Benedict's anti-gay views are becoming more and more difficult to stomach
Should the media treat gay celebrities the same as their straight colleagues?
Some call Rev. Christine and Dennis Wiley crazy for their commitment to inclusion
advertisement
advertisement
|
- CHRISTOPHER LATIMER
Friday, May 09, 2008
JOHN MCCAIN IS certainly not perfect on gay issues. Even though the senator has been ordained a “maverick,” which occasionally places him at odds with the religious right, gay voters should maintain a healthy skepticism concerning the Arizona senator.
McCain’s reputation as a maverick is well deserved when considering the response by conservatives to his status as the Republican presidential nominee. Ann Coulter lambasted McCain as a traitor to conservatives, so much so that she would campaign for Hillary Clinton if he were nominated. Rush Limbaugh has also weighed in on McCain by declaring that his nomination would destroy the Republican Party. And James Dobson, a prominent evangelical Christian leader, said he could not “in good conscience” vote for McCain. Collectively, these comments may provide a basis for the gay
community to take a second look at a possible McCain presidency.
McCain has also taken what has been characterized by some gays as a “courageous stand” on a very important gay-related issue: same-sex marriage. McCain opposed a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. As a result, evangelical Christians within the Republican Party have used this to attack McCain’s conservative credentials. McCain’s opposition, however, was not based on any sense of fundamental fairness, equality or individual rights, but primarily on his long support for state’s rights — a classic conservative stance. Such a position fails to provide any assurances or foundation for protecting LGBT rights.
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT MCCAIN supported the Arizona constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, James Kirchick in a guest column from April in the Advocate characterized his position as “regrettable,” but “less relevant” for a senator or president who operates on a national level. This point is debatable, however, because it fails to recognize one of the lesser-discussed constitutional powers provided to the president under our Constitution.
The presidential power of appointment under Article II would have greater ramifications for the LGBT community on both the state and federal level. Even if McCain is not actively hostile toward the LGBT community, his cabinet and judicial appointments could have a far greater impact than opposition to a ban on same-sex marriage.
McCain’s selection of attorney general would be significant. The attorney general is the final arbiter when it comes to pursuing legal discrimination claims. Given McCain’s opposition to adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crimes bill or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act this could have far reaching effects.
THE MOST IMPORTANT difference between an Obama or Clinton presidency versus a McCain presidency concerns the Supreme Court. McCain has expressed his disdain for activist judges and has praised President Bush for nominating individuals who strictly interpret the Constitution. This is code for conservative.
McCain has also taken the mandatory pledge to nominate justices that resemble Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Roberts and Alito have yet to rule on a case concerning sexual orientation but it is well known that Scalia and Thomas have been hostile toward gay rights. Both dissented in the landmark case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down same-sex sodomy laws. A McCain nominee has the potential to be on the court for 30-40 years.
As a gay Republican, I often get asked why I belong to a party that is openly hostile toward gays. My response is that change is more likely to occur from within. A McCain presidency would represent a shift from an administration that used gay rights as a campaign tactic to scare moderates and galvanize the Christian right.
But I am not so sure that a more neutral tone would represent a net benefit for us. This doesn’t mean that as a community we should blindly support the Democratic nominee for president, but let’s not be naïve in our evaluation of McCain and what his presidency could do or fail to do for gay rights in America.
|
 |
