Posted by: conradvisionquest | January 22, 2010

McCain Ladies not h8ing in new ads

I usually don’t blog about politics.  This has nothing to do with my usual subject matter (sustainable farming, vegetarian recipes, cruelty-free products, etc) but I felt this was blog-worthy nonetheless.

Meghan McCain/photo by Adam Bouska

Although I do not agree with much of the Republican Party’s politics, I was blown away today by the participation of 2 beautiful republican ladies in a new ad campaign for gay rights.

John McCain’s wife, Cindy, and daughter, Meghan, each posed for advertisements supporting the gay rights group NOH8, which is against Proposition 8, a ballot measure that was passed in 2008 banning gay marriages in California.

What does Mr. McCain think?  John McCain’s office issued a statement saying the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage. It says McCain believes “marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman.”

Cindy McCain/photo by Adam Bouska

In keeping with the belief I have that we should not let ourselves be defined by others, I commend these ladies, no matter how much I may disagree with them on other matters, for going against the grain in such a public way. And the photography is stunning!

Would love to hear your thoughts on this “controversial” move by the McCain ladies…

Advertisements

Responses

  1. It’s good theater and a useful softening of the two lady’s public image, but that is about all. Of course, since Prop 8 was a tempest in teapot, that’s not surprising.

    Since the gays lost NO legally administered rights or privileges through Prop 8, it was and is just a bunch of angry people wanting to legislate acceptance, even if it takes violating the laws and constitution of CA to do so.

    • hello, jonolan! thanks for the comment. i disagree with your opinion, however, that those who were against Prop 8 are “just a bunch of angry people wanting to legislate acceptance.” Is that how you would describe black people, women, or other minorites? Just because something is a law, does not make it the right thing to do. I could list countless laws that existed in the past that were ridiculous, and that’s why they were changed.

      • That is not how I would describe “lack people, women, or other minorities” in any instance where their legal rights were stripped from them or refused them in the first place. That has no bearing on the situations that gays have in CA.

        California law, specifically California Family Code §297.5, requires that Domestic Partnerships be treated exactly the same as Marriages within the state.

        Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

        Gays already had, and still have, every right, privilege, and duty under California as straights had and have. The only difference was the word.

        So yes, it was nothing but an attempt to legislate acceptance. Were it anything else – especially if the word “marriage” was needed to get them their rights under CA law – my opinion would be different.

  2. welcome back, jonolan! and thanks for the lively discussion…
    as to the argument that they were not having existing rights stripped from them, i say this… women were not allowed to vote until 1919. Until then we did not have that right. Does that mean we should not be given the right in the first place? Were we fighting just to be accepted? No, i think we were fighting for our rights as individuals, and to not be treated as second-class citizens. To this day, there are people who will not treat women (or blacks, or hispanics, or homosexuals, or tall people, or fat people, whatever) as equals. I’ve experienced it myself. I don’t think having a law that says people can legally marry the person they love is going to make everyone “accept” them.

  3. Hi Wendy!
    I would have to agree with jonolan on this: As all the laws are in place which establish homosexual equality, the word “marriage” is the only argument here (in CA.) Why is the homosexual lobby so interested in the word “marriage” anyway? This kind of stuff is only good for one thing: it stirs up controversy. Controversy causes discord in the general population. Discord distracts people from the really important matters. What are those really important matters? Hmmm…seems like we’re all too busy arguing over terms like “marriage” or “civil union” to give a crap.

  4. if the word “marriage” is so insignificant, then why not let them be able to do it?

  5. The word “marriage” is legally insignificant since domestic partnerships exists. It is not,however, societally insignificant, as the ongoing argument over Prop 8 demonstrates. There’s a difference.

    But it’s not the place for the government to dictate societal acceptance for a group where and when failure of acceptance doesn’t intrinsically violate those rights that were granted to us by our Creator and enumerated in the US constitution.

    Really, given the existing laws in CA and the fact that federal law still doesn’t recognize gay marriage, what legal right or privilege do the gays gain with marriage or loose without it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: