05/22/2008
John McCain and Ellen DeGeneres Talk Same-Sex Marriage
John McCain taped Ellen DeGeneres' show yesterday (it airs today) and the subject of same-sex marriage came up. Ellen is firing on all pistons here. She takes what was becoming an awkward impasse and drives home her argument with a laugh.
I've transcribed the conversation:
MCCAIN: I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue.
ELLEN: Mm-hmm. Yeah. I think that it is looked at and some people are saying the same that blacks and women did not have the right to vote. Women just got the right to vote in 1920. Blacks didn't have the right to vote till 1870. It just feels like there's this old way of thinking (that) we are not all the same. We are all the same people. All of us. You're no different than I am. Our love is the same. (applause) To me what it feels like just, you know, I will speak for myself...it feels when someone says you can have a contract and you'll still have insurance and you'll get all that. It sounds to me like saying well you can sit there (points in one direction), you just can't sit there (points in another direction). That's what it sounds like to me. It doesn't feel inclusive. It feels isolated. It feels like we aren't owed the same things and the same wording.
MCCAIN: Well, I've heard you articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement and I, along with many, many others wish you every happiness.
ELLEN: Thank you. So you'll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you said?
(laughter)
MCCAIN: Touché
Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 7:56 AM EST by Andy in California, Election 2008, Ellen DeGeneres, Gay Marriage, John McCain, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
This defender of aparthied must be defeated!!!
Posted by: Joseph | May 22, 2008 8:14:04 AM
The fact he was unable to counteract Ellen's argument on why he defends traditional marriage shows how much of a lame duck John McCain is and why Barack Obama will run circles around this guy during the debates. If only the rest of America could recognize this *sigh*
Posted by: Alex | May 22, 2008 8:36:23 AM
Oh God - we are going to have a choice between and empty suit and a Nazi.
Posted by: Shane | May 22, 2008 8:48:25 AM
Shame Ellen was too nice and didn't bring up the fact that while he was Married to HIS 1st wife...he cheated on her with his 2nd wife....then she shoulda' mentioned the ol' "Sanctity of Marriage" BS!...
Posted by: Disgusted American | May 22, 2008 8:59:46 AM
I don't think Ellen was too nice. I think she played it just right. She made her point, nicely, made it well, and let his lack of meaningful response speak for itself. He had no argument to make, because there is none, and it made him look bad, without anyone being able to label her strident or in your face. (There are people who can and should be that, but not Ellen.) And it's a reminder to the gay voters who still need reminding: he is not our candidate.
Posted by: Ernie | May 22, 2008 9:28:53 AM
What a loser! He knows what's right and wrong, can't stand him!
Posted by: Bill | May 22, 2008 9:35:35 AM
Um, do you people realize that Barack Obama (and for that matter Hillary Clinton) agree with McCain on the issue of marriage and rather than marriage, only support civil unions. Civil unions are exactly what Ellen was arguing against. I'm not defending McCain, but let's not pretend that he is any worse on the issue than the two Democrats running.
And he didn't refer to the "sanctity" of marriage, which I frankly appreciate as coming from him it would be ridiculous. He can have his opinion that marriage is one man + one woman, whatever, but don't give me that ridiculous argument about how it's so ultra super important that it has to be "protected." He's for equal protection under the law, just under a different name. He opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment and felt, like Clinton and Obama, that it was up to the states to decide.
He is NOT George Bush on this issue.
God I cannot believe I'm defending John McCain but I've already watched the destruction of the Clinton legacy with lies and bullshit and it just gets old. Call a duck a duck. They are all against equal marriage and he is no worse than Saint Obama.
Posted by: Banne | May 22, 2008 9:43:33 AM
The 3 positions are hardly the same.
Has McCain ever really come out in favor of civil unions?
What he said after the CA decision was that he supports the rights of states to define marriage however they want -- specifically the right of California to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That makes him more anti-gay than even Schwarzenegger.
Obama and Clinton are at least clearly for civil unions.
Posted by: Kevinvt | May 22, 2008 9:51:56 AM
John, you ignorant slut.
Posted by: Jake | May 22, 2008 9:54:37 AM
Banne, you have "already watched the destruction of the Clinton legacy with lies and bullshit"??? I hope you're referring to the lies and bullshit that Hillary and Bill have campaigned on.
The good news is that no matter if McCain or Obama wins in November, they are both against a constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage. But for those who think the choice doesn't make a difference on this topic, just keep in mind that McCain has already stated numerous times that he would appointment conservative judges to the Supreme Court. That will make all of the difference in the world.
Posted by: Rob | May 22, 2008 10:02:36 AM
Ellen is really blooming lately. I really don't think, in fact I know I couldn't, sit down next to McCain and give him a piece of my mind. Ellen did it and drove her point home. We cannot let McCain and all that think like him tell us what to do anymore. Still… Does anyone else here feel like pelting him with water balloons and eggs each time he speaks?
