Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Anyone Left on the Science Bea... | Obama's Response to the New Yo... »

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

McCain on Gay Parents

posted by on July 15 at 20:23 PM

Gay parents are better than no parents at all—but just barely.

McCain’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative.”—Jill Hazelbaker, Director of Communications

John McCain, however, is cool with states banning adoptions by same-sex couples, even if it means that many abandoned children will never find homes or caring parental figures to look after them. Oh, and speaking of abandoned children: McCain divorced his first wife in 1980 when their daughter, the youngest of their three children, was just 14 years old. So John McCain—who personally prefers for children to be raised by a mother and a father—abandoned three of his own children, depriving them of the kind of mother-and-father home that he believes children deserve. Except, you know, his own.

RSS icon Comments


By his logic then, wouldn't his adopted Bangladeshi daughter have been better off with Bangladeshi, or Indian parents? That is the best possible scenario.

Posted by hal | July 15, 2008 8:35 PM

"There are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."

Dan, am I missing something or doesn't this describe every pre-adopted child in the world? I mean, if they have yet to find homes, they have yet to find homes. And in this case, gay adoption seems to be OK. So, according to this logic, gay adoption is OK in all cases.

True, the term "abandoned" carries harsh implications (left in a basklet on a doorstep, perhaps), but using the Merriam-Webster definition of that word -- "given up" -- then abandonment covers nearly every adoptive case, "given up for adoption" being common parlance.

What tortured bullshit these people weave in their drive to stay on the hateful side of electability. Fuck him.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | July 15, 2008 8:36 PM

I've seen a number of people point out that McCain fucked over the children from his first marriage by ditching them. They deserved two parents, a mother and a father, after all.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 15, 2008 8:42 PM

"just barely"
This is a politician's attempt at appeasing
both sides of the issue but what he does'nt
realise is that he undoubtedly offended one.
How would he feel if someone said he was
"just barely" fit to run for office?

Posted by randy wilharm | July 15, 2008 8:54 PM

He didn't actually say "just barely", randy.

Posted by Mr Fuzzy | July 15, 2008 9:11 PM

I think what McCain is really saying is we need these abondoned kids to be adopted by a loving family so they don't turn into criminals and strippers and become a drain on corporate America. I'd prefer they be adopted loving family be a straight couple, but if it has to be a gay couple then so be it.

But what I wish he would say is: Hey all you conceited, prick breeders out there! Stop paying thousands of dollars for fertility treatment and stop throwing away the extra embryos (you know those unborn babies) that the doctors created. Instead adopt a kid that needs a loving home, even if he doesn't look like you. Get over yourself already. You're not that special. In fact it would probably be better if you removed yourself from the gene pool anyway. I image that God intended that you be infertile for a reason.

And stop praising Jesus for the blessing of having 7 kids pop out at once because of your fertility treatment. And Matt Lauer when you interview the septuplet family on the Today Show, why don't you ask them why didn't they adopt instead of having a huge burden of multiple kids that they can't afford. And maybe, Matt, you could even bring on a couple of abandoned kids on the show that need to be adopted. Animal shelter's do it all the time with dogs and cats. Is that good enough for pets but not good enough for kids?

And maybe Ty Pennington and ABC can stop doing extreme home makeovers for families so irresponsible that they have a bazillion kids . Well don't stop making over the houses of the parents that adopt too many kids, that'd be okay. But I'd prefer that you'd make over the houses of the straight couples that adopted too many kids before the gay couples.

Posted by Adam P | July 15, 2008 9:22 PM

I'm waiting for the other McCain/Savage shoe to drop, when McCain praises pit bull ownership and the virtues of those who minister to our youth.

Posted by every child deserves... | July 15, 2008 9:36 PM

"Do as I say, Not as I do" syndrome.

Posted by yucca flower | July 15, 2008 9:39 PM

Is there anything to the idea that kids do better in two parent straight families versus two parent gay families? More over, just because a kids family is gay does not mean they won't have opposite sex role models, or close family associations.

Posted by hal | July 15, 2008 10:06 PM

This is a surprize to anyone? Started with Reagan and his "Family Values" while he was divorced from wife number 1. And we all seen how those kids turned out. I am sorry, but if you want to vote for hypocritcal values, vote republican!

Posted by Robj98168 | July 15, 2008 10:35 PM

Why is it ok for Obama to be ridiculed for not wearing a fucking flag brooch but McCain isn't criticized even once in any MSM outlet for abandoning his children?

Why would Obama's campaign let McCain dodge the bullet?

