I’m confused. John McCain gave an interview to The New York Times this week saying he was against gay adoption but then his Communications Director sought to clarify those comments afterwards by saying it was a ‘state issue” and that “caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative” of abandoned children.
Huh? That sound you just heard was a can of worms opening up. More analysis below but first the facts:
Here’s the exchange about gay adoption from The New York Times interview:
Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?
Mr. McCain: 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.
Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.
Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.
Q: But your concern would be that the couple should a traditional couple
Mr. McCain: Yes.
So far he’s batting one thousand with social conservatives. But then his campaign followed up by clarifying his position and sent the following statement to influential progressive blogger Andrew Sullivan:
"McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation. McCain 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
The link is here or read more here.
I can’t imagine comments like that will play well with the social conservative base at all. I mean if you’re going to say that you’re against gay adoption then why not just stick with that view rather than trying to massage it? The qualifier after the interview does some damage. Why? Because McCain had an opportunity to add the gay adoption issue to his Evangelical checklist and now it’s muddy. As for this being a state issue? Why do so many politicians use the federalist approach to get out of a sticky situation? McCain’s not the first and he won’t be the last.
Social conservatives are saddened by children in foster care or orphanages too. So that’s not the issue. The debate over gay adoption is another matter entirely. The focus here is on John McCain. Evangelicals are already feeling fidgety about McCain and have concerns about him on a number of issues. Why add to the list?
Let’s face it. Taking a hard line against gay adoption does not play well in the maverick, independent McCain persona. It doesn’t help him attract the moderates he needs But this move hurts him with the Evangelical base too.
The tap dance continues.
What do you think?