Posted by: Alec Sarkas | May 22, 2008 10:30:41 AM
Is it not enough to have civil unions that offer the same benefits of married couples? The concern is that once given the title of marriage, gays will go further and begin (as example) a push for all grade school and high school text books to obliterate marriage as it is known and has been known for centuries.
The advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafer it will be deemed so in law. The terms male and female, man and woman will gradually lose their significance. Sexes will become interchangeable and it will be said whatever a father can do a second mother can do and so on.
Young women will be encouraged to marry their prince or princess.
We will have entered something beyond Huxley's Brave New World. All thanks to the hubris (in one case) of four individuals on the California court.
Posted by: Being Counted | May 22, 2008 10:48:34 AM
I'm really curious what prompted McCain to actually go on Ellen's show? I'm somewhat impressed that he did. Obviously, he knew going into it that the subject was going to be brought up and that it was safe to assume her entire audience would agree with her.
The idea of having to "settle" for a civil union disgusts me. But I will say I'd rather settle for that right now, and then show the world why it's only a step in the right direction and not the end goal. (Rather than pushing so hard for completely equal and continually not get it) I think a lot of the people who are against it would change their minds after they see it in action.
Posted by: lis | May 22, 2008 11:15:34 AM
@ Being Counted:
Apart from your final paragraph, I have no trouble with your predictions.
This may come as a surprise to you, but most of us in this forum would actually welcome a more enlightened society.
Posted by: Mark | May 22, 2008 11:20:58 AM
Did anyone notice that McCain couldn't even look at Ellen in the eye when giving his answer?
Posted by: RR | May 22, 2008 11:53:54 AM
He couldn't even sell that shit with a straight face. Did you see how sheepish he was? I don't think he even believes what he's saying. That makes him worse than someone who's just dumb.
Posted by: Michael | May 22, 2008 12:30:57 PM
PS @BEING COUNTED
Ahhh, the slippery slope argument. Last refuge of someone who's on shaky ground.
Posted by: Michael | May 22, 2008 12:32:20 PM
@BEING COUNTED: People who are for "traidional" marriage and scared about the "re-definition" of marriage forget that in the 80s it was deemed possible for a man to rape his wife. This was a radical re-definition of marriage. The "traditional marrriage" view was that a man OWNED his wife, to bear his children, so she had to take it whenever he shoved it in. The idea that the law changed the definition of marriage, so they were equal partners, is exactly the change in marriage that modernized it to even think about gay marriage. So when a woman asks for traditional marriage, I say " which tradition honey, the beatings or the rapes?"
There is not a single non-hypocritical argument that can be made against gay marriage rights. PERIOD.
And the fact that there is not a single candidate in either party willing to stand up for equality makes your country the most pathetic, backwards moving country in the first world.
Posted by: Strepsi | May 22, 2008 1:33:17 PM
why is anyone surprised by what he said? She got her point across, he wasn't going to change his opinion on it, plus the man is 71 years old...he is not likely to understand gay people or their issues. The way that gay people will get equal rights is based on the next generations views.
Posted by: Paul | May 22, 2008 2:07:39 PM
Banne says:
"Um, do you people realize that Barack Obama (and for that matter Hillary Clinton) agree with McCain on the issue of marriage and rather than marriage, only support civil unions. Civil unions are exactly what Ellen was arguing against. I'm not defending McCain, but let's not pretend that he is any worse on the issue than the two Democrats running."
This is incorrect. McCain is worse. True, Obama and Hillary do not support same-sex marriage (and deserve criticism for it, even if their lack of support has political logic). But they, on the record, support CUs and have spoken out clearly in favor of them. McCain, on the other hand, is, at best, vague on CUs. He supports the right of gay people to "enter into contracts" but in response to NH's passage of CU legislation in 2007, he said, "'I am opposed to that legislation.'" Furthermore, McCain backed AZ's ballot initiative to ban gay marriage (which lost) and, unlike CA's Republican governor, would back it in CA. He would likely appoint much more conservative Supreme Court justices than Obama (or Hillary). So to claim that he's no worse on the issue than they are is simply bullshit.
Posted by: Ernie | May 22, 2008 2:12:10 PM
Wow! The election isn't over yet? It's been over 5 months already!
Posted by: duffy | May 22, 2008 2:20:55 PM
As long as the Democrats control congress, the FMA will not pass. This will not stop the states, however. Even California.
Let's face it, either you have the political power to gain marriage rights or you don't. Look what happened to the Mormons.
Posted by: anon | May 22, 2008 2:31:26 PM
I support MIKE GRAVEL precisly because he is for gay marriage and for separtation of church and state. He his older and has experience. Why do we ignore this man?
