Ellen Challenges McCain On Gay Marriage

On Talk Show, GOP Candidate Says Same-Sex Couples Should Be Allowed To Enter Legal Agreements, But He Opposes Gay Marriage

(AP)  Republican John McCain says same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into legal agreements for insurance and other purposes, but he opposes gay marriage and believes in "the unique status of marriage between and man and a woman."

"And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue," the likely Republican presidential nominee said in an interview to air Thursday on "The Ellen DeGeneres show."

McCain, who also opposes an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex unions, said people should be encouraged to enter into legal agreements, particularly for insurance and other areas where decisions need to be made.

DeGeneres needled McCain on the issue, arguing that she and the senator from Arizona aren't different.

Last week, after the California Supreme Court cleared the way for gay marriage in that state, DeGeneres announced on her program her engagement to longtime girlfriend Portia de Rossi.

"We are all the same people, all of us. You're no different than I am. Our love is the same," she said. "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, you just can't sit there.'

"It feels like we are not, you know, we aren't owed the same things and the same wording," DeGeneres said.

McCain said he's heard her "articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness."

DeGeneres steered the conversation back toward the humor she's known for.

"So, you'll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you're saying?" she asked.

"Touche," McCain said.

[libh8er]

"It feels like we are not, you know, we aren''t owed the same things and the same wording," DeGeneres said.


At last, DeGenerate gets it!!!!

[hungry1968]

At last, DeGenerate gets it!!!!

Posted by LibH8er at 09:31 AM : May 22, 2008





The mantra of the neo cons, summed up by their baboon spokes-idiot libh8er:

"Equal rights and protections for everyone!!

Except ***, muslims, liberals, democrats, environmentalists, people that oppose big government, the poor, the middle class, blacks, and hispanics!!

But equal rights and protections for everyone else!!"

[jack3213]

Ellen is very respeectable, she may not "get it" as some say otherwise- but she certainly is showing class and everyone has a right to their opinion.

[b0ludo]

I guess some still haven''t gotten it... McCain is a Republican mostly in name. He has voted center-left most of his life. Of course, it is an election year and he has to appeal to the sub-100-IQ crowd... My guess is he will not "come out of the closet" with his liberal views until after November. If he wins, right wingers are in for a big surprise, as he may be more of a Social Libertarian than Clinton.

[hungry1968]

Posted by B0ludo at 09:48 AM : May 22, 2008





We can only hope.

[barefootboy9]

Ellen and John have one thing in common. Ellen likes girls and John likes girls.

[superdem]

It''s called discrimination. You can hold it right up to peoples'' faces, and they can''t justify it, but they aren''t going to change. You need court cases like in California to force justice upon people who are not going to give it. Justice does NOT depend on majority rule. 99 people can be wrong, and one can be right. That''s why we have independent judges, and not rubber stamp kangaroo courts like the Republicans want.

[aldon61]

At last,something I agree with McCain. Civil unions are needed, but marraige, especially in a church, is just plain wrong. I further believe that each state should decide this issue on it''s own; the federal government should keep their nose out of it. Call me old-fashioned on this one. Best of luck to Ellen and her partner

[old300d]

If there is gay marriage then there has to be gay divorce. Sounds like a lawyers dream come true ! ! !

The more "gay" marriages there are, the fewer babies will be born. Could help with the over populating of the planet and help the kids that already need homes. Could be a win win situation, even though I oppose it

[old300d]

Gay divorce. Sounds like a great reality show ! ! !

[old300d]

They be fighting over who gets the shoes ?

[barefootboy9]

I''m a man and I lioke girls. Just don''t understand men liking men. I believe the bible teaches against homosexuals and you probably say i''m wrong. I say you are sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[uscitizenvet]

I wouldn''t wish anything bad on anyone but when and if the BIG Quake happens in California, it would be a shame if Elen and her significant other were strolling on the beach together when a massive amount of real estate slides into the ocean. She has her right to disagree with McCains stance and he has his right to believe in what he thinks. It''s great to live in a country where freedom of speech and press allows it''s citizens to express their feelings on subject matter that affects us all.
God Bless The U.S.A.

[chefjohn4]

uscitizenvet - McCain is running for a president of the country. His views are public domain and open for public scrutiny. I dont get the whole "quake" thing, but you sound a little nuts...but maybe I''m wrong.

mudrose, then I guess the only course is another American revolution. Because that''s the only way "We the People" can take back what we wanted 231 years ago. This time, do not seperate the state and religion... Then we can have witch hunts like before, oh heck, why not just have a Marxsist society and execute whomever doesn''t "get with the program".....

[chefjohn4]

mudrose - cutting and pasting again I see. Rock -on bro!

[jn122736]

I have to agree with McCain on this one.

