Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Cindy McCain: End 'don't ask, don't tell' (Updated)

By Emi Kolawole

Update 11/14/2010 1:46 p.m.: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) addressed his wife's participation in the NOH8 ad campaign and her twitter post clarifying her position on the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy" Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

McCain, asked by host David Gregory to comment on his wife's appearance, said, "I respect the First Amendment rights of every member of my family." McCain said he wants "a thorough and complete study" on the effects on "morale and battle effectiveness" of ending "don't ask, don't tell" before deciding his position on repeal of the policy. He said the current Pentagon study focused on implementing repeal, not whether repeal is a good idea. McCain also pointed to recent comments by Marine Commandant James Amos and other military leaders opposing repeal, at least for now. "I respect and admire these four service chiefs who have expressed either outright opposition or deep reservation about the repeal," McCain said.

Update 11/14/2010 10:47 a.m.: Cindy McCain has taken to her twitter account to clarify her position on the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy relative to where her husband, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stands on the issue.

McCain posted the following to her twitter account on Friday:

I fully support the NOH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be a part of it. But I stand by my husband's stance on DADT.

Senator McCain has said he would be in favor of repealing the "don't ask" policy if the military were in favor of repeal, but has become more staunchly opposed to repeal since then.

On Thursday, the Post's Ed O'Keefe and Greg Jaffe reported that a Pentagon study group found that the military could lift the DADT policy with minimal risk to current war efforts.

(h/t Huffington Post)


Cindy McCain, the wife of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), appears in a new ad for a campaign geared towards ending the bullying of gay youth and promoting equality for members of the LGBT community. In the ad, McCain parts ways with her husband on whether to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

McCain joins a variety of celebrities, including Kat Von D, Denise Richards and Gene Simmons among others, in calling for an end to bullying of homosexuals. "Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future," she says. "They can't serve our country openly."

Others go on to say suggest that the law emboldens bullies, at which point McCain says, "Our government treats the LGBT community like second class citizens -- why shouldn't they?"

The Washington Post is seeking comment from Sen. McCain's office.

This is not the first time Cindy McCain has parted ways with her husband on gay rights. She and her daughter, Meghan McCain, appeared in a print ad campaign in support of same-sex marriage even though Sen. McCain opposes it.

Also, during the 2008 presidential campaign, McCain disagreed with then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on abortion. While Palin opposes abortion in the case of rape or incest, both Sen. McCain and his wife do not.

By Emi Kolawole  | November 12, 2010; 8:37 AM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: First debate of 2012 election cycle announced
Next: Bush jokes about 'bring 'em on'

Comments

This is wrong.

The Republicans should not make the same mistake that the recent Democratic Congress did by assuming that their electoral victory represents a wholesale embrace of their ideology. It does not. The Republicans were NOT elected by their "base" any more than Pelosi and gang were elected by theirs. In BOTH cases, they were elected by moderates and independents in large part to punish the OTHER party for arrogance and secrecy.

We the people want ethical reform, transparency and fiscal responsibility far more than ANYTHING else. THAT'S what we can ALL agree upon and THAT'S why the Republicans won the recent election: to work on the terrible problems effecting ALL the people and the ENTIRE Republic, not to push a right-wing social agenda.

First, restore integrity and openess to the Capitol. Next, address the spend-thrift culture of irresponsible borrowing and largess. After that, secure our borders and sovereignty. When you're done with ALL that then, maybe, it will be time to concentrate on some of these "social" issues that you love so much. Until then you'd do well to concentrate on more global issues that effect ALL Americans and otherwise stick to your supposed principle of keeping the government out of the citizenry's private lives!

If you can't do it for the good of the Republic, then do it for your OWN good.

Posted by: andrew23boyle | November 14, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Anyone care to offer the Constitutional basis of DADT policy.

Posted by: chucko2 | November 14, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"I respect and admire these four service chiefs..."

You mean the ones who were insubordinate to the President last year when he asked for 3 options on Afghanistan and they refused? Cute, flyboy.

