| It would be wrong for Granite Staters to think that a McCain nomination would mean a Republican closer to our more old-fashioned social libertarian roots.
I was so busy tracking the Democratic candidates' response to our civil unions law back in April, I forgot to check on the Republicans. Turned out Mr. McMaverick did some pretty serious twisting in the wind on that one: In the past, Mr. McCain has been very hard to pin down on civil unions.
But today, he was clear: "I am opposed to that legislation."
While he reiterated his commitment to federalism, Mr. McCain further stated, "If I were a citizen of New Hampshire, I would oppose it. ... Anything that impinges or impacts the sanctity of the marriage between men and women, I'm opposed to it." (Sorry - I have to pause here to chuckle a bit - It always makes me laugh to hear people who don't know me say that the "sanctity" of my marriage will be compromised by someone else's decisions that don't affect me at all. That phrase gets tossed around a lot, but examining it closely is just creepy.)
It gets better. From an interview with Stephanopoulos: STEPHANOPOULOS: You say you believe that marriage should be reserved for between a man --
McCAIN: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- and a woman. You voted for an initiative in Arizona that went beyond that and actually denied any government benefits to civil unions or domestic partnerships. Are you against civil unions for gay couples?
McCAIN: No, I'm not. But the -- that initiative I think was misinterpreted. I think that initiative did allow for people to join in legal agreements such as power of attorney and others. I think there was a -- I think that there was a difference of opinion on the interpretation of that constitutional amendment in Arizona.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're for civil unions?
McCAIN: No. I am for ability of two -- I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people who have relationships can enter into.
I suppose you could analyze all this, but the shorter version seems to come down to: "Please don't make me have to talk about this issue. Here's a catch phrase or two, and I'll stay ambiguous enough to keep the moderates happy in the primary state and the haters happy in the elsewhere. Can we move on to bombing Iran now?
Note: title re-written because I find the changing definitions of "Federalism" at different points of US history confusing. |
