Ellen DeGeneres nails McCain.
I suppose he goes on these shows because he's trying to be all things to all people. However, DeGeneres utterly nails him, and he's left "respectfully disagreeing" and sounding as if he comes from another century.
Tags:
Friday, May 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
She didn't "nail" him on anything. She expressed her position, he stated what his position is. There was no fireworks, there was no argument, it was respectful on both accounts. Of course, his position is also shared by the majority of Americans, so that's not a shocker.
But of course, we know how superior and enlightened you are compared to us, so that you would view the vast majority of Americans who hold such an opinion as coming "from another century" isn't surprising.
Of course Obama generally runs from situations where he might be asked tough questions, so McCain appearing on that show where he knew the question would be asked is certainly admirable.
Well, I'll respectfully disagree with Jason. Ellen was gracious, yet eloquent in her argument, while McCain simply parroted the same tired clichés. Kudos to McCain for making an appearance on Ellen's show, and my hat's off to him for that. Anyone knows McCain is not a raging fundamentalist, and he is certainly a moderate, if not socially permissive in regard to these issues. However, his stance on our continued illegal occupation in Iraq is appalling. And in neither case can he make a compelling argument, other than his continued reliance on the fears and ignorance of the masses.
Jason and others might also do well to understand that we do not live in an actual Democracy where a slight majority can take away the rights of a small minority. Fortunately this is a Republic, with separation of powers, and only vague democratic representation. Unfortunately we have developed this rather unique notion that the elite should not be running the political process, and instead leave our most important decisions to charlatan preachers, celebrities and corporate whores. We have been in the process of expanding human rights in this country. It's called progress, enlightenment, or development. So it stands to reason that anyone clinging to antiquated notions could be easily described as "coming from another century".
Oh no, Jason, she nailed him by pointing out the bigotry that lies behind the distinction he is making. He is saying that she is less equal than other people simply because of the way that she loves. As she points out, he is saying that she "can sit there, but not there". It's all very Rosa Parks. And the fact that this bigotry is widespread in your country, doesn't stop it being what it is. It's bigotry, pure and simple. But then, your country only gave up institutionalised racism within the last fifty odd years, so it's to be expected that you'd be behind the rest of the civilised world on subjects like this.
Willysf, Jason is a troll. Logic is wasted on him.
As she points out, he is saying that she "can sit there, but not there". It's all very Rosa Parks.
A false analogy if ever there was one. Blacks in the US were being denied their civil rights. Marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is denied to many classes of people in the US for various reasons. For example. one cannot marry a sibling or close relative, one cannot marry in some states unless a blood test is carried out, one cannot marry more than one person at the same time, a couple may not marry unless they are both of a certain age (which varies from state to state), and in most states couples cannot marry unless they are of the opposite sex. I'm not going to debate the relative merits of any of these, other than to indicate that they proce that marriage is not an inherent civil right. So that means that marriage is a privilege granted under state law, and one must be issued a license for it just like driving or any other number of legal privileges. Now if you want to make an argument that these legal privileges should be expanded to include same-sex adults, that's a better argument to make, but to frame it as a civil rights issue is flat out wrong.
Now personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I do however recognize that there are valid arguments on both sides without dismissing those on the "marriage between a man and a woman" side as bigots, nor dismissing those on the "everyone can get married to anyone" side as immoral extremists.
But then, your country only gave up institutionalised racism within the last fifty odd years, so it's to be expected that you'd be behind the rest of the civilised world on subjects like this.
Newsflash, I've lived in your country, and others in Europe, and found them to be far more racist than mine.
Willysf, Jason is a troll. Logic is wasted on him
And as we've already discussed, you're an uneducated and unbalanced nutcase, apparently off his meds, who doesn't even know what logic is.
his stance on our continued illegal occupation in Iraq is appalling
Just out of curiosity, in what way is our present occupation of Iraq "illegal"?
Jason and others might also do well to understand that we do not live in an actual Democracy where a slight majority can take away the rights of a small minority. Fortunately this is a Republic, with separation of powers, and only vague democratic representation.
While I appreciate the condescension and the civics lesson, rest assured I understand our Constitution and our system of government, given that I spent twelve years of my life protecting it.
It's called progress, enlightenment, or development.
Well, having been to San Fran, I can tell you we're not all as enlightened in other parts of the country as you all imagine yourselves to be out there.
A false analogy if ever there was one. Blacks in the US were being denied their civil rights. Marriage is not a civil right.
The pursuit of happiness is listed in the United States Declaration of Independence as one of the "inalienable rights" of man. If marriage isn't a pursuit of happiness, then I don't know what is.
And the reasons you gave for other marriages being disallowed - siblings etc, multiple marriages - are in no way analagous. Two people have the right to the pursuit of happiness and bigotry should not be allowed to stand in their way.
Now personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
No, you are just programmed to defend Republicans whether you agree with what they said or not.
Newsflash, I've lived in your country, and others in Europe, and found them to be far more racist than mine.
Was it institutional? Did you notice blacks having to sit in different parts of our buses?
Oh, and the California Supreme Court certainly thought that civil rights were involved here as this was central to their decision:
The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.
I wonder if you ever tire of being totally wrong.
The pursuit of happiness is listed in the United States Declaration of Independence as one of the "inalienable rights" of man. If marriage isn't a pursuit of happiness, then I don't know what is.
Then the founders would have explicitly stated that marriage was one of these "inalienable rights", which of course it isn't, as common sense dictates and as I have demonstrated. If it were an "inalienable right", then there would be no exceptions to which that right could be exercised.
Two people have the right to the pursuit of happiness and bigotry should not be allowed to stand in their way.
Then certainly a person and their first cousin should be allowed to be married. If they both consent, why should the law prevent it?
Was it institutional? Did you notice blacks having to sit in different parts of our buses?
You may not be aware of this, but blacks don't have to sit in different parts of buses anymore. But as I was not in your country fifty odd years ago, which is the timeframe you stated for institutional racism in the US, I can't say what your practices were then. I can say that as of when I was there in the eighties and nineties, it most certainly seemed to be more racist than the US.
Oh, and the California Supreme Court certainly thought that civil rights were involved here as this was central to their decision
While I appreciate your ability to cut-and-paste, four out of seven judges from California believing that marriage is a civil right does not make it necessarily so.
You may not be aware of this, but blacks don't have to sit in different parts of buses anymore. But as I was not in your country fifty odd years ago, which is the timeframe you stated for institutional racism in the US, I can't say what your practices were then.
Racism has never been institutionalized in this country as it once was in yours. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
While I appreciate your ability to cut-and-paste, four out of seven judges from California believing that marriage is a civil right does not make it necessarily so.
Yes it does you ignorant little man. The four out of seven were not being asked to decide if marriage was a civil right, that was taken as a given, they were being asked if certain people could be excluded from that civil right on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
Sorry, I can't believe I passed on this one.
Then certainly a person and their first cousin should be allowed to be married. If they both consent, why should the law prevent it?
No country in Europe forbids first cousins to marry and it is legal to do so in 26 American states. This goes to the crux of your ridiculous claim that, if any restriction is put on a right, then it ceases to be a right.
All rights are subject to restrictions where other people may be harmed if I exercise that right unwisely.
For instance, I have the right to free speech but am not allowed to shout, "Fire" in a crowded building lest people be injured in the panic I would have caused.
It used to be believed that first cousins would produce unhealthy children, so a curtailment of that right was brought into being and has since been removed in most places as medical science has told us that the risk we feared is negligable.
For this reason were 2 first cousins to want to marry in any of the states in your country which forbids this, they would merely - as gays have recently done - show to a court that any children they may have are not at an increased risk and I feel very sure that, as with gays, the court would return that right to them.
You could have found out about first cousins simply by Googling, which I why I regard you as a troll. You simply no longer care how stupid you look on here.
And you are usually at your most arrogant when you are at your most ignorant.
http://www.cousincouples.com/info/facts.shtml
You know, I had just typed up a point-by-point response to you, but you have finally convinced me that any discussion with you, unless one is some kind of sycophant, is completely wasted.
