Senator Claire McCaskill suggested yesterday if a concealed weapons law she had voted against had actually passed, it could have set a precedent for forcing states, like her home state of Missouri, to recognize another state’s gay marriage laws.

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.

McCaskill says many of the supporters of the proposal are advocates for states’ rights, but they want to override states’ rights on carrying concealed weapons.

McCaskill audio available here:

[audio:http://www.missourinet.com/podcast/feed/a6afff9d-c09f-1e1c-6be13276f8998390/article/a39175b5-5056-b82a-37fd2022b5878c0c/audio/a451587c-5056-b82a-37678da2082718e8/macgun.mp3]

Senator McCaskill has since attempted to clarify her position via email.
(via Pam’s House Blend)

“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.

While it is true that Republicans are demonstrating hypocrisy with regards to state’s rights on this issue, based on McCaskill’s original statement, it really sounds like she thinks DOMA is a “good” idea.

PROMO, The Missouri LGBT advocacy group has responded to McCaskill’s comments today:

In a statement defending her opposition to this bill, she [McCaskill] 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.

Gay Republicans have also expressed particular outrage over McCaskill’s comments, an outrage likely fueled more by the fact that McCaskill is a Democrat and their strong support of the concealed weapons law, than anything about gay marriage.

I’m not really suprised that Bush took home the coveted prize as I feel it was the Democrat’s race to lose. In putting up a candidate that refused to define himself, the Democratic ticket was vulnerable to this outcome. I think they also over-estimated the importance of the war among voters.

I was however surprised by the strength of Bush’s evangelical base, buoyed by such issues as stem cell research, abortion, and particularly gay marriage. I think this is key. Eleven states on Nov 2 passed resolutions to ammend their constitutions to ban same sex marriages (list at the bottom of this post), and Ohio in particular went as far to ban civil unions. I feel strongly this was a central issue to many of those who voted for George W. Bush. Exit polls seemed to indicate that moral leadership and the economy rated more important than the war in Iraq and more broadly the war on terror. I think it is safe to say that mainstream America is simply not ready to accept homosexuality, rooted either in their faith or their homophobia.

While discouraging, it’s not suprising that this happened. Gay activists (and certain mayors) pushed so hard for this equality that it backfired. You can’t force something like gay marriage — no matter how reasonable or fair-minded the argument — down the throats of people who barely tolerate homosexuals in the first place. Many of which would prefer to have us shipped off to some island (and those are the nices ones) then deal with us walking down the aisle, revering that which they frequently take for granted.

But please don’t get the wrong idea. I’m all for gay marriage, or gay civil unions — which ever gives us the same rights and privliges as heterosexual couples without jumping through hoops and causing undue financial stress. I just feel there is a right time and place for these things, and doing them in climate that is condusive to change. The climate during a war, is not one of them.

Only history will tell if the strong push for gay marriage ultimately tilted the election one way or the other. It would be presumptious of me to declare that. But I do know that I don’t feel quite as safe today, as I did yesterday.

States Banning Same Sex Marriage on Nov 2:
Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah…

which join existing states…

Wisconsin, Kansas and Missouri (please let me know if I have missed any).