea that gays can be parents is an idea that requires some re-education in order for it to make sense. The idea that gays are not parents and should not be recognized as parents makes more sense–by a lot–in this country and the society that raises us.”
The polls I’ve seen often have around 50% or more of those polled not having a problem with gay adoption.
Even if a large majority did oppose gays adopting children, I’m not sure if the President is supposed to base all his opinions on what a majority of the public believes. Isn’t the whole point of being a maverick doing what he feels is right?
If the so-called ideal family was the only situation ever allowed to adopt a child, then we would have even more children stuck waiting and waiting for a home.
posted by yakuza on
Sexy guy in flowers bikini
http://www.dailyxpress.net/2008/07/23
posted by Jorge on
Aside from opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment, I’m not sure how often McCain has been on our side on gay rights issues.
I’m not really talking about that. I’m talking more about his willingness to make any overtures at all, his lack of clear hostility like you see in the religious right and some other politicians. To me his words make it very clear that even where he is on opposite sides as gays, he strongly values our participation in American democracy. This puts him at odds with the religious right and that’s a welcome thing.
The polls I’ve seen often have around 50% or more of those polled not having a problem with gay adoption.
What’s the percentage that do have a problem?
Even if a large majority did oppose gays adopting children, I’m not sure if the President is supposed to base all his opinions on what a majority of the public believes. Isn’t the whole point of being a maverick doing what he feels is right?
And what if John McCain just so happens to be part of that majority? What if that is his actual belief?
If the so-called ideal family was the only situation ever allowed to adopt a child, then we would have even more children stuck waiting and waiting for a home.
Actually I read an article in the National Review the other day stating that’s already the case, citing political correctness about interracial adoptions. [It was a little insulting to read.] I don’t know about adoption, but I have a problem with the standards being too low for foster families.
posted by DUMP on
After McCain’s shameful performance on “This Week” is there any doubt how he feels about gay couples raising children? We disgust him so much he can’t bring himself to admit that we even exist. Stephanopoulos’ interview exposed McCain as a backwards old-timer who would rather deny reality then deal with his own bigotry. Disgusting…the GOP and the sad queers who support them deserve McCain and all of the seething unpleasantness he brings.
posted by Carl on
“I’m not really talking about that. I’m talking more about his willingness to make any overtures at all, his lack of clear hostility like you see in the religious right and some other politicians.”
This sounds like President Bush. He spoke to a group of gay Republicans. The 2000 campaign was relatively light on anti-gay rhetoric. I don’t know how pleased I can feel about 4-8 more years of Bush, or possibly even worse.
“What’s the percentage that do have a problem?”
I would guess around 50%.
“And what if John McCain just so happens to be part of that majority? What if that is his actual belief?”
If that’s his belief, he has a right to his opinion. I just wish his view wasn’t so murky.
posted by JP on
One thing to note though, we’ve come a long way if the leading Republican thinks he needs to play nice to the gay people.
-JP, who never scoffs at the improvements of conservatives regarding gay rights because even they need time to evolve.
posted by Jorge on
This sounds like President Bush. He spoke to a group of gay Republicans. The 2000 campaign was relatively light on anti-gay rhetoric. I don’t know how pleased I can feel about 4-8 more years of Bush, or possibly even worse.
Delicately put.
If that’s his belief, he has a right to his opinion. I just wish his view wasn’t so murky.
Who knows, it might be the best we can hope for. There could well be a gay rights cause that hits McCain hard enough to make him advocate over it (I don’t expect that he would be on our side), but it doesn’t look like this is it.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
It has to be noted, that the assumption that heterosexual man/woman couples are the BEST parents, is about as rational as assuming that white skin imbues a person with intellectual and spiritual superiority.
That the supply of children without competent heterosexual parents exceeding demand sums of the reality that the COMMON couples, are NOT the best.
The instinct and ability to nurture and give competent parenting to a child isn’t bestowed on GROUPS, but it’s an individual talent.
Now, Mich Matt, if you’re an adoptive parent, and you’ve engaged the system for your children, you haven’t mentioned what KIND of children you have. I don’t know if that’s important or not.
Most of the adoptive gay parents I know have children that don’t share their color or ethnic background, since the foster care system is mostly made up of minority children.
You’re saying that the numbers of adoptive gay parents is exaggerated, but that the greater number of gay parents have biological children. I can believe that the greater number would be biological. But they are STILL parents and they are still in need of the ability to marry to give full function and protection to their family relationship.
And what really matters here is the usual hypocrisy from the anti marriage equality factions.
McCain’s own family and marriage disruptions and how he treated his first family and acquired the second is the biggest reason why gay parents, rightly should give McCain pause.
To be a family that has no disruptions that require reconfiguration is simply lucky. Heterosexuality is no guarantee that the best of anything will happen. For parents, from any background to be the most successful is about planning carefully for a child, having a strong and competent support system.
Traditionally, gay adults don’t have that support and know they don’t. Therefore aren’t motivated to be parents, even if they wanted to be.
And obviously don’t have that support socio/ politically from the likes of John McCain…who is no role model for good husbands and fathers himself.
posted by RIchard on
Yes, McCain is flip-flopping and it will probably hurt him as much as it did Kerry in 2004. Yes, he is trying to please his socially conservative base and the more moderate “swing vote”.
I have never read a credible scientific study that says that kids raised by same-sex parents are any more abnormal then kids raised by opposite sex parents.
“non-traditional settings” is a rather vague term and could mean anything from singe parents to same-sex parents, or a single parent living with her boyfriend or her grandmother. It gives a politician wiggle-room, which is often dangerous to the public.
Rather then playing politics with parents or kids lives, we could actually pay some attention to the credible science on kids raised by opposite vs. same sex couples.
When a major party presidential candidate says something about something, people are going to assume that its a policy position.
So, when he says, “I am against gays have custody or adopting kids”, he knows full very well that people are going assume he is talking about policy that he — if selected — would support.
Since the late 1970s, Republicans have been playing this sort of wink-wink, tit-for-tat phone-sex game with the religious right and the more moderate voters.
Mcain: “Wink, I oppose have dirty little gays having access to minors”, but “Wink, its a state issue, and what can the leader of the free world do about it?”
I am not sure how much moderate straight voters care about gay rights one way or the other. They often do not look too deeply at something like gay rights and thus will probably accept what sound bytes they want to.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Priya Lynn, I’m not surprised by your predictable and oh-sooo gayLeft response to the thread’s topic… keep sliding down the hole of incompetence and you’ll catch up with DUMP in a few days.
Recapping (for the intellectually challenged DUMP), McCain didn’t flip flop on gay adoption, he didn’t stake out his position in order to curry the favor of Dobson etal, he thinks a traditional family setting is the best for society to entrust its foster care kids ready for adoption, he speaks from experience like I do –unlike PriyaLynn or DUMP who only speak from partisan gayLeft plantation politics.
Now, what’s left of JohnCorvino’s hatchet piece? Not much.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP opines: “After McCain’s shameful performance on “This Week” is there any doubt how he feels about gay couples raising children?”
I thought McCain did a good job given that GS is a political hack of the Clinton era WH who once offered why more wasn’t done for gay civil rights like gay marriage, repeal of DADT, gay adoption, etc said “We (the Clinton Administration) kept all the promises we intended to keep”.
McCain gave his response and his good little Democrat interviewer tried to spin that into a statement the gayLeft could swing like a dead kitty… but McCain wasn’t biting.
Yeah, McCain really fumbled… if you’re ComedyCentral, MSNBC, Huffington or the gayLeft here keeping the gay vote for the Masta.
Hey and no flash of that legendary McCain temper that Georgie used to obsess about.
Frankly, I’m surprised that DUMP missed the bigger story on GS’s ABC This Week: namely that BarryO dropped his plan to go visit wounded troops in order to work out at the gym… maybe BarryO really does hate the military as much as BillClinton and JimmineyCricketCarter?
posted by Pat on
It looks like flip-flopping is in the eye of the beholder. As one who doesn’t like either candidate even before their flip-flopping starting becoming fierce, it’s clear to me that both candidates are trying hard to out flip-flop each other, and pander to diverging bases in their respective parties.
posted by DUMP on
Jesus Matt, your spinning so fast I’m afraid you might pass out. I’m just glad to hear that the fact that McCain thinks that you and I shouldn’t be parents doesn’t bother you. I’m surprised you haven’t gone deaf through the roar of your own cognitive dissonance. Truthfully, how does it feel to devote years of your life to a party that hates you and your children?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, if you’re whirling around so much, it isn’t my fault. Just grab onto the side of the gutter and say hello to Rev Wright and Rev Meeks for us.
I never have thought my “Party” hates me… what I think deserves the scorn of all gays are those gayLeft types here who so willingly sold their gaybrethern out to the Democrats, election after bloody election. You included, of course.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BTW DUMP, McCain and Michigan-partner and I have already spoken about adoption and he’s met our two sons… what was that you were blabbering about now?
posted by Patrick on
MMat,
Just ’cause they are screwing you doesn’t mean they like you.
posted by Pat on
MichiganMatt, Since you have met McCain yourself and spoke about adoption, there’s a possibility that you know his public position on adoption by gay parents.
It’s still quite murky for most of the rest of us. His exchange was just as murky as the following:
Q: I understand that you believe cheddar cheese is best for America, what about monterrey jack?
McCain: I believe cheddar is best, and nobody should have monterrey jack.
Q: But isn’t monterrey jack better than rancid limberger cheese?
McCain: I encourage people having better access to cheddar cheese. I am proud that Cindy and I eat cheddar cheese.
Clarification by McCain’s people: I just want to repeat that cheddar cheese is the best. However, in the situations in which there is only rancid limberger, that nonrancid cheese figures are better than the alternative.
