McCain's Perez Hilton Problem

It's no secret that last week was not a good one for John McCain. His old friend, Phil Gramm, demonstrated such a sad case of foot in mouth disease with his "mental recession" line that it was almost as though Gramm was acting as an Obama campaign covert operative. Then McCain had a little trouble performing, shall we say, when asked by a reporter to clarify his position on insurance coverage of Viagra but not of contraception. But those may not be the only media moments from last week that come back to haunt McCain on the general election campaign trail.

In an interview with the New York Times, McCain sought to affirm his conservative credentials. This included stating definitively that he opposes adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples. On Sunday, celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton (real name Mario Lavandeira) selected McCain's statement on the matter as his "Quote of the Day." The quote simply reads, "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption." At last count Hilton's post garnered around 700 comments, some of which are blatantly homophobic, (which is ironic considering Lavandeira himself is openly gay, which begs the question: if you disapprove of gay people so much why are you visiting a blog run by one?). But for the most part, the comments -- many of which are too colorful to print here -- highlight a fundamental problem for John McCain as he tries to formulate a winning strategy for November: How to win an election decided by voters in the middle, while continuing to pander to voters on the right.

It's no secret that gay marriage has long been a highly contentious political issue (one that arguably cost Democrats the 2004 election, since according to some polls gay marriage bans in states like Ohio had an impact on the presidential election) but gay adoption has emerged as a classic centrist issue. Barack Obama, who has been accused by the left of undergoing a political "Extreme Home Makeover" into a moderate in recent weeks, does not explicitly support gay marriage but does support equal adoption rights for gays and lesbians.

Younger voters in particular, who have been raised in a world of Will & Grace and Ellen have become increasingly intolerant of intolerance. John McCain may need to take particular note since polls show that young white evangelicals, once a cornerstone of the GOP, have begun to drift away from the party. Additionally, while she may be viewed as controversial now, (thanks to her lively stint on The View, Rosie O'Donnell certainly deserves some of the credit for helping to introduce the average American to the idea that gay parents are just like other parents.

While for some Americans religious beliefs remain an obstacle to their support of marriage rights for gays and lesbians, many of those same Americans have a tough time reconciling their religious conviction and compassion -- with the idea that a child may remain homeless in spite of the fact that a loving home exists in which they could be raised, simply because the home is inhabited by a same sex couple. A Pew Research Center poll shows that a clear majority of Americans now support adoption rights for gays and lesbians.

Like many Americans, I applauded Barack Obama's speech about absentee fathers. And I must say for the record, that I do believe that in an ideal world, a young black boy will be raised in a household in which he has the opportunity to see firsthand an image of a strong, responsible, black man; an image to serve as a roadmap for the type of man he will aspire to be someday. But I also believe that families come in all shapes and sizes (Barack Obama is living proof of this), and that when a family is both financially and emotionally sound enough to provide love and stability for a child, their skin color and gender matter don't matter as much.

Perhaps someone should ask John McCain, whose family rescued his youngest daughter Bridget from an orphanage in Bangladesh, if she would have been better off remaining there, than raised by a loving gay and lesbian couple.

www.keligoff.com

Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff

Comments

[MKende]

"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption."

This from a man who left his wife with three children to marry his current wife. So does John McCain also not believe in divorce?

[concern4civility]

You may believe or not believe. I have no problem with what you believe.

I feel great joy when I hear that people want to adopt children. Its an unselfish commitment, in the spirit of true followers of Christ. Some of us have broader definitions of family. Bigger umbrellas of inclusion. The need is so great. The alternatives (Foster Homes & the Street) are so awful. The big issue for me is when people trying to enforce their narrow views of adoption onto others by creating overly restrictive laws.

[ilikecheese]

OK, let me try this again because I think my comment may have been banned for being off-topic, but I was referring to this part of Goff's post:

"It's no secret that gay marriage has long been a highly contentious political issue (one that arguably cost Democrats the 2004 election, since according to some polls gay marriage bans in states like Ohio had an impact on the presidential election) but gay adoption has emerged as a classic centrist issue."

Anyway, these comments in passing, which seem to say that it is obvious gay marriage cost the Democrats the 2004 election, turn this claim into conventional wisdom. I'm not trying to be malicious. I just want to correct what is a frequent false assumption about 2004.

