McCain: Straight-Talkin' Bullshit Artist on Civil Unions
Nick Gillespie | April 27, 2007, 4:14pm
Ryan Sager chatted with prez hopeful Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) via conference call and got his reaction to the New Hampshire civil union law that so bothered formerly gay-friendly Rudy Giuliani. McNasty's take on the legislation?:
Today Mr. McCain held another blogger conference call, and I was able to put the question to him directly...
In the past, Mr. McCain has been very hard to pin down on civil unions.
But today, he was clear: "I am opposed to that legislation."
More here.
You go, guy. Here's a relevant passage from Matt Welch's April Reason cover story about John McCain:
McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, has repeatedly chastised his fellow Republicans for trying to win votes by marginalizing gay Americans, and gave a stirring eulogy in San Francisco for the United Flight 93 hero Mark Bingham, who was gay. But in the 2006 elections he made a fool of himself campaigning for an Arizona ballot initiative banning gay marriage. Perhaps because of the libertarian strain in Arizona's political tradition, the proposition lost. McCain has been a pretty consistent opponent of abortion, but he went from saying he wouldn't seek to reverse Roe v. Wade in 1999 to saying he would in 2006.
More here.
Memo to McCain, Giuliani (and even Mitt Romney): Last-minute tacks to social con positions on gay marriage and abortion are not going to win you those votes. But they just might lose you whatever libertarian cred you could muster on a couple of social issues.
Pig Mannix | April 28, 2007, 2:31pm | #
@VM
You've missed the source of those rights, responsibilities, and privileges - it's the contract, not the gov't. The govt is the legal body that provides the enforcement.
...snip!...
also - there are privileges (tax breaks) for married couples. There are rights (hospital, making decisions, adopting, etc) that hetero married couples have.
You've just illustrated why a marriage is
not just a legal agreement between two people. There's nothing preventing any two, or three, or any number of consenting adults from concluding such a contract between themselves now (this may no longer be true in Virginia, where a recent ballot initiative might also have outlawed such agreements. I'm not entirely clear on the actual details). Legal marriage is, specifically, a legal agreement between two people, and the state, with certain prerogatives guaranteed by the state.
I will illustrate: Let's take your example of hospitals being required to admit partners in gay marriages visitation rights in the same manner they're required to grant visitation rights in straight marriages.
Now think about that. The hospital isn't a signatory to the marriage contract, but it's bound by conditions of a contract between two other people. How many other contracts are required to be honored by outside parties? When you buy a Ford under warranty, is an auto shop that isn't part of the Ford franchise bound to honor the terms of that warranty? Of course it isn't. A marriage is one of the few, if not only, contracts that creates obligations on the part of non-signatories. That is distinctly different from any other forms of contract.
@bourgeoiscowboy
It's completely a bullshit argument. Everyone who holds that argument knows that the government is never going to get out of contractual marriage - it's nothing more than a convenient diversion to the real reason most of these jerks oppose gay marriage (innate homophobia). I've been there before - I used to believe the same thing - but it's unrealistic and more importantly, it's unfair.
Actually, the law protects very, very few forms of relationships. Usually only the ones that have a potential for impacting other parties. People form all kinds of relationships that don't enjoy special protections by the state. There's no protections for people who form bowling teams or garage bands. Why not? Because those relationships, like gay relationships, are of no consequence to anyone else besides the participants in them. So, why are straight relationships of interest to society at large, but not gay ones? Isn't that treating them "unequally"?
It sure does treat them unequally, which is entirely justifiable, because they are not equal situations! Any honest examination of equality would have to consider equality of consequences. We can do that easily enough by isolating the variables. Consider - what would be the consequences if people, from this day forth, failed to form gay relationships? What would the world look like 20 years from now?
Now, what would happen if people failed to form straight relationships? What would the population look like 20 years from now? Smoked dope with any Shakers lately? I didn't think so. If you'll allow me the presumption of assuming most people have an interest in seeing their species and civilization continued, then there's an obvious public interest in encouraging and facilitating hetero relationships that isn't operative in regard to gay relationships.
And no, don't even start with the argument that not every straight marriage produces off-spring, either. That's a frivolous argument. The object of requiring people to stop at red lights is to prevent collisions with oncoming cross-traffic. The fact that I'm occasionally stopped at a red light and there's no cross-traffic in sight does not negate the utility of the law requiring me to stop. Laws are made to accommodate usual and expected circumstances, nobody even pretends that a body of law can be created to accommodate every outlier circumstance. That's merely an attempt to hold marriage laws to a standard that no other laws are held to. Nobody with any sense is going to pretend that any particular law produces a desirable outcome every time it's applied. The measure of a law is whether it produces a desirable outcome more often than not. I'm sure that it wouldn't be hard to find cases where even a first-degree murder is justified. But that doesn't make a case that repealing laws against first-degree murder is justified. There's an old saying, "Hard cases make bad law". It applies here.
If you want to make the case that gay marriage should be permitted simply because it would be a convenience to a substantial number of citizens, and imposes no cost to anyone else, fine, I'm all sympathy. I don't have a problem with the law recognizing gay marriage, but, sorry, if it never happens, I can't say that I'd find it a great injustice either. Obviously, gay unions and straight unions are different beasts entirely. The inputs are different, and the outputs are different. It would be difficult to make a case for "equal" here without a lot of fancy rhetorical footwork. All you're accomplishing by pulling an "equal" out of your ass by fiat, when obviously the situations are not equal, is irritating people like me who are otherwise sympathetic.
VM | April 28, 2007, 3:01pm | #
PigM:
good thoughts about contract. Also - showing why the "gov't out of marriage" doesn't work as an argument, for me.
And the basic issue is that heteros may form this type of contract, gays may not. It's not an option for them, and I feel that's wrong.
coupla other thoughts, tho:
Your answer to me seems to support a gay marriage - certain couples that wish, for many of the same reasons a hetero couple would, to form a legally-recognized (with all of those third party aspects) couple.
And I'd exactly argue that there is no cost to others' marriages, so, yes - it's a no cost way of ensuring that all adults who wish to engage in the contract of marriage may do so. including all of those contractual features that are unique (?) to marriage.
But for it to be no cost, we'd have to reject your premise of offspring - cuz that'd be a cost.
And I do happen to feel it is an injustice, just as I feel that states that banned interracial marriages also were engaged in unjust actions.
And since there is no cost to having gay marriage, it wouldn't make others worse off, but it would make those who wish to enter that kind of relationship better off. (that asymmetry is where I'd recognize the injustice)
I do understand that for you, this doesn't rank highly on the scale of issues, and that's fine - we all rank order our political preferences!
cheers