Granting marital status to homosexuals (***) is a violation of the sanctity of marriage.

There is nothing %u201C%u201Dholy%u201D%u201D about h-omosexuality. S-E-X is a natural, animal, instinct and is intended by nature for reproduction and until and unless two women or two men can reproduce, they certainly cannot be considered natural.

Men%u2019s clubs should not be forced to allow Women to join.
Girls should not be allowed to join the boy scouts.

And *** should not be considered man and wife (married).

[chefjohn4]

jn122736 - Did you know that 2008 years ago homosexuality was commonplace and exepted...well do you. Think about it before you start writing about a subject you obviously know nothing about.

[mudrose-2009]

mudrose - cutting and pasting again I see. Rock -on bro!

Posted by chefjohn4

You''re a cut and paste job. And if what I say strikes you as professional, that''s because I am.

[mudrose-2009]

Did religion even start the idea of marriage? I didn''''t think it did. I thought it had something to do with the wealthy passing on their wealth upon their death.
Posted by melchg

This is a worthless debate.

[jn122736]

jn122736 - Did you know that 2008 years ago homosexuality was commonplace and exepted...well do you. Think about it before you start writing about a subject you obviously know nothing about.

Posted by chefjohn4 at 10:54 AM : May 22, 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

chefjohn4;

Homosexuality was no more commonplace or accepted then than it is today.

It wasn%u2019t NATURAL then either.

Actually, homosexuality IS natural in the fact that it is an abnormality that occurs in almost every animal species to varying degrees.

[simonsez40]

Great article - sounds like Ellen had McCain speechless because I can guarantee you he''s just pandering to the Right - thus the reason for him evading the question.

Yeah for Ellen and quest to received the 1800 benefits that married couples receive! It may not happen now - but IT WILL HAPPEN DOWN THE ROAD!

[rosesnpearls]

So my insurance rates go up because we have to insure gay couples for whom AIDS related medical expenses are more likely? Thanks, McCain.

[chefjohn4]

sbbm - I''m sorry your Aspen weekend got ruined by the "intolerent" ***! Do you have any idea how intolerent you sound. By your thought process we need to get rid of the NAACP, Negro college fund and the toys for Tots program, (I dont see toys for adults drives).
ProphecyGuru - You sound like a friggin'' *** and Jane book. They outta find an Island for all religious zelots. It sure would free up a lot of land in the Red States.

[simonsez40]

Actually, homosexuality IS natural in the fact that it is an abnormality that occurs in almost every animal species to varying degrees.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by jn122736

So this this mean that male on female species of animals are as well abnormal because they both occur and who''s to say what''s abnormal? MORON!

[sblake63]

Lets see her argue her gay marraige stance before Christ when her time comes lol. She'' be at a loss for words :)

[simonsez40]

So my insurance rates go up because we have to insure gay couples for whom AIDS related medical expenses are more likely? Thanks, McCain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by rosesnpearls

No your insurance rates go up because the Congress and our government refuse to put caps on their greed and pander to their lobbyist! Educated your shallow mind and think outside of your trailer!

[simonsez40]

Lets see her argue her gay marraige stance before Christ when her time comes lol. She'''' be at a loss for words :)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by sblake63

I don''t think she''ll have to argue anything - since she isn''t JUDGING ANYONE''s personal relationship with Christ. On the other hand you might have to bribe your way into the Pearly Gates since you are not the judge and jury on a persons soul!

[mudrose-2009]

NeoDarwinism and the absence of the Creator has allowed people like you to believe homosexuality is perfectly fine. It has given you an out from being held accountable to your Creator. Darwin''''s version of history eliminates all moral laws. It gives homosexuals and lesbians an excuse.

That''''s all I''''m going to say about this.
Posted by ProphecyGuru

It''s called Moral Relativism.

[rafterman1]

===Lets see her argue her gay marraige stance before Christ when her time comes lol. She'''' be at a loss for words :)===
Posted by sblake63

Not really. All she has to say is "that''s how you made me". Then watch Christ be the one at a loss for words.

[mudrose-2009]

This is a worthless debate.

Posted by mudrose

Why because you know thats the truth? The whole idea of marriage just got adopted into religion.
Posted by melchg

The idea of marriage between a man and a woman is 2000 years old. That''s what''s true.

[brianbwb-2009]

"It''''s called Moral Relativism." Posted by mudrose

No, it is replacing superstition with empirical logic.

[mudrose-2009]

"It''''''''s called Moral Relativism." Posted by mudrose

No, it is replacing superstition with empirical logic.
Posted by brianbwb

No it''s moral relativism. If my reality says that killing unborns is legitimate and your reality says no that''s wrong, with your empirical logic and my empirical logic who''s to say who''s right? Moral relativism.

