Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: John McCain on Civil Unions. He was for it before he was against it.

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    John McCain on Civil Unions. He was for it before he was against it.

    [QUOTE]“Are you against civil unions for gay couples?” he asked the senator, who replied, “No, I’m not.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later — “So you’re for civil unions?” — Mr. McCain answered, “No.” In other words, he was not against civil unions before he was against them.[/QUOTE]
    [URL]http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/opinion/17rich.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fFrank%20Rich[/URL]
    Is this going to make CB's talking points for him to use as much as he uses Kerry's gaffe about voting for the money for Iraq before he voted against it?

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan][URL]http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/opinion/17rich.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fFrank%20Rich[/URL]
    Is this going to make CB's talking points for him to use as much as he uses Kerry's gaffe about voting for the money for Iraq before he voted against it?[/QUOTE]


    your link does not work...

    unless you are like other spammers who've recently come to this board please post the entire story rather than cherry pick a few lines from a paragraph to make a point...

    and btw: kerri's flip-flops the past quarter century could fill several volumes of an encyclopedia....

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]your link does not work...

    unless you are like other spammers who've recently come to this board please post the entire story rather than cherry pick a few lines from a paragraph to make a point...

    and btw: [B]kerri's flip-flops the past quarter century could fill several volumes of an encyclopedia[/B]....[/QUOTE]

    As opposed to Dumbyas flip flops which can fill an entire library

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mary Cheney's Bundle of Joy

    I didn't reprint the whole article because the article was not just about McCain and it was a quote from a TV show. The link works you just have to be a NY Times Select member - anyway you wanted it. Here is the whole article.

    Mary Cheney’s Bundle of Joy
    E-MailPrint Save By FRANK RICH
    Published: December 17, 2006

    IT’S not the least of John McCain’s political talents that he comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn’t talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to near-stammering on ABC’s “This Week” two Sundays after the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the elephants’ room, or perhaps we should say in their closet: homosexuality.

    Senator McCain is no bigot, and his only goal was to change the subject as quickly as possible. He kept repeating two safe talking points for dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn’t let him off the hook.

    “Are you against civil unions for gay couples?” he asked the senator, who replied, “No, I’m not.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later — “So you’re for civil unions?” — Mr. McCain answered, “No.” In other words, he was not against civil unions before he was against them. His gaffe was reminiscent of a similar appearance on Mr. Stephanopoulos’s show in 2004 by Bill Frist, a Harvard-trained doctor who refused to criticize a federal abstinence program that catered to the religious right by spreading the canard that sweat and tears could transmit AIDS.

    Senator Frist is now a lame duck, and his brand of pandering, typified by his errant upbeat diagnosis of the brain-dead Terri Schiavo’s condition, is following him to political Valhalla. The 2006 midterms left Karl Rove’s supposedly foolproof playbook in tatters. It was hard for the Republicans to deal the gay card one more time after the Mark Foley and Ted Haggard scandals revealed that today’s conservative hierarchy is much like Roy Cohn’s milieu in “Angels in America,” minus the wit and pathos.

    This time around, ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage drew markedly less support than in 2004; the draconian one endorsed by Mr. McCain in Arizona was voted down altogether. Two national politicians who had kowtowed egregiously to their party’s fringe, Rick Santorum and George Allen, were defeated, joining their ideological fellow travelers Tom DeLay and Ralph Reed in the political junkyard. To further confirm the inexorable march of social history, the only Christmas season miracle to lift the beleaguered Bush administration this year has been the announcement that Mary Cheney, the vice president’s gay daughter, is pregnant. Her growing family is the living rejoinder to those in her father’s party who would relegate gay American couples and their children to second-class legal or human status.

    Yet not even these political realities have entirely broken the knee-jerk habit of some 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls to woo homophobes. Mitt Romney, the Republican Massachusetts governor, was caught in yet another embarrassing example of his party’s hypocrisy last week. In a newly unearthed letter courting the gay Log Cabin Republicans during his unsuccessful 1994 Senate race, he promised to “do better” than even Ted Kennedy in making “equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” Given that Mr. Romney has been making opposition to same-sex marriage his political calling card this year, his ideological bisexuality looks as foolish in its G-rated way as that of Mr. Haggard, the evangelical leader who was caught keeping time with a male prostitute.