Doesn't Obama have a Geraldine Ferraro hiding in some bunker somewhere that he can trot out to take a shit on McCain's lawn?

Posted by patrick | July 15, 2008 11:06 PM

Would the senator, I wonder, then prefer gay parents where one was an uber-butch top and the other a nellie bottom?

Here by the way is a video approximation of the McCain's having sex:

Posted by kinaidos | July 15, 2008 11:08 PM

That read beautifully Dan.

Posted by catnextdoor | July 16, 2008 12:05 AM

@3 is right.

Not only did John McCain commit bigamy by filing a marriage license while still married in California to his crippled wife and two little girls, he never seemed to show any remorse about it.

He does get angry about it, but then he blows up at very little things quite frequently, as he has anger management problems.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 16, 2008 12:19 AM

Dan, there are competing societal interests here. There's the importance of family and children, but then there's also the important need for powerful men to get newer, hotter, younger second wives. And then, years later, a mistress who is younger and hotter than that second wife. If not a mistress, then just a lobyist friend.

Posted by CP | July 16, 2008 1:11 AM

Um Dan, you forgot to mention that he abandoned his daughter the first time, for about 6 years or so, when she was just a baby. (Not a situation you are likely to face, first there is no draft and second the hated DADT)
People get divorced all the time, and some teenagers seem to handle it okay, especially when the parents (allegedly) stay on good terms, but I'd imagine it is worse for a young child to grow up without a father.

I suppose it would be pointless to point our there there are people who think placing a child gay parents would be a worse fate than death.

Posted by Smartass | July 16, 2008 4:17 AM

Note that McCain didn't say any such thing. He already made HIS views quite clear. This is his Director of Communications talking, not John McCain. It's damage control, and it's designed to appease, pure and simple. Which to me makes it worse than pure bigotry; what he's really saying is, gay adoption is wrong, but I'm happy to lie about it if I can get a few of you sissies (and sissy-sympathizers) to vote for me.

This is going to be a theme of the McCain campaign, as he goes off into the weeds and has to be rescued by his spokesman. After all, McCain can't be expected to know what he thinks.

Posted by Fnarf | July 16, 2008 6:27 AM

Hey all you conceited, prick breeders out there! Stop paying thousands of dollars for fertility treatment and stop throwing away the extra embryos (you know those unborn babies) that the doctors created. Instead adopt a kid that needs a loving home, even if he doesn't look like you. Get over yourself already. You're not that special. In fact it would probably be better if you removed yourself from the gene pool anyway. I image that God intended that you be infertile for a reason.

Thank you.

Posted by Mike in MO | July 16, 2008 7:07 AM

Whoa there, Dan et al. McCain may be a schmuck, and a hypocrite too, and his position untenable (to the extent he has any position--like Fnarf, I doubt he has given any thought to the issue. Now that I mention it, has McCain ever given thought to any issue?).

However, it's a fact of life that marriages end (most do before death do the spouses part, don't they?). Either spouse may be blameworthy when it happens. Or not. But parents splitting up is not ipso facto child abandonment. It might even be good for the kids. Some seem to find it difficult to believe, but it is possible for a parent to be a lousy spouse--or just have had a bad marriage--and still be a good parent, and to raise happy, well-loved kids. Look around--such parents are legion.

Every family's got a story all its own and is happy or unhappy in its own way (cue Tolstoy). i realize McCain's mouthpiece is the one who introduced the term "abandonment," but what are the actual facts of McCain's treatment of his kids? Did he fail to support them financially and emotionally? Did he fail to provide a home for them? Did he use them as pawns in his battles with the ex?

It's enough to point out as did one commenter that the spokesperson's comments actually would support any form of adoption--gay, straight, single-parent, anarcho-syndicalist co-housing communal--and thus makes no sense in the context of McCain's "preference" for straight couple adoptions that he is happy to have enshrined in state law. It's not necessary or helpful to equate McCain's bad-husband behavior with "child abandonment."

Unless he did abandon them.

Posted by Call Me Sensitive | July 16, 2008 8:04 AM

Oh, he abandoned them all right. No need to obscure the argument, CMS.

Posted by DENVEROPOLIS | July 16, 2008 8:31 AM

We won't support ball-less NO-Bama and will re-defeat him in November!!!!

Posted by clintonsarmy | July 16, 2008 8:35 AM

McCain and the Cindy adopted the Bangledeshi child when he was in his 60s- based on his logic, he shouldn't have adopted the child because of the heightened likelihood that he would kick the bucket before the child reached adulthood, leaving the poor girl with Botoxia.

Posted by homer | July 16, 2008 8:58 AM

Does McCain think that children should be taken away from their same sex parents?

