Posted on 02/20/2008 9:37:57 AM PST by Antoninus
I didn't see this posted on FR anywhere and I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. While pro-lifers were marching in Washington back at the end of January, Barack Obama released the following statement celebrating the 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Obama Statement on 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision
Chicago, IL -- Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement on the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.
"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women's health. With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.
"Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
"When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.
"Moreover, I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies. In the Illinois state Senate, when Congress failed to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, I made sure those contraceptives were covered for women in Illinois. In the U.S. Senate, I've worked with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on a bill that would make birth control more affordable for low-income and college women, and introduced the Senate version of Representative Hilda Solis' bill to reduce unintended pregnancies in communities of color. As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy.
"But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman's right to choose; it's about equality. It's about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; so that she can go to work knowing that there's affordable, quality childcare for her children; and so that the American dream is within reach for every family in this country. This anniversary reminds us that it's not enough to protect the gains of the past – we have to build a future that's filled with hope and possibility for all Americans."
That's the first time I recall seeing that phrase.
I wonder if he would support overturning murder charges against criminals convicted of killing unborn babies? If not would he start respecting legal precedent and charge anyone who intentionally kills an unborn baby with murder?
Can’t have it both ways, B. Hussein.
To look into the workings of Bo Obama is a look into Heaven’s Gate.
ping
It’s not only a phrase, it’s a Movement...and the Tides Foundation is a promoter....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22reproductive+justice+movement%22&btnG=Search
The “unborn”? How abort “born”? As a state senator Barack Obama made “live birth abortions” legal. They were performed at (get this) Christ Church Hospital in Oak Lawn IL. Nurse Jill Stanek testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the practice which she was horrified to learn was being done at a hospital owned by the UCC. Babies would be delivered pre-term and allowed to die from medical neglect. One baby gasped for air over an eight hour shift before dying. Doctors had to issue Birth and Death Certificates. Staneck’s testimony was pivotal in the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
What is McCain’s plan to stop the murder of 1.3 million Americans every year?
McCain has not said he will appoint judges who are pro-life, so what is his plan?
Won’t be the last time.
The Obamessiah©
_________________________
A little copyright trouble there . . .
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obamessiah
Regarding the statement by the Obamamessiah, running to be baby killer in chief, get that statement out via e-mail. Inoculate people against the Obama cult by pointing out Obamicide.
As an aside, exactly how did Massachusetts get and stay so liberal with a Catholic population at 50% or so of the state?
He said he would appoint judges like Roberts. He also has been against abortion his entire career.
To everyone here at FR.
Copy and paste this link (USAWAKEUP) to an email and send to everyone you can. It is several minutes long, but worth the time to watch.
WWBD
Hell, next to him even Hitlery looks like a John Bircher.
Roberts said Roe is established law.
Reproductive justice will occur, eventually.
In a universe of choices, the "right" to choose to rip an unborn child limb from limb or burn it's skin off with saline solution is not one that a civilized people would include among the plethora of legitimate morally defensible and ethically sound choices a person can make. The focus-group-tested phrase "right to choose" always leaves the nature of the choice dangling. Did Obama's education in that Muslim school include any catechism of Moloch?
“Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman’s right to choose; it’s about equality. It’s about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons.”
Well, since Roe is only about abortion, the “opportunities” of “out daughters” must be to have sex without having a baby. Gee what an opportunity.
I believe he said it was a legal precedent, which it is as are all previous legal rulings. He never stated that he would uphold the precedent. He stated that he cannot comment on future decisons that may come before the court. I believe he will make the right choice if he is given the option.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
(Is there a medic here?)
(give me some room)...
(here, throw me a water bottle)
(applause)
Pro-Life Ping
Our troops deserve better.
Sept. 13, 2005
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was “settled as a precedent of the court” as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/13/103353.shtml
Very likely, he was one of the few that would not sign the Born-alive Infants Protection Act.
Antoninus,
Ignore this "donna" person. She makes things up and never backs them up. McCain is pro-life and wants Roe vs Wade overturned and will be appoining new Supreme Court Justices.
Orwell would be proud.
"Some animals are more equal than others."
McCain is trying to cash in on the pro-life vote while planning to do nothing about abortion.
It’s the same old conservative-talk he used to use on Arizona talk radio. It means nothing.
I always back up what I say. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a liar.
Do you have no limits on your bad behavior?
Please apologize right now.
Why do you come into a forum and lie? You back up nothing that you say. John McCain *IS* pro-life -- get use to it!