Posted by: MeMees | May 22, 2008 3:54:39 PM
Neither Obama nor Clinton would ever back amendments to ban gay marriage at the state or federal level. McCain backed that AZ ban and thankfully a state finally said no. Hopefully CA will also say no to the ban ammendment.
McCain would certainly appoint regressive (conservative) judges to the supreme court. With the current make up of the court it will be decades before that tilt can be corrected.
Posted by: birdman | May 22, 2008 3:55:25 PM
I'm thrilled Ellen went to bat on this issue, but I don't understand why she seems to be the only person willing to ask McCain ... you know ... QUESTIONS. It's as if he got the nomination and the media decided to put him in their back pocket and forget about him.
I say they move her from syndicated daytime talk to CNN, since she seems to be the only person with the stones to talk about the issues with the ol' man.
Posted by: Kate | May 22, 2008 4:25:10 PM
I just married my partner in Canada last month and was so inspired by the welcoming and equal treatment we received. It was a real joy. We have now started paperwork to move to Canada as my husband is from Croatia and one of the major rights bi-national same sex couples are excluded from is for immigration sponsorship. He has been here for 14 years through his senior year in high-school, college, and graduate school. His visa expires in May 2009 and he will have to leave the country. And, so will I.
We are having a reception for our families this summer. We wanted to keep the politics out of it as we both have a few family members that are religious and conservative.
However, I do not believe that age has anything to do with "understanding gay people or their issues" as STREPSI pointed out. Both of my grandmothers who are 94 and 86 will be there as will my husbands 70 year old father. They love and embrace us both. There are two individuals that are a problem and will not even attend the reception. One is my husbands brother who is 36 and the other is my stepfather who is 58. Oddly neither of them are religious at all so their objections are, in my opinion, based solely on their homophobic views. Age has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Ingiro | May 22, 2008 5:08:23 PM
It's been nice to see Ellen being political & then be funny about it. I was also really happy that she & Portia had already planned a commitment ceremony before same-sex marriage passed in California. It shows that their decision to marry was not spur of the moment brought on by the bill.
Posted by: scar2 | May 22, 2008 5:08:43 PM
Sorry STREPSI, the comment I referred to was posted by Paul
Posted by: Ingiro | May 22, 2008 5:10:49 PM
Troll alert: BEING COUNTED's comment is a cut and paste job from right wing fuckwad Dennis Prager's column "California Decision Will Radically Change Society" found here: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society
It's just more evidence that these idiots can't think for themselves. Pathetic.
Posted by: johninmanhattan | May 22, 2008 5:28:48 PM
@JOHNINMANHATTAN,
thank you. and to all: BEWARE THE PARROTS!
Posted by: nic | May 22, 2008 6:50:42 PM
In addition to that I believe that "BEING COUNTED" is yet another reincarnation of "STEPHEN" who trolled this blog for over a year before Andy finally banned him. He was caught in a number of lies and was caught posting under at least nine different screen names.
Posted by: Zeke | May 22, 2008 9:10:59 PM
Gavel is running for the Libertarian nomination this weekend. Check out C-Span coverage. It will probably be Barr-Gavel leading the ticket.
Posted by: anon | May 22, 2008 10:19:51 PM
I sensed in McCain a bit of shame as he had to deliver this same tired line about gay-marriage to pacify the Wingnut vote he would need to get elected. Afterall, who else would vote for him? Only a genius like Ellen could take this bs and spin it into a laugh.
Its likely McCain would rather the whole gay-marriage debate go away. To his credit, he is probably more genuinely interested in the economy, oil prices and Iraq; he is probably very qualified to lead on these issues. Unfortunately, he has to pander to and cultivate the vote from bunch of modern-day-Nazis that would lock up all gay people if they had their druthers.
Here's to Ellen for not giving him a swift kick in the ass. He'll get that in the general election . . .
Posted by: mike in mpls | May 23, 2008 2:20:14 AM
Reply to Zeke:
I'd like you to specify a lie that I was caught in. I am confident you will not be able to.
As for posting under different screen names, yes, on occasion. But how else would one be able to use their free speech right on this board if the moderator chooses to ban that person because he doesn't agree with their opinion?
Posted by: Being Counted | May 23, 2008 6:49:27 AM
As Mark said, Being Counted's prediction is nothing to be afraid of.
In particular, if society does in fact end up the way you say it will, it would mean that mindsets in general would truly have changed. The only ones who would find the situation horrifying will be the minorities, whose beliefs are instead what is immoral.
By then, what used to be their religions in the past would have changed along with the society, and they will be trapped in their sects which will be considered bigoted and backward.
I hate to say this, but I think you are less concerned with morality and more concerned about being in power and having the majority agree with you.
A slippery slope had already occured in the past to land us in the way things are as they are now. Recognizing gay marriage is not the beginning of a slippery slope, it is another step upslope in mankind's arduous climb out of the hole you still reside in.