This leaves a LOT of leeway, just like McCain’s “answer” regarding adoption.
Now perhaps when you spoke with McCain about adoption he was clearer and was more specific. For example, after McCain told you that a mother and father is best, did he ask you if you and your partner exhausted all possibilities for your children to be adopted by an opposite sex couple before adopting your children? How much better did he characterize your family situation than a situation with abandoned children? Did he encourage you and your partner to adopt another child (if you wished to do so), or say that you should first make sure that all opposite sex parents were given first option to adopt children? Did he tell you why exactly he thought your situation was inferior to he and his second wife adopting a child?
I’m sure McCain was very pleasant to you and your family, and probably congratulated you and your partner on a fine job you are doing as parents. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he told you that he would like to see more gay parents adopt children. Further, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was actually sincere about it personally. The problem is that he purposely was unclear to the rest of us what his public position was. He didn’t tell the rest of us that he had the pleasure of meeting gay parents and saw how good they were as parents. Perhaps in time he will, but I doubt it.
While I agree that McCain isn’t as beholden to the anti-gay religious right as Bush was, he still is pandering to them, since he needs them to win the election.
So as John suggested, on the one hand, it doesn’t help a national candidate to be openly homophobic. But McCain has to be ambiguous regarding some of his positions on gay rights so that he remains palatable to the religious right. Yes, Democrats can be just as bad. One has to look no further than Obama’s ambiguous position on same sex marriage. So the voter’s have to cut through all the bullsh&t, and see what happens when they are in office. Whose votes (FMA, ENDA, etc.) are supporting gay rights, as opposed to what they are saying on the campaign trail and what they personally believe.
posted by DUMP on
MM: “BTW DUMP, McCain and Michigan-partner and I have already spoken about adoption and he’s met our two sons… what was that you were blabbering about now?”
He lied to you, Matt. He saw that big queer check you two idiots presented him and turned on the smarmy charm. The GOP hates you, Matt. And McCain does too. But they both love your money. In addition to being a proven liar, you are a sellout to your sex…congratulations Judas!!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, at least you didn’t employ the usual gayLeft tactic of trying to smear me and GOP gays with the tired, old, worn out anti-gay/self-loathing/jew-sell-out-to-the-Nazi silliness most of your ilk employ in blogland. But you are on that typical course that usually leads to you repealing someone’s gayCard for not being gay-enuff in your playbook.
Contrary to what you may think and WANT to believe, the GOPers I know and have worked with for years are just fine with who I am, my partner is, our status in the community, the Party and in politics.
The thing they don’t understand, DUMP, is why so many gays worship at the altar you and your gayLeft pals have built for the majority gays and require them to worship… your niche of the political spectrum calls it identity politics… my GOP friends see it as VictimPolitics… and you proved it here and on many posts: “Ohh, look over here… JohnMcCain doesn’t like us to be gay parents or have gay spouses… ohhh, look over here, we’re the victims again.”
The truth is that you don’t know what goes on inside the GOP or independent 3rd party political groups because your gayLeft Democrat blinders are frozen in place and, in your biased, limited world, that’s all there OUGHT to be for gays.
Arrogant, presumptive, self-supposing monopolistic partisan is what that’s all about and it’s ALL about you and your plighted condition 24-7… no wonder some think us to be a nation of whiners… with guys like you, the screetch makes nearly all other discourse inaudiable.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat offers: “Further, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was actually sincere about it personally. The problem is that he purposely was unclear to the rest of us what his public position was. He didn’t tell the rest of us that he had the pleasure of meeting gay parents and saw how good they were as parents.”
I don’t score that ABC interview by Georgie as McCain was being purposefully evasive (huffPo does, tho, eh?). McCain gave his answer and Georgie, always the good tool of Democrat liberals, wanted to put words in McCain’s mouth so that Georgie, always the good tool of Democrat liberals, could give the farLeft another soundbite to inflame the more rabid portion of their base: namely, gay voters active in Democrat politics. It’s called “going for good ratings” and that comes from buzz and soundbites.
Pat, if you’ve watched or read any of the exchanges between McCain and Georgie, you’ll see that there is a healthy respect by McCain for what Georgie sees as his job… trap McCain, the wiley ol’ wabbit.
It didn’t work in the case of gay adoption on This Week anymore than it did with last month’s line of McCain is an angry warrior and hothead.
What did work for me and the majority of Americans watching Georgie on This Week is McCain’s answer: this race isn’t about gay adoption. DUMP and his gayLeft partisan buddies see that as “shameful”… I see it as enlightening, honest, direct and candid. The prez race isn’t about gay adoption.
Simple and concise and honest and forthright as that… you may not like or even tolerate McCain as a prez hopeful… but one thing is very clear: he speaks his mind honestly, informed by policy and politics and he doesn’t do flip flops.
