Awkward video of McCain on Ellen Degeneres (Update) Flashback to Hillary

McCain made an appearance on the Ellen Degeneres daytime program today and the issue of gay marriage came up for discussion. Needless today it appeared a little awkward as I’ve never seen McCain seem to standoffish on an issue.

Here’s 2 minutes of the discussion:

Interesting watch I’d say. McCain looked down quite a bit while discussing the topic and seemed rather uncomfortable. Clearly though he knew it would come up considering Ellen also asked Hillary Clinton about gay marriage when she appeared on the show.

If gay marriage is going to become a big topic again in the 2008 election, I think it’s only going to benefit McCain. That is, if some state ballots contain a gay marriage question, voters who come out to vote against it will probably also be voting for McCain. In the 2004 election, that ballot question alone can be credited with giving Bush some victories over Kerry.

Update

Someone, I won’t say who, reminded me of this:

Comparing Ellen’s reactions, a little harsh on McCain, no?

  • Vesper

    I have to say I was rather disappointed in McCain here. I don’t agree with him on a lot but I’ve respected his ability to give a straight answer (pun not intended). Here he seemed completely unwilling to defend his position. It isn’t so much that he disagrees with gay marriage but that he didn’t even try to give a reason for it. Obviously the question was going to be asked. Obviously he was on the wrong side of the fence with the audience, but he didn’t even try.

    It made him look like he was wrong, that he knew he was wrong, but he didn’t want to admit it.

    The same thing happened to Edwards when he couldn’t give a good reason for being okay with civil unions but not marriage.

    Again we have another issue were all three candidates are actually espousing similar views. All three have mentioned not being completely okay with gay marriage, but being in favor of civil unions (or “legal contracts”). McCain had a big chance to gain support among social moderates or disenchanted liberals with this interview and I think he failed.

    I don’t think this issue will make or break a campaign, but I do think it will definitely come up again in the general election, especially with the California constitutional amendment proposal coming up this fall.

  • McManus

    clovel

  • McManus

    Meet the next stupid president of the united states , yes he is going to be elected there is no doubt about it. He couldn’t even put in plain words why he is against gay marriage. No communication skills at all. Experience my a**. what a shame.

  • Babs

    Well, I’m not sure I agree with McCain making this appearance, it was a bit like walking into the lion’s den, but I do think he made his point in a very respectful way to Ellen. It was her house, her stage, McCain was just visiting. Anyone who knows Ellen knows how emotional she can become very quickly, and if I had been in McCain’s shoes, I think I would have chosen my words very carefully as well, as he did.

    It also struck me that he may have felt compelled to accept this invitation for another reason. Twas one of his strongest supporters, The Arnold Himself, whose state has brought about this landmark ruling. He may have felt some sense of obligation to at least acknowledge that in a positive way. Just a thought.

  • Stalin

    McCain set himself up for this. What do you think is going to happen when you walk onto stage with a liberal lesbian. He was made to look like the mean old man who won’t let people just get along.

    Fortunately this ridiculous ruling by liberal activist judges will be overturned once again in November. This just goes to show that we need a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. What’s next in California? You can marry your cat too?

  • Whobody

    Will your cat help pay the bills, taxes and mortgage? jk

    I’m just wondering, Stalin:

    I ask this sincerely.
    How does this effect you if same-sex people(let’s leave the cat out of it)get married?

    I’ve felt(as a heterosexual male)that their marriage won’t effect me. So, I’ve always remained out of the realm of fighting for what the law should be on this. Is there something I should be worried about if same-sex marriages were legal?

  • Babs

    But Stalin, what would the reaction have been if he had rejected the invitation (challenge) to appear with Ellen? I can see it now in the headlines “McCain Snubs Ellen Degeneres”. Ellen knew she had him trapped when she invited him, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. Overall, he lives to fight another day.

  • Stalin

    My primary reason for opposing gay marriage is religious but I will leave that out of this discussion because many people on this site are anti-Christian and I don’t want to fight that battle right now.

    Gay marriage opens pandoras box. If we have gay marriage, what’s not to say that polygamy is OK too. What about marriage within families? How do you say that gay marriage is OK, but other types of marriage are not?

  • Josh

    No one’s anti-Christian, at least not me Stalin. My family is Christian, and I don’t hate them. I’ll tell you what I am against, though, and that is how many Right-Wing “Christians” use their faith to rationalize their irrational hatred of people who aren’t like them. Jesus wasn’t about that, that’s what the Old Testament was about. My problem is when people follow the gospel of Jerry Falwell before they take in mind the gospel of Jesus. It’s just like how conservatives often follow the “gospel” of people like Rush Limbaugh before they follow the “gospel” of Thomas Jefferson (and the other framers) when interpreting the Constitution. As Einstein often said, when asked about his religious beliefs, “I don’t believe in facism”. I have no problem with religion, only a problem with intolerance even to the point of hatred. Hatred isn’t alright, even if it does eminate from someone’s faith.

  • Babs

    Josh, I understand every word you’re saying, but no one’s faith is about hatred. People are about hatred, but it’s outside their faith. People like Jerry Falwell didn’t use HIS faith to rationalize hatred, he used OUR faith to try and make us believe him. And therein lies the difference, you see.

