Tweet
UPDATE: PROMO has responded to McCaskill's statement. It's below the fold. UPDATE 2: McCaskill's clearly aware of the pile she stepped in on Twitter (r). UPDATE 3: McCaskill sends out a “clarifying quote” via email:
“In talking about my recent vote against the gun provision offered in the Senate, I wasn’t clear when I stated that my vote against that provision was because it came down to a states’ rights. I was expressing my frustration in that some who argue that states shouldn’t respect the laws, certificates, or permits from other states when it’s convenient, like with gay marriage, but then argue that they should when it’s convenient on another issue, like gun rights. They can’t have it both ways,” McCaskill said.
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.
Sen. McCaskill says she was not against letting people carry concealed weapons. But she is against requiring one state to accept another state's laws that might differ from its own. She says it would be a foot in the door that could allow Vermont's laws on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri, which has a constitutional provision against gay marriage.
Listen to McCaskill's comments here. At Show Me Progress, Clark cuts too much slack.
McCaskill's explanation for her “No” vote is that she thinks it's a “state's rights” issue, and further that “it is a foot in the door to allow the laws in Vermont on gay marriage” to be enforced here in Missouri.What??? There are plenty of examples you could give of so-called “states rights” issues, like affirming the right of states to enforce stricter environmental regulation than the federal government, rather than citing the “right” of states to maintain the separate status of a minority. Let's remember that the slogan of “states rights” has been used throughout American history primarily to defend the institution of slavery and later the practice of segregation.
I don't think Senator McCaskill is a racist, nor do I think that she hates gay people. She has been good on issues like the hate crimes bill in the past. But just because she has generally had a good record in the past doesn't mean she gets off the hook for grasping for the example of gay marriage as a bogeyman. I certainly hope that she will make use of public channels (like Twitter) to make it clear that she respects the LBGT community here in Missouri and around the country.
Well she many not hate gay people, but she doesn't think that they deserve to be equal in all ways under the law. If she has a religious objection that's one matter, but we are talking about civil marriage and reciprocity in the same way a drivers license is recognized. What part of it does the Senator not understand? She needs to explain herself. Certainly she must have LGBT on her staff — does she think that they are lesser human beings?
PROMO, Missouri's statewide LGBT advocacy organization, plans to have a public response to this shortly. has responded.
UPDATE 4: Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate is also on this story.
H/t, Monkey Doo
Dear Equality Supporter:
I need your help this morning to educate Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill.
Sen. McCaskill was a co-sponsor on Hate Crimes legislation in the Senate. Her office has received calls from Missouri residents 5 to 1 against her support. The bill was offered as an amendment on a Department of Defense bill and we are still waiting for its fate once the bill goes through a conference committee.
Sen. McCaskill did a great thing in sponsoring the Hate Crimes legislation. However, I do not believe she fully understands and registers why Hate Crimes protections are needed based on her comments yesterday.
A concealed weapon carry bill was up for review in the U.S. Senate, which would have allowed concealed carry permit holders to carry guns between states having similar laws on the books. It was defeated 58-39.
In a statement defending her opposition to this bill, she stated: “This is a foot in the door that would require, for example, the laws in Vermont on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri.”
This is a problem. A state's rights argument is valid in this situation, however it is inconceivable that an ally can support Hate Crimes legislation- which recognizes the LGBT community is a target of increased abuse, intolerance and aggressive force- but uses a touchstone issue for the community as a shield rather than stand alone on an anti-gun sentiment.
In a time when we have seen incredible strides on a state by state basis, we have turned a corner and will not tolerate being used as a shield. Please reach out to Sen. McCaskill's office and let her know while she is an ally, you won't tolerate being used as a shield. The numbers listed are below for local and DC offices.
Thank you,
A.J. Bockelman
Executive Director
PROMOOffices of Senator Claire McCaskill:
Washington, D.C.
202.224.6154
202.228.6326 (fax)Cape Girardeau
573.651.0964
573.334.4278 (fax)Columbia
573.442.7130
573.442.7140 (fax)Kansas City
816.421.1639
816.421.2562 (fax)Springfield
417.868.8745
417.831.1349 (fax)St. Louis
314.367.1364
314.361.8649 (fax)
9 Comments
One could make the argument…that she was turning one right wing talking point against another.
The right is pro guns but anti-gay. So she makes the argument that a pro-gun position creates the opening for a pro gay position. (no matter how unlikely) and it makes the fundies pause and think about which is more important to them.
I actually think it was a good move.
I think that…we are often to quick to be critical and turn do not give allies the room to manuver.
If she can use these idioits love of guns and hatred of gays against them I say more power to her. We just need to be smart enough to see a political move for what it is.
Time for hard legal analysis
I’m not speaking to any phobia she might have or to how phobic her statement sounds, but I will say that when I first heard of what the Thune Amendment was designed to do, my reaction was: ‘Okay – how many of the christianist wackos are going to vote for this thing yet use a states’ rights argument to oppose the DOMA repeal and/or support a federal anti-gay marriage amendment?’
Lets also play realpolitik: her margin of victory in 2006 may well have been the Rushbo-Fox incident. Same-sex marriage is not going to be a winning issue for a statewide candidate in Missouri and voting against the Thune amendment probably isn’t going to help her, so she very well could have been playing one hot-button item off against another by offering what may well be an accurate statement of the law.
this issue isshe didn’t have to bring the issue up at all. No one asked her about it, she offered it up.
UnderstoodBut the point is that she is using one of their arguments against another one of their points. Its a solid win in this case because it requires her opponents to do the mental gymnastics needed to decide whether they hate gays more than they love guns.
I knew this was gonna happenNot Sen McCaskill specifically, but that somebody somewhere would try to wrangle an analogy between states’ marriage laws and states’ concealed weapons laws.
My $.02 worth of thoughts:
1. A marriage license is not a gun. For starters, a marriage is a relationship and a responsibility and a process; a weapon is a thing.
2. “Opposite marriage” means the same thing in every state (thanks to Loving and a bunch of other court decisions), but states already have different gun laws.
Tangential to the discussion (queries this ex-Wisconsin Badger) — WHY did Russ Feingold (D-WI) vote for the damn thing?
Never mind. I just realized he’s up for re-election in 2010 and needs more votes than Madison and Milwaukee.
Blah blah blah blah stand on head blah blah blah…
I have mixed feelings, but……if her original statement looked like sh*t and smelled like sh*t, then we can be pretty assured it isn’t chocolate.
I think we got to hear an off the cuff comment from her that reflects what she really thinks about marriage equality — her actual opinion when she isn’t being careful about what she says.
I rather have her on our side with 80% of issues — and sponsoring hate crime legislation — than not being on our side at all. But on the other hand, an 80% thing wouldn’t mean I have to like her recent statement on marriage equality — nor do any of us really have to give her a pass on this recent statement of her’s regarding marriage equality.
It was an unnecessary statement that she made where she stepped in it. She’ll get over it, I’m sure.
My perspective…I think she is correct that the gun provision would violate state’s rights. That was my first reaction upon reading about the provision. Many people really do see the same-sex marriage debate as a state’s right debate and LGBT rights is one of the major issues of our time, so I am not surprised that a Senator from Missouri would use it as an example. I also say that it is a state’s rights issue when one state will not recognize another’s marriage license. As Jake pointed out a marriage is not a gun, though both require licenses. This distinction is where I think McCaskill went wrong. Also, I don’t think we can count on her vote when it comes to repealing DOMA which is good to know.