Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

McCain Begins to Flip On Federal Marriage Amendmet

Jim Burroway

August 6th, 2010

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) famously opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006 when it came to the Senate Floor, saying that “it usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them.” It’s not that McCain supported marriage equality (he supported California’s Prop 8 and Arizona’s Prop 102 in 2008), but that he saw it as a states rights issue. Now that a Federal Judge has found California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional, McCain is reconsidering his opposition to the FMA:

Asked whether he thinks backing the Federal Marriage Amendment, or a U.S. constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, would be an appropriate response to the ruling, McCain said he hasn’t decided what action at this time is appropriate.

“I haven’t looked at the impact of the decision yet as far as what, if any, action needs to be taken,” he said. “I’ve been on the immigration issue, the defense authorization bill and this START treaty, so I really have not had an opportunity to talk to my people about it.”



August 6th, 2010 | LINK

Tell you what Johnnie boy – you go back to your wife, Carol, and leave that homewrecker Cindy (along with her million$ and 6 or 7 or 8 or who knows how many houses), thereby proving you actually care about the sanctity of marriage, and then I’ll listen to you.

August 6th, 2010 | LINK

Adding an amendment to the constitution defining marriage as one-man and one-woman still violates GLBT citizens’ rights. Putting it in the constitution does not automatically make it “constitutional.”

Jim Burroway
August 6th, 2010 | LINK


Putting it in the U.S. Constitution makes it constitutional by definition. That is precisely what “constitutional” means.

August 6th, 2010 | LINK

Jim –

You are of course right on the mechanics, but Brad is right on the morals.

August 6th, 2010 | LINK

Brad —

As far as I remember from a constitutional law class I took a LONG time ago, the Supreme Court still has the power to interpret newly added constitutional amendments as “constitutional” or not in light of other amendments and articles of the Constitution. If one amendment is in conflict of the spirit of the Constitution or other amendments of the constitution, it (or provisions thereof) may be rendered without merit. (I think.)

If I am wrong, or full of it, please correct me, and tell me why. Like I said, it’s been a while.

August 6th, 2010 | LINK

First DADT and now(possibly)the FMA?

Mr. McCain, you never cease to disappoint me.

Mark F.
August 6th, 2010 | LINK


You are absolutely wrong. If one Amendment “seems” to conflict with another, the court has to somehow reconcile them, or rule the new Amendment creates an exception to a general rule.

August 6th, 2010 | LINK

Thank you. Like I said, it was a LOONG time ago, and the course was an undergraduate course (and an elective one at that).

Nevertheless, I doubt 2/3 of the Senate and House would vote to ban same-sex marriage and that it would also pass in 38 states. Sure, such a proposed amendment would likely garner 50-60 votes with the bigots / scared people in the Senate, but I don’t believe there would be 67 votes. (At least with the CURRENT makeup.)

August 6th, 2010 | LINK

The most recent Congressional vote to take place on the proposed Amendment occurred in the United States House of Representatives on July 18, 2006 when the Amendment failed 236 yea to 187 nay votes, falling short of the 290 yea votes required for passage in that body. The Senate has only voted on cloture motions with regard to the proposed Amendment, the last of which was on June 7, 2006 when the motion failed 49 yea to 48 nay votes, falling short of the 60 yea votes required to proceed to consideration of the Amendment.

And that was when the GOP was in control of everything.

L. Junius Brutus
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

But before DOMA and Prop. 8 were overturned. A lot of people argued that DOMA and state gay marriage bans would stand, and used that as a reason (or excuse) to vote against the FMA. Almost all Republicans who voted against it, will vote for it, and many Democrats will too.

August 6th, 2010 | LINK

I actually read somewhere that SCOTUS put a stop to any FMA efforts the third or so time Bush tried to get one in motion in the legislature again, saying it was a State’s rights issue. Was I just hearing a misunderstanding/baloney there?

August 7th, 2010 | LINK

McCain must go. Cindy and Megan too now dissapoint with their silence.

Marriage Equality is, of all Gay issues, the most important of all and I’ll tell you why:

Money makes the political machine move.

Our right to marriage, emotional benefits aside, are politically crucial in gaining all of the other needed protections and benefits for Gays and Lesbians. Even Gays who do not ever care to be married are affected by the lesser financial status of Gay society overall. It is Finances that make political agendas happen. Currently Gays are financially oppressed because we do not receive the huge financial benefits which are currently only given to Straight couples.

If Gay folks ever want to have a society free or even freer of harassment and oppression, then it is strategically important that we and/or our friends gain the financial power to devote toward Gay political movements. This is a practical matter. Marital Status under the federal Government makes a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime to the median wage earner. Greater earnings means greater political power, directly.

Also, I currently see Gay and Gay-aligned activists like Coulter, or other National figures, attempting to cloud Gay issues with thoise of the GOP by telling us that they are genuinely promoting Gays, but rather bolstering the ailing GOP. This is a ploitical maneuver of the GOP.

Troubling to me are those national Gay leaders who campaign touting Gay rights, some of whom I have personally donated to, taking in large amounts of Gay money, intended clearly to be for the use of said mission, AND THEN they turn around and present themselves in the Generally Conservative Arena using my Gay money promoting either themselves as a Conservative Candidate, or as an overall Conservative Promoter, who happens to be Gay. Problem. This is a misuse of the hard earned money of Gay Americans. The GOP will never help Gays, period.

John Doucette
August 7th, 2010 | LINK

He needs to talk to his people to decide what he believes? He should try talking to his wife and daughter who support same-sex marriage.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.