Masochists for McCain

Author's Note: The Log Cabin Republicans is an organization for gay Republicans. (Yes, both of them.)

The most pathetic, self-loathing group of people on the face of the earth just came out with their much anticipated endorsement. The Log Cabin Republicans are backing Sen. John McCain and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

From the LCR website:

On issues of concern to Log Cabin, Sen. McCain has a mixed record. But, on the most important issue the LGBT community has faced in the last decade, the federal marriage amendment, McCain stood with us and was on the right side of history. He consistently voted against the anti-family Federal Marriage Amendment. He voted against the proposal in both 2004 and 2006, saying the matter should be left to the states. Watch Sen. McCain's 2004 speech opposing the FMA.

He supported Arizona's 2006 effort to ban marriage equality and roll back domestic partner benefits offered by some municipalities in the state. McCain opposes hate crime legislation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). He supports continuation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, which prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly and honestly in the U.S. military.

So he has a "mixed record" because he endorsed every aspect of the Dr. Dobson hate agenda EXCEPT a federal constitutional amendment that had no chance of passing anyway? That's a mixed record!?

The Log Cabin Republicans need to do more research. Although Sen. McCain 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.

Here is the ad he cut for the anti-gay bigots activists:



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.”

In this video, McCain explains 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 Senator McCain's 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."

This spring, after securing the nomination, Senator McCain repeated his pledge to nominate “strict constructionist judges.”

What does that mean for the gay rights movement? 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."

If this is what the Log Cabin Republicans call a "mixed record," then they are crazier than I thought. Having skimmed LCR's website, I'm starting to believe they are seriously delusional. After all they still haven't heard (or accepted) the news that John McCain endorsed California's proposition 8, an amendment on the November ballot that would ban gay marriage.

From the LCR website:

Like Sen. Obama and most Democratic lawmakers, Sen. McCain opposes marriage for gay and lesbian Americans. He has expressed support for allowing gay couples access to some benefits short of a civil marriage license. When the California Supreme Court affirmed the state legislature in May 2008 and paved the way for marriage equality in the Golden State, Sen. McCain issued a statement saying that the people of California should decide the issue.

Unlike John McCain, Barack Obama has come out against proposition 8 in California. Unlike the Log Cabin Republicans, the Democratic Party is not afraid to embrace the gay and lesbian community in an election year. Although Republicans have used gay marriage and gay rights as wedge issues in previous elections, Democrats crafted a platform that gay activists hailed as its "strongest ever" on gay rights.

The Log Cabin Republicans, on the other hand, seem content to continue their role as the Uncle Tom's of the GOP.

If the LCRs thinks the only way they will be taken seriously by Republicans is to abandon any notion of fighting for gay rights and shamelessly endorse a man who thinks that they are unfit to marry, adopt children, or serve in the military, so be it. But they need to stop pretending that they are putting gay and lesbian families come first when the endorse a man who said, "I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption."

No self-respecting man or woman who has suffered at the hands of an intolerant society because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity would support this bigot for president.