Posted by: edismae | November 14, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

The US military machine can defeat dictators, topple governments, fight insurgencies, offer humanitarian aid to millions but cant beat its own prejudices against homosexuals? C'mon

Posted by: Chops2 | November 14, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

McCain is an angry, resentful old man who's time has come and gone. He's the epitome of the party boor who doesn't know he ought to shut-up and go home. He's the living proof that there's no fool like an old fool.

Posted by: Keesvan | November 14, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"Why do they think EVERYONE needs to know who they choose to have sex with, are otherwise attracted to?"

When I appear in public with my wife, such as when we have a romantic dinner out, I'm effectively letting everyone know that I'm straight. If there's a rule that people are supposed to keep their sexual preferences private, then it would be wrong for the two of us to be seen together publicly. Or else I would have to pretend that she's my sister or cousin.

Posted by: Carstonio | November 13, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Maybe she should have run against him in the primary. She has more than enough cash to run a campaign and would have been a sensible moderate compared to Hayworth or the right tacking McCain a cross between a old line Rockefeller and Goldwater Rep.

You never know he could always step down due to health or age and leave her the seat.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | November 13, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Wow! It seems that being a maverick is part of the McCain household DNA. If Cindy McCain dumped John McCain he would be finished and almost broke. It is refreshing to see a women such as Mrs. McCain break out of her shell and take the lead; now we have a real hero on the American scene.

Posted by: Rlupodimare | November 13, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Wow! It seems that being a maverick is part of the McCain household DNA. If Cindy McCain dumped John McCain he would be finished and almost broke. It is refreshing to see a women such as Mrs. McCain break out of her shell and take the lead; now we have a real hero on the American scene.

Posted by: Rlupodimare | November 13, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

So, you nitwit, which is it... Do you support REPEALING DADT or, as your "tweet" (if that's actually a real thing) from last night stating that you fully your hubbies, Grampy McSame's, position - DON'T REPEAL and filibuster or any attempt to attach it to anything!""


WHAT'S IT GONNA BE BLONDIE????

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | November 13, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Cindy McCain has just as much right to espouse her views as anyone else.

What's required in a military unit is that they be competent, professional, and be will to be team players. One's sexuality isn't any more indicative of those things, one way or the other, than is someone's race, ethnicity, gender, or national origin. Those are all facts about people, but in evaluating competence, professionalism, and willingness to be a team player, they are not relevant facts. I would much rather have the competent, professional service member who can work with others, and who happens to be gay, than the incompetent, unprofessional service member who can't put aside his or her own prejudices to work with others to get the mission done, and who happens to be straight.

The key is professionalism. It is certainly unprofessional to flaunt one's sexuality whether gay or straight. I am not sure where the idea came from that to let gays serve openly would make them all suddenly push themselves after every member of the same gender. Straight service members certainly don't do that as a general rule, and the few who do are duly reprimanded for their inappropriate behavior. That standard is not going to change. What ought to change are the unfounded underlying assumptions about homosexuals.

Posted by: Sara121 | November 13, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Did Cindy MCain ever serve in the U.S. armed forces? Her husband did, honorably. As a former combat marine with four battle stars, I don't want some blond fluzzy influencing military policy.

Posted by: Forward11 | November 13, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Did Cindy MCain ever serve in the U.S. armed forces? Her husband did, honorably. As a former combat marine with four battle stars, I don't want some blond fluzzy influencing military policy.

Posted by: Forward11 | November 13, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

The problem starts for homosexuals the minute they "have to tell the world" that they are gay. SO WHAT? Their sexual preference is their own private business, and needs to be kept that way.
Why do they think EVERYONE needs to know who they choose to have sex with, are otherwise attracted to? Why do they think the whole world needs to adapt to their lifestyle, and 'accept' their lifestyle?

No one has the 'right' to be "married". Marriage is a privilege, not a right. People still can't 'marry' their pets, but they have the privilege of leaving their money and property to them in a Will.