Posted by: VestibuleSublevel | May 23, 2008 8:15:53 AM
Vestibulesublevel:
What's great about America (and this blog site) is that we can respecfully disagree, which I do.
Unfortunately, and unlike America, the moderator of this blog site chooses to ban individuals that disagree with the majority opinions posted here. Sad.
Posted by: Being Counted | May 23, 2008 10:19:39 AM
Actually, what's sad is that you, BEING COUNTED, think that condemning the positions of most of the readers and commenters here is "respectful disagreement". Your arguments are tired, bigoted and in the end prove nothing except your willful obtuseness and joyful embrace of second-class citizenship for a minority long persecuted by folks like yourself.
THAT'S hubris - thinking that your position is the one of truth, and all others are unequal and need not be considered. I urge you to read Glenn Greenwald's recent explanation of how the court system in the U.S. works, and why what the CA judges did was ANYTHING BUT "judicial activism" or "hubris" - they UPHELD THE GUARANTEES OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, nothing more, nothing less.
You may also want to read some Alexander Hamilton (particularly Federalist 78) who very eloquently explained that the function of judges is to DISREGARD POPULARLY-PASSED LAWS THAT CONFLICT WITH SAID CONSTITUTION. The CA judges applied this standard and based their conclusion on nothing more than a fair application of the statues contained in said Constitution.
You're a grown-up, use the Great Gazoogle and find yourself some links and hopefully, some enlightenment.
Posted by: Your Uncle Bastard | May 23, 2008 10:48:08 AM
To be fair, I don't think it is immediately clear that he is being hateful or bigoted in here. I don't see anything that makes him bannable in the comments of this post alone.
I'm sure, Being Counted, that if you were ban, it must have been for better reasons.
Posted by: VestibuleSublevel | May 23, 2008 11:52:20 AM
STEPHEN who is now posting as BEING COUNTED was banned because he was caught by me and PETERPARKER misrepresenting himself, acting as if he was a gay man who was against gay marriage. He slipped up a couple of times and was busted but still refused to admit that he wasn't gay, as he had numerous times insinuated.
Even THAT wasn't enough to get him banned. He was banned because he was posting under a number of different screen names, all of whom agreed with "STEPHEN's" opinions and all of whom would show up every time "STEPHEN" would go on one of his scores of "love the homo hate the gay marriage" compassion troll rants.
STEPHEN/BEING COUNTED has picked up right where he left off in his deception. He is lying about why he used different screen names. He didn't use different screen names because Andy banned "STEPHEN" for expressing his opinion, as SHEPHEN/BEING COUNTED has misstated here, Andy banned the IP address of STEPHEN AND HIS OTHER ENCARNATIONS at the same time because, after getting tips from me and PETERPARKER that we suspected he was posting under multiple names he did some research and found that that was in fact the case.
Those are the facts.
Oh, and by the way, when PETERPARKER and I turned over STEPHEN's rock his kind, compassionate "love the sinner hate the sin" facade fell away and the true, angry, homophobic, hateful STEPHEN came out. He told us that we were perverts that deserved to burn in hell. That was another factor that got him banned.
Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2008 1:53:23 PM
BEING COUNTED, you got banned again today, not because you disagree with the majority here but because you came here (after having been banned before for lying, misrepresenting yourself and viciously attacking those who exposed you) and posted things that were outright lies, just like you did before.
Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2008 3:05:53 PM
McCain at least has a consistant and predictable position. Obama and Clinton all over the map on gay marriage. Their more interested in votes than true equality. In Obama's case we have an African American in the year 2008 advocating for separate but equal policy when it comes to gay marriage. Unbelieveable.
Posted by: Craig | May 25, 2008 2:47:00 AM
"McCain at least has a consistant and predictable position."
A consistently bad position for gay people. Anyone who believes that McCain is better on gay rights than Obama and Hillary (imperfect as they are) is thoroughly insane. (Or a straight Towleroad troll.)
Posted by: Ernie | May 25, 2008 6:29:19 AM
Bravo Ellen
She showed America that we, the Gay community, are Educated, Articulet, have proper edicet, for not bringing up all of the mistakes towards the sanctidy of marriage the Republican, and more than half of the country, are quilty of, and proved a point the more negativity you put out in the universe the more you will get back from universe. Lets face it we live in a religiouse state plus a capitalist state the government doesn't want us to marry because of TAX DOLLARS.
Again Bravo Ellen for giving the Gay youth of this country a positive outlook on our community and prove you dont have to scream and yell to say something so to the point.
Thanks John Miami Fl.
Posted by: john b bariletti | May 27, 2008 10:15:32 AM
He is so awful. Everyone please get out there and vote to make sure we kick these right-wing bogots out of office!
Posted by: Dean | May 29, 2008 9:19:13 PM