But what it means to the Left, is that a healthy woman, carrying a healthy baby, goes into the abortion clinic. The woman comes out empty and weeping, with the baby--- or what's left of it --- coming out in clots.
If that's reproductive health, then strip-mining is mountain health, whale-hunting is oceanic health, and clubbing and skinning makes for a healthier seal pup.
I gotta agree.
You never back up what you say and you haven’t backed up anythinbg you have said in this thread.
You just lie.
I’m warning you, DO NOT call me a liar.
Aplogize now.
I’m waiting.
When people make things up that is called lying. You are making things up.
Same here.
Donna -
As President, Senator McCain, (who carries a 96% prolife rating from NARAL)could do 3 things:
1) Sign legislation making abortion more difficult to achieve (unlikely given the make-up of congress)
2) Veto pro-abortion legislation (highly likely)
3) Appoint pro-life judges (he has pledged to do this)
What else do you want?!
Prove it.
**McCain is pro-life and wants Roe vs Wade overturned and will be appoining new Supreme Court Justices.**
McCain isn’t a pro-lifer. He just plays one on TV, for the purpose of fooling people exactly like yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Trbaufpok8
*******
How John McCain Threatens the Pro-Life Cause
By Douglas Johnson
NRLC Legislative Director
(February 20) - - The presidential candidacy of Senator John McCain (R-Az.) has posed a threat to future advances by the pro-life movement.
Earlier this month, the Board of Directors of the National Right to Life Committee — made up of an elected delegate from each state NRLC affiliate — overwhelmingly voted to endorse George W. Bush. That vote recognized Bush’s strong pro-life credentials. It also reflected the recognition among many knowledgeable observers that if elected president, McCain would be unlikely to use the office’s powers to advance the pro-life cause.
In earlier stages of his presidential campaign, McCain made little effort to conceal his disrespect for the pro-life movement. For example, during an appearance on the Don Imus radio show on November 23, McCain referred disparagingly to “otherwise intelligent people who say that that’s the only issue that will determine their vote.”
But after his victory in the New Hampshire primary on February 1, McCain began working hard to appeal to pro-life voters in South Carolina and other states.
In response to criticism from NRLC and its affiliates, McCain has relied on two main defenses. First, he declares that his “17-year voting record” in Congress proves that he is “pro-life.” Second, he charges that NRLC’s criticisms are motivated entirely by opposition to his so-called “campaign finance reform” proposals” — a bill that, as McCain characterizes it, would hurt NRLC’s “business.” This second defense is basically a diversionary tactic, intended to evade close scrutiny of the inadequacies of McCain’s pro-life positions.
Roe v. Wade
McCain joined the House in 1983, and became a senator in 1987. During his 17 years in Congress, McCain has usually voted anti-abortion — but for a presidential candidate, that is not the only important data. After all, Al Gore had an 84% pro-life voting record as a member of the House of Representatives (1977-84), but he embraced the entire pro-abortion agenda once he reached the Senate and began to run for president. John McCain is not Al Gore — but the clearest warnings about what a McCain presidency might entail are found in things that McCain has said and done over the past year, since he started running for President in earnest.
One example is what McCain said when he met with the editorial board of the very liberal San Francisco Chronicle on August 19, 1999:
“I’d love to see a point where it (Roe v. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
This was no mere inartful wording. Rather, McCain actually offered a rationale for opposing repeal of Roe — that it would “force” many women to have dangerous illegal abortions. This, of course, is a very familiar argument — voiced often by politicians who support the continuation of legal abortion. In short, McCain embraced the “necessary evil” thinking of the pro-abortion movement.
When ABC’s Sam Donaldson recently asked McCain about his statement to the Chronicle, McCain said that he “misspoke.” But McCain has yet to explain why he argued as he did to the newspaper’s editors. Did he believe what he said? And if he did, has he changed his mind, and if so, why?
On the January 18 Jane Chastain’s radio show, Cyndi Mosteller, who serves as “National Policy Advisor for Family & Cultural Issues” for the McCain campaign, was asked about McCain’s statement to the Chronicle. Mosteller replied that McCain had “made a mistake” under hard questioning by the newspaper editors. “They ate his lunch,” she said, adding, “They were getting on him. And he said [to Mosteller], ‘I was not strong when I needed to be strong.’ “
In reality, however, McCain repeated similar arguments in at least three other interviews. At a campaign event, he said, “I would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, because doing so would endanger the lives of women,” World magazine reported on August 21. In a written release dated August 22, McCain said, “If Roe v. Wade were repealed tomorrow, it would force thousands of young women to undergo dangerous and illegal operations.” And on Cable News Network on August 22, McCain said, “We all know, and it’s obvious, that if we repeal Roe versus Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.”