  • Stalin

    Josh, I didn’t mention any names. You are making a wide sweeping judgement that many conservative Christians use their faith to justify hate. I’m sure that some do, but don’t use the actions of a few to demonize millions. That is exactly why I didn’t want to bring religion into this argument. FYI, Einstein was an atheist.

  • Josh

    Einstein was an agnostic, he believed in what he called a “cosmic god”. I am only attempting to demonize a few, the ultra-right Christian conservatives. I don’t think that you or anyone else on this site belongs to this group, but they certainly are out there. All I’m trying to say is that if you look at the teachings of Christ and only Christ, out of the context of the rest of the Bible, you get a message that is completely opposite of the message portrayed in the rest of the Bible, and especially the Old Testament. I think that it’s obvious that Christ was opposed to the messages of the Old Testament, so I don’t understand why so many Christians hold such a high view of it, the teachings of Christ should hold precedence, should they not? Look at most sermons of ultra-conservative pastors like Hagee, Falwell, or Robertson, and you start to notice really quickly that they preach almost exclusively from the Old Testament, especially when engaging in hateful diatribe against whatever group irks them that day. Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy are basically the handbook for their beliefs, nothing attributable to Christ himself, so I don’t understand why they are called “Christians”.

  • Mike

    Seriously, Stalin? “Liberal activist judges?” There’s a tired old phrase.

    You know, it was also “liberal activist judges” sitting on the Supreme Court of California that first overturned miscegenation laws in 1948. Do you also condemn them, as well?

    In fact, more people in that day and age opposed mixed-race marriages than people today oppose gay marriage. Those opposed to both levy the exact same appeal-to-religion arguments:

    “Almighty God created the races of White, Black, Yellow, Malay, and Red, and He placed them on separate continents…The fact that He separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
    – Trial Judge Leon Bazile in Loving vs. Virginia

    …wow, Stalin, must be like looking in a distant mirror for you and your “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” compatriots. But wait, you don’t want to talk about your real reason for opposing gay marriage, so let’s take your all-too-often cited “slippery-slope” argument…ya’ know, the one that says the institution of marriage would degenerate into something twisted like polygamy or man-cat love if we allowed this kind of marriage:

    “The next step will be the demand for a law allowing them, without restraint, to have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters. It is bound to come to that! There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”

    Yeah, that one was about miscegenation laws, too. To be clear, Stalin, I’m not saying you’re a racist; just that you think exactly like one.

  • Stalin

    Josh,

    I don’t know why you are trying to demonize anyone. You are saying that all ultra-right wing Christian conservatives are hateful. Standing up for what you believe in is not hateful. Again, you are taking an entire group and judging them.

    Re: Einstein

    “A handwritten letter from the pen of Albert Einstein, which belittles the Bible and the concept of God, surfaced at a London auction this month, where it sold for more than $400,000. Written a year before the physicist’s death in 1955, the note calls God a “product of human weakness” and disregards Jewish and Christian Scripture as “a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

    sounds like an athiest to me…

  • Stalin

    Mike,

    Saying I think like a racist is calling me a racist. You are really pushing it my friend. You have been a condecending and arrogant fixture on this site and I’m not going to engage you or your hate filled garbage. I said nothing derogatory toward homosexuals yet you blast me with all kind of disjointed rhetoric and random quotes. Take a damn pill and settle down.

  • Babs

    Stalin, didn’t you know? Where I come from, an Agnostic is just an Atheist that’s afraid to say so. They’re both in for a big surprise. 😉

  • Whobody

    Stalin,

    Christianity is based on your own personal relationship with God, not controlling and regulating others in God’s name.

    Followers of Jesus are not taught to judge others, because judgement is not reserved for us. When we use our faith to judge ourselves, the introspection brings us enlightenment and renewed faith. When we use our faith to judge others, we weaken our faith by materializing it.

    Exercising personal faith is powerful, but exercising power is not faith in God.

    Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is and must be a secular institution. The government can no more hand out a marriage certificate that grants a “sacred” union than it can hand out a death certificate that grants a place in the world to come. The government does not hold the keys to the sacred.

    ———————————-

    About your pandora’s box theory:
    The Federal Marriage Amendment doesn’t actually ban incest, does it? So incest is a different catagory of laws in itself.

    Laws pertaining to marriage and divorce could not be adapted to include polygamous unions without ellaborate and multiple changes to the those laws, which make that very unlikely.

    And in cases of bestiality, one of the parties involved isn’t human and therefore isn’t covered by the Bill of Rights. So that’s not gonna happen.

    I’m not so much for it as I just don’t see how people can justify interfering in these people’s lives by alienating them to a different set of rules.

  • Please people, disagreeing with someone doesn’t make them a racist. Let’s raise the dialog a bit.

    I think sometimes it’s easier to pull out the “racist” term than it is to actually debate the merits of an issue.

  • Whobody

    I was just getting ready to comment to Stalin that my original intentions were to engage him in conversation on this and not to single him out or judge his values or character.

    Nate – I think you are quite justified in jumping in and mediating on that one.

  • Babs

    How true. Now I have a serious question, and nobody laugh at this, I mean it. In gay marriages, when you fill out the license form, how do you choose who’s the bride and who’s the groom? Or is it two brides or two grooms, two wives or two husbands? I’m not kidding, what’s the mechanics and practical application of this?

