Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post
By Nathan Black
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Jun. 27 2008 03:38 PM EDT
Sen. John McCain endorsed on Thursday a ballot initiative in California that would overturn the recent state court ruling legalizing same-sex "marriage."
"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions," the Republican presidential candidate said in a statement, according to ProtectMarriage.com.
McCain's support for traditional marriage was welcomed by conservatives and pro-family groups especially at a time when many of them remain unsure of the Arizona senator and his stance on social issues.
But McCain is slowly winning the hearts of evangelicals and conservative leaders as polls show him head-to-head with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
On Thursday, McCain met privately with several conservative leaders in Ohio to talk about social issues, including embryonic stem-cell research, judges and gay "marriage." Although McCain wasn't their first choice for the Republican nomination, some are rallying behind him against Obama.
Participants of the private meeting said the Arizona senator indicated he would take seriously their requests that he choose an anti-abortion running mate and would talk more openly about his stance supporting traditional marriage, according to The Los Angeles Times.
After that meeting, a lot of hearts were changed, Phil Burress, who led Ohio's anti-gay-marriage ballot measure in 2004, the Times reported. "We realized that he's with us on the majority of the issues we care about."
Although McCain has opposed a federal constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage, saying he believes states should decide the issue, McCain's announcement supporting the California Protection of Marriage initiative would indicate to many evangelicals that he's on their side when it comes to the core social issues.
"As a leader in the United States Senate and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator McCain's position will be an important factor to millions of Californians," ProtectMarriage.com chairman Ron Prentice commented. "We are honored to have the support of Senator McCain."
Although Prentice also invited Obama to endorse the ballot initiative, his wife, Michelle, delivered a speech Thursday indicating that he would most likely not hop on the traditional marriage bandwagon.
Obama will fight for equal rights for gays just as he fought to help working-class families overcome poverty, she said at a Manhattan fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council, according to The Associated Press.
McCain is continuing his more aggressive push to reach out to his party base as he is scheduled to meet with the Rev. Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, on Sunday. He said he also hopes to meet with influential evangelical Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.
Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
6 comments:
"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona."
That's an odd thing for him to say. The voters of Arizona rejected a ballot initiative to do just what he says they did.
And the legislature of California passed bills that would have allowed gay marriage, but the governor vetoed them. Somehow you approve of 'executive activism' that overrules the will of the people's elected representatives?
Incidentally, the Supreme Court explicitly stated for the first time in our nation's history that the second amendment grants the right to own guns (presumably muskets and blunderbusses, for you strict constructionists) to individual people, not just to "well regulated militias." I suppose, out of consistency, that you also object to this latest bit of "judicial activism?"
The voters of Arizona rejected the marriage protection measure because homosexual activists scared heterosexuals into believing that protecting marriage would somehow negatively affect them.
The governor of Calif. exercised his legal and constitutional authority; like it or not, he did what he is legally allowed to do.
The Supreme Court affirmed what was once universally understood: that people have the right to keep and bear arms. What other amendment in the bill of rights belongs exclusively to the government? If you'll take the time to read the judicial ruling, you'll find how "well regulated militias" fits into this amendment.
"The governor of Calif. exercised his legal and constitutional authority; like it or not, he did what he is legally allowed to do."
Indeed. And while I don't like it, that's how our democratic system is set up, so I'm not going to throw a fit about it not working, the way some "conservatives" do when the judiciary, acting within its constitutionally-defined role, does something that they don't like.
I wasn't opening a debate on the 2nd amendment. I was asking why some "conservatives" think the system is working when they get what they want, and not working when they don't.
That's the entire point of conservatives discontent with the judiciary.
Their role is to adjudicate according to the law and ultimately the constitution, which is the highest law of the land.
They are NOT to create law--that is the job of the legislative branch. In creating law where no law exists, they are usurping the powers and responsibilities of the legislative branch. This is actually an impeachable offense, if the people and their elected representatives had the guts to hold them accountable.
If the law or the constitution addresses an issue, their job is to determine: did the accused violate this? If the law or constitution does not address an action or issue, the judiciary cannot take action on it or "make up" a law from, say "emanations from a penumbra." Nor can they say "We think it should be this way, therefore it shall be" as the California Supreme Court did last month, especially when such a position flies in the face not only of tradition, of common understanding, but also established law.
That is the issue conservatives have with many actions from the judiciary: not that they rule against a conservative interest on a legal or constitutional basis--which does happen sometimes--but that too often the courts usurp the powers of other branches of government.
Ok, so it's the role of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution. If there were never any question what the Constitution means, then that established role would not be necessary, so it's been explicitly recognized -- even by you -- that the Constitution requires interpretation.
But you guys whine and complain when the interpretation doesn't go your way.
And by that fantasy version of strict constructionism, the government has no authority to regulate
* anything related to electrical power.
* any motorized transport whether by land, sea, or air. Driver's licenses, pilot's licenses, etc. are unconstitutional.
* anything related to computing and the internet.
* anything related to central heating, airconditioning, or indoor plumbing.
* the vast majority of industrial processes.
* the overwhelming majority of medical practices, outside of say, bloodletting, cupping, laudanum, and arsenic compounds.
You might prefer to be particularly careful about arguing that the government has no authority to regulate medical procedures.
I don't recall anyone saying the federal government has no authority to regulate ANY medical matters.
As I've said in other threads, both conservative philosophy and the Constitution itself outlines a limited governmental role for the regulation of interstate commerce (which has been hijacked by judicial activists to include pretty much every facet of commerce) and the protection of public safety.
There is a role for government, but it is a limited one. Our system of government was designed to be an enumerated one, which means if it isn't specifically listed in the constitution, the government doesn't have the authority to do it.
Thomas Jefferson said of the "general welfare clause" which is also applicable to interstate commerce, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Post a Comment