McCain also wrote, “I will continue to work with both pro-life and pro-choice Americans so that we can eliminate the need for abortions to be performed in this country.” [emphasis added]
These statements tracked the rhetoric of the pro-abortion movement. The pro-life movement does not believe that there is a “need” to kill unborn children, or that restoring legal protection to unborn children will “force” anyone to violate the law.
In more recent utterances, including appearances in South Carolina, McCain has said that he favors the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and that he believes that states ought to make abortion illegal (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). But pro-lifers would be foolish to ignore the evidence of McCain’s real inner thinking provided by his earlier statements. It is noteworthy that during McCain’s 17 years in Congress, he never had an opportunity to vote on Roe v. Wade— until October 21, 1999, when the Senate voted on a resolution-style amendment by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to endorse Roe v. Wade. McCain skipped the vote to make an extra campaign appearance in New Hampshire, as documented in a local newspaper. The amendment passed narrowly.
Others Agree
NRLC is hardly alone in recognizing that Bush and McCain would handle the abortion issue very differently as president. Bush has been endorsed by the most prominent pro-life leaders in Congress, including Congressman Henry Hyde, Congressman Chris Smith, and Congressman Charles Canady. “I’m convinced of Gov. Bush’s commitment to the pro-life cause,” said Hyde, who has criticized McCain for advocating weakening of the Republican Party’s pro-life platform plank.
Pro-abortion leaders also see a big difference. Following McCain’s win in the New Hampshire primary, the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition said that based on exit polls, “pro-choice Republicans overwhelmingly preferred McCain above all the other candidates.”
Moreover, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) funded TV ads in New Hampshire attacking Bush for nearly a year before the New Hampshire primary, but never a single ad criticizing McCain.
McCain Winks on Abortion
A revealing observation was made on February 8 by Steven Brill, editor of the magazine Brill’s Content, which covers the news media.
Speaking on the Fox News Channel program “The Edge”, Brill said two reporters covering the McCain campaign told him, “You know, he really doesn’t feel that strongly about abortion and about — he isn’t really as pro-gun as he lets on in the campaign. He has to do that because it’s a Republican primary, but he’s kind of let us know that he’s not that hard-edged on those subjects.”
Brill went on, “The point I’m making is that he was given permission, at least by these two guys [journalists], to pander. One of them actually said, ‘At least when McCain panders he sort of lets us know he’s doing it, and he kind of winks and kind of enjoys it, so he’s a good guy.’ Well, he’s not letting the rest of the country know he’s pandering.”
In the same vein, liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote on December 15, “McCain’s people whisper, Don’t worry. He’s not really so anti-abortion.”
Voting Record
McCain served in the House of Representatives from 1983-86 and in the Senate from 1987 to date. Throughout that period, McCain did not initiate pro-life amendments or otherwise take an activist role, but he did vote pro-life with a few exceptions. The most important exception was on the issue of federal funding of experimentation using body parts of aborted babies.
This question — usually referred to in the press as the “fetal tissue” issue — became a matter of major controversy during the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration blocked the use of federal funds for certain experimentation utilizing tissue taken from aborted babies.
In a January 7, 1992 letter to Arizona Right to Life, McCain promised to support President Bush’s ban on federal funding of such abortion-dependent research. “I have no intention of supporting the use of fetal tissue resulting from artificially-induced abortions for research purposes,” McCain wrote.
A few months later, however, McCain began voting to overturn Bush’s pro-life policy — a drive that succeeded after President Clinton took office.
The issue surfaced again in 1997, during consideration of a bill to expand federally sponsored research into Parkinson’s disease, sponsored by McCain and Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Mn.). Pro-life Senator Dan Coats (R-In.) offered an amendment to prevent the use of the newly authorized funds for abortion-dependent fetal tissue research, but McCain prevailed in defeating the amendment, 60-35 (Sept. 4, 1997, Senate roll call Vote No. 215). Recently, McCain has falsely implied that only four senators disagreed with his position on the issue.
[A detailed memorandum documenting McCain’s statements and votes on the fetal-tissue issue is available at www.nrlc.org/ Whatsnew/McCainrecordbodyparts.html.]
Warren Rudman
On January 15, McCain said that if elected president, he might appoint former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH)—his close advisor and the co-chairman of the national McCain campaign—as U.S. attorney general. As a senator, Rudman voted to preserve Roe v. Wade, and was an active opponent of other pro-life legislative efforts.