The 'discrimination' homosexuals allegedly state is occuring, is just a fallacy to get this group of narcissistic people something they aren't supposed to have.

***This is what the definition of the 14th Amendment should be for all citizens.***

Shut up, keep your personal business private, and go about your daily life. Go to work, buy a house or rent an apartment, live with whomever you choose, enjoy your personal life within the boundaries of your home, conduct yourself with dignity and decency toward others in public, pay your taxes, enjoy your life in a moral, legal way, don't intrude on the privacy and dignity of others beliefs.

-------------------------------

There is NO legal 'right' to have special interest legislation. It's not in the US Constitution, not granted in any definition of, or interpretation of, the 14th Amendment.

Posted by: momof20yo | November 13, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Will one of you military men who are so against the repeal of DADT explain to me why Israeli, Canadian, and British soldier (among others) can serve with openly gay men and women but American soldiers cannot? What makes American soldiers so much weaker than Israeli ones that they have this character flaw?

As for those who protest on religious grounds, what God looks favorably on the invasion of another country without provocation resulting in the deaths of over a hundred thousand lives, many of them innocent women and children, yet thinks two people of the same sex having a relationship is wrong? To me it looks like a skewed morality here but the plain fact is that many of the most religious people in this country supported Bush and the invasion of Iraq. So does God support men shooting men, women and children, but has a problem with men having sex with men?

Posted by: nyrunner101 | November 13, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

nobody and i mean nobody who isan`t serving actively in the military should have anything to say about dadt.but then again if you want your voice heard you can always enlist.

Posted by: SISSD1 | November 13, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"If they wouldn't continuously 'get in our face' over who they choose to have sex with, we wouldn't know they are homosexuals."

Can you cite an example? I see no reason why gay couples shouldn't, say, hold hands in public just like straight couples. A single standard for keeping sexual relations private would mean that straight people like me would never tell acquaintances or strangers that they have opposite-sex partners or spouses.

They've got absolutely no valid argument until such a time occurs (if it ever occurs) that they are told by a legislative body that they cannot have a homosexual relationship.

Homosexual sex was illegal in many parts of the country until recent years. The law that was struck down by Lawrence v. Texas specifically applied to gay couples, which was discriminatory. The real issue isn't about sexual relations but about discrimination against gays. That's because a gay person isn't someone who has gay sex, but someone who has romantic and sexual attraction to the same gender even if he/she never acts upon it. A similar definition applies to straights - a lifelong celibate would still be straight or gay based upon his/her attractions.

Posted by: Carstonio | November 13, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Can Gene Simmons actually prove that ending DADT will in fact 'end LGBT bullying'? That giving them 'same-sex marriage' will 'end LGBT bullying'?

Why does a majority of the population have to now bow and kneel to a very small minority of the population---just because THEY feel inferior? That inferiority-complex, "I'm so abused" ideation is self-inflicted. If they wouldn't continuously 'get in our face' over who they choose to have sex with, we wouldn't know they are homosexuals. They'd be just another person in the crowd......like they claim they want to be.

There is absolutely NO 'guarantee', NO 'right' anywhere in the US Constitution for anyone to have sexual relations under their own definition.
That fallacy is being fed to us by the homosexuals who are mis-using and purposely mis-interpreting the "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" clause in the US Constitution to serve their own sordid purpose. Those who wrote the Constitution knew that sexual intercourse is a private matter, and should be kept that way.


The US Supreme Court, US legislature, the State legislatures SHOULD NOT be legislating issues related to sexual relations among consenting adults. Homosexuals should go about their business quietly and privately. They've got absolutely no valid argument until such a time occurs (if it ever occurs) that they are told by a legislative body that they cannot have a homosexual relationship.

Now, homosexuals and heterosexuals, go home, close your doors and windows, and keep your sexual relations private---like they should be kept.

Posted by: momof20yo | November 13, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

She's rich, she's John McCain's wallet, I mean wife.....but why should we care what her opinion of this issue is?

