Where does McCain stand on Gay Marriage??

Jan. 26, 2007 Baptist Press:
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=24845

McCain opposed the federal marriage amendment when it came up for a vote in 2004 and 2006, saying each time the issue should be left to the states. In each instance, though, McCain left open the possibility he could support an amendment in the future if the Defense of Marriage Act is struck down as unconstitutional or if federal appeals courts overturn state marriage amendments.
While liberals were pleased with his opposition to a federal marriage amendment, they were disappointed in 2006 when he supported the proposed Arizona constitutional marriage amendment, known as Proposition 107. In fact, McCain appeared in TV commercials for the initiative. In one commercial, the viewer sees a judge's gavel as a narrator says, "Arizona is just one court case away from having a radically new definition of marriage." Toward the end, McCain appears, saying, "I'm John McCain. Please join me in voting yes on Proposition 107." Arizona's amendment would have been one of the stronger ones nationwide, banning both "gay marriage" and Vermont-style civil unions. But it narrowly lost.
Some of the conservative opposition to McCain got traction last October, when he appeared before an audience on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" and said, "I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don't have any problem with that." Although the quote made the rounds on the Internet, it is only a partial quote. In the very next sentence, McCain added, "But I do believe in preserving the sanctity of the union of a man and woman."
McCain apparently was trying to say he opposes "gay marriage" but thinks it's OK for same-sex couples to have private ceremonies in, for instance, churches -- something that already is legal. After a commercial break, he tried to clarify what he had said, adding, "On the issue of gay marriage, I believe if people want to have private ceremonies, that's fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal."

Current Position posted on http://www.johnmccain.com:
As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question.
The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.
As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society. They did so to ensure that the voices of America's families could not be ignored by an indifferent national government or suffocated through filibusters and clever legislative maneuvering in Congress.

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee

lrobb,

That is a sad story. But I think the best way to address that issue is for the individuals in question to somehow set it up ahead of time (not sure how that would be done) so that their partner is admitted.

Otherwise, the bedside at the time of death is for families only (or those at the families' approval), and a homosexual partner is not a part of a family. (Technically, neither is a "heterosexual partner," but at least he/she could be in the future.)

I can sympathize with the family, too. Obviously, we should not be hateful towards homosexuals. But, if they were concerned for their son's salvation at the time of his death, I can imagine that the last thing they wanted was for him to be spending his last minutes saying goodbye to his homosexual lover. Now, I don't know the specifics of the situation, but I'm just saying that we shouldn't be too quick to condemn that family.

_________________


"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should and, with the help of God, I will do." --Everett Hale [Emphasis Mine]

Check Out My Blog:
We Want a Christian President...
http://christianpresident.blogspot.com/

Join the Huckabee Alliance: http://huckabeealliance.wordpress.com/

Dear KingdomAdvancer:

Perhaps when you hear the specifics, as I explained to Mike, you may change your opinion.

When I moved to Florence, SC, from San Diego, my executive assistant chose to move also. His partner was an independent computer professional who could work anywhere there was an internet connection. I feel personally responsible for their decision to relocate to what proved to be a very inhospitable community.

In late 2006 John, Michael's partner, began having symptoms of the pancriatic cancer which finally took his life. While Michael was insured through the small business I started, John was not nor could be because South Carolina does not recognize domestic partnerships. My employees then took a vote and agreed that we would all contribute a percentage relative to our income to insure John as an employee of the company. Carefully following all the rules, John was duly enrolled as our "systems analyst" and three months later was eligible for insurance. Which proved to be too late.

John had not spoken with his parents or siblings since he "came out" in 1968. This was not by his choice. They simply cut him off. Out of simple graciousness Michael and I informed his parents, who lived out of state, when John's prognosis became terminal. He was in a hospital where my father in law was head of security, my sister was a nurse, and my husband's cousin was John's oncologist. All of us expected he would go peacefully and without pain among loving friends.

Then his parents and brother showed up. From Missouri. Least said soonest mended, but they refused to allow any of us, including Michael, to visit. They flew in their pastor to "minister" to John. Did I mention John was an Aethiest?
When John's doctor intervened, they terminated his services and brought in a physician more to their liking. Mind you, these are people who had not even spoken to John in 38 years.

This is the point at which I wrote Mike Huckabee. His response, through his staff, was one of comfort and healing. We chose not to attend the funeral service John's parents orchestrated in Missouri. Instead we held our own wake in the Irish tradition. Songs were sung, alcohol wad drunk, John's more outrageous pranks were extolled, and none of us will ever forget the charming and brilliant man who went into the gentle night with wit and elegance to the last day we saw him.

Are there legal remedies? Yes, provided you are willing to admit that someday you may actually cease to breathe. This is well beyond the ken or some of our most intelligent and creative minds. This is why we need iron clad, appellate court tested Domestic Partner laws, the absence of which causes activist judges to make law from the bench as was just done in California.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-anti16-2008may16,0,7598579.story:

As a California voter, I am outraged by the court's ruling. Californians have voted on this issue several times already, voting in favor of traditional marriage each and every time. If the court's just going to overturn the will of the people, then what is the point in voting?