  • Dreadsen

    Well I’m a very spiritual person But I am critical of the bible and how it’s selectively used and twisted. I think it’s really BAD to draw the parallel that Bestiality should be ok because a man is allowed to marry a man. I remember the Klan making that argument when talking about interracial marriage.
    Bestiality and Sodomy both condemned in the bible. But we need to try to argue this from a non religious stand point.
    As far as tradition goes Marriage doesn’t hold the same prestige as it did years ago. Remember when it was a real big deal to have a child out of wedlock? You were frowned upon. If you wanted to have children the idea was to find someone and get married. Now look at television. Game shows are now being used for marriage. Nothing sacred about it. We have always known that there have been people who have targeted others for marriage for immoral reasons. But now Television has glorified this. Having a child out of wedlock is also no big deal at all. We have women getting artificially injected,
    women having children with no man involved or being married
    and it’s totally acceptable.
    I believe the Gay marriage fight would have more weight if society would have tried harder to keep marriage as sacred as
    it has Traditionally has been. Hell! Now we have civil unions between heterosexuals as well! So now a man and a woman can live together and reap many of the same benefits as a married couple. Now a man and a woman don’t even need to get married. More and more society has been taking away the want or need of marriage. This was something every young woman many years ago wanted to do. Now we have many women saying they don’t need a man. Or someone who gets divorced saying they will never marry again but yet they are still fornicating or living with another person.
    The institution of Marriage was ruined and destroyed long before the Gays wanted it. And it is getting worse. There is
    not even a reason for the institution unless it’s for social status.Hell! let the gays have it. It doesn’t mean as much as it used to anyway. And with the traditional people who complain about how bad marriage is when they get married and the horrible sexually bias system against men in divorce or paternity cases. Wait until they adopt all of those problems. They should look at the people trying to prevent them from marriage as doing them a favor!

    Stalin I’m still trying to watch all of that video!

  • Stalin

    As I said in the beginning of this thread, I don’t want to get into a discussion about religion. I don’t agree with gay marriage and I never will, so lets all just agree to disagree. My blood pressure is going up so I’m going to take a break for a while. Have a nice Memorial Day weekend and don’t forget why we have it. Myself included.

  • Whobody

    While Stalin may not want to talk about it anymore, I find issue with the pandora’s box theory as being a loosely constructed arguement (nothing to do with religion).
    —————

    About your pandora’s box theory:
    The Federal Marriage Amendment doesn’t actually ban incest, does it? So incest is a different catagory of laws in itself.

    Laws pertaining to marriage and divorce could not be adapted to include polygamous unions without ellaborate and multiple changes to the those laws, which make that very unlikely.

    And in cases of bestiality, one of the parties involved isn’t human and therefore isn’t covered by the Bill of Rights. So that’s not gonna happen.

    I’m not so much for it as I just don’t see how people can justify interfering in these people’s lives by alienating them to a different set of rules.

  • Babs

    I don’t know about what the Federal Marriage Amendment bans or don’t, Whobody, but incest is illegal in most states, i.e. no brother/sister, first cousin, and in some states second cousin marriages. I think there’s only one state that allows first cousin marriages, is it Tenn. or WV?

    That’s as far as I’m going in this discussion. Happy Memorial Day Weekend. 🙂

  • Mike

    Oh, Stalin, just for the shear joy of quoting you back at yourself, “I’m sorry if my ‘snarky’ comments get to you, but I’m just having fun. ”

    I specifically stated I’m *not* calling you a racist…if you choose to take the exact opposite meaning and get offended, well, I’m not really clear why it’s liberals who get slapped with the adjective of “whiny”.

    Just to clarify my meaning, your mindset is as follows…

    “We can’t let [insert minority group here] be allowed to have the right to [insert civil liberty here], or else [insert terrible thing] will surely come to pass!”

    Interpret as you will.

  • Kind Abdul of Eurabia

    As i understand the matter, homosexuals can have a civil union, which gives them basicly the same privileges as married couples have. So the whole noise about gay marriage is just about how the civil union is called, that is, the whole thing is just about a name???

  • Mike

    Abdul,

    Germany may recognize civil unions, but that’s not the case here in the U.S., at least not on a federal level. Only 10 of 50 states recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships, and 18 states have an explicit ban on such unions.

    Moreover, such unions on a state level are rendered essentially null and void on a federal level thanks to Clinton’s “Defense of Marriage Act.”

  • Debi1208

    There goes his vie for the President. You HAVE to recognize HUMAN rights, even if you don’t agree, ITS A PERSONAL CHOICE. He’s going to get it on the abortion issue too. He’s already said he would put a Supreme Court Judge in that will help overturn Roe v Wade. That’s a personal choice also.

  • IndiMinded

    Fun facts about marriage: researchers have done some investigating in recent years regarding the effects of marriage. Among other things, they have found that married men and women lead statistically longer lives, have better physical and mental health, earn and save more money, have greater net worth – and of course there is a large body of research showing that children with married parents are much better off than children with unmarried parents.

    I know it sounds hard to believe, but there is TONS of research to back this up, and it is in no way disputed by religious groups against gay marriage. In point of fact, those groups supported and published much of this research.

    My favorite bit was stated in “The Case for Marriage” by Waite and Gallagher, where they put the statistics in perspective thusly “Having heart disease shortens the average man’s lifespan by slightly less than 6 years. But being unmarried chops almost 10 years off a man’s life. Similarly, not being married would shorten a woman’s lifespan by more years than being married and having cancer”.