Why doesn't she go home and re-decorate a few of her houses......if she and John can now remember how many she owns.

Posted by: momof20yo | November 13, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

There is a basic problem with this and all of the other anti-LGBT issues.They argue that the gay lifestyle is against nature and God's law. But they ignore the simple fact that in the US,and many other nations,there is a strict separation of Church(religion)from the state.One's religious views should not and can not be imposed on the general population. If they were allowed to impose their own religious views on the entire population then the US would be a theocratic state such as Iran. These people are no better than the taliban in the strictness of their views. They woyld impose one set of religious views on the enire nation,often without any room for differeing views. They obviously never studied the history of the US. It was founded by people trying to escape the imposition of religion on non-believers. Look at the Quakers,the pilgrims,Roger williams and study why there came here. But maybe there is no hope for them. They are the sheep being lead by the goat to slaughter of democracy. If tehy impose the theocratic views they they mayas well go to live in Iran.

Posted by: cajunboydc | November 13, 2010 4:56 AM | Report abuse

The high ranking officers who support the repeal are only onesies and twosies compared to the multitudes against it. If DADT was removed and all this exposure got started alot of people are going to get hurt. Consider what the leadership has to deal with, people do your risk assessment. All activities require an assessment, not all LGBT are weak. DADT is good because nobody gets hurt, and the mission is not compromised. Many of the bullying is not at institutions but certain uprofessional individuals who cannot embrace the situation. In Jiu Jitsu you invite your enemy in then send them on their way. I hope Cindy McCain still has morale values, it seems couples who go through a dramatic break up loses their morality one man one woman. I know what its like to have jodi steal your babe away, been married to my wife now since 92 after many lonely moons.

Thank You,
SFC retired...

Posted by: robellog | November 13, 2010 1:39 AM | Report abuse

Know she has the money in the family, but she should shut up.

Posted by: RobbyS | November 13, 2010 1:39 AM | Report abuse

The high ranking officers who support the repeal are only onesies and twosies compared to the multitudes against it. If DADT was removed and all this exposure got started alot of people are going to get hurt. Consider what the leadership has to deal with, people do your risk assessment. All activities require an assessment, not all LGBT are weak. DADT is good because nobody gets hurt, and the mission is not compromised. Many of the bullying is not at institutions but certain uprofessional individuals who cannot embrace the situation. In Jiu Jitsu you invite your enemy in then send them on their way. I hope Cindy McCain still has morale values, it seems couples who go through a dramatic break up loses their morality one man one woman. I know what its like to have jodi steal your babe away, been married my wife not since 92 after many lonely moons.

Thank You,
SFC retired...

Posted by: robellog | November 13, 2010 1:36 AM | Report abuse

Well, now here's a scary thought.
Suppose McCain and Palin had won!
jon

Posted by: jtisch | November 12, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Well, now here's a scary thought.
Suppose McCain and Palin had won!
jon

Posted by: jtisch | November 12, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

It was pretty obvious during the 2008 campaign that Cindy McCain was fed up with the old curmudgeon.

And no wonder he abandoned his principles to win re-election; no way was he gonna spend the next six years in Arizona with his wife.

Posted by: HughBriss | November 12, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

It was pretty obvious during the 2008 campaign that Cindy McCain was fed up with the old curmudgeon.

And no wonder he abandoned his principles to win re-election; no way was he gonna spend the next six years in Arizona with his wife.

Posted by: HughBriss | November 12, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

I think Cindy is finally getting tired of her husbands "political shenanigans".

After a while, many women just get fed up with their husband's pandering ways, philandering ways, ego's, ignorance, stubbornness, denials, and their inabilities to look at things from a different perspective.

When a woman is fed up, she's fed up, and there ain't too much the old geezer can do, but take a hike; especially, if she's got her own money.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | November 12, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Cindy McCain has been providing financial support and connections for this overly ambitious egomaniac for years. He left a sick wife to latch onto a young, pretty woman with money and connections to advance himself. He went on to ignore his new wife and continue to advance himself. Now he decides to sell his soul to the Tea Party, but mercifully, Cindy McCain has spoken. And it's about time. After all, she bore the children and she paid the bills. I say to Cindy, get yourself a young man worthy of you and move on.

