Connect with us


McCain disagrees with Prop 8 court ruling



Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Blade on Thursday he disagreed with a recent court decision overturning Proposition 8 in California and didn’t rule out backing a renewed push for the Federal Marriage Amendment to reverse the ruling.

“Obviously, I didn’t agree with it,” McCain said. “My position has always been that marriage is an institution of — between one man and one woman.”

During his presidential campaign in 2008, McCain came out in favor of Prop 8 when the initiative was before California voters. The measure passed in California, ending same-sex marriage in the Golden State,  on the same day McCain lost the election to President Obama.

Asked whether he thinks backing the Federal Marriage Amendment, or a U.S. constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, would be an appropriate response to the ruling, McCain said he hasn’t decided what action at this time is appropriate.

“I haven’t looked at the impact of the decision yet as far as what, if any, action needs to be taken,” he said. “I’ve been on the immigration issue, the defense authorization bill and this START treaty, so I really have not had an opportunity to talk to my people about it.”

The uncertainty from McCain over support for the Federal Marriage Amendment is different from his opposition to the measure in previous years. McCain voted against the proposed constitutional amendment when it came to the Senate floor in 2004 and 2006.

“The constitutional amendment we’re debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans,” McCain reportedly said in 2004. “It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them.”

Continue Reading


  1. Old Verger

    August 6, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    This is a surprise? He’s a strict-consructionist Republican, so he knows about judicial review of laws to make sure they pass Constitutional muster.

    But hey, it’s election time, so he’s even reversed himself on DADT – formerly in favor of repeal and now opposed. He’s got to get the bigots’ votes to stay in office.

    McCain has the values of a chameleon.

  2. David in Houston

    August 6, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Which institution of marriage is he referring to? Marriage, when women were considered the property of the man? …or marriage, when you could only marry someone of the same race? …or is he referring to the sacred institution where Rush Limbaugh can get married for a 4th time?

    Does Mr. McCain know that same-sex marriage is legal in 10 countries and 5 states? Canada has had marriage equality for 6 years. It hasn’t harmed the institution of marriage at all. Chile and Mexico are now considering legalizing same-sex marriage.

    Perhaps he should have helped the Yes on 8 legal team come up with one valid legal reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. As far as the court is concerned, there aren’t any.

  3. Jeff

    August 6, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Why isn’t anyone in the media pressing these anti-gay politicians/pundits now: specifically which factual findings or legal conclusions in the Prop 8 decision do they disagree with? (Has he even read the decision?) His opinion about marriage is irrelevant to constitutional analysis.

  4. Peter Rosenstein

    August 6, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    I am really tired of John McCain. I think he has embarrassed himself enough. He should finally retire before he becomes a total joke.

  5. Christopher

    August 8, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    Interesting that the Old Coot is so worried about marriage. After all, upon his return from Vietnam, he kicked his dumpy, cancer-stricken wife to the curb and began an affair with the much younger (and richer) Cindy, the beer heiress from Phoenix. I guess as long as a penis and a vagina are involved (and $250 million), the Old Coot doesn’t care about honoring the vows of marriage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


State Department acknowledges Intersex Awareness Day

Special LGBTQ rights envoy moderated activist roundtable



State Department (public domain photo)

The State Department on Tuesday acknowledged the annual Intersex Awareness Day.

“We proudly recognize the voices and human rights of intersex people around the world,” said State Department spokesperson Ned Price in a statement. “The Department of State is committed to promoting and protecting the rights, dignity, and equality of all individuals, including intersex persons.”

Price in his statement said U.S. foreign policy seeks to “pursue an end to violence and discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and sex characteristics, while acknowledging the intersections with disability, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, or other status.” Price also acknowledged intersex people “are subject to violence, discrimination, and abuse on the basis of their sex characteristics” and “many intersex persons, including children, experience invasive, unnecessary, and sometimes irreversible medical procedures.” 

“The department supports the empowerment of movements and organizations advancing the human rights of intersex persons and the inclusion of intersex persons in the development of policies that impact their enjoyment of human rights,” he said.

Jessica Stern, the special U.S. envoy for the promotion of LGBTQ rights abroad, on Tuesday moderated a virtual panel with intersex activists from around the world.

Intersex Awareness Day commemorates the world’s first-ever intersex protest that took place in Boston on Oct. 26, 1996.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as non-binary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with their sex listed as “X.” The State Department in June announced it would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.

The U.S. and more than 50 other countries earlier this month signed a statement that urges the U.N. Human Rights Council to protect the rights of intersex people.

Continue Reading


Anti-LGBTQ Daily Wire host says 2 men shouldn’t be allowed to adopt babies

” […] because babies need mothers. They also need fathers, which is why two women shouldn’t be allowed either.”



Screenshot of Matt Walsh via YouTube (Blade file photo)

NASHVILLE – Anti-LGBTQ Daily Wire podcast and YouTuber Matt Walsh joined the growing chorus of far-right and conservative voices outraged that U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg went on paternity leave from his job in August after he and his husband Chasten had adopted two children.

On his show Monday Walsh not only criticized Buttigieg, but he attacked same-sex couples adopting children altogether.

It’s absurd for any public employee, paid on taxpayer dime, to be given that much time off. Now, you can make an argument for women on maternity leave but not for men. Paternity leave is a nice luxury for private companies that can afford it. The U.S. government is not a private company – it’s a public institution, deeply in debt, failing in just about every way and everywhere. So this is not a time and not the place for those kinds of luxuries. But that’s the somewhat safer point to make, right? You are in a much more hazardous place, you are in more hazardous waters when you go away from that and, instead, you start saying mildly critical things about paternity leave in general as a concept.”

I also didn’t say that there’s nothing at all for a man to do for his family after a child is born. I said that as far as caring for the newborn himself, most of that is going to be done by the mother. She, in most cases, will be feeding the child. The child also needs and wants his mother’s presence, his mother’s touch, her voice. The father should be interacting with the baby also, obviously, but the infant is far more focused on his mother at that age. And needs his mother more. There is no mother in the Buttigieg household, but that doesn’t change the point here.”

Babies need their mothers, which is why two men shouldn’t be allowed to adopt babies in the first place. And the outrage mob can now start a secondary campaign over that comment. But I’ll say it again. Two men should not be allowed to adopt babies because babies need mothers. They also need fathers, which is why two women shouldn’t be allowed either.

Continue Reading


Pete Buttigieg calls out Tucker Carlson over attack

Fox News host mocked transportation secretary over paternity leave



U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (Washington Blade file photo)

Appearing remotely on MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace’s politics program Friday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called out Fox News host Tucker Carlson for the attack on his parental leave.

“This attack is coming from a guy who has yet to explain his apparent approval for the assassination of Harvey Milk, ” Buttigieg said.

During his Thursday evening program Carlson said, “Pete Buttigieg has been on leave from his job since August after adopting a child—paternity leave, they call it—trying to figure out how to breastfeed. No word on how that went. But now he’s back in office as the transportation secretary and he’s deeply amused, he says, to see that dozens of container ships can’t get into this country.”

Continue Reading

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts