Ellen Challenges John McCain On Gay Marriage: "You're No Different Than I Am"

WASHINGTON — 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."

Watch:

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.

Comments

[eminencefrontman]

The irrelevance of McCain to the national discourse becomes more and more obvious everyday, and it's a shame. This country would be a whole lot better off today had he become POTUS in 2000 instead of the establishment shrub. Now McCain seems only to mouth the blather his advisors tell him scores well in surveys and focus groups. Get ready America, Obama is going to be the next POTUS.

[CCW4ME2]

Ellen DeGeneres suffers from M.S.D. Misdirected Sexuality Disorder. This is a condition in which the normal attraction for the opposite gender is perverted and re-directed towards members of one's own gender. Many people are able to overcome its pernicious effects through aversion therapy and positive redirection of their sexual desires towards members of the opposite gender. Hopefully, she will enter a treatment program and be cured of her affliction.

[AxelDC]

McCain really screwed up Thursday. He should have been in DC, doing his job as a Senator and voting for GI benefits. Instead, he publicly speaks out against helping veterans go to college, flies to California to do fundraisers. Obama rightly criticizes his stance, and McCain replies with some rambling diatribe that makes him sound like he didn't get his annual rabies shot.

To be cute, McCain decides to visit everyone's favorite gay talk show host a week after she announces her wedding to one of the hottest women on Earth. McCain then gets in a debate where he tells her that she shouldn't be allowed to get married. Ellen, a comedian and sitcom star, schools him in the debate because he cannot articulate his half-baked position. She lets him off easy by inviting him to walk her down the aisle, making it look like Ellen started feeling sorry for him.

If this is a sign of McCain's campaign strategy, he's going to make Bob Dole look like Ronald Reagan.

[JennyBlock]

You are most certainly different. You are tolerant, thoughtful, intelligent, and open-minded.

I don't suppose you would consider running for President? Hey, a girl can dream, right?

[continental]

But Ellen, we are different. You don't have a Y chromosome now do you?

[frankky]

That's right the differences between men an women are so obvious a five year old can point them out.
But if she has a penis then she's not so different than McCain. But then that would make her a transsexual an I guess that's pretty much different from an heterosexual.

[django707]

The reason we need laws is to protect us from the bible.

Otherwise, the elders would be stoning our children in the square while we're home beating our slaves or smiting our neighbors.

[JohnJames]

You forgot about stoning people who wear clothes woven of more than one kind of fabric. And then there's those abominable shrimp eaters.

[imusintheevening]

Ellen alluded to established law against separate but equal. Once marriage superceeded a religious ceremony and achieved legal status, it ceased to be arguable within our Constitution that marriage of various gender combinations can be anything but allowed.

Such archaic attitudes as those held by Mc Lame will die begin to die out with his generation.

[TheBlackCat]

It's true, the majority of under 40s are PRO GAY MARRIAGE, it's the older generation of citizens and politicians who prevent equality laws from passing. These antiquated ideologies will die with them, and America will be a very different place.

[Guynemer]

"Once marriage superceeded a religious ceremony and achieved legal status..."

You're operating from a false premise. In the 6,000 years of human history, and in every civilization of which I'm aware, marriage has always had a legal status.

[rudyinbama]

John "Keating-Five" Mc Cain dumped his faithful wife for Cindy Moneybags, and he has the nerve to say who or who shouldn't be married?

[johnnyjust]

Interesting how people would argue that the Bible can't be used to make moral decisions.

Then should we all be limited on what we use to make moral decisions? Should we exempt all liberal media, such as PuffPost or the New York Times? You don't want to "force your morality" on others, right? Should we only use only unbiased sources? What, exactly, would they be?

Pretty silly arguments, to be sure. We all use whatever sources we've had throughout our lives to make decisions concerning morality, and then we vote. There is no inherent right to hetero or homo marriage, so as a society we vote on what we wish the government to support. Seeing as how any two people can have a marriage ceremony performed whenever they wish, that is not the issue. The issue is: What type of relationship should the government support in the institution of marriage.

More to the point: What type of relationships shouldn't the government support? Is every relationship equal? Does every perversion deserve equal treatment? Which perversions will we accept?

Only one answer: We vote.

[huffposeur]

how many people here know that barack obama and john mccain are on the same side of this issue?

[Vern58]

Wrong. John McCain does not believe in Civil Unions sanctioned and recoignized by the government.
Obama believes in a Civil Union structure with all the same rights as Het couples get.
http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

[AnotherTry]

Obama believes that as long as your state believes that. It should not matter what state you live in. Obama's position panders to bigots who will never be satisfied short of a second holocaust while turning off people who actually believe equality is important. We would rather stay home than vote for someone with no scruples.

http://www.youtube.com/user/msbuch72

[TheBlackCat]

These posts really show which people have never left their small towns where everyone thinks the same and have NO idea what the world at large is like.

I say this because INNUMERABLE posters keep telling gay and gay supporters to "Go to san francisco" as if San Fran is the only place in the country where gays are accepted. This may be where the highest concentration of gays LIVE, but gays are ACEPTED into mainstream society in almost every major city in America, DESPITE the overall feeling of the state that city is situated in. They make it seem like only the far left extremists support gay lifestyles, completely ignoring that there are vibrant gay communities, gay clubs, bars, events, parades, etc with nary a protest by the citizens of:

NYC, Boston, Atlanta, Washington DC, Chicago, Phillidelphia, Portland, LA, Seattle, Orlando, Detroit, Reno, Austin, Sioux Falls, Providence, Cleveland, Las Vegas, and Baltimore

You know what major cities are not gay friendly: Dallas and Salt Lake City. That's it. Two.