Posted by: oldwoman | November 12, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

It's been obvious for a long time who wears the pants in that family. And it ain't John.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | November 12, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

So,anyon want to bet that there is a lot more to this supposed split between Cindy
McCain and Megan McCain and Amnesty John McCain over the gays in the military issue?
Oh say like Cindy McCain finally got tired
of Amnesty John McCain freeloading off of her and is merely looking for grounds for
divorce here maybe now then? This ons may very well worth watching unfold folks.

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | November 12, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Good for Cindy McCain. Why she remains married to this Neanderthal remains mysterious. She doesn't need him.

Posted by: lcarrier1 | November 12, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

re: screwjob22

Yes, you have a couple screws loose...The proposed military pay increase is the smallest in years because we have a negative in the cost-of-living! A dollar today buys more than it did last year. This is true for you and everyone else...if you want to feel sorry for someone - feel sorry for Social Security recipients, by law this is the 2nd year in a row they don't get an increase.

Posted by: vagaf31 | November 12, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

At least SHE thinks logically about this. Her old man has lost the ability to think at all, so his position is easy to understand. After all, HE is a politician and they are not expected to be able to think, are they?

Posted by: ronjeske | November 12, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

segeny,

Secretary of Defense Gates supports repeal of DADT.

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, supports repeal of DADT.

General George Casey, Army Chief of Staff, supports repeal of DADT.

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, supports repeal of DADT.

General Norton Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff, supports repeal of DADT.

So, to your point about who should and should not have a say, I guess the question could be: Why does John McCain not support the military leadership in their desire to repeal DADT?

Posted by: SouthernerInDC | November 12, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

... and Cindy served in the military how long?
The people who actually served are the only ones who should have a say. The 'armchair generals' can just continue watching afternoon soaps.

Posted by: segeny | November 12, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

petals81, you asked "how's this for comparison." I think the comparison is faulty.

The problem with your scenario is that it is difficult to argue that someone has the "right" to stay in an overbooked hotel. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable, in my view at least, to argue that all Americans have the right to serve their country and defend our freedom.

What I find most interesting about his whole DADT debate is that homophobes routinely imply, or sometimes just come right out and say, that they think homosexuals, at least male homosexuals, are weak or "sissies." But here, you have homosexual men who defy that stereotype, yet some people would deny them the right to serve in the military.

Here is a scenario for you. Let's say that you're in an alley and are being jumped and two guys walk by. One straight, with no military experience, and the other gay and a Marine. Who would you want to come to your defense? I'm guessing that you wouldn't really care who the Marine is dating.

Posted by: SouthernerInDC | November 12, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

@Petals81: your little hotel room story doesn't make any sense at all.

Posted by: charlieg55 | November 12, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

It is evident that the " Don't Ask Don't Tell " Law after 20 years has become an issue of basic personal right to equality, service and dignity of a very large number of people responsible for the national security . Sen. McCain after losing his bid for the Presidency twice , has become an example of angry wasp , affecting his decision making on important national issues , or taking out his personal anger not only on his family member , but on the people who wish to serve the U. S.

Posted by: dmfarooq | November 12, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to knowledge about the military, I have to go with John McCain and not Cindy Mc.Cain.

Posted by: acahorvath | November 12, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not saying that they are anything like psycho killers"

There's no valid purpose to using such an extreme example. If a straight person is uncomfortable being in close proximity to gay people of the same gender, for no other reason than the orientation, why should that be the gay person's problem? Now, if the gay people are making unwanted sexual advances, the discomfort would be understandable. But that would be true of any unwanted sexual advances regardless of the orientation or gender of the people involved. The psycho killer argument only makes sense if one falsely assumes that all gay people are sexual harassers by nature.

