I'd Rather Kiss a Girl!
by psychodrew, Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:08:53 PM EDT
Two important things you need to know about me. First, I am a militant Clintonista. Second, I am a gay man.
I absolutely adore Hillary Clinton from the bottom of my heart. I identify with her struggle to overcome gender stereotypes. I admire they way she held up under the brutal fire of the VRWC in the 1990s. I believe that she would make an absolutely amazing president. Despite the numbers, I still haven't given up hope. I'm "in it to win it" as long as Hillary is.
Recently, one of my fellow Clintonistas suggested that he would vote for John McSame should Obama be our nominee and suggested to me that there is little difference between the two with respect to gay issues. He is a good friend and I understand how he feels but honestly, are you kidding me? Vote for John McSame?
I have admired Hillary for a some time and I have been looking forward to her race for the presidency since 2004. I was so excited the day that she announced her candidacy on the internet that I actually cried. I went out and bought the t-shirts, donated money, and inundated friends and family with emails about why Hillary is the best candidate. I also began fighting for Hillary on the internet and later joined the Writer's Strike from the big orange monster whose name we dare not speak.
But in the end, my loyalty does not end with Hillary Clinton. I, like Hillary, am passionate about the Democratic Party and the progressive cause. Both she and Bill have pledged to support Obama if he is the nominee. For me, there is absolutely no doubt. If Obama wins the nomination, I will absolutely vote for him.
If that weren't enough, some simple research on John McSame uncovers some very uncomfortable truths. Although he voted against the federal anti-gay marriage amendment, he signed a petition for a referendum on an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Arizona state constitution. McCain seems to believe that states should be allowed to make their own decisions on gay marriage. So while he opposed the federal ban, he supported the state ban.
He discussed his personal views at the Hardball College Tour in Iowa in 2006:
"On the issue of gay marriage, I do believe, and I think it's a correct policy that the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, a marriage between man and woman, should have a unique status. But I`m not for depriving any other group of Americans from having rights. But I do believe that there is something that is unique between marriage between a man and a woman, and I believe it should be protected."
You can watch a video here of him explaining that while he doesn't have problem with gay marriage, in that he doesn't have a problem with the ceremony, the marriage should not confer any rights.
If that doesn't send a chill down your spines, maybe this will. In the fall of 2007, a judge in Iowa struck down the state's ban on gay marriage. Fox News wrote this about his response to that ruling:
Republican White House hopeful John McCain called the ruling "a loss for the traditional family."
"I have always supported the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman," he said. "The ruling of the court only reinforces my belief that we must have a president who is committed to appointing strict constructionists to the bench."
Last week, somewhat under the radar as the media were busying declaring Hillary Clinton dead, John McSame repeated his pledge to nominate "strict constructionist judges."
What does that mean for the gay marriage fight? Before John Roberts and Samuel Alito were added to the Supreme Court, the three strict constructionist judges were Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and the late William Rehnquist. In 2003, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down laws that banned consensual sex between adults of the same sex. From CNN:
Religious conservatives quickly criticized the decision, and in a sharply worded dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court "has taken sides in the culture war." Scalia -- joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas -- said the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda though normal democratic means," Scalia wrote.
But with Thursday's decision, he wrote, the court was "departing from its role in assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."
John McSame plans to appoint Supreme Court justices who think that it is constitutional to put people in jail for having sex because they think it's immoral. Are you kidding me? Vote for John McSame.
Uh, no. I'd rather kiss a girl.
No offense intended, ladies.