Thankfully, a constitutional amendment will be on the November ballot and I am sure that California voters will, once again, vote to protect marriage.

Yep, I was amazed that some people had the foresight to see this day coming and already collected 1.1 million signatures. That is an amazing amazing feat, considering that there was little motivation to sign prior to the court's ruling today. 1.1 million sigs was a huge undertaking, considering that the total population of California is 37 million. I think there is a groundswell coming in California, and that groundswell will not only reverse the court's ruling, but also put McCain/Huckabee over the top in California. (Yes, I believe Huckabee will be VP).

The liberals unknowingly delivered their biggest gift to the Republican Party

Great!

Sorry, I'm permitted to disagree with the Huckabee base here and there, and this is one of those places I strongly disagree.

That is assuming that this is civil unions. I figured the poster was exaggerated (or equating civil unions to marriage). If I'm wrong, my opinion is slightly different.

I'm strongly pro-Civil Unions. On marriage, it ceases being legal and enters into the social. I don't have a firm stance, I'm not married myself, but I do lean towards preserving the 'institution of marriage.'




Really, RINO's? Is it necessary that Republicans be monolithic? If I may say this guys, that's everything that Huckabee has been railing against. I appreciate that you have values and concerns, but are you saying every Republican must be the same?

Please forward me the by-laws of the party, if that's so.

I think this is everything that is wrong with American politics right now. I was under the impression that I'm in the same camp as Gov. Huckabee on this. Am I wrong?

It's not about civil unions (although I am opposed to that as well). It is about marriage. The court ignored the message that the voters sent back in 2002, in which they opposed gay marriage with an overwhelming majority of 61 vs 38%.

I don't think much would change in 6 years. I fully expect the Marriage Protection Act to pass and fully shut the door to gay marriage in California. If they try to circumvent that, we will go all the way with our last option: the Federal Marriage Amendment. SoCons have the resources and the support of the majority of Americans. Believe it or not, gay marriage is not even a left/right issue, as even the left is running away from gay marriage. Obama himself does not support gay marriage and he is the most liberal Senator out there.

Huckabee was right. The Federal Marriage Amendment should be high priority right now.

Edit:

Apparently it is in fact gay marriage. I'm certainly not in arms against it, but it is a different issue for me than if it were civil unions. Quite a development, I had no expected gay marriage to jump ahead while civil unions were just now gaining acceptance.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=58178
Oct. 2007 Interview with Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee's Stand on Civil Unions & Marriage

WND: Did you tell the Concord, N.H., Monitor that you are open to the idea of states passing laws creating new institutions of civil unions between same-sex couples? Do you stand behind that statement today?

Huckabee: I do not support civil unions. In an interview with them, I was adamantly expressing my support for a constitutional amendment for the affirmation of traditional marriage. There was one exchange they said something about the states, and frankly I don't remember, it's been a some time back, the transcript of the interview indicates that I said, 'Hey, if the states want to deal with it differently.' But I can assure you I believe in a constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex marriages, and I do not believe in civil unions. Never have and never will.

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee

Governor Huckabee's stand would probably be that yes we do need to stick with vertical politics. This has only to do with the constitution that people voted and the court went beyond their responsibility to overturn the will of the people. The government must set morals for the culture to sustain itself. We have inalienable rights endowed by our Creator, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our rights do not come without responsibilities to our Creator and our entire civilization. We are losing this understanding, and with that we are on a slippery slope to losing all of our rights. This is what all republicans should stand for. There is definitely a trend going that it is cool to say you are a Republican, but not to embrace any of the GOP's platform (in order to widen the tent). You have to have leadership and a common goal or chaos insues. That is what we have in the GOP today!! "Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?" Amos 3:3

_________________
"You are my traction." Mike Huckabee

Many Blessings,
April Brown, TX
Still Believing in Miracles in '08 or '12
Proud Ranger #16991

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His Righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." Matthew 6:33

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanm ... ision.html
McCain and Obama Weigh in on the CA Decision on Gay Marriage

McCain opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) because he believes states should set their own marriage laws, but did back Arizona's ballot initiative in 2006 to ban gay marriage.

But it's an issue he rarely brings up and is plainly uncomfortable pushing politically.

Still, the decision by the California Supreme Court to overturn the state's voter-backed gay marriage ban is such that McCain, as his party's nominee, had no choice but to weigh in.

Which he did -- with a statement that doesn't blast the decision but also is careful to not offend the right-wing

Said spokesman Tucker Bounds in a statement:

“John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.”

Obama's campaign also noted, in a different way, their candidate's view that states should decide. What Obama didn't say is that he's opposed to gay marriage (note the phraseology of first sentence)

Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.
Because Obama is not where the far left wants him to be (marriage) and McCain not where the far right wants him to be (a federal ban), this is not something either will probably make front and center.

