Dave McSweeney [R-8th CD candidate] on Social Issues
Jeff Berkowitz: Isn’t that a religious issue… why would the government have the right to say—we think two males, or two females, shouldn’t marry? Why would that be a government decision? Isn't that…a personal values decision?
Dave McSweeney: It is a government decision because obviously the government will issue the license and a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Jeff Berkowitz: Where does it say that?
Dave McSweeney: That is my personal belief and that’s what—
Jeff Berkowitz: Where do you draw that from? Do you draw that from your religious views?
Dave McSweeney: I draw that from all of my beliefs put together, so I think, again, the federal government should never be in a situation, or the state governments, where they are sanctioning same sex marriage…
**********************************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features David McSweeney [R- Barrington Hills], who is running in the Republican Primary in the 8th Cong. District for the opportunity to take on first term Democratic incumbent Congresswoman Melissa Bean [D- Barrington].
The show airs throughout the City of Chicago tonight [Memorial Day] at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. See here for more about the topics discussed on tonight’s show with Republican U. S. Rep. candidate David McSweeney, as well as a listing of many of the communities in and other attributes of the 8th CD, as well as for partial transcripts of tonight's and other shows with McSweeney An additional partial transcript of tonight’s show is included, below.
See here for background about the 8th [and 10th] Cong. Dist. Primary.
******************************************
Federalism and Teri Schiavo:
Jeff Berkowitz: What about something like the Teri Schiavo issue. You were a supporter of the federal legislation to have that matter, a state matter some conservatives would say, reviewed by the federal courts after it had been reviewed extensively by the state courts [of Florida]. Was that a consistent [position]? People would criticize you and say—why do you want to take that and put it to the Feds [in that instance] when you just said you are a federalist-- you want to try to keep things on as low a level of government [as possible] city, state—where you can, right?
Dave McSweeney: Not inconsistent at all. In fact, what the Republicans originally tried to do, Jeff, was have a broad Act [of legislation] that said for these Right to Die cases that are in controversy—that there would be federal review of these cases—just like you would in death penalty cases. The Democrats shut that down. They wouldn’t allow that legislation to move forward. They made it a Schiavo specific piece of legislation. We are talking about life and death. We have a federal review process for death penalty cases. That’s all that Republicans tried to do in that case—is to allow the federal court to review a life and death case. The federal courts reviewed it. They reached a different decision, but at least there was a review. Just like we have federal—
Jeff Berkowitz: Life/Death issues. Should they be decided by the state government? Should abortion be a state issue? Or should it be, as it was under Roe v. Wade taken out of the state government and made a [right], by judicial fiat, essentially saying this is a constitutional right, a woman’s right to choose. The state legislatures, all fifty of them, would not have a say in that.
Dave McSweeney: Ideally, it would be a state issue. But, since we got—
Abortion:
Jeff Berkowitz: Abortion would be a state issue?
Dave McSweeney: Ideally. However, let me finish please, Jeff. We have such an activist judiciary, right now, that I do favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion. It is the same thing as gay marriage, at this point, in that you have such an activist judiciary—[which is] what we have seen in the last couple of years—that I think there is no other choice at this point. I am very, very cautious about ever supporting amending the Constitution, but I think in those two cases, right now, abortion and gay marriage, we have such a situation-- like we do with gay marriage in Massachusetts, [where] we are seeing the courts step in and make laws. Then, I think under that situation—in an ideal world you would have the states handle the issue. But, because of the activist judiciary, I think we have to have a constitutional amendment.
Jeff Berkowitz: You are 1000 % pro-life, would you say?
Dave McSweeney: I am very pro-life. In fact—
Jeff Berkowitz: You would like to see, as you say, a constitutional amendment that would protect the unborn?
Dave McSweeney: Right.
Jeff Berkowitz: That would allow an abortion only in the case if the life of the mother were at issue, right?
Dave McSweeney: And reported cases of rape and incest.
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you would give those as exceptions, too.
Dave McSweeney: Reported cases of rape and incest.
Jeff Berkowitz: So, in a sense you are not 1000 % [pro-life] because some people would say, “That’s a life.” You know, we have conservatives say that on this show. The unborn, whether he or she is a result of rape or incest, hasn’t done anything [wrong]. That is an innocent life. And, yet, you are saying that you would favor taking that life, or allowing somebody to have the opportunity to do so.
Dave McSweeney: No, no. What I am saying is that I favor an exception for life of the mother and reported cases of rape and incest. Obviously that is a very difficult issue in different situations but that’s my position on that issue.
Hyde Amendment:
Jeff Berkowitz: Same thing on the Hyde Amendment? You favor continuing that?
Dave McSweeney: That’s how the Hyde Amendment is structured,
Jeff Berkowitz: That’s how it reads now.
Dave McSweeney: That is exactly how it reads.
