ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

Pablo the Great said 04/15, 04:16 PM
McCain is not for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. He DOES support the rights of states to set the restrictions of marriage, something left up to them by the Tenth Amendment.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It does not say local laws cannot be made which follow the customs of localities, states, etc. As McCain wants it, it will NOT be a Federal issue no matter what. It's a state issue, there's no need to change that.


If, by your post, you were suggesting that gay marriage should be made forcibly legal at the federal level because some see it as a religious issue, that precedent would force the United States into utter chaos.

If the United States were to rid itself of any laws which could be argued as having a religious reasoning, murder would be legal (thou shall not kill), polygamy would be legal (goes against the traditional Christian marriage), and the 21st Amendment could not stand (it allows the states/localities to set restrictions for alcohol, temperance being a religious issue).


find: gay (it'll show up)
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain

Pablo the Great said 04/15, 06:17 PM
McCain was not "wrong" to vote against same sex marriage on a state level any more than someone is "wrong" for voting against a tax increase or voting against the Brady Bill. If passing laws (which abide by the Constitution of both the United States and the State itself) were wrong, then no representative would ever be right. States in America have passed literally THOUSANDS of laws based on widespread public consensus. This issue is no different than gun control, you can be for it, or you can be against it, but it's not inherently "wrong" of a person to vote one way or another.

You say states won't be forced to legalize gay marriage if a law is passed on a Federal level, how can that be when 43 states have outlawed the practice? Twenty-six of which have it outlawed in the State Constitution.

You have tried to paint a picture of McCain being a lone-ranger trying to ban marriage for gays, however this is far from the truth. He voted, on behalf of those whom he swore to serve. What's wrong - again, if it abides by the State and US Constitution - with a politician actually representing the people?

Pablo the Great said 04/15, 09:11 PM
Using the logic that states are obstructing the "rights" of gays by not recognizing their marriages (though they can live together, fornicate, adopt, etc.) then states cannot outlaw polygamy, laws which have remained relatively unchallenged through the years.

The only thing McCain did was voice his opinion, there is nothing "wrong" in doing that. The right to voice your opinion is the most cherished right guaranteed to all those in the United States. So long as an opinion is legal under the laws of the United States, we as a society cannot condemn anyone for voicing their views.

You also elude to the fact that marriage is a super-important issue for gays. If a gay couple wants to marry so much, they can move to a state where it is legal. This is the same as for a person who wants to carry a concealed weapon, go to a state where it is legal. If states cannot make their own decisions, the system is ruined for everyone.

All bringing in the slavery argument does is cloud the issue here. Slavery is nothing like the issue at hand. I hope you can all can see that, because I refuse to even debate the differences between:

1) voicing an opinion on marriage, and
2) enslaving a race