Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Cindy McCain Shills for No on H8 (and Meghan Too)

This article has got me thinking, so I'm just going to come out and admit it: I'm tired of it. I'm tired of standing up for my principles and then having to turn around to be attacked as a "hater." No one who knows me as a dedicated family man would call me a "hater." No one who knows me and my work with students and communities would call me a "hater." Not one my own students -- gay or straight, man or woman, black, white, or hispanic -- would call me a "hater" (at least not one of those students who has really worked with me, and benefited from my teaching and mentoring). But after supporting Proposition 8, and then blogging the hell out of the gay marriage issues for months after the November 2008 election, I'm even more frustrated by the left's campaign of vilification of cultural traditionalists. So, I'll be clear: I believe marriage exists for the fundamental purpose of child-rearing and the biological regeneration of society. In no way can a same-sex couple do what a man and woman can to reproduce the essential unity of physiological oneness of children and procreation. This is simply what I understand as constitutive of the marriage union. And thus, I don't consider same-sex marriage as equal to the historic struggles for civil rights, for example, the reversal of the historic wrongs of discrimation against interracial couples. There's no need to provide links. I've blogged all of these issues time and again, and there's not much more to prove. I love all people regardless of ethnicity, gender, language, national orgins, and religion, etc. And I really don't want to fight with people because of my traditional values. All along, throughout the debates on Proposition 8 in California, and in the recent politics of gay marriage in the states across the union, I've accepted the notion that majority rule should decide the issue -- even if that means gay marriage should prevail. We need to observe the people's will on this crucial question of society. Should the courts authorize a blanket right to same-sex marriage, we'll have decades of cultural wars along the lines of the politics of abortion following Roe v. Wade in 1973. There are some issues so fundamental to the stability of society that the deep emotions and partisan battles are never quite resolved. I don't see the question of gay marriage fading away if the Supreme Court eventually decides the issue in favor of the radical left. Too many people of both religious and secular standing see the historic family of husband and wife as the pillar of the community. Without that, America will never be the same, and our nation will almost certainly not be as strong as we've been as a people over time. We must decide the controversy over same-sex marriage at the state level and as a question of federalism and the rights of states to organize the legal status of the family according the local norms and community standards.



Okay, why am I'm I moved to write this? No one has ever made compelling arguments on the facts to rebut what's been written here over time. Indeed, it almost always ends up, the responses I get, as leftist namecalling and the politics of radical hatred and demonization. It's really sick sometimes. You think Andrew Sullvan's just recently gone off? Whatever he's said of Scott Brown this week is all of a piece. You're "Christainist" (and thus a fanatical terrorist) if you're into the historical conception of family unity and regeneration. But I'm afraid it's getting to the point that even people of strong values have capitulated to the demonization of what's good. If it's gotten to the point where the Cindy McCains and the Meghan McCains of this world are the arbiters of what's an acceptable Repubican, I doubt that party will ever regain any credibility on the right, no matter how many Scott Browns we elect. I know, I know: Lots of top Republicans favor so-called "marriage equality." Dick Cheney comes to mind, one of the most forceful critics of the Obama administration, but one who has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. For all of Dick Cheney's wisdom, I don't think he gets it on this issue. Once conservatives concede marriage to the radical left, it's all downhill -- there's not going to be much to uphold regarding fundamental values of goodness and social preservation. It's all up in the air at that point. But don't just take my word for it. Listen to the folks who Cindy McCain and Meghan McCain have joined in the "NO on H8" campaign, "Meghan McCain is Redefining Republican"

Teabaggers are definitely getting all the attention these days when it comes to the Republican Party. Look no further than Massachusetts, where Republicans have graciously told their candidate, Scott Brown, to shove a curling iron up Democratic nominee Martha Coakley's butt, or to Oklahoma, where teabaggers have prayed for Senate Democrats to die.

Talk about a civility FAIL. Is there any hope left for the Republican Party? Maybe some sort of superwoman? Or, well, at least a super Tweeter and/or blogger?

Enter Meghan McCain, the daughter of U.S. Sen. John McCain, who has grown tired of childish kvetching and teabaggers.
She's ready to redefine Republican, and for her, that starts with increasing the number of Republicans supportive of marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

McCain is scheduled to speak at George Washington University's "Marriage Equality Week," scheduled for February 9. That is, unless a civil war among students breaks out. A student gay rights group is thrilled that she's coming. But a student Republican organization feels like they were duped. They wanted Meghan McCain to speak about the new face of the Republican Party, and now they're miffed that she'll be talking about marriage equality ...