Jeff Berkowitz: And you favor continuing it that way? You don’t think low-income women should have the same choice to have an abortion as higher income women?
Dave McSweeney: I don’t think taxpayers should pay for abortion, Jeff. Absolutely not, I support the Hyde Amendment.
Same Sex Marriage:
Jeff Berkowitz: Same Sex Marriage…You are saying there [that] you favor a constitutional amendment, right?
Dave McSweeney: I do. I do think a marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman, only. And, we certainly can’t allow a situation where we allow same sex marriages to be accepted in society.
Jeff Berkowitz: Do you think the family, as you know it would be hurt if gays, lesbians, male gays, homosexuals, were allowed to marry? Do you think that would somehow harm heterosexuals who choose to have a more traditional family?
Dave McSweeney: Jeff, I just don’t think the federal or state government should sanction gay marriage. The people have the right to do whatever they want in their own private situation.
Jeff Berkowitz: Isn’t that a religious issue… if a person wants to get a license to marry, why should the government, other than that they say—here, we are going to promote—there are certain institutional arrangements, legal arrangements—why would the government have the right to say—we think two males, or two females, shouldn’t marry? Why would that be a government decision? Isn’t that a religious decision? A personal values decision?
Dave McSweeney: It is a government decision because obviously the government will issue the license and a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Jeff Berkowitz: Where does it say that?
Dave McSweeney: That is my personal belief and that’s what—
Jeff Berkowitz: Where do you draw that from? Do you draw that from your religious views?
Dave McSweeney: I draw that from all of my beliefs put together, so I think, again, the federal government should never be in a situation, or the state governments, where they are sanctioning same sex marriage. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.
The impact of religion on politicians and public policy:
Jeff Berkowitz: Do you mind talking about your religion? Do you think politicians should talk about religion? Should that be a part of public life?
Dave McSweeney: Well, faith is obviously an important—
Jeff Berkowitz: What is your religion?
Dave McSweeney: I am a Lutheran.
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you don’t mind talking about that?
Dave McSweeney: Absolutely not.
Jeff Berkowitz: Deep convictions?
Dave McSweeney: I have deep convictions.
Jeff Berkowitz: Do they shape your views on these issues? They shape your views on same sex marriage?
Dave McSweeney: Absolutely.
Jeff Berkowitz: They shape your views on abortion?
Dave McSweeney: Absolutely.
******************************************
Dave McSweeney [R- Barrington, 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate], recorded on May 15, 2005 and as is airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs tonight, Monday night, May 30 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21[CANTV].
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***************
Dave McSweeney: It is a government decision because obviously the government will issue the license and a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Jeff Berkowitz: Where does it say that?
Dave McSweeney: That is my personal belief and that’s what—
Jeff Berkowitz: Where do you draw that from? Do you draw that from your religious views?
Dave McSweeney: I draw that from all of my beliefs put together, so I think, again, the federal government should never be in a situation, or the state governments, where they are sanctioning same sex marriage…
**********************************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features David McSweeney [R- Barrington Hills], who is running in the Republican Primary in the 8th Cong. District for the opportunity to take on first term Democratic incumbent Congresswoman Melissa Bean [D- Barrington].
The show airs throughout the City of Chicago tonight [Memorial Day] at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. See here for more about the topics discussed on tonight’s show with Republican U. S. Rep. candidate David McSweeney, as well as a listing of many of the communities in and other attributes of the 8th CD, as well as for partial transcripts of tonight's and other shows with McSweeney An additional partial transcript of tonight’s show is included, below.
See here for background about the 8th [and 10th] Cong. Dist. Primary.
******************************************
Federalism and Teri Schiavo:
Jeff Berkowitz: What about something like the Teri Schiavo issue. You were a supporter of the federal legislation to have that matter, a state matter some conservatives would say, reviewed by the federal courts after it had been reviewed extensively by the state courts [of Florida]. Was that a consistent [position]? People would criticize you and say—why do you want to take that and put it to the Feds [in that instance] when you just said you are a federalist-- you want to try to keep things on as low a level of government [as possible] city, state—where you can, right?
Dave McSweeney: Not inconsistent at all. In fact, what the Republicans originally tried to do, Jeff, was have a broad Act [of legislation] that said for these Right to Die cases that are in controversy—that there would be federal review of these cases—just like you would in death penalty cases. The Democrats shut that down. They wouldn’t allow that legislation to move forward. They made it a Schiavo specific piece of legislation. We are talking about life and death. We have a federal review process for death penalty cases. That’s all that Republicans tried to do in that case—is to allow the federal court to review a life and death case. The federal courts reviewed it. They reached a different decision, but at least there was a review. Just like we have federal—
Jeff Berkowitz: Life/Death issues. Should they be decided by the state government? Should abortion be a state issue? Or should it be, as it was under Roe v. Wade taken out of the state government and made a [right], by judicial fiat, essentially saying this is a constitutional right, a woman’s right to choose. The state legislatures, all fifty of them, would not have a say in that.
