August 29, 2005


McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban (NewsMax, 8/28/05)

More than a year before the general election, U.S. Sen. John McCain is backing an initiative that would change Arizona's Constitution to ban gay marriages and deny government benefits to unmarried couples.

The key thing for Senator McCain in 2008 is that he doesn't have to change any of his views--he is a social conservative--just play them differently.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 29, 2005 4:46 PM

The MSM's reaction:

"But, but he HATES George W. Bush, he just hates him! How could he do this! He's acting like, like a, like a Republican! He's such a troglodyte!"

Of course, the best part is that McCain (no matter how people, especially conservatives, feel about him) is going to play the press like a fiddle. We keep saying they are going to turn on him, but, in retrospect, what can they do to him that they haven't tried to do to Bush?

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 29, 2005 5:06 PM

Gosh, Oh gee! I wonder what position a senator from Arizona is going to take on gun rights.

Posted by: Lou Gots at August 29, 2005 5:57 PM

He opposed the Brady Bill and the assault weapons bill but supports background checks, trigger locks, etc. Rather mainstream conservative.

Posted by: oj at August 29, 2005 6:07 PM

Though he harped on the Gun Show LOOPHOLE, which annoyed some people. (me for instance)

Posted by: h-man at August 29, 2005 6:13 PM

H: Even if it were a loophole, Senators complaining about "loopholes" always bugs me.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 29, 2005 6:19 PM

Not requiring some people who sell guns to check the background of the people they sell guns to is moronic, whether loopholish or not.

Posted by: oj at August 29, 2005 6:29 PM

Gun Dealers are required to meet the Federal requirements, whether in their retail outlets or at gun shows.

I know its hard for you to believe OJ, but this used to be a free country, where people could sell things (guns included) without reporting the transaction to the Feds. Perhaps it was moronic, but that is, I think, what the founders intended.

Here is a link that will explain the loophole to you

Posted by: h-man at August 29, 2005 7:18 PM


No, the Founders suggested that only members of the militia have a "right" to keep and bear arms--the background checks required for service would be an acceptable alternative. Everyone else is subject to whatever laws are written.

Posted by: oj at August 29, 2005 7:39 PM

Of course "everyone else is subject to whatever laws are written". Wouldn't you prefer that we elected officials who were inclined to allow citizens more freedom from restrictive laws, rather than less? Are you saying since it is not a constitutional right, we should not be free own guns?

By the way, I think you might be confused as what militia meant since you seem to be under the mistaken impression that it refers to only members of our Army, Navy etc.

Posted by: h-man at August 29, 2005 8:12 PM

Yes, I'm saying that since it's not a right we should place rational limits applicable to all. Not selling guns to criminals and lunatics seems a small infringement on your freedom. But perhaps I assume too much...

Posted by: oj at August 29, 2005 8:26 PM

Not empowering the power-thirsty folks at the BATFE any more than they already are seems a small infringement on your own power-lust. But perhaps we assume too much as well...

Posted by: joe shropshire at August 29, 2005 8:32 PM

Power? They have no power, except in militia dreams.

Posted by: oj at August 29, 2005 8:35 PM

Let me try to help this discussion along.

I know from previous efforts to educate people about the original Constitution and the "Bill of Rights" that most of the folk on this site think my Virginia perspective is at best quaint and at worst moronic. Nonetheless the text of the Constitution and the crucial debates during ratification were primarily framed by Virginians.

Here's the thing.

After the Constitutuion was submitted for ratification a debate arose concerning specific prohibitions on the powers of the proposed national government over the individual and to a lesser extent over the states.

Many Virginians (Patrick Henry, John Randolph, George Wythe) argued against a listing of rights, believing that if a list of rights were enumerated then some day the argument would be advanced that these were all the rights that existed.

Others including a slight majority of the Virginia legislature stipulated that the ratification of the Constitiution was contingent on the adoption of the "Bill of Rights". The House of Delegates ratified the Constitution by ONE vote.

