McCaskill Rationalizes Vote on Concealed Weapons: " A Foot in the Door to Gay Marriage in Missouri"

Not the best choice of words. Missouri's Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill rationalizes her vote against yesterday's controversial concealed weapons amendment—which fell two votes short of passage and would have allowed licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines—as a "states' rights" issue and "a foot in the door to allow the laws in Vermont on gay marriage" to be enforced in Missouri.

The senator told reporters: "It is a bad idea for us in Washington to tell one state they have to accept what another state has done. This is a foot in the door that would require, for example, the laws in Vermont on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri. It just kills me, these guys ... pound the tables about state’s rights until situationally they don’t want to talk about states rights anymore." Audio here.

Gays and progressives are pushing back and in the past two hours, McCaskill's office went into damage control mode. The Senator took to (where else?) Twitter to explain: "My argument was about states rights, re conceal & carry. Gay marriage is another example of states having rights to decide w/out Washington." McCaskill also issued this clarification to The Advocate: "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 has a strong record on LGBT issues and an 85 percent score from the Human Rights Campaign. In 2004, she opposed a Missouri constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. This year, she co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Act "despite her office [receiving] calls from Missouri residents 5 to 1 against her support," notes PROMO, Missouri's statewide LGBT advocacy organization.

Probably another case of an ally using a bad analogy to make a good point. But an excellent example of the problems created when Democrats use right-wing talking points to frame progressive issues. (Is she against all firearms owners carrying guns across states lines or just the heterosexual ones?) Pam Spaulding on the takeaway: "She may 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?"

Thanks LaneHudson (@TLaneHudson)

Some Background ...
Senate Rejects Gun Amendment, Major Hurdle for Hate Crimes Bill [R20]

Comments

[Derrick from Philly]

Leave her be. If Joe Biden could call my President, "a clean black guy" and get away with it...so she made a boo boo. Although I still can't figure out what she was trying to say.

[Carter G]

@ Derrick:"McCaskill has a strong record on LGBT issues and an 85 percent score from the Human Rights Campaign. ... Probably another case of an ally using a very bad analogy to make a point."

yeah, i think that's what he was saying. but no one is messing with mccaskill, she said it to reporters. blame it on her.

fyi:at the time when biden made his remark, most of us were quite upset with him on this blog and so was everyone else. his campaign never really recovered, not that he had much of a chance. but of course, once biden began supporting obama all was forgiven.

just like mccaskill. when she made her racial remarks about obama during the primary... everyone forgave her b/c she was supporting obama.

[Mr. FAMU]

Okay keep on gay people push away all of our supporters until we don't have anymore. Claire Mckaskill is cool people and if you people can't see that she is one of our allies then you are nuts. Never let the perfect become the enemy of the good. So what she slipped up she's not perfect but she is still a good person who is fighting for good!

State right's should be respected. That's apart of the checks and balances of our constitution.

I mean dang bitching about a woman with an 85% human rights record. Stupid.

[Dalton]

>>>I mean dang bitching about a woman with an 85% human rights record. Stupid.

Who is "bitching"? Rod?
He pointed to her record and said she is ally but used a very bad example. And by state's rights, do you approve of DOMA? Yes or No?

This is exactly what Rod meant by framing progressive and LGBT issues with right wing talking points.

Just because someone is an ally, doesn't mean they can't be educated. Especially Democrats. She could easily make the argument against concealed weapons on the gun issue alone. And trust me, Claire McCaskill delights in playing the left against the right.

If McCaskill didnt realize how bad mistake was, she wouldnt have rushed to Twitter and a statement. Because now the Republicans have an opening to oppose certain LGBT rights, like adoption, marriage etc. Oh and Carter, yes, you definitely have a point.

[Dalton]

FAMU, before I forget...

Are you also going to defend "state's rights", which was Pat Buchanan and Nixon's code language for opposing civil rights? And Republicans generally use this phrase to oppose civil rights? You did know this, right?

Clarence Thomas, Scalia and Alito often use this phrase. Thomas used it to argue against the Civil Rights Act just a few weeks ago.

[Greg G]

McCaskill: Good ally, moderate Dem, bad choice of words.

[Derrick from Philly]

Wait a minute! Nobody here is chastising or "reading" Rod. Actually, we're not directing our comments at anyone individual. We're talking in general about this minor stink that Senator McCaskill has gotten herself into. My "...leave her be" is directed at everybody--not anyone specific. Same goes for Mr Famu's comment.

Rod,

these guys sure love you up in here. Thank God, we all don't meet in person, they'll try to whup my arse if they feel I've disrespected you.

Lord.

[kayman]

I see this as a bad choice of words, and there is no point of picking this part. It is what it is when her record speaks for itself on the GLBT issues.

[Mr. FAMU]

@ Dalton

I still believe states have their rights.

Not saying Pat Buchannan can go do whatever. But um, yeah states have their rights.

[Byron]

Actually it was a very good analogy, just poorly worded. If one wants to use the "states' rights" argument then it has to be used consistently, not just when states' rights works in favor of one's pet issue.

That's true whether that issue is a "liberal" one (gay marriage) or a "conservative" one (concealed weapons).

[Jim]

She was just pointing out Republican hypocrisy. Republicans love states rights so long as the states are trying to do something to hurt their citizens. If any states are trying to help their citizens, then Republicans hate those same states rights.

However, by equating the issues of carrying a concealed weapon, which is an act that most people think should be regulated for the sake of our safety, and of gay rights, which is all about fundamental human rights and ought to be Constitutionally non-negotiable, she is handing the Republicans an opportunity down the road to accuse pro-gay Democrats of hypocrisy.

[Greg G]

>>>Actually it was a very good analogy

No it was a very bad analogy and McCaskill knew exactly what she was doing. The concealed weapons issue can be argued effectively by itself. Some states require firearms training, or this age to have a weapon, or that age, or permits for the car, etc. Bringing gays into the equation was a dog whistle.

And why are people defending Claire McCaskill on this stupid statement? Has she ever been mentioned on this blog before? Okay, she has an 85. And? Readers of this blog have eviscerated certain Democrats with 100 percent ratings. She's still a triangulating Blue Dog in a purple state who during the Bush years used every opportunity to shaft Democrats and vote with Republicans on the war, torture and now is opposing unions and health care. Maybe some of y'all will defend that too.

Dalton and Carter have a point. I see exactly what this defense of Mccaskill is all about. The Missouri blogs Rod linked to are not even defending this. She made a very bad analogy and gave a huge opening to Republicans. Thats why she rushed to Twitter and called the Advocate. If she didnt think it was a critical ... she would not have done that. No one is condemning her, no one is saying we hate her, we're saying it was wrong and we (=voters, donors) expect better. You can do that your friends. You don't have to defend and rationalize everything they do.

[Greg G]

And really? Criticize the gay "activists" who are out and fighting for our rights which many gay men dont have, like all those brothas in the red states? FAMU, you were arguing up and down that it was Terrell Carter's "business" if he went to every gay club and was hugged up with every little queen ... yet still told reporters he was straight. And no one had any "right" to say they say him or anyone in a public place cuz it was his 'business.' Didnt you even try to talk about a right to privacy (in a public place?!) or something?

Now you are criticizing "activists" who are "out" and trying to get legislation and policy implemented to fight homophobia and discrimination?

And that is many black gay men in a nutshell. I've really enjoyed some of your comments but I'm surprised you showed up in here, man. That's real talk.