That can’t be said by anyone –even BarryO’s most ardent supporters– about McCain’s opponent. BarryO will sell gays down the pike as quickly as he sold his longtime mentor, political advisor and social friends like Rev Wright, Rev Meeks and all the others he’s tossed under the ObamaBus as it heads for safety in the political center. That’s about the only record BarryO has: selling out for political advantage in the chase for votes.
I appreciate you can at least posit that maybe McCain was sincere in his beliefs… but in the last analysis on Election Day, gay adoption and marriage isn’t what this election will be about.
And if it isn’t… what do our brethern on the gayLeft have to do? Sell us the PROMISE of accomodation by a candidate and a party who haven’t delivered on a single promise in 25 years. “We kept all the promises we intended to keep”… George Stephanopoulos
What was the line about “it’s just the same old politics” being played out in 2008? I think that was BarryO’s complaint about McCain’s gas price hike policies of Obama.
posted by Pat on
I don’t score that ABC interview by Georgie as McCain was being purposefully evasive (huffPo does, tho, eh?).
I don’t know if it was evasive either. Actually, I don’t know what his answer was.
McCain gave his answer and Georgie, always the good tool of Democrat liberals, wanted to put words in McCain’s mouth so that Georgie, always the good tool of Democrat liberals, could give the farLeft another soundbite to inflame the more rabid portion of their base: namely, gay voters active in Democrat politics. It’s called “going for good ratings” and that comes from buzz and soundbites.
I don’t doubt that Stephanopolous tried to put words in McCain’s mouth. McCain had the opportunity to say exactly whatever he meant. So let’s credit McCain for the soundbites and buzz that came from his “answer.”
Pat, if you’ve watched or read any of the exchanges between McCain and Georgie, you’ll see that there is a healthy respect by McCain for what Georgie sees as his job… trap McCain, the wiley ol’ wabbit.
And McCain let himself be trapped. And even after the “clarification” he made sure his answer was vague.
What did work for me and the majority of Americans watching Georgie on This Week is McCain’s answer: this race isn’t about gay adoption. DUMP and his gayLeft partisan buddies see that as “shameful”… I see it as enlightening, honest, direct and candid. The prez race isn’t about gay adoption.
Yet McCain still trapped himself with his lame answer. Yeah, I know when a politician states the obvious it counts as “enlightening,” “honest,” “direct,” and “candid.” Too bad his answer on gay adoption was far from it.
Simple and concise and honest and forthright as that… you may not like or even tolerate McCain as a prez hopeful… but one thing is very clear: he speaks his mind honestly, informed by policy and politics and he doesn’t do flip flops.
I’ll agree to disagree on the latter point.
I appreciate you can at least posit that maybe McCain was sincere in his beliefs
No problem. But it was just speculation on his personal beliefs, on my part. Still haven’t a clue what his public position is, except that his public view of gay adoption falls somewhere between 0.1 and 9.9 on a scale of 0 to 10 as to whether he believes it’s a good idea.
but in the last analysis on Election Day, gay adoption and marriage isn’t what this election will be about.
But it should also be about leadership. And McCain failed miserably on the gay adoption question.
And if it isn’t… what do our brethern on the gayLeft have to do? Sell us the PROMISE of accomodation by a candidate and a party who haven’t delivered on a single promise in 25 years. “We kept all the promises we intended to keep”… George Stephanopoulos
Sure, the Dems are far from perfect when it comes to gay rights and fulfilling promises. But look at the votes. Dems are still way ahead of Reps when it comes to gay rights. Maybe that will start to change with McCain if he decides to exhibit some real leadership. We’ll see.
posted by ? on
mm: “I think that was BarryO’s complaint about McCain’s gas price hike policies of Obama.”
Is this supposed to make sense?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
? asks: “mm: “I think that was BarryO’s complaint about McCain’s gas price hike policies of Obama.” Is this supposed to make sense?”
Sorry if you didn’t follow that thought… the point is that BarryO’s more recent complaining and whining is about how McCain is being mean, practicing the politics of division and negative ads… BarryO described that yesterday as “same old politics”.
BarryO was taking aim at McCain’s campaign ads accurately linking BarryO’s 1970’s-era energy policies with tax hikes on electricity and greater -not lesser- dependence on foreign oil.
Georgie Stephanopolous’ “we kept the promises we intended to keep” is just like today’s gayLeft brethern promising us that BarryO will be better than McCain on gay civil rights… promising, even though there’s little proof BarryO can or will deliver anything (just like SlickWilly) for gay civil rights.
For the gayLeft, it’s the same old politics… the gayLeft thinks that maybe if we’re the most rabid dog in the pack, Masta will treat us with a bone after the election.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration got the most expensive, most expansive, most sweeping AIDS/HIV program passed even with the do-nothing Democrats in Congress… and over the objections of some of W’s own Party members.
posted by Pat on
For the gayLeft, it’s the same old politics… the gayLeft thinks that maybe if we’re the most rabid dog in the pack, Masta will treat us with a bone after the election.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration got the most expensive, most expansive, most sweeping AIDS/HIV program passed even with the do-nothing Democrats in Congress… and over the objections of some of W’s own Party members.