    The US department of health and human services recognizes these benefits of marriage too. They flatly list them on their website http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/benefits/index.html

    So I’m aware that all these studies have been done on heterosexual couples – because there hasn’t been the long ranging data to study homosexual couples. But if there is evidence that marriage allows a man or woman to have a longer lifespan, to lead happier life, a healthier life and a wealthier life – isn’t it just plain awful to deny any American their chance at that? Doesn’t this denial amount to actual harm by the state, unless there’s a very good reason to for denial?

  • Stalin

    Mike,

    I don’t see the difference between calling someone who thinks like a racist and a racist. You are using word play and it doesn’t fly with me. Your comments go beyond snarky. I don’t see how defending myself from such comments is being whiny. I have lost what little respect I had for you.

    Here is my interpretation of your quote:

    “We can’t let [MIKE] be allowed to have the right to [CALL STALIN A RACIST], or else [A VIRTUAL SMACK UPSIDE THE HEAD] will surely come to pass!”

    Get back to work. I’m paying your salary.

  • Michel

    Homosexuality has at times been used as a scapegoat by governments facing problems. For example, during the early 14th century, accusations of homosexual behavior were instrumental in disbanding the Knights Templar under Philip IV of France, who profited greatly from confiscating the Templars’ wealth. In the 20th century, Nazi Germany’s persecution of homosexual people was based on the proposition that they posed a threat to “normal” masculinity as well as a risk of contamination to the “Aryan race”.

    In the 1950s, at the height of the Red Scare in the United States, hundreds of federal and state employees were fired because of their homosexuality in the so-called Lavender Scare. (Ironically, politicians opposed to the scare tactics of McCarthyism tried to discredit Senator Joseph McCarthy by hinting during a televised Congressional committee meeting that McCarthy’s top aide, Roy Cohn, was homosexual, as he in fact was.)

    So it is natural that conservative groups listen to the sermons of pastors like these. They offer a very specific view about who are our “supposed” antagonists (pro-abortion rights activists, gay and pro-gay activists, etc). Since Conservatism, by definition, try to preserve tradition of majorities and status quo, then they need groups that stand in as antagonists to status quo. So that’s the real reason so many have a hard time with dealing with the gay-marriage thing (And I’m not talking about extreme evangelical conservatives that listen to the sermons of Hagee and Parsley, I’m talking about a much wider and inoffensive group). Finding and resisting supposed antagonism against “status quo” is one of the most common goals among conservatives (national conservatives, religious conservatives, you name it). This is especially evident in past prominent figures like Margaret Thatcher, or Richard Nixon.

    But in today’s world, evident displays of hatred by many groups are going down to be replaced by a passive and “almost neutral” contempt. What the government MUST do is separate itself from this kind of light contempt and try to be as fair and impartial as possible, and never use religion or the constitution to as an excuse to defend some agendas and attack other ones.

    Homosexual acts, for example, are punishable by death in present-day countries like our enemy Iran and our ally Saudi Arabia… yet we condemn it the first one and overlook the latter. Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen also punish homosexuality with death. And yet some radical pastors in our very own country promote attacks against some of these countries and defend others, while sharing some of their views. J. Wright is on this list, for sure.

    I would actually like to know if McCain’s opinion on this is closet-closed or not, and if his own personal opinions would significantly influence his policies.

    Stalin: You make me smile everytime you coil back in front of “word plays”. How romantic, isn’t it? If thing work out between us, wanna get married with me as soon as they legalize it? 😀 I’ll be waiting for you.

  • As an impartial observer on this discussion, it seems Mike’s argument lies in whether or not marriage is considered a “civil right.” As of now, not a single person of any race, creed, or ethnicity is being denied the opportunity to marry anyone else of the opposite sex. Plus, is marriage a “civil right” or is it a privilege for a man and a woman?

    Definition of Civil Right:

    “The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.”

    Furthermore, if marriage is a “civil right,” who is being denied the opportunity to marry? Any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man, at anytime, without question. I think it’s hard to argue the point that someone is being denied the “civil right” to marry. First you have to establish whether or not it is a “civil right” to begin with. Beyond that, most states define marriage as between a man and a women which means no one is being denied.

    If you want to change that, you have to convince people to change the definition of marriage.

    Just adding to the discussion without calling anyone a racist. It’s hard, I know.

  • IndiMinded

    I think it does qualify as a civil right’s issue, Nate. The Declaration of Independence states that the pursuit of happiness is one of 3 inalienable rights of man.

    This application of the “pursuit of happiness” has been recognized by the supreme court in the past as a right specifically applying to marriage in Loving v Virginia, which overturned laws forbidding inter-racial marriage.

    Justice Warren justified the decision thusly: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    So I do think it’s well established as a civil rights issue.

    I think the fact that Americans are changing the definition of marriage to exclude homosexuals, thus impeding their pursuit of happiness through marriage, is arguably not something which should be within their ability to do, even if it is being done systematically and democratically.

  • Clarification for those pondering about atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Agnosticism is the belief that there is an all powerful being or god, but that any definitive knowledge/proof of this being is unattainable.