Any serious reading of the debates surrounding the framing and subsequent ratification of the first ten amendments to the Constitiution shows that nothing in the debates centered around the powers and organization of the Government. Rather all the focus was on the rights of individuals and the states.

The "Militia" agument is totally bogus. The amendment actually states that Congess will not pass any law restricting the right of the PEOPLE ro keep and bear arms.

Any interpetation of this language that is even marginally less expansive than the current interpetations of the first amendment means that as a citizen I can keep a tactical nuclear weapon in my basement if I wish.

Posted by: Earl Sutherland at August 29, 2005 8:36 PM


Yes, folks are always prepared to make the most extreme argument possible for rights but no one thinks of any of them as absolute in reality. Religious rights don't allow you to practice human sacrifice.

Such readings always require that you ignore the purposes for which the Republic was constituted in the first place and act as if the Constitution is and end, instead of mere means.

Posted by: oj at August 29, 2005 8:47 PM

Of course, the real point is, compared to Giuliani, McCain is a raging NRAer.

Posted by: Timothy at August 29, 2005 10:08 PM

In Virginia at least, men took the Constitution more seriously regarding it as a bulwark against tyranny, not as a "means". If the argument you advance had been widely made in 1787, Virginina would have never ratified the Constitution and there would have been no United States of America.

Patrick Henry was a serious man, and his fear was that once the Federal government was created the bargain would change. He was right of course.

Posted by: Earl Sutherland at August 30, 2005 1:03 AM


Yes, the Constitution represents the loss of the Anti-Federalists.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2005 7:56 AM

Folks, it's important to bear in mind that OJ thinks the Bill of Rights is "stupid."

So, this isn't a Constitutional issue for OJ at all. It's filed under "Stuff Orrin Doesn't Like and Thus It Is Immoral and Should be Outlawed." See also: cell phones, video games, private ownership of cars, the Interstate Highway System, Peter Fonda, cigarettes, soccer, pets, immigration laws, ribald movies, the Universal Price Code System and on and on. It would be much easier to come up with list of what Orrin WOULD allow, rather than what he WOULDN'T allow. And yet this is a man who claims to cherish "freedom."

Posted by: Governor Breck at August 30, 2005 8:14 AM

James Madison thought it stupid and he wrote the thing. In particular, he thought attempts to make the prohibitions absolute would undermine them.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2005 8:26 AM

What about McCain's Campaign Financa Reform Bill that he was trying to push through a fews years ago? Can anyone give me the low-down on that? It was probably the first time in Congressional history that a Republican tried to stop the flow of money into their campaign funds and back pockets.

Posted by: TP at August 30, 2005 9:06 AM


Yes, but it's antithetical to the First Amendment. Of course, W signed it, so...

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2005 9:15 AM

Oj - yeah, but didnt GW sign it after it had gone thru some serious amending? I was under the impression that McCain's intentions were laid asunder but lack of widespread support from both parties, and what ended up happening was a watered down version of the bill.
And it is not antithetical to the 1st amendment; corporate financing of of political campaigns is the reason we no longer live in a democracy.

Posted by: TP at August 30, 2005 9:53 AM


Yes, corporations shouldn't have any rights--they aren't citizens. But people are and the limits on political giving by citizens are an attack on the only form of speech the 1st is intended to protect, political speech.

The bill wasn't watered down significantly.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2005 10:00 AM

OJ - There are plenty of ways for corporations and individuals to get by the rules on campaign donations; if you have lots of money and you want to buy some political influence it usually isnt that difficult; and even if it becomes public knowledge you can still become president, just like GW. Of course, the Dems are just as happy with their sources of income too, they just happen to serve a lesser quantity and quality of interests that the Republicans serve, who will prettty much take money from anyone as long as it won't alienate the ignorant backbone of the party who vote Republican over social issues.