And how many Democrats objected?
Yes, I get the politics and all that. But what happens when it comes to the vote? It’s the Dems that still vote overwhelmingly pro-gay than Reps. Even when anti-gay Clinton pushed DADT and DOMA, which party in Congress was overwhelmingly more supportive of the pro gay position?
BarryO will be better than McCain on gay civil rights
I guess we don’t know for sure, since both are massive flip-floppers (whether one recognizes it or not).
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, not to get too far off topic, but the vote in the Senate had no dissenting Democrats; the vote in the House also had no dissenting Democrats.
By the way, the bill is HB5501 and is named, in part, to honor the longstanding legendary leadership of a moderate-progressive GOPer named Henry Hyde of IL.
posted by DUMP on
The same Henry Hyde who should have been incarcerated for his role in the S&L crisis? The one who cheated on his wife but felt it necessary to condemn Bill Clinton for his infidelity? The same Henry Hyde who said that Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq was a bad idea before he voted for its authorization(which he admitted was against the Nation’s best interests?) Yeah, he was a great GOPer. What a joke.
posted by DUMP on
Here is the esteemed Mr. Hyde on gay marriage:
“I wish I had never heard of this issue. This is a miserable, uncomfortable, queasy issue. There is no political gain. But there is a moral issue. . . . Nobody wants to talk about it. We are forced to talk about it by the courts. . . .
Don’t assume that people are doing this for political profit. People don’t think that the traditional marriage ought to be demeaned or trivialized by same-sex unions…don’t take marriage, which for centuries has been a union between man and woman, and certainly is in this country, and try to say that what you’re doing is American.”
That’s right, gay marriage is un-American and shouldn’t be discussed because it is miserable and queasy. Great GOPer.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, you are such a partisan tool. You’d kick dead men and their contribution to this great Nation until they weren’t an inch higher than your own place in the gutter.
Such a partisan tool. I bet you choke on the notion that the world’s most expansive and extensive HIV/AIDS program came through the leadership of a GOP prez you love to hate and is named, in part, after a GOPer you’d kick gladly into your gutter.
I give Nancy Pelosi credit for having at least one classy act this year… naming the bill after Hyde.
posted by DUMP on
Nice dodge Matt. Don’t concern yourself with Hyde’s (repugnant) actions and words. Concern yourself with “partisan” (haha, like YOU have any business throwing out that word) postings on an anonymous webpage. Hyde did the things that I noted, he said the quote I pulled. That is not an attack. That is the truth. I know that you are a liar and are opposed to the truth. Your outrage and misplaced anger is completely expected. You are a tool, Matt, and you allow yourself to be exploited by a party that hates you. Why?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP spins another web of deceit by offering “I know that you are a liar and are opposed to the truth. Your outrage and misplaced anger is completely expected.”
Not at all, DUMP. Unlike you, I don’t hate gays. Unlike you, I don’t go around three-snapping their gayCard away from them because they aren’t gay-enuff in your book.
Unlike you, I don’t tolerate anti-gay bigots and racist homophobes like Rev Wright and Rev Meeks just because my Party’s preferred prez candidate can’t denounce their hatefilled speech and conduct -quickly, soundly and with some sincere dispatch.
Unlike you, I haven’t tried to bamboozle my gaybrethern into voter-slavery on the Democrat plantation.
Unlike you, I don’t seek to use gay civil rights as a mechanism to keep free access to kiddie porn at our local libraries.
Unlike you, I don’t use the gay civil rights movement to protect public sex and unfettered solicitation in our local parks. To me, unlike you, those aren’t gay rights.
Unlike you, I don’t use someone’s grief over a horrible crime to advance the HateCrimes agenda and make everyone who is gay a victim yet one more time… you revel in the gayVictim PityParty industry that swells up in our community… I don’t.
Unlike you, I don’t defend public licentiousness at Folsom St Fairs, Southern Decadence or PrideEvents because “that’s just part of being gay” and to restrict that activity would be discriminatory. I think we lose more in the press and public opinion when we tolerate that conduct… and we ought to be working to improve the public’s perception of gays, not enforce negative stereotypes.
And most importantly, as a gay father and partnered MATURE-acting adult, I know guys like you do nothing but detract and diminish from our civil rights movement because with each small step we may make with the general public, your kind gets busted in the press because now you want gay-animal marriage or gay public nudity day at local schools or some other outlandish push-the-margins-at-all-costs ActUp nonsense because, like true dramaQueens, when you don’t have drama in your life, you go out and manufacture it.
You may not like that McCain is steadily closing in on TheYearOfTheDemocrats mandate and your candidate isn’t able break free of his past and present to exicte Americans into that 15-20-25 point lead he’s SUPPOSED to have right now over a “tired, aging, old-politics, wheelchair ready Washington insider who wants to be Bush’s 3rd term”. I get it. You’re angry at that plight and are willing to say anything, do anything, allege anything in order to scramble up some support.