    It is common for people to lump differences into a canopy that envelopes them all. Hence, the Jews did this by calling those who worshipped many deities gentiles– though they may come from different religions. And with the rise of Christianity in Europe you have a title for ‘pagans’ for those who practiced a religion that was not of the book (Islam, Judaism or Christianity). Let’s not forget that Hinduism became a canvas for all the different religions that the British could not wrap their heads around during their colonial census.

    The point being– there is a distinction between atheism and agnosticism. People can lump the two together, but that is a product of ignorance….a very long and historical form of it.

  • IndiMinded,

    To respond to this:

    “I think the fact that Americans are changing the definition of marriage to exclude homosexuals, thus impeding their pursuit of happiness through marriage, is arguably not something which should be within their ability to do, even if it is being done systematically and democratically.”

    Question though, when did the definition of marriage ever include homosexuality? I must have missed that because marriage began initially as a religious institution between one man and one woman. Beyond that, governments recognized the benefits and took marriage under regulation and made laws governing it, defined as a man and a woman.

    When did the definition ever lose something referencing homosexual marriage? I’m just asking.

    My point in the discussion is that if you are FOR gay marriage, that’s fine, but I don’t think it can be construed as a civil rights issue.

    The definition of marriage would have to be changed to actually include gay marriage since it was never included in the past. If someone is trying to change the definition of marriage, it’s gay marriage activists. People fighting gay marriage are simply fighting to keep the definition the same.

    That’s not saying anything against people fighting for gay marriage, but just be honest about it. I’ve heard people compare it to the struggle of slavery, which seems absurd.

    Is that not a valid point?

  • Let’s not forget that Ellen came out and endorsed Hillary! Hillary was on her show and stated that she was NOT for gay marriage. I think Ellen unjustifiably threw McCain under the bus. The very candidate that Ellen supports is against gay marriage. Here’s the clip of Hillary and Ellen talking about gay marriage:

    Now I’m not for a marriage amendment, this is a state’s rights issue. Instead of amending the constitution the states need to let their residents vote yes or no on same sex marriage. Then those votes need to be upheld and respected.

    “Seriously, Stalin? “Liberal activist judges?” There’s a tired old phrase.” -Mike

    Mike, here in NY a few years ago a Liberal activist judge legalized gay marriage. It was quickly overruled since the New Year State Constitution states that marriage is between a man and a woman. So how did he justify his ruling, he couldn’t. This is the perfect example of a liberal activist judge, someone who was more interested in making law than upholding it. Someone who was in this for personal gain than doing his job. No judge should ever legislate from the bench!

    By the way, I am a fan of Ellen’s even if I disagree with her on gay marriage.

    Here’s a funny clip from Stephen Colbert, he interviewed a gay lobbyist:

    http://conservativebelle.blogspot.com/2008/02/colbert-there-are-just-way-more-options.html

  • Robert

    One does not go on stage with Ellen Degeneres, surrounded by a corps of Ellen fans, and qualify the finer points of a “traditional marriage only” view.

    McCain chose his words wisely, although I agree he could have appeared more confident.

  • IndiMinded

    Nate, you’re right that marriage has not previously included homosexuality. It HAS more or less always entailed the ability to marry the person of your choosing, and call me a romantic, but I think every person in America desires to factor love into their marriage decision.

    Marriage has never been contingent upon reproduction (as some have suggested) because heterosexual couples freely marry whether or not one of them is sterile, and whether or not they bear children. So yes, marriage (and most romantic relationships preceding and relating to marriage) traditionally has entailed one man and one woman – but it is difficult for see why it should be limited to this particular mixture.

    And two women marrying aren’t the same as a man marrying a cat. Obviously a cat is not likely to be able to write it’s own wedding vows, nor read them allowed at a ceremony. If I met a cat who had the ability to plan a wedding I suppose I’d endorse that cat’s right to marriage, but I don’t think that’s likely to come up in the near future. In the meantime it seems like a rather silly argument that presidential candidates – our nations leaders – have made against the gay community to keep them from their goals.

    I’m a heterosexual myself, but I do hope to marry some day. And when I do marry, I would like it to be to the person I love – for me to deny this request to others just strikes me as rather spiteful. I think Ellen’s could be the most annoying person on TV, but I wouldn’t deny her the happiness entailed in marrying the person she’s in love with.

    Again, I do think you have a very good point Nate. In order for the gay community to marry, they need to broaden the concept of “marriage”. That’s really what the battle is about. But I DO think it is a civil rights issue, and I think that’s hard to question.

    Allow me to repeat the words of Justice Warren: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    The issue at hand is that there are couples who want to get ‘married’. They can find churches willing to ‘marry’ them. The state just isn’t willing to recognize that ‘marriage’ as valid. Of course that depends what state they’re in…

    Would you argue that in some states marriage is a civil rights issue, and some states it is not (depending on the definition of marriage in that particular state)? That seems like some real hair splitting

  • Indiana Jones, er, IndiMinded,

    I will agree that depending on the definition of marriage in the particular state’s constitution, yes it does change the issue slightly. In New York State, for example, the constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of the state government regulating it. Therefore, the legal definition would need to change.

    California didn’t have such a definition in their constitution so it’s a bit more wishy washy out there. Thus, as a result of the recent rulings, gay marriage opponents are now trying to get a referendum to put the definition into the state constitution.

    I am for the people deciding in each state. Let them vote on it. If a ban and/or state constitution definition passes, it passes. If not, then the people have spoken either way.

  • Vesper

    Liberal activist judges?