Posted by: TP at August 30, 2005 11:05 AM

Yes. Contributions should be public and unlimited. If voters don't want to elect guys who get a lot of money from certain donors they don't have to elect them. There's no evidence that voters care.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2005 11:09 AM

Sen. McCain has joined with Sen. Ted Kennedy to introduce legislation that will grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens that have violated this nation's immigration laws. Among the Islamic terrorists that murdered nearly three thosuand (3,000) Americans on September 11, 2001, were at least three (3) illegal aliens that had overstayed their visas. Sen. McCain's joint effort with Sen. Kennedy to reward millions of illegal aliens with amnesty will fail. The overwhelming majority of the American people do not agree with rewarding millions of illegal aliens with amnesty as the McCain-Kennedy bill would do.

Posted by: Tennessee Republican at August 30, 2005 11:58 AM

The overwhelming majority of Americans want someone to pick their fruit, slaughter their beef and cut their lawn at pay rates no American will accept. Some kind of amnesty is inevitable.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2005 12:04 PM

An amnesty is not inevitable. The John McCain-Ted Kennedy amnesty for millions of illegal aliens will never pass the United States House of Representatives. Most Americans mow their own laws. They don't illegal aliens to mow their lawns. Most Americans would rather other Americans work at beef processing plants and be paid American wages than to have illegal aliens working at beef processing plants. One of the most dangerous jobs in this country, coal mining, is done entirely or almost entirely by Americans. The coal miners are paid good American wages. They are willing to risk their saftety and potentially their long term helath for the American wages that they are paid. Americans will do any job for an American wage.

You obviously support giving amensty to illegal aliens. I will never support giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

Posted by: Tennessee Republican at August 30, 2005 12:34 PM

No they wouldn't. They want stuff cheap. Mines are hiring antone they can find because they can't get natives to take the jobs even at good wages.

Ronald Reagan gave the biggest amnesty in our history and anti-immigrationists had no choice but to grin and bear it. It won't be different now that Latinos are a bigger voting bloc in the GOP than nativists.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2005 12:52 PM

TP: Actually, Republican opposition to campaign finance reform is the closest thing we've seen in a long time to politicians putting ahead of a large, immediate political gain.

Republicans get, and have for a long time gotten, much more of their money from small individual contributions of hard money that no one ever suggests should be outlawed. Democrats are the party of the rich and get most of their money from a relatively few big contributors and from labor unions in soft-money. Campaign finance reform basically opened the spigot for Republicans (by increasing the amounts of hard money that could be donated) and closed the spigot for Democrats (by cracking down on soft money).

The perfectly predictable (and predicted) result was an increased money advantage for Republicans.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 30, 2005 1:06 PM

TP: you do live in a democracy, just not one where your side wins elections lately.

Posted by: joe shropshire at August 30, 2005 1:44 PM

I read the article about the gold mine. There was no mention of illegal aliens doing any mining. The article explored a number of methods that the gold mine is using to attract new workers.

Michael Reagan says it was a mistake for his father to have granted amnesty to illegal aliens. Michael Reagan opposes amnesty for illegal aliens.

Is Majority Leader Tom Delay a nativist? He says he is opposed to any form of amnesty.

Is Sen. George Allen a nativist? He says he is opposed to any form of amnesty.

Is Sen. Jeff Sessions a nativist? He says he is opposed to any form of amnesty.

The vast majority of Republicans oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. Do you actually believe that the number of Latinos in the Republican Party supporting amnesty for illegal aliens is greater than the total number of Republicans opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens?

The frustration of the American people with illegal immigration is much higher than it was in 1986. The American people will not tolerate another amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

Mahmud Abohalima was an Islamic terrorist who was one of the leaders of the first World Trade Center attack. He was a former illegal alien who received amnesty from the 1986 legislation.

Illegal aliens should not be rewarded with amnesty.

Posted by: Tennessee Republican at August 31, 2005 1:56 AM

They can't fill the jobs--they need immigrants. Let them in legally or folks will hire illegals and then every few years we'll issue blanket amnesties.

Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 7:10 AM