    There’s no evidence that Mr. Romney’s rightward move on gay civil rights and abortion (about which he acknowledges his flip-flop) has helped him politically. Or that Mr. McCain has benefited from a similar sea change that has taken him from accurately labeling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance” in 2000 to appearing at Mr. Falwell’s Liberty University this year. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that among Republican voters, Rudy Giuliani, an unabashed liberal on gay civil rights and abortion, leads Mr. McCain 34 percent to 26 percent. Mr. Romney brought up the rear, at 5 percent. That does, however, put him nominally ahead of another presidential wannabe, the religious-right favorite Sam Brownback, who has held up a federal judicial nomination in the Senate because the nominee had attended a lesbian neighbor’s commitment ceremony.

    For those who are cheered by seeing the Rovian politics of wedge issues start to fade, the good news does not end with the growing evidence that gay-baiting may do candidates who traffic in it more harm than good. It’s not only centrist American voters of both parties who reject divisive demagoguery but also conservative evangelicals themselves. Some of them are at last standing up to the extremists in their own camp.

    No one more dramatically so, perhaps, than Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch leader and best-selling author of “The Purpose Driven Life.” He has adopted AIDS in Africa as a signature crusade, and invited Barack Obama to join the usual suspects, including Senator Brownback, to address his World AIDS Day conference on the issue. This prompted predictable outrage from the right because of Mr. Obama’s liberal politics, especially on abortion. One radio host, Kevin McCullough, demonized the Democrat for pursuing “inhumane, sick and sinister evil” as a legislator. An open letter sponsored by 18 “pro-life” groups protested the invitation, also citing Mr. Obama’s “evil.” But Mr. Warren didn’t blink.

    Among those defending the invitation was David Kuo, the former deputy director of the Bush White House’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In a book, “Tempting Faith,” as well as in interviews and on his blog, the heretical Mr. Kuo has become a tough conservative critic of the corruption of religion by politicians and religious-right leaders who are guilty of “taking Jesus and reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy.” Of those “family” groups who criticized Mr. Obama’s appearance at the AIDS conference, Mr. Kuo wrote, “Are they so blind and possessed with such a narrow definition of life that they can think of life only in utero?” The answer, of course, is yes. The Christian Coalition parted ways with its new president-elect, a Florida megachurch pastor, Joel Hunter, after he announced that he would take on bigger issues like poverty and global warming.

    But it is leaders like Mr. Hunter and Mr. Warren who are in ascendance. Even the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at Mr. Haggard’s former perch, the National Association of Evangelicals, has joined a number of his peers in taking up the cause of the environment, putting him at odds with the Bush administration. Such religious leaders may not have given up their opposition to abortion or gay marriage, but they have more pressing priorities. They seem to have figured out, as Mr. Kuo has said, that “politicians use Christian voters for their money and for their votes” and give them little in return except a reputation for bigotry and heartless opposition to the lifesaving potential of stem-cell research.

    The axis of family jihadis — Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association — is feeling the heat; its positions get more extreme by the day. A Concerned Women for America mouthpiece called Mary Cheney’s pregnancy “unconscionable,” condemning her for having “injured her child” and “acted in a way that denies everything that the Bush administration has worked for.” (That last statement, thankfully, is true.) This overkill reeks of desperation. So does these zealots’ recent assault on the supposedly feminizing “medical” properties of soy baby formula (which deserves the “blame for today’s rise in homosexuality,” according to the chairman of Megashift Ministries), and penguins.

    Yes, penguins. These fine birds have now joined the Teletubbies and SpongeBob SquarePants in the pantheon of cuddly secret agents for “the gay agenda.” Schools are being forced to defend “And Tango Makes Three,” an acclaimed children’s picture book based on the true story of two Central Park Zoo male penguins who adopted a chick from a fertilized egg. The hit penguin movie “Happy Feet” has been outed for an “anti-religious bias” and its “endorsement of gay identity” by Michael Medved, the commentator who sets the tone for the religious right’s strictly enforced code of cultural political correctness.

    Such censoriousness is increasingly the stuff of comedy. So are politicians of all stripes who advertise their faith. A liberal like Howard Dean is no more credible talking about the Bible (during the 2004 campaign he said his favorite book in the New Testament was Job) than twice-married candidates like Mr. McCain are persuasive at pledging allegiance to “the sanctity of marriage.”