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hXq0ocZnYHb3p4e46zz4lFZiG25gD90M8KS01:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13225
American Spectator: California Dreamin'
By W. James Antle III
Published 5/16/2008 12:08:30 AM

An excerpt from the article:
...Most Americans are of two minds on this divisive issue. They wish their gay friends and neighbors no ill will and have no desire to deprive them of hospital visitation, freedom of contract, or the general right to be left alone. But they also wish to be left alone themselves rather than being forced to recognize or subsidize the lifestyles of others. The majority still understands that marriage exists not to give some kind of Good Housekeeping seal of approval to various romantic couplings but in recognition of the biological fact that sex between men and women often results in children. These relationships require a framework that makes it more likely that such children will be raised in a stable environment by fathers and mothers -- marriage is, or was, that framework....

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee

Instead of American courts and politicians saying OK to civil unions and "Gay" marriage....the "loving" thing to do is to pass out literature and resources like these below.

Here are just a few of many books, DVDs, and websites that should be made readily available to the American public. This I believe would be the loving thing to do.

Desires in Conflict: Hope for Men Who Struggle with Sexual Identity
By: Joe Dallas
http://www.joedallas.com/

"Restoring Sexual Identity: Hope for Women Who Struggle with Same-Sex Attraction
By: Anne Paulkike

Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle
Dailey, Timothy

The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today
Sears, Alan and Osten, Craig

Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting
By: Glenn Stanton, Dr. Bill Maier

101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality
Mike Haley

Love Won Out
Testifying to God's Grace
DVD
http://resources.family.org/product/f00 ... =OL08XRDRC

http://www.troubledwith.com/LoveandSex/ ... uality.cfm

_________________
Chicagoland Voter Strong for Mike's "12 Stops" Vision & HuckPAC

Hello all,

My name is Daniel Burbank, I'm 18 (soon to be 19) and I'm new to these forums. I am a big supporter of Huckabee, and gay marriage is a very interesting issue to me, as a Pentecostal Christian. I don't know if any of you are on facebook, but I started a discussion on a group that was inclined to bash people who were against homosexuality about why I think gay marriage is wrong. I realize now that I'm in way over my head, as I am practically the only person defending my views and I'm realizing that I'm no expert on the subject. Would any of you care to help me out? The thread is here http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2 ... #post22086

At the very least, can someone give me a good reason why gay marriage should be banned? I keep getting the same old "separation of church and state," and that the Bible shouldn't be used to legislate morality. Right now I can't give a good reason to them, or myself, for banning gay marriage based on the constitution. I realize that gay marriage is wrong but how can we stop people from having that choice? I've been reading everything from those people for so long, that I would love to hear from you guys on this issue.

And if any of you have a facebook and want to help me out, that would be great. Forgive me, I don't know how old you guys are but the generation that I'm a part of is incredibly liberal, especially in an already liberal state like New Jersey. If we don't do something to combat this, America may be lost!

Sorry for this random post but I do have that question about gay marriage, and I would love some help on that thread.

_________________
Dan

Just a college kid and a Huckabee supporter!

NJ Huck Supporter,

You may also want to check out this resource or at least point people to it:

Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting
By: Glenn Stanton, Dr. Bill Maier


One other thing, I believe a lot of people in America simply have lost touch with what marriage actually is and what it's meant for. I believe a lot of people, I hope, will soon realize you can't make marriage what it is not...

_________________
Chicagoland Voter Strong for Mike's "12 Stops" Vision & HuckPAC

Thank you for the resource. However, I can't share your optimism of what you said last. This young generation really has "fallen away" and we need to take it back.

A big problem in America today I think, from a Christian's perspective, is premarital and extramarital sex. I will never have premarital sex, but I'm one of the very very few nowadays! Someone in that thread actually just asked me if a bunch of attractive girls walked up to me and offered me sex of any form, if I would honestly reject it, and said that if I would, I had a very sad lifestyle. Well, of course I would never do it! Not to mention I have a girlfriend already who I would never do that to. Maybe this is for another thread, but what does everyone think of this problem (or, do you think it is not a problem)? I think this is just as much of an issue as homosexuality, if not moreso!

_________________
Dan

Just a college kid and a Huckabee supporter!

Here are some thoughts:

1) The government does legislate morality...just look at laws again murder, rape, etc. I do not think that this matters though in this case as we are not dealing with making same-sex acts criminal. Banning same-sex marriage is not legislating morality as it is not criminalizing behavior. I would not talk about legislating morality in this discussion and would say that this concept is not the key issue here in this case.

2) Why does the state get involved in marriage in the first place?

Because the state wants to promote a healthy society. This is the same reason that the state cares about air quality, murder, and good schools.

Studies have shown that same-sex unions results in the shortening of expectancy, the less than optimal environment to raise children, in no natural children and therefore is not sustainable without the help of society.

Because the state cares about life, children, and the continuation of society, government does not promote same-sex unions although it tolerates them.

That is why the state has a compelling interest in marriage but not same-sex marriage. If we as a society want to change this, we can through voting for same-sex unions...it should not be done through the courts as CA did.

Thank you for the response. I have to get to bed, I live on the east coast and it's 2 AM, but quickly, do you have any links to these studies? That would really help me here.

_________________
Dan

Just a college kid and a Huckabee supporter!

CA allowed civil unions already so this is basically the same thing but with a different name. What I don't get is why we even vote to ban something if the supreme court can override it just like that. I don't think we should have judges... at all.