Posted by: Carstonio | November 12, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse


THE TALIBAN WANTS TO SEE
OPEN HOMOSEXUALITY IN
THE U.S. MILITARY

The American people should stop this head long rush to self-destruction and consider why this is so.

Because Islam teaches that homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God, the Taliban can use the presence of homosexuals in the U.S. Military to fan up a greater intensity of hatred for the American soldiers among the Afghan population (who are universally Islamic).

In this regard, the advent of open homosexuality in the U.S. military will allow the Taliban to affix the label of the “Great Satan” on the forehead of every U.S. Soldier more effectively.

In this regard, open homosexuality in the U.S. Military would be a fantastic propaganda boon for our enemies, for the Taliban, allowing them to grow their numbers, which means higher casualties for American forces. That means more soldiers coming home in flag draped coffins.

It also means that the essential goal of winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people will be pushed completely out of reach.

It will be a bell that cannot be unrung.

If that objective is out of reach, as General Patraeus says in his Counter Insurgency Manual, we will not be able to defeat the insurgency, and this is simply because we have given the Afghan people a reason to hate US, more than they hate the Taliban.

This policy of open homosexuality in the U.S. Military will ring the death nell for American efforts in Afghanistan.

And from this fact, you can understand the true nature of the motivating force behind this agenda. It is not Light. It is truly Evil.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 12, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe they have problems because they have been treated like dirt, by people like yourself, for a long, long time. "

That's likely true in a broader sense. In general, both straights and gays are told for most of their lives that gays are bad or defective. It's possible that men like Ted Haggard and George Rekers took their strong public stances against homosexuality to try to rid themselves of their unwanted impulses

Posted by: Carstonio | November 12, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

SouthernerInDC, it's not that I "Overestimate my sexiness", but that when all cards are on the table it makes it uncomfortable. The famous saying, "What I don't know won't hurt me".

How's this for comparison...

Say you get told by the hotel that you have to room with someone because they overbooked. You go in, they are friendly enough, no strangeness about them and you sleep comfortably that night and leave the next day without a hitch.

Now, same scenario, but this time they tell you that the person is a known pyschopathic serial killer.

Get my drift now? It's just uncomfortable.

I'm not saying that they are anything like psycho killers, but I'm just using that as an example.

Cheers!

Posted by: Petals81 | November 12, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

screwjob22: The President was in South Korea on Veterans Day, addressing the troops, and praising the vets. of the Korean War. Get it right if you want to spout off.
No matter the issue, you post the same thing. At least make it relevant, if not sensible.

Posted by: jckdoors | November 12, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

screwjob22: What is wrong with you? Oh, have you worn the uniform?

Posted by: jckdoors | November 12, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

petals81, if you are in the military then you are already showering with homosexuals. I'm guessing that you overestimate your sexiness.

Posted by: SouthernerInDC | November 12, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The problem with this situation is fairly simple, the solution may not be so much.

Accepting Gays and Lesbians would be a great thing, but the aftermath would be chaos. You would almost have to segregate them away from heterosexuals. I'm all for gay right's and such, but it doesn't mean I want to shower with them. And, as I know from experience in the Army, you will be showering with the same sex in a large room with showerheads on the wall with no curtains. So tell me, how would you solve THIS problem without creating a bigger one?

Posted by: Petals81 | November 12, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

We are in the era that if you don't say nice things about lesbians and homosexuals you are uncivilized. To many hypocrites around.

Posted by: alfonsorfarina | November 12, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse


Meanwhile Barry the incompetent boob Obama, the chickenhawk who never served a day in uniform, spent Veterans Day praising the military ... the Indonesian military not the American military ... in Indonesia.

This sorry excuse for a president supports the troops so much that he requested the smallest military pay increase increase in the entire history of the all-volunteer military, since 1973.