I'm beyond sick of your constant stream of insults and your basic inability to conduct rational discourse. You do nothing other than to spew out a constant stream of hate speak. You lack the basic tools to intellectually defend your positions, and given that, can only fall back to directing your bile towards those who disagree with you. Knowledge and rationality are simply not tools that you trade in.
I'm sorry you're such an angry hate-filled little man. I would suggest you seek professional help for your affliction, but in my experience, people like yourself rarely realize that they are sick. If you have any family, I hope that if nothing else they can talk you into seeking the assistance you so desperately need.
You know, I had just typed up a point-by-point response to you
And I presume you realised that you were wrong on every point and declined to post it? By the way, why would responding make one a "sycophant"? Are you sure you've chosen the right word there? That makes no sense to me at all.
You lack the basic tools to intellectually defend your positions
You are the one who believes that first cousins cannot marry, you are the one who believes that people "felatiate" each other, so for you to attack other people as lacking "the basic tools to intellectually defend your positions" is beyond pathetic.
This last comment of yours reads like a goodbye. I sincerely hope that is the case. You have been trolling here for far too long.
I like Ellen a lot, I would love to meet her. I also think Ellen did make a compelling argument.
Here is the problem. What Ellen is asking for is for the state to go beyond just declaring legal partnerships and declare gay unions as having the sacred status of “marriage”.
Now this is not to say that there can’t be compelling arguments for why gay unions could not be considered sacred and given the term marriage; I am just not sure that government is really able to mandate any union beyond just it’s legality and declare something “sacred” one way or the other. So perhaps government has over stepped its boundaries by ever declaring any legal union, even heterosexual, a marriage.
Perhaps the answer is for government to get out of the marriage game all together and declare both homosexual and heterosexual unions “civil unions” and let marriage be determined in the context of peoples various religious and cultural communities.
This way everyone would have the same legal rights and at the same time allow diverse communities to determine on their own what would constitute sacred and marriage beyond just a legal agreement and partnership; and no one could deny them that.
Just a thought, I would love to hear the opinion of others.
Peace,
James
Perhaps the answer is for government to get out of the marriage game all together and declare both homosexual and heterosexual unions “civil unions” and let marriage be determined in the context of peoples various religious and cultural communities.
James,
That would at least be a more equitable set up than what we have at present.
However, I disagree that marriage has to be "sacred" as that surely only applies to religious ceremonies. It is possible to be married in a civil ceremony, without any input from any religious group, which is I imagine, what Ellen is proposing.
Kel,
Thanks for your reply. I don't necessarily mean that sacred should always be taken as a religious term. I think it can have more universal application by giving something extra special meaning.
My point is based on what Ellen said, who felt that just a legal contract was not enough. What else can or should government really offer than that? If Ellen views her commitment with her partner as more than a legal contract, than she is applying a kind of "sacredness" to her commitment that government should not have the right to comment on either way. The same would be true for heterosexual marriage.
If Ellen views her commitment with her partner as more than a legal contract, than she is applying a kind of "sacredness" to her commitment that government should not have the right to comment on either way. The same would be true for heterosexual marriage.
James,
I think your last sentence sums the argument up perfectly. She's asking for equality.
McCain and others are saying you can have a legal contract but you can't call it marriage. So what's the difference between the two, and why can only heterosexuals call their union marriage?
Kel,
I think your right that this does some up the argument perfectly.
I think heterosexuals, and homosexuals should have the right to call their unions "marriage" if they so choose. I just also think that government should stop calling any of it "marriage", even for heterosexuals.
The only role government really plays in any union deals only with the legal dimension anyway. Most people seem to agree that marriage is more than a legal contract so I do not see how government should have a say beyond such legal aspects for anyone.
Peace,
James
The only role government really plays in any union deals only with the legal dimension anyway. Most people seem to agree that marriage is more than a legal contract so I do not see how government should have a say beyond such legal aspects for anyone.
Amen to that James! I don't even think most Republicans care one way or the other but, come election time, it's an easy way to whip up the religious base.
Peace,
Kel.
Post a Comment