Your anger is well placed, DUMP/CharlesWilson or whatever name you’ll be going by tomorrow… it’s rational for you to be mad at the turn of events and America’s seeming disinterest in your agenda. Iraq as an issue is almost gone. The economy isn’t as bad as you would like. Gas prices aren’t creating the devasting impact you’d wish it would have on the economy. Health care isn’t the #1 issue it was when Hillary was in the race. And your candidate’s best moment so far has been reduced to a “world celebrity ala Brittney, Paris” moment.
I understand your anger, DUMP/CharlesWilson.
But don’t try to project that onto others here. It’s your anger. You own it.
posted by DUMP on
Huh? So you are just going to ignore the hideousness of Henry Hyde and concentrate on blowing smoke? You were really trying hard to slander me there with your typical lies and idiot-speak. Too bad your post is completely and totally wrong. Nothing more then baseless accusations and lies…typical, Matt. I’m just glad to see that you have NOTHING to do but lie on the internet all day…daddy’s little trust fund retard typing furiously while saying nothing at all. Great GOPer! Better luck next time.
PS
Glad to see you trot out the old Reverend Wright is a homophobe line. Did you notice how my comments about Henry Hyde were packaged along with (homophobic and undignified) quotes from the man? How about providing us with some proof of Reverend Wright’s homophobic comments? You can’t because you are lying. That makes you a very bad queer. Please stop lying on these boards.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, I knew Chairman Hyde and worked with him to create three separate national housing programs for the poor, for homeless vets and for substance abusers. You think he was a terrible man and I wouldn’t expect anything else from you given your long record as a partisan hack. I thought he was a gifted, seasoned, hard-working pol who represented his District well and always placed his Country and God’s interests first.
I understand why you think he was terrible… for a while, guys just like you, were lurking around DC in hushed whispers and sleazy bars arguing that Hyde was gay… along with Geo Allen, Jack Kemp, Bill Frist, Karl Rove and others.
The fact remains that House Speaker Pelosi allowed the members to name the largest and most expansive HIV/AIDS program in our Nation’s history –and our twice-elected President Bush supported it and signed it– in an appropriations bill named after Hyde and Lantos.
ANd as you well know, I’ve provided you with the references on Rev Wright’s AND Rev Meeks’ homophobic statements –which you say you read (right, bridge for sale if we believe you on that one) and weren’t persuaded in their anti-gay remarks.
Hyde represents the opinion of many in America… and guys like you will continue to ignore political realities because you’re in this debate for a little drama excitement.
“When you start taking your opponents seriously, you’ll be taken as serious”. I’m sorry to say, DUMP or CharlesWilson, you won’t be taken seriously here until you drop the partisan hack lackey tool schtick and honestly engage on the issues at hand.
You can try to spin a thread about McCain’s solid record on adoption into a dead kitty that you can swing at the next circuit party, but the truth is exactly what McCain told another partisan hack in GeorgieStephanopolous… the American people don’t want this election to be about gay adoption.
Hyde isn’t the dead kitty -just go ask NancyPelosi.
posted by DUMP on
MM: “I’ve provided you with the references on Rev Wright’s AND Rev Meeks’ homophobic statements…”
Reverend Meeks’ homophobia was never in question. You are being dishonest (shock!) by implying anything otherwise. You have repeatedly claimed Rev Wright is homophobic but have NEVER provided any proof of that. That makes you a liar…the fact that you continually make false accusations without any sort of proof is sad. You are sad. You are a failure. LULZ
posted by DUMP on
By the way, Matt. Henry Hyde hated you and your children. The fact that you can defend that man is repugnant and says everything anyone would need to know about your character. You are a sad failure. How does it feel to be a complete tool? Hey, who needs ethics when you have money. LAME
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP/CharlesWilson, I’ve repeatedly provided you with proof of Rev Wright’s and Rev Meeks homophobic, bigoted racist rantings –both recently were close advisors to your man, BarryO.
First, I’ve given you the citation for Rev Wright’s sermon where his anti-gay rips were most extreme -but not unique. You say you checked it out… even though Rev Wright and Trinity had his sermons removed from the web and replaced by a new website for the new pastor… just to get some distance from Wright and to stop providing loaded guns to BarryO’s opponents. If you did honestly view it, you’d have had to download it before the controversy ensued… I saw that full tape (not snippets) at GOP hdqtrs in DC -along with nearly 3 hours of additional tape.
Guess what, DUMP, I don’t think you watched the tape I noted earlier -aside from you calling everyone else a liar at IGF, I think you’ve lied on this point repeatedly. Unabashedly. For purely political profit.
