Kevin McCullough

During the past eight years John McCain's indifference to the social conservative issues ranged at times from mere annoyance to seeming overt hostility. This is no where more true than on the issue of marriage specifically. On two historic occasions when his party, his nation, and his constituency needed the Maverick to show a little toughness, the admirable war hero ran a little appeasement campaign of his own.

He like so many soft-spined Republicans grew weak-kneed and fearful that if they were to do the right thing, they might become the next Rick Santorum, target number one, and possibly lose their precious tenure in the United States Senate.

On the Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage however his cowardice was particularly hurtful given the state of where the issue was at that time and how it was working it's way through court systems.

Four years ago the case for California was just beginning. McCain was asleep when the voters of California spoke loudly that they did not wish to see marriage be redefined to include whatever discriminatory unions some lobbyist group might be able to get included. With the passage of the citizens' initiative and the curious way the case leap-frogged the California judicial system one would think McCain might have at least figured out that if he just took the traditional view of the matter he'd have 61% of California voters on his side. And it doesn't seem to have changed all that much - a Sacramento television station ran a rapid response poll immediately following last week's decision and found that 63% of their sample was opposed to redefining the term of marriage.

Yet on two occasions when asked to give his viewpoint on the sanctity of the term marriage from the floor of the United States Senate - John McCain used the exact same rationale as Ted Kennedy who spoke only moments before him. The McCain/Kennedy position on marriage was: with the Federal DOMA (defense of marriage act) in place, no state will be subjected to the whims of another state's definition of marriage. Never mind the fact that both Kennedy and McCain seem to be ignoring the idea that the voters of states where judges redefined marriage by fiat have been completely oppressed.

Then after voting against the Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage - twice - McCain and Kennedy likely went and enjoyed burgers and martini's together. We won't assume who had which.

Yet it wasn't humorous then, and even less so now.

In the three hundred page ruling handed down by the California Supreme Court, four judges decided they were better than, smarter than, and more educated people to make absolute law than - the citizens of California, some several million of which had voted to establish the law defending marriage in that state.

In their bubble of the California Supreme Courthouse they patted each other on the back for being so much more wise than the silly stupid people that live in the state. They likely gloated to themselves all night long as the news coverage quoted their decision to - like Marxist dictators - seize power from the people, their representatives, and their voice. Mysteriously - they found that the Constitution of California dealt with the issue of redefining what marriage is and should have been for centuries. Funny enough it deals with this issue by never mentioning it (or any concept about marriage at all actually.)

Never mind the fact that California law does not deny the right of marriage to any person presently. Never mind the fact that even those who wish to live in non-traditional sexual varieties of relationships could even now with all the basic same arrangements as marriage under current law. This was a perfect opportunity for the California Supremes to shoot God the middle finger, and they wasted no time accomplishing it.

And in reality THAT is what this IS all about. No one is invading the homes of those who practice homosexuality and marching them off to be burned at the stake. Certainly no one is taking them to abandoned soccer stadiums and executing them. The freedoms that those who choose to practice homosexuality enjoy in America are the most liberal on the planet. Yet the fact that they are unable to get the church, state, and fellow citizens to label their sex deeds as moral - seems to grate strongly at the activists that keep the marriage fight alive.

The problem for McCain is that he is sleep walking through his days, with seeming little awareness that a battle is even being waged. He's also more scared of the 2.9% of the population that does practice homosexuality than he is of the 89% of the population that believe it is immoral.

The voters of California now have roughly ten times the amount of signatures needed to get a constitutional plank protecting marriage on the November ballot. There is no residency requirement in California so look for activists from every Human Rights Campaign state office (and other sexually radical organizations) to send people from their states to "marry" in California and return home to test their state's DOMAs.

McCain seems to believe that because there already exists a federal DOMA that no one will be forced to endure a definition of marriage that their faith, conscience, and scripture define as immoral.

No one except the voters in Massachusetts - who because of four judicial tyrants have never been given the right to speak on the issue. And those in California who did speak but were squashed like little bugs by four omniscient black-robes.

All McCain would need to do would be to wake up, see the injustice, and speak to the outrage of the California decision. California state GOP leaders say just the mere emergence of this issue now draws him into a 50/50 chance of possibly winning the state.

With a motivated turn out of pro-family people they might be right. If he looked at the math - he might realize, this issue is not just good for the voters, the nation, and the future. It might help him win.

Then again this is John McCain we're talking about here.