This video is Senator McCain and Senator Levin discussing a point of procedure where a defense authorization has another bill attached. He's peeved that the Senate Democrats snuck some business about hate crimes on a previous bill, and now a repeal of DADT on this one, because they are about a "social agenda". Let's listen, shall we?
I have a problem with the term "social agenda". To me, it just sounds too much like "social calendar". You know, "So sorry I won't be doing that thing in the Hamptons, but I've got two weddings and some work banquet business coming up, so my dance card is full!" And, you know, the word "agenda" is used so frequently as one half of the "gay agenda".
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is a "social" bill in that one might consider it a net benefit to society for people to be discouraged from targeting people of specific groups for violence. To my mind, it could be considered a homeland defense initiative against domestic terrorism intended to marginalize, harass, intimidate, and silence people by way of violence--which is not a "thought crime" as the debate against that bill tried to depict it. Violence enacted against people is an actual crime, and the motivation of a felon is routinely part of the consideration of trials for violent assaults and murder.
DADT is more clearly an armed forces matter, which I think makes the issue even more germane to national defense. There are many men and women who are serving in the armed forces of the US who are being denied equal treatment under the law. They are putting their own lives on the line for our way of life, but they are being denied a very important part of their own lives. This unjust law has created an unnecessarily hostile work environment for LGBT people, and in so far as skilled, capable, and much-needed individuals are lost if their orientation is made known, I think remedying this problem is a step in the right direction that should strengthen our military.
I understand that the senator from AZ has a long-standing issue with that "filling up the tree" business, especially as relates to earmarks. And I can appreciate a sense of indignation at feeling "forced" to swallow what we sometimes call a bitter or poison pill. Democrats have certainly felt the same way in similar positions, when they've been faced with bills they want to pass, but have some less politically savory attachment.
I just think it's interesting, is all, that the two pieces of legislation mentioned had specifically to do with the protections and rights of LGBT people. I have no real explanation for it. He's in a primary battle still, and he's running to the right, and he lost a presidential election recently, and the Prop. 8 thing being overturned, and him being up past nap-time and Mercury scheduled to go retrograde later this month, I'm sure he had all kinds of things going on in his mind.
Damnit there's wars to fund! Why does he have to be bothered with other people's problems?