    For all the skeptical theories about the Obama boomlet — or real boom, we don’t know yet — no one doubts that his language about faith is his own, not a crib sheet provided by a conservative evangelical preacher or a liberal political consultant on “values.” That’s why a Democrat from Chicago whose voting record is to the left of Hillary Clinton’s received the same standing ovation from the thousands at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church that he did from his own party’s throngs in New Hampshire. After a quarter-century of watching politicians from both parties exploit religion for partisan and often mean-spirited political gain, voters on all sides of this country’s culture wars are finally in the market for something new.

  5. #5
    flushingjet
    Guest
    Frank Rich was a pathetic Arts Critic.

    Whatever he panned the Public loved and vice versa.

    As a political commentator, he makes a great Arts Critic!

    "Axis of Family Jihadis"?
    The only "Religious" Jihadis around blowing up stuff are the Islamo-tards.

    "Life Saving Potential of Stem-Cell Research"
    If only it were true.

    Bad reverends?
    Gotta put Messrs Jackson Daughtry & Sharpton on that list also.

    As for children's shows,
    Tell us all how a male character
    with a huge woman's purse,
    Or male characters who are not
    pre-pubescent, asexual children
    who hold hands, skip along dippily
    like Jack and Jill,
    and sometimes dress in drag,
    are always such great behavioral & role models for
    impressionable kids.

    And, "gay penguins" somehow
    normalizes that behavior for
    humans?

    I guess the other rapacious nature of Wild Animals
    should then be emulated as well-no responsibility
    for children, ravaging others and other species
    on a whim.

    I dislike McCain because hes disingenuous
    myself, but commenting on McCains
    marriage history is a real cheap shot coming
    from a person himself married more than once.

    Obnoxious thoughts from an obnoxious person.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    Typical post from the likes of FJ which was the reason I didn't post the whole article originally. The only reason I linked the quote to Rich is that's where I read it. The article just quotes him from a TV show. This thread is not about Frank Rick, or penguins, or how many times Rich or McCain were married it's about how McCain was trying to take both sides of the issue and misspoke even worse than Kerry did about the war because the truth is that Kerry did first vote for the appropriation and then voted against it as a protest to the administration not giving a full accounting of how the money would be spent and it was obvious the vote was going to pass so the troops would not be denied their funding.

    One could argue that McCain's gaffe was even worse as he was truly trying to take both sides of an issue while Kerry was accurately telling how he voted. Kerry was making a valid point but being the buffoon that he is he could not properly articulate it and the Repubs jumped all over his misspeak to make him a flip flopper. How many times has CB posted this [I]Jean[/I] Kerry quote?

    Every time somebody mentions McCain on the board now should there be a post of this quote of his?

    My point is that its such nonsense when posters do that.
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 12-18-2006 at 04:49 PM.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Typical post from the likes of FJ which was the reason I didn't post the whole article originally. The only reason I linked the quote to Rich is that's where I read it. [B]The article just quotes him from a TV show.[/B] This thread is not about Frank Rick, or penguins, or how many times Rich or McCain were married it's about how McCain was trying to take both sides of the issue and misspoke even worse than Kerry did about the war because the truth is that Kerry did first vote for the appropriation and then voted against it as a protest to the administration not giving a full accounting of how the money would be spent and it was obvious the vote was going to pass so the troops would not be denied their funding.

    One could argue that McCain's gaffe was even worse as he was truly trying to take both sides of an issue while Kerry was accurately telling how he voted. Kerry was making a valid point but being the buffoon that he is he could not properly articulate it and the Repubs jumped all over his misspeak to make him a flip flopper. How many times has CB posted this [I]Jean[/I] Kerry quote?

    Every time somebody mentions McCain on the board now should there be a post of this quote of his?

    My point is that its such nonsense when posters do that.[/QUOTE]

    of course this is just another pathetic reach by a liberal to make an insipid comparison....

    Frank Rich- a lunatic leftist who tows the line for the NY Slimes, takes a three word answer and one word answer from a talk show done five weeks ago to lead an opinion piece...

    You then take it and try to compare one or two lines from an interview to kerri's voting history on policies which effect the country....

    you know "I actually [B]VOTED[/B] for the $87- billion before [B]VOTING [/B] against it..."

    this of course after kerri [B]VOTED[/B] for the war...

    where is the rest of the transcript from the talk show which took place more than a month ago???

    were other questions asked???

    did McCain explain himself??

    as with everything else with the NY Slimes this is just another abomination of journalism and your attempt to make a comparison that isn't there is complete nonsense....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-18-2006 at 05:26 PM.

  8. #8
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Typical post from the likes of FJ which was the reason I didn't post the whole article originally. This thread is not about Frank Rick, or penguins, or how many times Rich or McCain were married it's about how McCain was trying to take both sides of the issue and misspoke even worse than Kerry did about the war because the truth is that Kerry did first vote for the appropriation and then voted against it as a protest to the administration not giving a full accounting of how the money would be spent and it was obvious the vote was going to pass so the troops would not be denied their funding.

    One could argue that McCain's gaffe was even worse as he was truly trying to take both sides of an issue while Kerry was accurately telling how he voted. Kerry was making a valid point but being the bufoon that he is he could not properly articulate it and the Repubs jumped all over his misspeak to make him a flip flopper. How many times has CB posted this [i]Jean[/i] Kerry quote?

    Every time somebody mentions McCain on the board now should there be a post of this quote of his?

    My point is that its such nonsense when posters do that.[/QUOTE]

    You posted the whole article and polluted the place.

    Using your logic, what does 90% of the article
    have to do with what McCain said?

    How does Barack (Real Estate Deal) Obama fit in here?

    Also, have you heard?
    National Defense is a more serious issue for
    this country than putting the Good Housekeeping
    seal on deviancy.

    Thats why Kerry's flip-flop, although one
    of a long running series of gaffes,
    is more telling and sums up lib vacuousness perfectly

    Dems love McCain for his Foolsgold Anti-Free Speech
    "Campaign Finance Reform" law, and have often
    wished he would defect.
    But since 2008 is fast approaching hes not lib enough
    for some, so out the tar brush comes.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    FJ didn't I read somewhere today that you said you were very intelligent? The point of this thread has nothing to do with Rich. You said I polluted this board with the whole post, well you can thank your friend CB for that because HE ASKED FOR IT.

    Also if you read the article it said of McCain on the TV show "his only goal was to change the subject as quickly as possible" so there was no explaination of his stupid remarks.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]FJ didn't I read somewhere today that you said you were very intelligent? The point of this thread has nothing to do with Rich. You said I polluted this board with the whole post, well you can thank your friend CB for that because HE ASKED FOR IT.

    [B]Also if you read the article it said of McCain on the TV show "his only goal was to change the subject as quickly as possible" so there was no explaination of his stupid remarks[/B].[/QUOTE]


    Nothing more than the opinion of Frank Rich...which is garbage- just like the thread you started...

    you had to be badgered to come up with the story after cherry picking two sentences from an opinion piece which does noting but steal two questions from an interview....

    trying to compare this to jean kerri's continual reversal in his voting record is pathetic....nothing in this sad story comes close to the ilk of:

    [B]I actually VOTED for the $87-billion before VOTING against it....after kerri VOTED for the war....[/B]

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dammed if I do. Dammed if I don't. CB [I]badgers[/I] me to print the whole article and then FJ said I pollute the board by doing it.

    CB did you see McCain on the tv show. Did you in fact hear him try and explain this position? If not the only reason you have to say that he maybe did try and explain it is because this was in an article by Frank Rich and we all know he can't be trusted to say truthfully what he heard on TV.

    Yours and FJ's comments on this thread are just prime examples of how extreme both of you are and why you can't be taken seriously. Go ahead CB keep on posting your [I]Jean[/I] Kerry quote.

    Every time we will read it we will know who the REAL [I]lunatic[/I] is.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Dammed if I do. Dammed if I don't. CB [I]badgers[/I] me to print the whole article and then FJ said I pollute the board by doing it.[/QUOTE]

    you deserve credit for coming through with the info unlike another progressive extremist on this forum who spams threads then cannot back-up his posts...

    [QUOTE]CB did you see McCain on the tv show. Did you in fact hear him try and explain this position? If not the only reason you have to say that he maybe did try and explain it is because this was in an article by Frank Rich and we all know he can't be trusted to say truthfully what he heard on TV. [/QUOTE]

    no I didn't...did you??

    and if so, where is the transcript???

    [QUOTE]Yours and FJ's comments on this thread are just prime examples of how extreme both of you are and why you can't be taken seriously. Go ahead CB keep on posting your [I]Jean[/I] Kerry quote.