Dave McSweeney: Ideally, it would be a state issue. But, since we got—
Abortion:
Jeff Berkowitz: Abortion would be a state issue?
Dave McSweeney: Ideally. However, let me finish please, Jeff. We have such an activist judiciary, right now, that I do favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion. It is the same thing as gay marriage, at this point, in that you have such an activist judiciary—[which is] what we have seen in the last couple of years—that I think there is no other choice at this point. I am very, very cautious about ever supporting amending the Constitution, but I think in those two cases, right now, abortion and gay marriage, we have such a situation-- like we do with gay marriage in Massachusetts, [where] we are seeing the courts step in and make laws. Then, I think under that situation—in an ideal world you would have the states handle the issue. But, because of the activist judiciary, I think we have to have a constitutional amendment.
Jeff Berkowitz: You are 1000 % pro-life, would you say?
Dave McSweeney: I am very pro-life. In fact—
Jeff Berkowitz: You would like to see, as you say, a constitutional amendment that would protect the unborn?
Dave McSweeney: Right.
Jeff Berkowitz: That would allow an abortion only in the case if the life of the mother were at issue, right?
Dave McSweeney: And reported cases of rape and incest.
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you would give those as exceptions, too.
Dave McSweeney: Reported cases of rape and incest.
Jeff Berkowitz: So, in a sense you are not 1000 % [pro-life] because some people would say, “That’s a life.” You know, we have conservatives say that on this show. The unborn, whether he or she is a result of rape or incest, hasn’t done anything [wrong]. That is an innocent life. And, yet, you are saying that you would favor taking that life, or allowing somebody to have the opportunity to do so.
Dave McSweeney: No, no. What I am saying is that I favor an exception for life of the mother and reported cases of rape and incest. Obviously that is a very difficult issue in different situations but that’s my position on that issue.
Hyde Amendment:
Jeff Berkowitz: Same thing on the Hyde Amendment? You favor continuing that?
Dave McSweeney: That’s how the Hyde Amendment is structured,
Jeff Berkowitz: That’s how it reads now.
Dave McSweeney: That is exactly how it reads.
Jeff Berkowitz: And you favor continuing it that way? You don’t think low-income women should have the same choice to have an abortion as higher income women?
Dave McSweeney: I don’t think taxpayers should pay for abortion, Jeff. Absolutely not, I support the Hyde Amendment.
Same Sex Marriage:
Jeff Berkowitz: Same Sex Marriage…You are saying there [that] you favor a constitutional amendment, right?
Dave McSweeney: I do. I do think a marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman, only. And, we certainly can’t allow a situation where we allow same sex marriages to be accepted in society.
Jeff Berkowitz: Do you think the family, as you know it would be hurt if gays, lesbians, male gays, homosexuals, were allowed to marry? Do you think that would somehow harm heterosexuals who choose to have a more traditional family?
Dave McSweeney: Jeff, I just don’t think the federal or state government should sanction gay marriage. The people have the right to do whatever they want in their own private situation.
Jeff Berkowitz: Isn’t that a religious issue… if a person wants to get a license to marry, why should the government, other than that they say—here, we are going to promote—there are certain institutional arrangements, legal arrangements—why would the government have the right to say—we think two males, or two females, shouldn’t marry? Why would that be a government decision? Isn’t that a religious decision? A personal values decision?
Dave McSweeney: It is a government decision because obviously the government will issue the license and a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Jeff Berkowitz: Where does it say that?
Dave McSweeney: That is my personal belief and that’s what—
Jeff Berkowitz: Where do you draw that from? Do you draw that from your religious views?
Dave McSweeney: I draw that from all of my beliefs put together, so I think, again, the federal government should never be in a situation, or the state governments, where they are sanctioning same sex marriage. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.
The impact of religion on politicians and public policy:
Jeff Berkowitz: Do you mind talking about your religion? Do you think politicians should talk about religion? Should that be a part of public life?
Dave McSweeney: Well, faith is obviously an important—
Jeff Berkowitz: What is your religion?
Dave McSweeney: I am a Lutheran.
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you don’t mind talking about that?
Dave McSweeney: Absolutely not.
Jeff Berkowitz: Deep convictions?
Dave McSweeney: I have deep convictions.
Jeff Berkowitz: Do they shape your views on these issues? They shape your views on same sex marriage?
Dave McSweeney: Absolutely.
Jeff Berkowitz: They shape your views on abortion?
Dave McSweeney: Absolutely.
******************************************
Dave McSweeney [R- Barrington, 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate], recorded on May 15, 2005 and as is airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs tonight, Monday night, May 30 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21[CANTV].
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***************
<< Home