The attorney general is the cabinet officer who most often serves as a president’s key advisor on Supreme Court appointments, and who oversees the positions taken by an administration on issues before the Supreme Court.
Rudman voted to confirm anti-Roe v. Wade Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, but later wrote in his 1996 memoirs, “If my vote had been the deciding one, I would have voted against Thomas, no matter what the consequences.”
Rudman has been harshly critical of the pro-life movement and of Christian conservatives. He wrote, “If someone had told me in the 1960s that one day I would serve in a Republican Party that opposed abortion rights—which the Supreme Court had endorsed—advocated prayer in the schools, and talked about government-inspired ‘family values,’ I would have thought he was crazy.”
Also, “Politically speaking, the Republican Party is making a terrible mistake if it appears to ally itself with the Christian right”—a group that he identified as rife with “antiabortion zealots” and “bigots,” among other undesirables.
In a February 15 debate in South Carolina, Bush confronted McCain regarding Rudman, noting that Rudman had described the Christian Coalition as “bigots.” Bush asked McCain, “I know you don’t believe that, do you?” But McCain refused the invitation to repudiate Rudman’s words, responding instead, “George, he’s entitled to his opinion on that issue.”
Moderator Larry King also invited McCain to “disclaim what Rudman said,” but McCain did not respond.
Subsequently, Rudman told Manchester Union-Leader reporter John DiStaso that “he most certainly did call the Christian Coalition bigots,” and “he included leaders of other conservative groups in the description, to boot.” (Union-Leader, Sept. 17)
When, in the February 15 debate, Bush said that “every child, born and unborn, should be protected in law,” McCain immediately attacked Bush for his opposition to adding exceptions for rape and incest to the pro-life plank in the Republican platform.
Free Speech About Political Figures
NRLC has certainly made no secret of its strong opposition to certain key components of McCain’s “campaign finance reform” proposals, which would cripple the ability of NRLC and other pro-life groups to communicate with the public about the positions and actions of those who hold or seek federal office.
In some recent communications, McCain has emphasized that the latest version of his bill, introduced last October, did not contain the provisions restricting commentary on politicians by issue-oriented groups such as NRLC. However, at the time McCain made it clear that he was proposing a “stripped-down” bill only for tactical reasons, to try to overcome a filibuster for bill opponents — not because he’d changed his mind. Indeed, when Senate Democrats forced a vote on the House-passed Shays-Meehan bill — which contains sweeping restrictions on political free speech by independent groups— McCain voted for it. (Oct. 19, 1999)
As recently as December 22, McCain told the Associated Press, “If I could think of a way constitutionally, I would ban negative ads.”
[Further information on the how McCain’s proposals would cripple pro-life groups, and further empower the institutional news media, is found at the NRLC website, www.nrlc.org, under “Campaign Finance Reform and Free Speech.”]
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL02/doug.html
***********
Press Release
For Immediate Release
For more information:
Contact Ann Stone
Republicans For Choice, PAC
205 S. Whiting St., Suite 260
Alexandria, VA 22304
Phone: (703) 212-0890
GOP4Choice@erols.com
John McCain Is The Real Majority Leader
Alexandria, VA – The national organization Republicans For Choice, PAC issued a letter today thanking John McCain and the brave band of 14 who stood up to leadership of both parties and did what was right in protecting the filibuster.
“I have been amazed and appalled at those critics who claim that this group, because they are centrists, are weak and spineless. Nothing could be further from the truth considering the great risk and courage it took for the Republicans to stand up to their leadership amidst threats of punishment and retaliation,” said Ann Stone, National Chairman of Republicans For Choice, PAC.
“This is what Bill Frist gets for pandering to the extreme far right of the GOP base. He has to learn that the Republican Party really is a Big Tent and it is the moderates who provide the winning edge,” says Ben Wallner, Administrative Director of Republicans For Choice, PAC.
“Recent surveys have disclosed that women are, once again, leaving the Republican Party in droves mainly over the social issues. When will the party wake up and learn that bringing people together on issues like this is the way to make the Party stronger. Not by excluding loyal members of the Party who disagree on certain issues,” said Stone.
Republicans For Choice, PAC is a national organization of over 125,000 Republican Party legislators, activists, and voters. It’s goals are to remove the current anti-choice plank from the national platform and support Republican pro-choice candidates.