There has been quite a bit written on this, and most of the scholarly work says that the 2004 election had more to do with terrorism than it did with gay marriage. Here is a link to a Slate.com article that does a good job of discussing it: http://www.slate.com/id/2109275/

[dawlishgal]

Thanks for the link....I'll read the article. I am skeptical about the reports of pollsters because I know some of them (was one myself), and I have watched their career trajectories turn them from social scientists into flacks. The idea that discrepancy between exit polls results and vote-counts can be used in (ie sold to) 3rd world countries as detectors of election fraud, yet when this happens in our own country, it is explained (by the same pollsters) as being due to extraneous stuff like reluctance of Republicans to tell whom they voted for .....this troubles me greatly.

I'm not clear on how the effects of the two issues can be separated when people get only one vote, and both factors operate simultaneously in deciding whom to vote for. My feeling is that the terrorism issue might have changed the votes of people who were going to vote anyhow, whereas the gay marriage issue might have increased turnout for Bush.

The gays' efforts in MA to permit gay marriage didn't help the Democrats' chances in '04 , because it was obviously used on election day to beef up Republican turnout when early returns showed that Kerry was likely to win. I am virtually certain that the last minute telephone calls to fundamentalists were about gay marriage and not about terrorists. The election was close enough that it didn't take a lot of fundies (who wouldn't otherwise have voted) turning up to swing the outcome of the election.

I

[EdWhite1]

"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption."
Well I guess I'm just an utter failure since I was raised by a single parent. I'd rather see children loved than remain in an orphange. Who cares about the race, religion or sexual orientation. Are they afraid the kid will turn gay? It doesnt work that way.

[kcmookie]

What, are you not aware that gayness spreads like cooties?

[charlot]

Absolutely. Just like how hanging around tall people will make you tall, being exposed to people with blue eyes will turn your eyes blue....

[Pyott]

McCain's claim that "we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family" and this should, therefore, prohibit gay adoption is absolutely ludicrous.

Although certainly two parents may sometimes be better than one, depending on a variety of factors, the informed consensus is that the difference between one and two adoptive parents is not significant enough to justify barring a single person from being able to adopt, should he/she meet all the requirements in the first place: for it remains far preferable to the alternative of foster home life and risk of recurring instability. In fact, in 2000, 33% of children adopted out of foster care were by single parents.

So, given the current system has already assessed single-parent adoption as a viable alternative to two-parent adoption, what logical, legal, or moral justification could McCain POSSIBLY come up with to warrant prohibiting same-sex COUPLE adoptions?

Surely two same-sex parents would be preferable to a single parent, according to conservatives' lines of argument?

Footnote: A September 2007 study of Dutch children raised by lesbian couples found they did NOT in fact differ in well-being or adjustment, compared with their heterosexual counterparts. More intriguingly, lesbian mothers were significantly more satisfied with their partners as co-parent, than were heterosexual mothers. The partners of lesbian biological mothers “are more committed as parents than are heterosexual fathers, that is, they display a higher level of satisfaction with their partner as co-parent.”

[slaxx]

McCain said: "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption."

Really? Where is this proof? And a gay couple is still "two parents." If you're so concerned about the family and two parents, then outlaw divorce and take children away from single parents and put them in two-parent houeholds. Also, if this idea is so important and so proven, then why did McCain abandon his wife and family?

I don't give a crap about anyone's OPINION on the matter - it's an equal rights issue; there's no debate.

[MsLiz]

It isn't an equal rights issue. We aren't talking about purchasing real estate. The issue is what is in the interest of the child.

I think a kid is better off in a permanent home than foster care. Many young homeless adults were foster children, since they don't have family to fall back on when life is hard.

[BigCynicDotCom]

Republican politicking rule #13a: After getting divorced, re-establish your pro-family cred by BASHING GAYS (even if you are gay).

It's also interesting how technology is making it difficult for the Gang Of Petrowhores to get away with pandering to hate groups while presenting a mainstream facade to the rest of the country.

[socialmistfit]

Interesting that at a time when so many young men are raised by single mothers and taught by a school system dominated by women teachers, we have such a high percentage of fathers checking out of fatherhood and perpetuating this cycle of irresponsible and unskilled parenting. Certainly there are exceptions, but the numbers do not support the theory that 100% woman parenting is good for male children’s development to male adult.
Those posting against this concept of a real father being important do not understand the challenges that young men have transferring from mothers-child, to fathers-child to adult male. Almost all indigenous and tribal cultures have customs and rituals that strive to facilitate this progression. You can’t suck hormones and aggression out of males, so how does this get channeled? Typically it takes a man that has successfully navigated this journey to provide successful fatherly direction. Some women can handle it, but most will struggle and fail. Some male children figure it out themselves. Some get it from an uncle or a coach. Most boys that lack a true father will struggle their entire life.
It is also interesting that society is quick to accept that only women can truly understand women (hence acceptance of women’s schools and groups), but we are to believe that lesbians can understand men.

[kcmookie]

A lesbian may not fully understand the male perspective, but NO parents, bouncing around from foster parent to foster parent, and remaining unadopted and having nobody provide you the nurturing and parenting of a mother or father or couple or gay couple, is NOT the better option. If a person has the capacity regardless of their sex or orientation, they should be allowed to adopt.

[Gemma08]

Perez Hilton rocks. He's my guilty pleasure :))

[Repub4Obama]

Jesus would want more love, tolerance and acceptance in the world. He overturned the tables of the rich moneylenders. He walked among the poor, diseased, the thieves and prostitutes. He loved all. If the religious right are going to keep claiming things in the name of Jesus, perhaps they should actually read the bible. There's the old testament where all the crazy Leviticus rules are, which is what the "Bible Hate" is based on. Christians should follow Christ, and promote love, even if it between same-sex couples and they don't understand it. If you look REALLY closely, the bible even has two testaments so simple-minded people can tell the difference between the pre-Jesus stuff and the post-Jesus stuff.

I think it's funny that fundamentalists are basing their hatred of others on a JEWISH code from 3000 years ago and they don't even like Jews, and tell them they are going to Hell for not accepting Jesus in their hearts as their savior.

Can fundamentalist Christians even read?

P.S.: If you really want a good book on Jesus, try the Q'uran. Yes, there is actually more written in the Muslim holy text about Jesus than in the Christian holy text.

[x894565256]

I think it's about time that the Christian Right actualy work to legislate the Old Testament equally. Also important in Leviticus: redistributing land every 50 years, so that every family has an (essentially) equal share, cancelling debts every 7 years, the prohibition of blended fabrics...
If the Religious Righters are actually serious about what they say, the changes are much more radical than any of them would be willing to admit or commit to.

[NewArtz]

Supporting a ban on a child being adopted based on prejudice against a "group" stereotype is just discrimination that has become institutionalized. It has nothing to do with concern for the wellfare of the child. Should Democrats be allowed to adopt children? How can they possibly raise a child with the proper biases? The "sanctity" of marriage is defined by the "sanctity" of a certain religious viewpoint which is preferred by religious right wing individuals. Should I raise my children according to their perspective? Well, according to their perspective I should.

It's all cultist thinking whereby we are all expected to hold the opinions of those who expect us to hold their opinions. Allowing same sex couples to raise a child just says people are free in this country. Denying them this right while giving it to heterosexuals just says that in America we are only free to do what right wing people want us to do. If right wingers don't believe in homosexuality, then don't practice it ...even on the side, hidden from society's view as some dark experiment in their psychic development. Rather than disable gays, give the grief to the heterosexuals creating the children, not those who seek to resolve the delimma. Otherwise just live excellent lives and be the envy of us all. We'll choose our own course.

[slaxx]

you know, i read an interesting article a while ago about a large-sclae study that was done by biologists who were studying homosexuality in nature, in other animals. they found not only that homosexuality was present in a wide array of species, but also theorized it's purpose: that homosexuality provides more adults to help take part in the care of the young; gay animals contribute to the community and the species by being available to help the straight animals raise their children.

and I agree; to me, it's no use debating what's best or worst or anything else - that's missing the point - it's an equal rights issue, plain and simple.

children are also better off being raised in a a family with money, so shouldn;t we be doing more ot help families or manybe we should just restrict reproduction to the wealthy, especially since poverty and having children perpetuates itself.

[WilliamGossett]

I am sort of a fan of Richard Dawkins (not to the extreme but I do feel that all behavior , etc. has a "natural selection" process by which it evolved.

Unfortunately, serial killing and other "bad" behaviors also do.

Being gay is not one of those "bad behaviors." Also, the gay community has always had a role in the creativity and sensitivity of society.

Bad "gays" generally are ones who try to cover it up but being too open about it can lead to a lot of discrimination and "shunning." Even in this day.

[awcbuddy8]

Religious beliefs remain an obstacle?

That's what's wrong with America.

