An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.

John McCain Swings Both Ways

Friday, October 20, 2006

[Terrance here, from The Republic of T.]

Ladies and Gentlmen, the Maverick on gay marriage.

That's just a clip, but there's more on the full video from Hardball, including this quote.

"On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe if people want to have private ceremonies that's fine. I do not believe that gay marriage should be legal."

Thus the wannabe presidential candidate tries to have it both ways on gay marriage, coming across as anti-gay but not anti-gay at the same time.

John, you fucking idiot. You just don't get it, do you?

Gay people have been "having ceremonies" since there have been gay people. (In other words, forever.) There's nothing stopping us from "having ceremonies." There are even churches that will welcome us and clergy who will happily officiate. (And some of those clergy are gay too.) Fortunately, nobody is trying to bad churches and clergy from hosting or officiating at same-sex weddings. (Yet.) So, that's not the problem. (Yet.)

The problem is that those ceremonies have no meaning beyond the wedded couples and the people attending in support of their unions. Outside of that, they carry no weight in the courtroom, or the hospital room, or in any number of areas in American life where a marriage certificate makes a huge amount of difference. At the risk of repeating myself, met me remind you of some examples of what a walk down the aisle doesn't get us, and how that plays out in real life.

It isn't about having a ceremony, John. And, despite your dismissive comments about "if you want to call it that" we're not fucking playing house, John. We're making commitments to one another, and building lives and families together. The question is, are we "real" families or not, and do we get treated like "real" families? Or is the distinction now between "nonfamilies and "state sanctioned families"? The sad part, John, is that you're trying to have it both ways ó coming across as a "nice guy" who's not anti-gay while at the same time not pissing off your friends at Liberty University and Bob Jones University ó but you fail miserably because even your pseudo attempt at least appearing not to be anti-gay falls on its face. It's not about whether we get to walk down the aisle or not John. It's about whether we have the same rights and protections as other families after that walk.

Actually, John, your remark reminded me of an interview I saw years ago when some sweet little old lady was asked about a law prohibiting workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. I guess she wanted to preserve her image as a sweet old lady when she said of the proposed law, "Oh, I'm against discrimination. I just don't think we need a law against it. It's a nice sentiment, but even then I knew the reality was that in the absence of a law there was no way to prevent discrimination, no possible penalty for those who did the discriminating, and no legal remedies or recourse for those who were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation to fight it.

In her mind, that little old lady got to have it both ways by personally opposing discrimination, but at the same time supporting it by supporting a status quo that at best took a "do nothing" approach to anti-gay discrimination that left people no better off. But she got to feel good about herself, and remain a sweet old lady.

I guess you feel good about yourself too, John. You're still an SOB too. And by that I don't mean "Sweet Ol' Boy."