[honestabe8]

One thing that seems to be suggested in these discussions of homosexuality is that orientation is a choice. I am a straight male, and my orientation was not at all a choice. It just sort of popped up watching Tina Turner and the Ikettes (sorry, Ike did nothing for me). Why do people feel that orientation is a choice?

[simonsez40]

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, historians say.

Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

%u201CWestern family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.%u201D

For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrhrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that''s French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple''s goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.

[mudrose-2009]

Actually it''''s about 6,000 years old....going all the way back to the garden of Eden. But you and I agree on principle.

Posted by ProphecyGuru

We do but the Darwinists don''t go that route.

[brianbwb-2009]

"The idea of marriage between a man and a woman is 2000 years old. That''''s what''''s true." Posted by mudrose

Regardless of how old you think it is (btw, the Chinese were marrying 3,000 years ago, it is recorded in stone records, as were Egyptians) What is important is how two people approach it today, and it should be their choice on how. 2,000 years ago is irrelevant. 2,000 years ago, there were no cars, does that mean that you should only ride horses?

[simonsez40]

Guess that''''s why Christ tells people to repent of their sins right? Homosexuality being one of them as clearly indicated in His Word

That is a lie because I can pull Hebrew words out and show you nothing is clear about homosexuality. Do your research!

[brianbwb-2009]

"No it''''s moral relativism. If my reality says that killing unborns is legitimate and your reality says no that''''s wrong, with your empirical logic and my empirical logic who''''s to say who''''s right? Moral relativism." Posted by mudrose

If Isay it is right for me, and you say it is wrong for you, then we are both correct, where you err is trying to say that your reality should be forced upon others.

It is like TV, if you don''t like the show, turn the channel, but you have no right to deny others who might enjoy the show.

[likeitis5050]

Who cares? Let them marry. They have as much right to miserable partnerships through legal means as anyone else...and it''s win win for lawyers lining up to take even more of a bite in the divorce aspects of law. Let''s watch them boo hoo as the state divides all their property down the middle because one could keep her tongue to herself.

[simonsez40]

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn''t mean that God doesn''t love heterosexuals. It''s just that they need more supervision.

[simonsez40]

The world is not divided into sheeps and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning sexual behavior the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of ***.

[yellow651]

Marraige is about children. When Ellen and her girlfriend can figure out how to have children without sperm, then they can get "married." The same holds true for two men. This whole thing is silly. They want to live an abonormal life but have our government declare it normal. This is ego run wild.

[jn122736]

There%u2019s an old axiom that says: when people are challenging you from both sides of an issue, you are usually pretty much correct in your stance.

BTW, simonsez40;
there''s no need to respond to your name calling/insult directly.

Your comment speaks directly to your own character, integrity, and degree of intelligence very well.

[simonsez40]

Yes I read Sodom and Gomorah and apparently you didn''t.....

Go do your homework and quite repeating the tired sermons you''ve heard from your pastor.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/sodom_and_gomorrah.html

[simonsez40]

Hmmm I don''t think I was throwing insults - I believe the majority of insults are from smug and pompous bible thumpers that just repeat phallacies based on what they learned in Sunday school. I doubt many of you even attend church as much as I do......

Hypocrisy is what you excel at.......

[brianbwb-2009]

"Who cares? Let them marry. They have as much right to miserable partnerships through legal means as anyone else...and it''''s win win for lawyers lining up to take even more of a bite in the divorce aspects of law. Let''''s watch them boo hoo as the state divides all their property down the middle because one could keep her tongue to herself." Posted by likeitis5050

Amen, why should they be happy...; )

[guysdigdirt]

"It feels like we are not, you know, we aren''t owed the same things and the same wording," DeGeneres said.

No, we are not owed the same wording, there is straight and there is ggay. The wording is different, so use different wording in the union of two ggay people and two straight people.

[simonsez40]

At the time the book of Jude was written, many believed some of the women of Sodom had engaged in intercourse with male angels. This belief was probably derived from Genesis 6:1, 2 and 4, where we are told the %u201CSons of God%u201D(angels) took the daughters of humans as wives. This was the final act which brought God%u2019s judgment on the earth in the form of a great flood. And it seems some Jewish writers believed this was also the sin which sealed Sodom%u2019s fate.

According to first century legend, some of the women of Sodom (and other wicked ancient cities) were thought to have had *** with beings who were made of different flesh %u2014 angelic flesh. (See note 8.) This is what Jude was referring to when he talked about %u201Cgoing after strange flesh.%u201D He was referring to heterosexual *** between male angels and human women, not homosexual *** between humans. Many theologians, including many conservatives, interpret the passage this way.

Again we ask, does this passage apply to the question we bring to Scripture? And we must answer that it has nothing to say about whether it is possible for two humans of the same *** to have an intimate, loving relationship with the blessing of God.