    Ronald George was appointed by Ronald Reagan himself. In fact 6 of the seven judges were appointed by Republicans. Hardly what constitutes liberal.

    As for judicial activism.

    They spoke only of the ruling as it pertains to the current state constitution. If the constitution is changed then the ban would not necessarily be unconstitutional. The law makers wrote both the constitution and the unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriage, all the decision did was point out the discrepancy between the two. As a constitution is the basis for laws, the constitution will rule out the law.

    Nate,

    State by state ignores the reason “marriage” is so important. Federal protections and rights. A partner can be denied visitation and legal recourse in a hospital, were as a spouse cannot. It’s great if California no longer has this problem, but what if a “married” homosexual from California is hospitalized while on a business trip in New York? His or her spouse has no legal recourse in that state because they aren’t married according to New York law.

    Personally, I don’t care what you call it, but the legal protections and federal rights need to be open to all domestic partnerships.

  • Vesper

    Same sex unions have existed historically. In fact in Christian Europe. Whether or not this constitutes a marriage depends on if you believe man/woman to be an axiom of marriage or not.

    “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality”

    and

    “Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe”

    Both by John Boswell are a good start for research on this topic.

  • Mike

    Nate,

    The categories of discrimination you listed include race, creed, and ethnicity…but I notice that discrimination against sexual orientation is oddly missing. Moreover, you differentiate between a right and privilege, and yet your own quoted definition of right includes the term privilege.

    Define it however you will, the point is that marriage itself confers over 1,000 rights to spouses. These rights run the gamut from joint parenting rights to decisions regarding a spouse’s medical treatment to domestic violence protection.

    Stalin,
    Whoa, slow down there, cowpoke. Yet again you’ve jumped all over the the “R” word, as though you’re just dying to revel in the moral high-ground of some politically-correct-lovin’ liberal calling you a racist. As I said in my original post, for the third time now, I am not calling anyone a racist. I am, however, saying that discrimination based on sexual orientation is, by definition, discrimination, and ergo shares similar properties.

    Now I know you’re not that dumb…if you really can’t see the difference between the two, then I think you’re just being intentionally myopic for the sake of enjoying your own righteous indignation. Please, Stalin, come back to the land of the rational…we miss you.

  • One dilemma when discussing law and marriage, is that the very etymology of the term ‘marriage’ is steeped in Judeo-Christian values and beliefs. So when we start trying to discuss the fluidity of the term ‘marriage’ we need to take this into account. This is yet another of the many examples that exemplifies the farce of the U.S’s proclaimed separation of Church and State (and mind you, much of the reason for having this separation came from protestant evangelicals, like the Baptists!).

    I agree on the principle that marriage does prejudicially acknowledge and affirm only one type of sexual orientation. However, in matters of law you need to recognize the balance between positive, common and natural law in this country (at least at the national level).

    What Ellen is calling for ultimately demands a change in a way that Jews and Christians see the word “marriage.” This is a very difficult feat. We can say that this issue is a governmental matter, but the history and legal tradition stems back to religion.

    In the future I am all for our society discarding the actual term and adopting a more inclusive one. That said, I think what Clinton was advocating is a much more pragmatic approach for currently alleviating discrimination in this country.

    But this does not, in any way, make me any less proud or happy about my state, which Nate might call wishy washy, but to me, has just done a marvelous job of protecting the legal rights of all people in wanting to share their devotion and lives with each other.

  • Whobody

    Thanks for posting the Hillary video, CG.

    I hadn’t seen it and didn’t take the time to look it up.
    But, wow, she handled the question so much better than McCain. I understand that she obviously fits much better on Ellen than McCain does, but still, while McCain’s stance is understood, it just seems he could have been more prepared for that question. He had to know it was coming… was keeping it short and sweet really the strategy they were going with here?

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Mike I believe it is you my friend that needs to come back to the land of rational. All you have done is blatanly jump allover Stalin with stupid pointless arguments. You are an intollerant arrogant liberal and you my friend will not be missed so leave go back to the land of your leftwing crazy friends.

    Gay marriage should not be legal and now that it is an issue again the Republicans can have another issue that they will do better with the public on more than democrats.

  • Michael,

    How can you be proud that the votes of millions were struck down? Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, doesn’t it trouble you that Democracy took place in California and 4 judges through out millions of votes? Don’t you realize that rule by judicial fiat could go either way? You see it as a good ruling, something that is protecting “legal rights,” but what about the right of the people to vote and self-govern? Isn’t that much more important in the long run? What happened in California is that the people went to the polls and voted. In return, the CA Supreme Court said that they didn’t believe in Democracy, rather they were going to write the law.

    What about some liberal cause? What if millions of people voted FOR gay marriage and some conservative judges tossed out their votes? I would be just as irritated that judges are making the laws, either way!

    Doesn’t that scare you, Michael? That people are no longer allowed to self-govern and their votes no longer count?

  • Patrick

    Why do gay people want to get married in the first place?

    How does marriage supercede civil unions?

    It doesn’t. Marriage is a union, “Under God” between a man and a woman, and it always has been. It is a religious pact, and while it confers certain legal acruements, a civil union would/should do exactly the same.
    Furthermore, if you are gay, why would you want to do anything “under God?” Especially if this religion castigates you?

    I agree with an earlier post which says that having gay marriage opens pandora’s box.

  • Patrick

    P.S.

    If you are Christian, and this is why you are against anything having to do with gay people getting together in any manner,

    please visit:
    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113

    “There is an inverse connection between religiousness and education level [according to 40 independent studies]”

    In laymens terms: The more intelligent you are, the less religious you are.

    ” A poll of National Academy of Science scientists found that only 7% have a belief in “god” “

  • Patrick, your last post is rather offensive on many levels. Please be respectful of everyone’s views and do not insult people who hold religious beliefs as being “less intelligent” than anyone else, that’s simply not true.

    Scientists who don’t believe in God, what a groundbreaking concept. You’re failing to realize that many scientific beliefs can be equated as being similar to a religious belief system.

  • Josh

    Nate, respectfully, you cannot equate science and religion, because there is actual proof for scientific theories, something that religion cannot claim. The very invocation of the word “faith” belies the fact that there is no empirical evidence to back up any religious claims. There is mountains of readily observable empirical evidence to support scienctific claims, so “believing” in science isn’t really believing at all, it’s a conclusion one reaches after analyzing black-letter evidence that is indisputable, or at least not readily disputable. Religious beliefs require a blind leap of faith. That’s not to say that that’s a bad thing, but the two are different just the same. Also, there is significant research to support the claims Patrick quoted in his post, so I’m not sure how someone can be offended by them. He’s just restating studies that show a correlation, that doesn’t mean that all religious people are unintelligent.

  • Josh, if it’s a scientific theory, it’s not “indisputable.” Theories do not equate to fact, but that’s another discussion. You or I can put forth theories all day long but that does not make them indisputable.

    Look, I’m not going to debate this because it’s not debateable. However, some people put “faith” in science similarly to “faith” in religion.

    Also, there may be research to support the assertion that scientists are not religious, but there is no evidence to support the claim by Patrick that people who hold religious views are any less intelligent than those who do not.

    You can use a survey like Patrick mentioned and extrapolate the conclusion he did, which is that more education means less religious belief, which he takes to mean religious people are uneducated.

    That’s one way to interpret the results. The other way is much more simple and concrete, that scientists tend not to believe in God or a higher being, they believe in science and man, it’s that simple.

    I’m just sick and tired of being insulted with statements like that, there are plenty of places to bash religion and people of faith, I’d just like to elevate the discussion.

    “A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.” – Teddy Roosevelt

    Keep in mind I also hold 2 college degrees in fields relating to science.

  • A friend recently sent me this link:

    ***WARNING, LANGUAGE***

    I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  • Dreadsen

    Indiminded

    “Marriage has never been contingent upon reproduction (as some have suggested) because heterosexual couples freely marry whether or not one of them is sterile, and whether or not they bear children. So yes, marriage (and most romantic relationships preceding and relating to marriage) traditionally has entailed one man and one woman – but it is difficult for see why it should be limited to this particular mixture.”

    Alan Keyes explains it better here haha

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A

    Never mind his attack on gay adoption. But his explanation on why couples who want to get married who can not have children i believe may be a good point!

    It doesn’t change the principle of Marriage and why it possibly has been contingent on pro creation. Right now it isn’t. But many many moons ago It probably was. Like at a time when people who couldn’t have children had no idea that they couldn’t because there was no medical technology to confirm this.

  • Dreadsen

    C.G.

    I watched that video. I’ve been at parties where an athiest person will all of a sudden decide that they want to argue with people on their belief in God.

    But i’ve never seen the “Tree Theory” one! haha

    Usually they think that when you die you are just gone. Nothing happens.

  • Dreadsen

    Nate

    With this topic i believe the problem is some people are basing their stance on gay marriage on their religious belief.
    Well that doesn’t take into account the people who aren’t religious. So the non religious people in an attempt to prove their point they attack religion. Destroy religion then you destroy the basis for the law on gay marriage being based on religious belief.
    If we are going to have or TRY to push the separation of Church and state then the argument needs to raise non religious points. Which is a harder argument to raise then just pointing at a law in the bible.

    There are other laws (reasonable) laws in the bible that i believe can and probably should be applied. What is wrong with making adultery illegal? I hear it is illegal in some states. Hell make it illegal all over. That will make people take marriage more serious and raise it’s prestige back.

    I guess the question for everyone is. How do we decide what laws from the bible we want to push and which ones we do not?
    That’s what raises the OTHER problem. Someone says hey the bible says Gays are wrong then someone else points out some other laws from the bible raising the question “Well what about this law?”

  • Mike

    Wow, I’m not sure how this thread turned from McCain on the Ellen Degeneres show to a religious debate, but…

    Since Nate put a moratorium on religion-bashing, does that mean we can also put a moratorium on atheist-bashing, too?