I can't hold back in my intense resentment at being attacked as a "teabagger" by these freakin' gay marriage ayatollahs. Meghan McCain is too stupid to realize these she's simply the most colossal tool of the neo-Stalinist gay rights lobby (including the International ANSWER cadres and Code Pink traitors who've long supported the killing of American troops overseas). Put it all together and it's just plain grotesque. It's really time for conservatives to take a stand (and if you don't think so, read Diana West's, "The Stage Is Being Set"). Will Meghan and her mother define the agenda of the GOP? Take a look at that article: "Cindy McCain Joins California’s No H8 Gay-Rights Campaign." It's hard to believe that John McCain's wife would be sucked into this by the same groups that worked to destroy her husband in 2008. But they are one and the same. John McCain as a candidate supported marriage traditionalism. I don't know where he stands now, but his wife and daughter certainly don't represent what the McCain presidential campaign stood for at the time.

Anyway, it's all coming to a head again this week. Court's back in session in San Francisco, and the left's campaign of lies and distortion is picking up steam. See, the Los Angeles Times, "
Documents Show Links Between Prop. 8 Campaign and Church Leaders" (via Memeorandum). And the San Jose Mercury News, "Prop. 8 Trial Day 7: Live Coverage From the Courtroom."

RELATED: The Advocate, "Cindy McCain Poses for NOH8." And the Washington Post, "McCain's Wife, Daughter Back Gay Marriage Movement."

12 comments:

tracy said...

You have heard all the arguments, so I will not raise them. Your post did make me think of something. Marriage when our life expectancy was 45-50 and most of the adult life was spent rearing children has changed. Now we have couples that live 10, 20 even 30 years together after the children are born and raised. Is the use of marriage done after the children are born and raised and off on their own?

I am one of those conservative lesbians that thinks the 'gay movement' is often it's own worse enemy. The radical gay agenda is just a variation on the radical left agenda. I reject the 'left' agenda regardless of the flavor of the week.

My agenda is not to destroy marriages, or our society but to embrace marriage as a sign of the level of the commitment my partner and I share. A commitment to each other on par with straight couples.

Not asking for an explanation or even a response, but I don't understand how my marriage destroys yours or how our raising our 15 yr old daughter prevents you from raising your children.

I continue a fan and reader...

Rusty Walker said...

Well said!

It is a simplistic notion that if you deny gay marriage, “you hate gays.” It is a childish and inaccurate code. It is reminiscent of the 60s challenge to shame-ridden whites “some of my best friends are black,” that became an unfair code for prejudice. Well, some of my best friends are black; and now, I have good friends that are gay. But, I do not believe we should now pretend that same-sex couples should be considered the same, i.e. “ideal.”

This concept stems from the leftist notion that “everyone is the same.” Being “equal” does not mean “the same.” I am equal to Michael Jordan, but he can dunk on the court, and I might be a better jockey. We aren’t the same, and neither are homosexuals and heterosexuals. In the 60s and 70s the liberals tried to pretend men and women were the same. This produced an unnatural redefinition of men and women that confused a whole generation of men and women about their roles.

Gays are already constitutionally protected against discrimination in this society. As for two same-sex lovers, they are not prohibited from adult sexual activities in the privacy of their own home. They are protected in the workplace. They can adopt. But, as you stated it takes a man and a woman to produce society’s children for the growth and welfare of the community. This fact is not an innate denial of gays. Heterosexuals get married, homosexuals have civil unions. This is not a slight on them. There will always be laws regulating human behavior by state majority votes that limit rights. That is why state laws prohibit marriage to a minor, a close relative, several wives, etc.. To change the definition of marriage would be a denial of historic ideals in American society.

tracy said...

Rusty, I can't adopt our daughter. She was adopted by my partner from China and my state does not allow me to also adopt her. Because of that, if my partner leaves and takes our daughter, I do not have the right to ask for visitation - I have no standing to even make the motion. Here, it is as if I were to make a motion for visitation for a child on the next block - the court does not recognize (and recent law changes reinforced this situation) me in any way.

Consider me one of those thick heads or someone too close to the situation to see any distinction, but gay marriage does not preclude traditional marriage, nor will gay marriage encourage straight people to divorce or chose gay marriage...

Carolyn Ann said...

So let me get this straight: you don't want to grant gays the right to marry because marriage is (solely?) about procreation? And America won't be the same if gays do get married.

Additionally, you assert that gays and lesbians shouldn't be able to marry because they've never been able to marry.

In my admittedly limited reading of your blog, I don't see much about equality. Presumably you agree with the premise that people are equal? (I "equal" mean in the political sense.) Do you agree that you have the same rights as any other American? And that they have the same rights as you?

Except when it comes to marriage. There, you incoherently argue, the majority has the right to impose conditions! Society, by virtue of majority vote, gets to decide what rights someone else enjoys. Heck, why stop at marriage? Let's put other rights up for vote! Let's put the right to fall in love with whomever you fall in love with up to majority opinion. Is that what you're ultimately arguing for?

I take it you're for "limited government"? You don't want government, or societal, intrusion into your life. But you're eager to see the government intrude in the lives of others. Because they're gay. You basically want the government out of your life, but in theirs? Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

You establish the fact that you're not a libertarian. But I do challenge you on the idea that you're a conservative. You seem to think that being a conservative requires adherence to a set of principles; indeed, you are critical of Cindy Meghan McCain because they don't adhere to what you perceive is "conservative". Might I offer that you're more reactionary than conservative?

