Dr. James Dobson was on Hannity and Colmes last night (3.30.2008), and he was asked whether he would participate in the elections this November. The question was likely prompted by Dobson’s quite vocal dissent against a John McCain Presidency. Dr. Dobson said that he hoped that “we won’t get stuck” with McCain, citing, among other things, his belief that McCain does not hold conservative positions on social issues like marriage and abortion.

On the show yesterday, Dobson declined to elaborate whether he would support any of the three candidates running for President, but he did say that he would participate in the November elections because other offices besides the Presidency will be on the ballot. True to form, Sean Hannity tried to warm Dr. Dobson to a McCain presidency by trying to alleviate Dobson’s concerns about McCain’s social positions. Hannity told Dobson that just a few weeks ago John McCain pledged to support both the marriage and pro-life planks of the Republican platform.

But should this alleviate the concerns of social conservatives? I do not believe so. Let’s first examine the relevant exchange between Sean Hannity and John McCain.

HANNITY: And I think one of the areas that came up the most is would you leave the pro-life language in the platform and the marriage amendment in the platform?

MCCAIN: Yes. But as you know, I believe that the states should make these decisions on the marriage amendment. I am a Federalist and I believe that states like mine and other states that we should amend our state constitutions, and I will stick to that position until such time, if ever, a higher court says that my state or another state has to recognize the other status — another status of marriage.

I am committed to maintaining the unique status of marriage between man and woman. I think it can best be accomplished, and in keeping with my federalist philosophy that states should do as much as possible to have that done at the state level. But if it is overturned by a superior court, I will then obviously support the other path.

The Republican Party Platform calls for two amendments to the Constitution: a human life amendment and a marriage amendment. They read thusly:

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage…Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges.

John McCain has acquired the reputation of being a “straight talking maverick.” I will not object to the label; I will only say that if straight talking is a virtue, it nevertheless is no virtue to “straight talk” out of both sides of one’s mouth. Hannity’s question was very carefully crafted in order to ensure that John McCain would not have to say that he actually supports the pro-life and marriage planks of the GOP platform. Hannity pulled this off by asking him whether he would leave the language of those issues intact in the platform. The fact is that John McCain does not support either a human life amendment or a federal marriage amendment. Consider McCain’s response to Hannity, for example. After saying that he would not seek to change the marriage amendment language in the Republican platform, McCain goes on to say that he does not actually support what that platform says.

Is Sean Hannity really comfortable going on national television and suggesting to social conservatives that John McCain supports their cause? He does not. What has become clear about McCain is that his straight talk really is just double talk. But what is worse is Sean Hannity’s attempt to advocate McCain’s candidacy to social conservatives by suggesting that he really supports the issues. Is it really supposed to be some consolation that, even though McCain neither supports a human life amendment nor a federal marriage amendment, he nevertheless does not have a problem leaving the human life and marriage amendment language in the platform?