    Every time we will read it we will know who the REAL [I]lunatic[/I] is.[/QUOTE]

    and your lame attempt at trying to make a comparison with this thread is utterly pathetic....

    you've yet to address YOUR non-sensical attempt to compare Rich cherry-picking two questions in a television interview versus kerri's voting record....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-18-2006 at 06:41 PM.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]you deserve credit for coming through with the info unlike another progressive extremist on this forum who spams threads then cannot back-up his posts...



    no I didn't...did you??

    and if so, where is the transcript???



    and your lame attempt at trying to make a comparison with this thread is utterly pathetic....

    you've yet to address YOUR non-sensical attempt to compare Rich cherry-picking two questions in a television interview versus kerri's voting record....[/QUOTE]
    Of course I know I am pathethic but like wow you actually give me credit for something (though FJ calls that polluting) I have to go outside and see if dollars are falling from the sky. :D

    For being such a nice guy I researched and found you the transcript. Hope you enjoy.
    [URL]http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/19/john-mccain-floppin-around/#more-12148[/URL]

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Of course I know I am pathethic but like wow you actually give me credit for something (though FJ calls that polluting) I have to go outside and see if dollars are falling from the sky. :D

    For being such a nice guy I researched and found you the transcript. Hope you enjoy.
    [URL]http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/19/john-mccain-floppin-around/#more-12148[/URL][/QUOTE]

    Glad you provided the link as all this does is prove what an abomination Frank Rich is and how he will steal a few lines from an interview to create a story, dismissing what was entirely said....

    [QUOTE]“Are you against civil unions for gay couples?” he asked the senator, who replied, “No, I’m not.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later — “So you’re for civil unions?” — Mr. McCain answered, “No.” [/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE]
    STEPHANOPOULOS: You say you believe marriage should be reserved

    for between a man and 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 am not. But 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

    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 people — 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 relationship can enter into.
    [/QUOTE]

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    CB we're having a comprehension problem here.

    When someone asks if your against something and you say no that means you are for it - therefore he first says that he is for it (another words not against it) but when asked directly if he is for it he says no.

    Got it? Rich got it right. I think my friend you have to read the transcript again.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]CB we're having a comprehension problem here.[/QUOTE]

    you correct...and the comprehension problem is, once again, with you...

    [QUOTE]When someone asks if your against something and you say no that means you are for it - therefore he first says that he is for it (another words not against it) but when asked directly if he is for it he says no.[/QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    Stephanopolus starts the question based on McCain's vote on an initiative in the state of Arizona that denied gays government benefits....he then askes McCain if he is for civil unions....McCain clarified what type of civil unions he is for....even the simple-minded can understand this....

    [QUOTE]Got it? Rich got it right. [/QUOTE]

    I most certainly get it...you obviously do not and Rich, being the leftist minion who tows the company line for the Slimes, obviously chose to cherrypick a few words from an entire answer to create an opinion....

    the liberal media creating the news rather than reporting it?? never woulda imagined it...

    [QUOTE]I think my friend you have to read the transcript again. [/QUOTE]

    or maybe Frank Rich should quote McCain in his entirety rather than take him out of context by choosing a few select words from his answer...

    and again- this is a ridiculous comparison to a staple of liberal hypocrisy...

    "I actually VOTED for the $87-billion before VOTING against it"...jean kerri..
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-18-2006 at 08:20 PM.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    STEPHANOPOULOS: You say you believe marriage should be reserved

    for between a man and 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 am not.



    STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're for civil unions?

    MCCAIN: No

    Well I guess I am simple then because I see this as only one way to read it. His explaination of
    [QUOTE]I think that initiative did allow for people to join

    in legal agreements such as power of attorney and others. I think

    that there was a difference of opinion on the interpretation of that

    constitutional amendment in Arizona.[/QUOTE]
    really makes the viewer think he is in favor of civil unions hence the Steph. question are you in favor of it? Then he says no. Also the power of atty statement is ridiculous because of course anybody can name anyone they want as a power of atty, and you don't need a law to say that you want to make your gay partner that.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,233
    Post Thanks / Like
    That penguin story is always botched for political purposes: yes, 2 males did seem to cohabitate, but that was because of the lack of females. Once fertile females were re-introduced, things "straightened" out, as it were. :D

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us