  • Josh

    No, Mike, because Atheists are godless heathens thus not subject to the same protections as religious people 😉 Truthfully, though, when has nate ever bashed on Atheists? I don’t feel particularly bashed on…

    Nate, what I meant was that it is indisputable that the evidence is in fact evidence. What that evidence means, however, is certainly open to interpretation. Religion doesn’t have this advantage, because it’s only “evidence” is the Bible. I can dispute, for instance, that the Bible is factual at all, therefore the evidence itself is disputable. The word theory also has a different meaning to scientists and mathematicians. A theory is something that is a probable answer to a question, that has loads of evidence behind it and is the generally accepted answer to a scientific question. For instance, germ theory of disease and the theory of gravitation are both labeled “theory”, are you really prepared to dispute these as well, simply because of their moniker? Also, there is plenty of “evidence” showing a correlation between education and faith, but I think the correlation itself has more to do with extraneous factors that the studies (likely biased) fail to account for, such as geography and soci-economic status. For example, some of the most religious states in the U.S. also have some of the worst education systems. This means that a greater number of these people will be less educated and religious, but it is likely that they would have been religious regardless of the quality of their education system. Likewise, some of the poorest countries in the world are extremely religious, but their education systems are also poor, so it is impossible to draw a clear correlation even if one did exist.

    One final thing, Nate, why must you separate religion and science. Why must one only either have “faith” in religion or science, not both. Why is it that the ultra-religious cannot view, say, evolution as the set of tools their God used to build the world (unless you’re the type that actually believes the world is 6000 years old, but I doubt that you are). How is that someone can look at all of the evidence in front of them and say they don’t believe in evolution, all the while readily believing in something that only claims one book, written by men, as evidence. It just seems illogical to me.

  • First of all, I’m not meaning to bash atheists, I don’t particularly care what anyone believes, that’s a personal choice, I do get a bit defensive though when people are insulting me personally. If anyone here is atheist, more power to ya, this is a free country where everyone has that freedom to believe, or not believe, in anything they’d like to!

    Josh, I don’t believe one has to separate science and religion, but that’s what Patrick was doing so I was responding accordingly. In most cases, science and religion can co-exists peacefully, there’s no issue there. I was talking about Patrick’s reference to the large percent of scientists who must consider themselves atheist. Instead of “faith” in a higher power, they have “faith” in science, that’s all.

    Mike, considering the numerous religion-bashing threads and posts I have read throughout several comments, poking a little fun at atheists now and then should be OK once and a while, shouldn’t it? 🙂 That said, I’m not in favor of bashing anyone’s personal beliefs, and I think by the openness of this forum, I’ve made that clear.

    Everyone deserves respect, and it goes both ways, but jokes are another story.

    Speaking of jokes..

    Sister Mary Ann, who worked for a home health agency, was out making her rounds visiting homebound patients when she ran out of gas. As luck would have it, an gas station was just a block away.

    She walked to the station to borrow a gas can and buy some gas. The attendant told her that the only gas can he owned had been loaned out, but she could wait until it was returned. Since Sister Mary Ann was on the way to see a patient, she decided not to wait and walked back to her car.

    She looked for something in her car that she could fill with gas and spotted the bedpan she was taking to the patient.

    Always resourceful, Sister Mary Ann carried the bedpan to the station, filled it with gasoline, and carried the full bedpan back to her car.

    As she was pouring the gas into her tank, two Baptists watched from across the street.

    One of them turned to the other and said,

    ‘If it starts, I’m turning Catholic.’

    Come on.. that’s a funny religious joke..

    Now, concerning gay marriage and the original reason for this thread, I just think states should vote on the issue. No need for a federal amendment.

  • Josh

    “In most cases, science and religion can co-exists peacefully, there’s no issue there.”…We are in agreement, then, Nate.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    No Nate their should be a federal law or amendment against gay marriage. I am happy this is an issue because most of america goes with republicans on it.

  • Dreadsen

    The point of this discussion is for us to hear opinion on WHY it should be banned.

    Not just someone saying it should be and that’s that.

    I didn’t care if it got banned or not but after reading some of the different perspectives and arguing points on this thread and some others i’m slightly leaning towards it not being legal.

  • Dreadson,

    I think this issue as well can be broken down pretty simply. If you believe marriage is a unique institution designed for a man and woman, then it should be reserved for that as a unique institution of holy matrimony.

    On the other hand, if you believe marriage is a collection of rights being denied to a group of people, then you see it as denial of civil rights to be overturned in the courtroom.

    I personally see it as a state-by-state issue and think voters should be allowed to determine if they wish to enact gay marriage, not the courtroom since the judiciary is not meant to write law.

  • IndiMinded

    It really puzzles me to hear you continue to put it like that, Nate. Laws aren’t going to ban homosexuality, or homosexual relationships. They won’t even ban homosexual relationships that mimic marriage in every respect – except for the gender of the two people involved. They will still allow for one of those homosexuals to go to a clinic, get a sex change operation, and marry the person they love.

    Honestly, the very notion that I get a vote on who YOU get to marry seems absurd to me. If two consenting adults are allowed to have sex , and they’re allowed to have romantic relations, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry? Because society doesn’t feel like calling it that word?

    The state doesn’t get to regulate my BFF, I think it’s dumb that they should get to regulate my wife.

  • Babs

    Now look what you’ve done, IndiMinded. I don’t know what a BFF is, tell me quick before I go crazy. 🙂

  • Babs, there is no good reason I know this off the top of my head:

    BFF == best friends forever

    Here, you can read up at the guide to Text Messaging Abbreviations.

  • Babs

    Thanks, Nate, now maybe I can decipher my granddaughter’s text messages! *LOL*

  • Dreadsen

    ROFL!!! i didn’t know either!

  • IndiMinded

    aww you guys clearly don’t hang out with 12 year olds. It’s the newest myspace lingo, to talk about your BFF ;-)I don’t know why I assumed everyone speaks pre-teen.