Second, I’ve rationally and reasonably countered claims here at IGF and elsewhere by liberals who posit that Wright couldn’t be anti-gay because of Trinity’s AIDS ministry… the truth is, as of 2008, Trinity hadn’t even updated the website for that great AIDS ministry since 1998… and the ministry wasn’t directed toward gay men -it was for black female prostitutes, black drug abusers and black men who come into sexual contact with those 2 groups.
Connecting the dots for you DUMP because I know you’re not the sharpest tool in the toolbox: a) that ministry was funded by federal tax dollars that carried a 7.5% “administrative” fee for the Church (it was all about money, money, money for Rev Wright -not helping gays); b) as a gay, we should both be supporting the policy that scarce federal HIV program funds ought to be targeted to gays –gay youth especially. Every program dollar diverted from helping gays is a dollar our community “lost” that we should have had at our disposal. Was it a rip off? Yeah of gays. And c) it helped Trinity hire church members for the ministry. That’s wrong and it deliberately takes scarce resources from the gay community and puts it to use employing Trinity church members -at the expense of gays.
Third, I’m not the only one calling Rev Wright anti-gay. Former Democrat Prez Hopeful Hillary Clinton did it. Gay news media giant and liberally-biased GayWired did it on three seperate occasions. And it was in the headlines, no less, you didn’t even have to read beyond the bold 28 point type.
Fourth, I’ve shared with you Rev Wright’s regressive attitude toward embracing his natl church leadership’s informed position on gays in the congregation and as pastors. He and Trinity would not, despite repeated pleadings of gay church leaders in Chicago, embrace the natl church’s position on gays in the church.
Fifth, when Rev Wright was explaining why he had a conversion from his earlier resentment and open opposition to “homosexuals” -as Wright, like many black church leaders like to do- he said that Christ allowed liars, murderers and whores at the foot of the cross… then why not homosexuals? Nice pro-gay sentiment, eh?
Sixth, before Wright left Trinity, he gave another legendary black homophobic racist, Louis Farrakhan, a tribute and honored him! What part of anti-gay don’t you get, DUMP?
It’s been the same thing over and over… you can’t defend Rev Meeks’ anti-gay comments or the fact that BarryO elevated Meeks to prominence in his campaign by making him a Campaign Advisor. You can’t defend BarryO for protecting and shielding Rev Wright -another homophoibc bigot and racist- until Wright finally bite BarryO’s hand and BarryO drove the ObamaBus over his 20+ year spirtual mentor, minster who married the Obamas, minister who mentored BarryO, minister who the Obama family used to bless his children.
Now, DUMP, what was that diversionary spinning you were doing about Henry Hyde being so evil? Kind of pales when compared to your modern day hero’s penchant for embracing anti-gay bigots.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
And by the way DUMP/CharlesWilson, your man BarryO was saying this about all those bigoted preacher types in Chicago when he was running against Ryan 2 yrs ago.
BarryO: “I have a number of friends who are ministers. Rev Meeks is a close friend and a colleague of mine in the State Senate.”
You can find BarryO’s thoughts about Rev Wright, Meeks and others in an interview he had with a Chicago reporter during the US Senate bid in 2006
http://www.zimbio.com/pilot?ID=7qyDjYofcPh&ZURL=/Jeremiah+Wright+Jr/news&URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Ffocus%2Ff-bloggers%2F2057025%2Fposts
posted by DUMP on
Could you please provide a source for Rev Wright’s homophobic remarks? Why are you unable to do that?
posted by DUMP on
mm: “I saw that full tape (not snippets) at GOP hdqtrs in DC -along with nearly 3 hours of additional tape.”
Ooo, how fun that must have been. So, the GOP is in possession of these “homophobic” sermons but you can’t pull a single quote from them? How LAME! Give it up, Matt…you are a failure.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, you worte that you watched those sermons already. Did you make a transcript?
Didn’t think so. What exactly was that about “failure”?
You’ve had ample proof… you’re just clarifying for us you’re the partisan hack from the gayLeft that can’t abide seeing BarryO swirling down the toilet with each homophobic bigot embraces before tossing them under the ObamaBus.
Now, what was that about your claim that Rev Wright wasn’t a bigoted homophobe? Even your own team drives over Rev Wright’s gay-bigot corpse and you dust him off, embrace him as a savior and decry his unfair treatment in the press.
What was that about failure from you? Kind of like you calling just about everyone else here on IGF a liar?
Right, got a bridge for sale, DUMP/CharelsWilson?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Quotes you got, DUMP.
Did you make a transcript of that sermon you told all IGF readers you watched earlier?
Didn’t think so –that would be hard, because you didn’t watch it. What was that about “failure”, my DailyKos-sack.
But you know what, I’m thinking that maybe guys like DUMP/CharlesWilson, need to get Rev Wright into the DNC Convention Hall for a “spiritual” speech to the Party loyalists… maybe, since Wright is such a great gay guy he can explain better why last fall lumped “homosexuals” in with the scum of the Earth?