###
http://www.republicansforchoice.com/52405pressrelease.htm
***********
Pro-Abortion Republicans Endorse McCain
By John Connolly
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, February 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - John McCain has received another endorsement in the wake of his victories on February 5, “Super Tuesday.” The Republicans for Choice Political Action Committee decided that McCain was the best candidate to make the Republican Party pro-choice following Rudy Giuliani’s withdrawal from the race, reported CNS News today.
McCain, a long favorite with the “moderate” Republicans, won significant numbers of delegates in Tuesday’s primaries.
Republicans for Choice PAC wants to see the Republican Party transformed from a party of religious values and social conservatism to one of conservative economics and liberal social policies concerning abortion and homosexuality. Embracing abortion is seen as the quickest road to the Republicans regaining power.
“I would contend that the issues and hypocrisy surrounding our Party’s conflict over a woman’s right to choose helped set the stage for the Party’s downfall this past year,” writes Republicans for Choice PAC founder, Ann E. W. Stone on the PAC’s website. “And until they recognize these problems we won’t regain the Congress or keep the White House...and frankly we won’t deserve to.”
Republicans for Choice initially favored Rudy Giuliani for president, but have given their endorsement to McCain following Giuliani’s withdrawal from the race on January 29. Stone says that McCain is the least pro-life candidate in the field, and is thus deserving of the Republicans for Choice endorsement.
“[McCain] is [pro-life], but it’s not at the top of his agenda, not like Huckabee or the born-again Romney,” Stone said in an interview with CNS News. “He’s shown his willingness to reach across the party, and we look forward to those discussions.”
A more radical PAC, Republican Majority for Choice, has not endorsed any candidate yet for fear it would hurt the endorsee’s campaign. The PAC only endorses pro-choice candidates, and felt it was too early to endorse Giuliani.
“We support the protection of reproductive rights, including the full range of reproductive options,” says the Republican Majority for Choice website. “We believe that personal and medical decisions are best made between a woman, her doctor and her family and out of the hands of government. We are deeply concerned with the direction of our Party if it continues to endorse a social agenda that is both intrusive and alienating.”
The removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican Party has many pro-life voters concerned. Life issues appear to have faded into the background, next to electability considerations.
“My first thought was how embarrassing for the pro-lifers who have signed on for McCain,” said Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life to CNS News.
The pro-choice endorsement is particularly embarrassing to Senator Sam Brownback, who endorsed McCain when his own presidential campaign fizzled early in the running. Brownback has constantly been questioned about his endorsement since it became apparent that McCain had not changed his stance on embryonic stem-cell research, and that he is passive when it comes to homosexual “marriage.”
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/feb/08020605.html
************
McCain: Same-sex marriage ban is un-Republican
Wednesday, July 14, 2004 Posted: 4:29 PM EDT (2029 GMT)
McCain: The proposed amendment “strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.”
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue of same-sex marriage, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice unnecessary — and un-Republican.
“The constitutional amendment we’re debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans,” McCain said. “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.”
The proposed amendment died Wednesday after a procedural vote to move the measure to the Senate floor failed 48-50, or 12 votes short of the 60 required by Senate rules. (Full story)
McCain said Tuesday night he would side with opponents of the amendment on the procedural vote to make clear to his constituents that he is against the amendment itself.
McCain also said the amendment “will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today.”
“The founders wisely made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend and, as a practical political matter, can’t be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that,” he said.
A constitutional amendment needs a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to pass. Then the proposal would need the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures to be ratified.
Bush, who defeated McCain for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, has championed the amendment, saying it is necessary to defend the institution of marriage from “activist judges.”
Social conservatives have been pushing hard for the measure since May, when Massachusetts’ highest court legalized same-sex marriages in the Bay State.
But McCain argued on the Senate floor that there are “far less draconian” remedies, including the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act — which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as a union between a man and a woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states — and state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
He said if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act or “state remedies to judicial activism fail,” then amending the federal Constitution might be “appropriate.”
But he said the decision in Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriages does “not represent a death knell to marriage.”
“What evidence do we have that states are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years?” McCain said.
“We will have to wait a little longer to see if Armageddon has arrived.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/
**NOTE: He voted against it again in 2006.
********
Oh, and we haven’t even begun to discuss the Gang of Fourteen, and how under John McCain’s “leadership” they betrayed the decades of work conservatives have done to amass the political heft to assure that we get judges who have actually read the Constitution.
Please then, explain why NARAL gives him a 96% prolife rating and why Chris Smith (anybody associated with the prolife movement knows who that is) gives his endorsement to McCain?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.