He can't answer this question and appease the right without alienating moderates at the same time. Someone should ask him.

Posted by blank12357 | July 16, 2008 9:14 AM

People who shoot off their mouths about adoption need to educate themselves first. There is NO evidence that straight parents are better than gay parents. Moreover, in some cases, it is preferable to place a child in a home where one gender parent is absent. I have a male friend who is looking to foster/adopt, and his SW had a whole list of children who'd been severely abused by women (including their mothers) and had a problem with female parent figures. They were actually looking to specifically place them in homes with only male parents.

Legislators making rules to limit who can adopt only hurts the children who are waiting.

Posted by kuzibah | July 16, 2008 9:24 AM

McCain needs to appease the religious wing of the GOP if he's to have even a chance in November, and this remark shows that he's just not good at it. It isn't so much that he's parroting Family Research Council rhetoric (most GOP candidates do that). It's that he can't get his lines straight.

Posted by Tim Hulsey | July 16, 2008 9:31 AM

This is McCain's spokesperson backpedalling from a remark in the NY Times on Sunday.

Mr. McCain, who with his wife, Cindy, has an adopted daughter, said flatly that he opposed allowing gay couples to adopt. “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,” he said.

His stance seems pretty unequivocal to me.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | July 16, 2008 9:58 AM

With gay rights having been the GOP whipping boy for nigh on two decades, it's a wee bit unlikely that McCain "hasn't given it much thought". The truth, of course, it that he is deeply opposed to any gay rights -- witness his support for Arizona's draconian constitutional amendment (which fortunately failed). That he flipfloped is probably more indicative of the sad state of his campaign than anything else.

Posted by BobN | July 16, 2008 11:19 AM

@ 27, being resolute and knee-jerk about it does not mean he has given any thought to it. Or that there is anything deep about his position, for that matter. He IS a Republican, after all.

Posted by fixo | July 16, 2008 12:05 PM

Why is anyone surprised at McCain's "stance" on this issue? He's got boatloads of wingnut social conservatives he has to win over to have any chance at all for winning in November. McCain has already proven that he will bend over backwards and flip and flop all over the place in order to placate and pander to them.

Anyone who has any familiarity with the adoption and foster care system in this country would know that the children themselves want a home, even if that home doesn't have opposite-sex parents. Also consider the many special-needs children who are in the system and aren't wanted by the majority of heterosexual couples who adopt. Most of them want a white baby with no health problems. Few will adopt an older child or a child who would require lots of medical care.

This is not nor should it be a "state's rights" issue. We are all citizens of this country, no matter in which state we reside. So are the children who are waiting to be adopted. It is in the interests of the children in the foster care and adoption system to find a home where they can be loved. Quite frankly, anyone who would deny a home to a child just because that home would consist of a same-sex couple is just cruel.

Want to make it impossible for gays to adopt? Then heterosexuals need to step up to the plate and adopt ALL of the children who are in need of a home. Moreover, they need to control their reproduction so that there won't be so many unwanted children.

Posted by Jonathon | July 16, 2008 12:12 PM

"Is there anything to the idea that kids do better in two parent straight families versus two parent gay families? "

I can't post links right now, but they are easy to find with a little googling.

Pretty much all of the studies that people cite when they talk about studies proving that children need "a mother and a father" were studies specifically comparing straight two-parent households with single parent households. Period. Gay families were not part of their study model.

So, a family "without a father" was headed by ONE woman who had to be breadwinner, parent, and often, had some sort (however healthy) of a personal dating life. (Same for families "without a mother"). As a sole wage earner, either there was less money, less time at home due to extra work to make ends meet, or both. Dating also cut into time with the kids, and so on. Additionally, there were effects in a lot of cases due to the boyfriend/girlfriend du jour creating instability.

None of those effects apply to a stable two parent same-sex couple with kids (any more than to opposite sex couples). Two incomes, split parenting time, stable emotional ties, and so on - or at least, pretty much the same as for straight couples.

Studies that actually included real-live gay people found that the only difference in their kids was less homophobia. Go figure.

It's a bait and switch. Taking studies about single moms and mapping them on to lesbian couples (both have "no father") is bad science at best and outright lies at worst.

Please don't just believe my assertions. A few minutes with a search engine and you'll have plenty of documentation.

Posted by Lymis | July 16, 2008 12:20 PM

Frankly I think that gays getting older is the biggest fight we have today.

I'm totally against it. God made adam and eve (get older) not adam and steve (get older)

Posted by boynamedsue | July 18, 2008 4:07 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.