I'd also like to draw attention to your dislike of name-calling. Apparently you dislike being called certain names. But you have no problem with calling others equally derogatory names. Are you really hypocritical, or just oblivious to that?

(By the way, in '08, I think John McCain did an admirable job of destroying his own credibility. That others pointed this out is simply politics. Or are such tactics only heinous when the left indulge in them?)

Carolyn Ann

battle of endor said...

So if marriage is only meant for pro-creation between a man and a woman, does that mean a heterosexual couple who plan on never having kids should not be able to wed?
Also, what about the rights that come with marriage, such as visiting your sick partner, parent rights, etc.? Should the gay community be denied those rights as well?
Yes or no question: Do you think of homosexuality as immoral?
What would you do if your child were homosexual?

Reliapundit said...

abe lincoln asked his son how many feet a dog would have if he called the dogs tali a foot.

his son said "5."

abe said "no, calling a tail a foot doesn't make it a foot; it's still a tail."

calling a contract between two people of the same sex "marriage" can't make it marriage any more than calling a tail a foot can make it a foot.

besides that, there's a million reasons why we shouldn't make the deviant into the normative.

we can and should respect law-abiding deviants but respect doesn't mean we have to turn our institutions upside down.

tracy said...

Relipundit, the tail is a construct of nature. Marriage is a legal structure in exactly the same way a corporation is an individual. Human men and women have been pairing off and procreating since long before 'marriage' was created. And marriage in the beginning was a declaration of ownership. Religion encourages the union and creates a sacrament for it.

We can change the legal structure. There is nothing inherent in it except a strong desire to maintain it as is. Human male and females do not need marriage to procreate. Male and female couples that marry are not obligated to procreate.

I do not want the sacrament to change - religions should and can continue to bestow their blessings as they see fit. Legally, the State has neither an interest in, nor an obligation to promote, procreation. SOCIETY may but for me, as a Conservative, I don't like the power of the State being used for purposes of social engineering. And maintaining the status quo, is as much social engineering as providing tax credits for having children.

Marriage traditions are not reasons to enforce legal restrictions. You can consider me to be a deviant, but homosexuality is a NORMAL variant in humanity - having existed during all societies, and for all our recorded history even when the prohibition was fatal.

I doubt you are for limiting the pursuit of happiness for albinos, or hemophiliacs. Your offense or disgust, or ewwwww is not a reason for ME to be denied the legal benefit of marriage because my choice is inconsistent with YOUR idea of the corrent one.

Carolyn Ann said...

Reliapundit: What, exactly, is a "deviant"?

Or are you just being homophobic and discriminatory against those you dislike?

Preston said...

I now know that Cindy McCain is an independant thinker instead of a sheep who follows the flock, good for her. I applaud her endorsement of the NOH8 gay marriage campaign. I am sure many of you will approve.

Rusty Walker said...

Tracy, I believe your state made an unfair voter’s decision to deny you and others this right. If you and your partner are both joined in a committed, state-authorized civil union, I believe that you should be able to adopt your partner's Chinese daughter. You shouldn’t be prohibited from looking after the welfare of a child. These rights also should not hinge on the rightfully protected word, “marriage.”

Protected words should not mean one cannot have a fair alternative: In Texas the word, ‘college” is “protected,” and defined as a “regionally accredited” school. The college I worked for in Arizona had national accreditation (technical degrees), instead of regional accreditation. Both are recognized by the Department of Education. It didn’t mean we were “lesser than…” Thus, in Texas, we were prohibited from using the word “college” in our name in Texas. A branch in Texas would need to use the word “institution.” Did we have an equally good school? Our BA graduate employment was 90% - the average U.S. public college is usually around 40% or lower. Many of our graduates are animators at Pixar, Disney, Fox animation, et. al.. So, yes our educational institution is highly successful. Using the alternative word of “institution, still allowed a school to operate a highly successful baccalaureate programs where graduates become employed in the technological industry.

In my opinion, the definition of the word marriage should be protected. But, this should not disallow a fair alternative protection of children and common law rights to be provided for gay couples.

tracy said...

It is not just adoption, the state also banned any recognition, regardless of name of any law that gives all or substantially all the rights of marriage so there is no civil unions here. And of course, DOMA means WI does not have to recognize our 'marriage' if done in another state. so you have 50 states enacting different laws and none having to recognize what others have done - I accept that as someone that supports Federalism. That is why I focus on changing hearts and minds rather than laws.

That said, your analogy about protected words. I got it. Then, on reflection, do not think it works in this situation. I will have to spend some time considering all the points before responding to it.

Rusty Walker said...

Tracy, I just wish you and the rest the best, regardless of our different views. We're all Americans.