Rev J Wright said: ?We welcome to the cross of Jesus Christ: murderers, thieves, adulterers, liars…. anybody to the cross except homosexuals.?
He was trying to explain his “conversion” into that great pro-gay black preacher that DUMP et al would like us all to believe Wright is (wink, wink) back in 1975… but it took him 4 years to use his conversion moment as an opportunity to lump gays in with murderers, liars, thieves, adulterers.
Gee, we let the lowest of lowlifes in to worship at the foot of the Cross… why not gays, too? Is that it? What was that about Wright isn’t a homophobic bigot?
Yeah, really pro-gay minister there, DUMP/CharlesWilson. (BTW, is it true you’re a delegate again to the natl Democrat Party convention?)
posted by DUMP on
m&m: “DUMP, you worte that you watched those sermons already. Did you make a transcript?”
You are being dishonest (shock!) agian. I think what I said was that I’ve never seen a homophobic sermon from Rev Wright…not that I’ve watched all his sermons.
m&m: “Kind of like you calling just about everyone else here on IGF a liar?”
Come again? When did I say that? You are being dishonest (shock!!) here.
Poor idiot Matt, that quote from Wright is far from homophobic. In fact, it is gay-inclusive and expresses sadness at the typical Christian bigotry against gays. You fail Matt..You fail miserably.
Once again, PLEASE, could you provide a source or quote of Rev Wright’s homophobia? We are all waiting.
posted by Jake on
DUMP, stepping lightly over the landmines and I don’t care to be blown up, really Matt did provide you a quote and it is damning of reverend wright.
why doesn’t that strong evidence change your mind about protecting reverend wright? do you know him that well? and reverend meeks (who I think is far worse)? and wright endorsing and praising reverend farrakhan?
For what it matters, reverend wright is a bigoted (both anti-gay and racially) hateful person. I am happy he is gone from politics.
Good, fair analysis Matt. Now can we get back to the important matters?
posted by DUMP on
That is fair, Jake. Thanks for the civil tone. However, I fail to see how the quote Matt provided is homophobic. As I stated above, I read that statement as condemning the bigoted views of the majority of Christians who would except everyone BUT homosexuals. For the record, Trinity accepted homosexuals and supported equal rights for gays and lesbians. I regularly attend black charismatic churches and find Trinity’s inclusive attitude to be an excellent example of Christian love. Others disagree.
posted by DUMP on
err…that should be accept, not except.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jake writes: “For what it matters, reverend wright is a bigoted (both anti-gay and racially) hateful person. I am happy he is gone from politics.”
I agree with you Jake but as DUMP/CharlesWilson contends, no amount of proof -even direct quotes from Wright comparing gays to murderers- is substantial enough proof to overwhelm or check DUMP’s partisan position. He’s GOTTA defend BarryO’s poor choices in political associates and spiritual mentors because the black vote and gay vote will be critical to Democrats winning the WH.
I wonder if DUMP knows, while he sits in the pew –or stands in the aisle– of those black churches how broad the majority of members are who truly hate and loathe him -not just his “sin” of homosexuality.
But for DUMP, it’s more important to keep the Democrat CoalitionOfWillingVictims functioning, so he’s content to look the other way when he’s faced with black bigots who loathe him and his “sin” of being gay.
Trinity Church is a hotbed of anti-American, anti-social, anti-white and anti-gay bigotry. It’s why they chose to pay tribute to America’s #1 black bigot, Louis Farrakhan.
And it’s also why the DNC’s Chief of Staff Leah Daughtry can get by with anti-gay bigotry like this: the DNC should adopt a natl position which intends to “defeat any efforts to redefine marriage or provide the benefits of marriage to a same-sex union.?
Hmmm, seems like BarryO’s bus has a few more people to run over this week if he’s going to appease the gayLeft.
posted by DUMP on
m&m: “Trinity Church is a hotbed of anti-American, anti-social, anti-white and anti-gay bigotry.”
HAHAHAHAHA! Colin Powell would disagree with you on that one. You just keep getting better and better, Matt. Don’t ever change.
posted by DUMP on
m&m: “I wonder if DUMP knows, while he sits in the pew –or stands in the aisle– of those black churches how broad the majority of members are who truly hate and loathe him -not just his “sin” of homosexuality.”
I’m well aware of that, Matt. Why do you think I go? I keep my friends close and my enemies closer…that’s why I have so many conversations with Evangelicals and repugnant scum like you.
posted by Jake on
michiganmatt, thanks for your response and i agree with what you have written here (usually, not always) even though i consider myself a centerist democrat and maybe even independent or unattached voter this year.
Trinity does seem like a church filled with angry, hateful people who support hate speech and a bigoted ex-pastor who appeals to their base and unfounded worst fears. the real irony this fall will be that most gays will support a candidate who comes from that very hateful, bigoted, anger-foaming church and not think twice about it because he undestands gays as a victim class.
and he doesn’t even support our main agenda policy of gay marriage. it’s insane. it’s insane.