Claire McCaskill: Gun Amendment Could Lead To Gay Marriage

Pams House Blend:

Love how Claire McCaskill put 2+2 together on this one. She did vote against the Thune amendment yesterday, but the Senator from Missouri was more preoccupied with ensuring that there wasn't an additional precedent set that would allow reciprocity of another state's marriage license of a same-sex couple. This is unbelievably disappointing.

Read the whole story: Pams House Blend

Comments

[Moxo]

03:57 PM on 07/24/2009

So anti-gun amendments would lead to INCREASED heterosexual marriages?

[BEHM777]

02:37 PM on 07/24/2009

Huh?

Logic and the GOP: at times it seems the twain shall never meet.

[starrynights]

11:03 AM on 07/24/2009

Claire's being a smart politician. In Missouri guns and gay marriage are hot button issues. And she won her seat in a squeaker of an election. She did the right thing on the gun amendment but protected herself a little by the statement about gay marriage. It doesn't mean she is against gay marriage, but she does represent a state half full of hillbillies.

[LeeCalif]

12:26 PM on 07/24/2009

She is pulling out gays to be the boogeyman to accomplish her ends.

She does it once. She'll do it again.

Yes. She is against gay marriage.

[starrynights]

12:51 PM on 07/24/2009

-She is pulling out gays to be the boogeyman to accomplish her ends.-

Well, yes she is using the gay issue. Missouri is a split personality kind of state. Liberal in Kansas City, St Louis, and Columbia. Bible belt pretty much everywhere else. I'm not trying to say she's right, because she isn't. What she is doing is playing to the state demographics.

[Paulied]

10:55 AM on 07/24/2009

This is pure politics. What she has done is use a right-wing argument against one of its own causes. Unfortunately, she chose to exploit the inequality of the LGBT community to make her point.

[Grim Truth]

02:35 AM on 07/24/2009

Probably not the best example she could have made.

It's really too bad marriage isn't federally protected against changing its definition.

Gays want to marry? Don't care, but get your own and call it something else. Yes, separate CAN be equal.

[Hirnlego]

05:57 AM on 07/24/2009

Sure..

"Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. "

[Grim Truth]

10:57 PM on 07/24/2009

Well, those are civil rights issues. Marriage isn't a civil right.

But you know perfectly well I'm talking about gender.

[Weirdwriter]

01:25 AM on 07/24/2009

Even the Republican Party must have some smart, well-educated, mentally-balanced people in their midst. Why don't they ever show up as leaders?

[YewNeekId]

11:43 PM on 07/23/2009

Jeez Claire - you're supposed to inject the botox, not snort it.

How could you make such a ridiculous assertion.

[USA2Sense]

11:21 PM on 07/23/2009

How can any member of Congress be so ignorant and stupid? Her words match her face......

[haiku man]

10:53 PM on 07/23/2009

I found the real cause
Claire's face leads to gay marriage
So ...there I said it.

[MuchMadness]

10:42 PM on 07/23/2009

Senator McCaskill has it right on both issues. Each state should have the liberty to refuse to sanction any kind of same sex union, and each state should have the right to forbid its citizens to carry concealed weapons. Senator McCaskill's positions are consistent with a correct understanding of federalism and a correct understanding of the first, second, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. constitution.

[MuchMadness]

10:45 PM on 07/23/2009

Each state should also have the right to deny travelers from other states the right to carry concealed weapons while visiting the state. That is what the vote was about, and Senator McCaskill was correct in her vote. She is standing against the gun nuts and the gay nuts. Go Claire!

[Bubba Gump]

12:57 AM on 07/24/2009

I agree, MuchMadness. And Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill represents the interests of MISSOURI, not North Carolina (where Pam lives). I live in Missouri and I agree with Senator McCaskill. We have our own sovereign state laws and, like it or not on the Defense of Marriage Act in Missouri, the other 49 states and their citizens should respect SHOW ME rights -- as we also do for you in your state!

[Michaela1976]

10:27 PM on 07/23/2009

Well if Missouri already has a law against gay marriage.. she was saying if they say one state's gun laws must be recognized in other states then that would be true for gay marriage.

I don't even know what the actual laws are for hetero married couples. Is that a federal law or is it just assumed all the marriages are recognized in each state?

[MuchMadness]

10:48 PM on 07/23/2009

Each state has to recognize the public records and acts of other states, but if a state chooses to perversely redefine a concept that all the world has understood a certain way for nearly four thousand years, I think any reasonable court would stand against the perverse redefinition.

[LaurenMarie984]

11:26 PM on 07/23/2009

Um, human traficking of young children for prostitution is a thousands year old understanding so does that mean it's logically all courts recognize it? Religous texts give the OK to men selling their daughters, and at one point this country had to establish their own law. Should they have observed perverse laws like that, which were widely accepted?

NO, because laws evolve with time.
Based on your logic poligamy would be observed still in every state because it was centuries old and the US "redifned a concept" that had a "perverse redefinition".

Read a book

[weatherwaxx]

01:09 AM on 07/24/2009

Each state has to recognize the public records and acts of other states, unless a state perversely refuses to extend EQUAL RIGHTS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW to all tax-paying citizens, allowing its own religious extremists to ignore the boundary between church and state.

[wgsalter]

05:58 AM on 07/24/2009

No. States do NOT have to recognize the marriages from other states. For example, polygamous unions from Utah do NOT have to be recognized in Wyoming, and 16 year old newlyweds from Arkansas are NOT considered married when they pass into Kansas, where the age to marry is 18.

[druidlady42]

10:25 PM on 07/23/2009

SO disappointed in her lately!!! I thought she had too much common sense to turn her back on our new President and join the Blue Dogs!

[Wallysmom]

10:02 PM on 07/23/2009

O.K. the connection is too loony for words. Has she been hitting the Medical Marijuana store lately?

[weatherwaxx]

01:11 AM on 07/24/2009

Well, she's right, technically... but talk about a weird combination. And she's really p*ssed off gun nuts for gay rights. (Probably not a huge demographic, but I'm sure there are some.)

[Prakosh]

09:43 PM on 07/23/2009

Even stranger than Sen. McCaskill's claim on Thune's bill is this attempt by the person exposing her to give her a free pass in spite of the difference of opinion on the issue. "If she has a religious objection that's one matter"--so if Sen. McCaskill has a religious objection then her rejection of equality under the law is OK? What about the separation of church and state? Even more insidious to me is the underlying claim that as long as you have a religious reason for what can only be seen as at least ideas that at the least run counter to the equality which the founders even if hypocritically, spoke so highly of in the founding documents of the country and the federal government--the Declaration and the Constitution. I'm sorry that McCaskill thinks that this is the best way to explain her anti-gun vote. But this excuse is like jumping from the frying pan of pro-gun reaction to the fire of gender inequality. Shameful!!!!

[mitsie]

08:14 PM on 07/23/2009

This appears to be another blog posted as news. I have a big problem with this because you can't back check articles like you can with the MSM. I wish that Huff would make a policy that dosen't allow this to occur. It's misleading at times, and can spread rumors. I think all those two write might agree with me.