[MattHooper]

We need to strive for the very best scenario possible for children. The very best scenario is a home with a mother and a father. Is there any doubt to this simple fact ? Another fact about Gay Marriage is---it has very little to do with the official bonding of a Gay couple. Gay marriage has more to do with 'normalizing and sactioning' that lifestyle. Judges must be used to thwart the will of the people. Why ? Because the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in 'live and let live' but NOT 'sanctioning, condoning and giving gay marriage a stamp of approval.
Every single person in America has the right to marry. Changing the meaning of Marriage is a whole different matter. It is rediculous to put adopted kids in a household with Gay parents when there are so many conventional households willing and able. To site studies that are a few years old as evidence that the children in Gay households will be fine is madness. Purposely placing a child with a Gay couple versus a conventional Mom/Pop household is damn cruel. Please dont respond with the typical knee jerk reaction describing the abusive Mom/Pop homes, blah, blah, blah. The 'either or' argument is empty.
The bottom and painful line is America looks at homosexuality as a very strange lifestyle. America looks at homosexuals as ....well.....very abnormal. Not true ?

Put it up to a vote. Winner take all. 'End arounds' with liberal judges just infuriate the People.

[Geoffreys]

Not True.

Segments of American society may look at homosexuals as abnormal but not necessarily the majority. The majority favors adoption for gay couples just as the majority of large corporations now offer domestic partner benefits to gay couples.

Your rhetoric may reflect the opinions of a portion of the populous; you are using very broad terms (America, the People, Fact) to express the opinions of dwindling minority.

[zuffaloo]

" It is rediculous to put adopted kids in a household with Gay parents when there are so many conventional households willing and able."

Please explain then why so many children grow up in the foster system in the US, going from home to home till they age out w/ a few dollars & a "good luck". Then explain all those overfilled, underfunded orphanages all over the rest of the world.

[laminator]

Then, I will assume, that you favor the criminalization of adultery and divorce? Or, perhaps, just taking children away from divorced or adulterous couples?
I was raised by a single mother. I'm doing damn well, thank you very much.
My daughter is doing very well in our household with two fathers.
Your assertions are opinions. Don't expect us to treat them as facts.

[Jaime47]

Matt,
You have created an argument based on an artificial distinction:
".... Because the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in 'live and let live' but NOT sanctioning, condoning, and giving gay marriage a stamp of approval."

You have your own empty 'either/or' argument: Gay marriage is not possible without sanctioning, and since there is no sanction, the 'overwhelming majority' is not letting gay people live as they see fit. The tyranny of the majority is a real phenomenon (think slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage, etc.). If there are so many hetero couples waiting to adopt a child, why are there ANY unadopted children?

"America looks at homosexuals as ... well ... very abnormal. Not true?"

The truth of that statement is irrelevant; again, the tyranny of the majority is ruling where it has no business doing so. The approval of homosexuality should not be subject to legislation. It is not an issue to be decided by the voters (remember live and let live, Matt?). Please speak for yourself; do not assume you are the voice of America.

[slaxx]

You said: "The very best scenario is a home with a mother and a father. Is there any doubt to this simple fact ?"

Really? Please prove it. Show me some statistics, case studies, personal testimony. Just because it's been the "tradition" doesn't mean that it's "right," the only way of being, or that it isn't dysfunctional. Do you also believe that women should stay in the kitchen and be men's personal slaves too? Do you believe that a patriarchal society is the best "scenario" too? Marriage is only the product of a partriarchal society where men legally own their wives and families sell off their daughters to the highest bidders. That's not dysfunctional?

Try thinking for yourself for once instead of just accepting the status quo and other small-minded nonsense. It won't hurt you to not be a conformist sheep, I promise.

[WilliamGossett]

However, he will win...

That is the sad state of affairs of the American populace.

We have a problem and will continue to go the way that got us there hoping to blast our way out.

Hopefully, McCain will have some reasonable advisors. I expect tremendous retribution to those who oppose the GOP after he is sworn in and his homeland security team and attorney general take over.
I have already seen bumper stickers and t-shirts - "First - Iraq, then Hollywood"

Couldn't be any clearer than that what is coming down the pike.

[imsosure]

It's only radical if you care what McCain says, he's certainly not credible in any sense of the word, controversial yes but no one takes him seriously.

[mergina]

To think that ANYONE believes they have the right to tell people not to love is sickening.
To think that ANYONE believes they have the right to tell people in love they cannot take an abandoned life under their wing to nurture it and give it a better life is sickening and criminal.

[gallonjug]

well said. You nailed it.