You try to make it seem like us gay friendly people are part of some extreme minority secluded to San Francisco and Vermont. All you do is demonstrate your ignorance.

Does anyone else find it funny that the people who actually DO live around gays and see their lifestyles, their parades, etc, have no problem with them? All the people who decry the gay lifestyle aren't even around them.

[Rog49Thomas]

When one gives the "smiling face" of bigotry a forum, one is complicit in bigotry.

[TheBlackCat]

Hey guys, you know what young people, there is a great big white light at the end of all this. COnservatives point out that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, and the will of the people should be followed, and that is a fair argument. However, this is a GENERATIONAL issue much more than a religious one. 80% of Americans 65 and over oppose gay marriage, but 55% of Americans under 30 SUPPORT it And kids born today will be even MORE accepting as homosexuality, thanks to the wide positive portrail of homosexuality in the mass media, literature, tv, hollywood, etc.

I certainly do not look forward to the demise of our elders, i wish them long and happy lives, but when they ARE gone, then it will be time for the younger generation to pick up the reigns. And the younger generation supports gay marriage. I am truly sorry for all you older gay couples who will not be able to see a nation wide acceptance and legalization of gay marriage, but I hope it gives you some consolation that YOUR struggles have paved the way, and soon younger gay couples will get to live your dream EVERYWHERE in America.

So gay marriage opponents, enjoy your time in the majority now, because it is swifty coming to an end, and in a few more years you'll be nothing more than bigots who no one listens to, like that racist great uncle everyone ignores at family get togethers.

[kmwa]

I do not understand how quoting the Bible is any sort of argument for anything....ever. And certainly nothing that involves civil rights. The Bible endorses slavery! And stoning adulterers. Christians are NUTS. As a non-Christian, that book is about as relevant to me as GONE WITH THE WIND.

[blueinannarbor]

It isn't an argument; it's a shield, a cuirass. It's a fundamentalists way of retreating behind religious dogma and deflecting any argument that they are anything but beatific while they are actually being anything but. It's the same principal that lurks behind "love the sinner, hate the sin". It says, "you can't attack me because if you do, you are attacking a holy person, which you shouldn't do. But it isn't terribly surprising because, you are a bad person. You're clearly bad because you aren't observing religious dogma when you support the rights of people whom are behaving against church doctrine. Besides, who but a bad person would attack someone who is clearly more holy than them?"

[Rog49Thomas]

Actually, in the Bible I read, the one time Jesus came upon the stoning of an adultress, he intervened to stop it.

Problem is a lot of so-called Christians pay more attention to the Book of Leviticus than the words of Christ.

And many of them read the passages which speak to their darkest impulses rather than the inconvenient ones.

How many of our good Christians (or those who claim to be) are divorced despite the precise words of Christ forbidding that?

I believe the appropriate text runs something like "Not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven".

[TheBlackCat]

"Problem is a lot of so-called Christians pay more attention to the Book of Leviticus than the words of Christ.

And many of them read the passages which speak to their darkest impulses rather than the inconvenient ones"

Well put! I really don't understand the hang up with Leviticus. I thought the whole point of Christ bringing in the new era was that we didn't have to follow all those archaic Old Testament rules anymore? I mean Leviticus also says we can't plant two kinds of crops in the same field, or wear two different kinds of cloth. So how come the fundamentalists aren't attacking all those who wear jeans and a tee shirt? They don't ACTUALLY think the Old Testament is an eternal mandate by God or else they would have just as much of a problem with those who work on the Sabath, or with a man who lets his wife sleep in the same bed during menstration. They just pick the ONE passage they can use to justify their own silly bigoted ideas and ignore, oh EVERYTHING ELSE.

[MissMaryBrown]

The Bible clearly is rejected by many as authority on who can be married and who cannot be married. However, we must realize that the word "marriage" was created by the one who inspired the Bible. Marriage is a Judeo-Chri­stian-Musl­im (Children of Abraham) word. It was given meaning and cultural reality through God's word.

Some of us believe that God has the right, power, and authority to define what the word should include and not include. Does he want us to marry those we love? yes, But he limits the word marriage to be with only one person that we love. God's definition of marriage prohibits marrying all of the people we love, and his definition limits the gender of who we can marry. God even defined divorce through Moses, while almost all other civilizations were living outside the legal reality of monogamous marriage, and legal divorce.

Perhaps states should no longer issue Marriage Licenses but only issue Civil Contract Licenses. States could then decide whether it wants to permit whoever loves each other to get a civil contract. And if anyone loves more than one person then their "love" could be legally protected. And those who have multiple genders wouldn't have to be limited to marrying only one of their gender preferences. Religious communities could retain their treatment of marriage as a biblical term, and issue certificates of marriage, as a promise and commitment between married people and God.

[StealthisBlog]

And your biblical references are...? Which particular book, chapter and verse support this view? And how do you square that with Solomon and his, how many wives now? Abram and Saria and the handmaiden? I mean the FLDS didn't make up polygamy did they? They read about it somewhere...

Turns out this whole monogamy thing is a fairly recent invention isn't it?

[johnnyjust]

Genesis isn't a recent book.

Try some actual thought before posting.