Miserable failure Obama

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 12, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Cindy and John McCain engaged in a public affair while John's first wife had kept the home fires buring, raised his children, and recovered from a horrible auto accident. He violated military conduct code and acted in NO "defense of marriage" with that conduct -- Not counting all the planes he wrecked and the crews he endangered. How dare he judge who can serve?

Posted by: saymyname | November 12, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Seeing how yesterday was Veterans day there was alot of reminiscing among the veterans in our office. Every single one of them says they served along side gay people, everyone "knew", and yet somehow the sky didnt fall. It is a shame that the DADT policy cant go quietly into the night where it belongs. Making this molehill into the mountain is only going to enflame divisions on both sides. This isn't about our new "gay proud military" the way the right wing wants you to think. It is about leaving the people that are already there the heck alone, and welcoming the contributions of all patriotic Americans who want to serve.

John McCain has to be the biggest hypocrite out there. He built a political and media career out of his service, yet he shows no respect for the service of gay American service men.

Posted by: MarcMyWords | November 12, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Here is how I interperted screwjob22 post.

As a anonymous coward I often masquerade as a sane person or intellegent person on message boards to make my right wing agitprop seem more credible.

Posted by: larsonlk | November 12, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse


Barry the inept bungler gave a Veteran's Day speech in Jakarta, Indonesia praising the military heroes "who have sacrificed on behalf of this great country."

The heroes Barry was referring to were the Indonesian military, not American, and "this great country" in Barry's speech was Indonesia not the United States.

Miserable failure Obama

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 12, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Here is how I interperted screwjob22 post.

As a anonymous coward I often masquerade as a sane person or intellegent person on message boards to make my right wing agitprop seem more credible.

Posted by: larsonlk | November 12, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse


As a leftist I often masquerade as a soldier or military veteran on message boards to make my left wing agitprop seem more credible.


Posted by: screwjob22 | November 12, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

blasmaic, I wasted too much time trying to make sense of the jumbled thoughts you typed below.

Posted by: johng1 | November 12, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

People can be bullied for many different reasons and in many different situations. It is not just a gay-issue or just a military-issue or just an "acceptance of deviance" in society issue - it is a human issue.
My sister was bullied during grade school because she was one of the smaller kids in her class, she was a newbie in the school where my family was on sabbatical for the year, and she was smart. While her tormenters were not just kids from poor low-educated families either, they were from affluent and well-educated families.

Bullying is just plain wrong!

Posted by: bonitatibus | November 12, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Alexander the Great, the famous gay general and campaign wizard: one wonders what he would say about this matter?

Posted by: elizabeth6 | November 12, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

------------

If so many gay people are so talented and successful, why aren't gays more popular?

Many people have good things to say about gays they knew in the military. Every single one of those gays could have been discharged for offensive conduct. Repeal DADT, and even the worst, most offensive conduct by gays toward others will be permitted.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 12, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

People can be bullied for many different reasons and in many different situations. It is not just a gay-issue or just a military-issue or just an "acceptance of deviance" in society issue - it is a human issue.
My sister was bullied during grade school because she was one of the smaller kids in her class, she was a newbie in the school where my family was on sabbatical for the year, and she was smart. While her tormenters were not just kids from poor low-educated families either, they were from affluent and well-educated families.

Bullying is just plain wrong!

Posted by: bonitatibus | November 12, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

People can be bullied for many different reasons and in many different situations. It is not just a gay-issue or just a military-issue or just an "acceptance of deviance" in society issue - it is a human issue.
My sister was bullied during grade school because she was one of the smaller kids in her class, she was a newbie in the school where my family was on sabbatical for the year, and she was smart. While her tormenters were not just kids from poor low-educated families either, they were from affluent and well-educated families.

Bullying is just plain wrong!

Posted by: bonitatibus | November 12, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

People can be bullied for many different reasons and in many different situations. It is not just a gay-issue or just a military-issue or just an "acceptance of deviance" in society issue - it is a human issue.
My sister was bullied during grade school because she was one of the smaller kids in her class, she was a newbie in the school where my family was on sabbatical for the year, and she was smart. While her tormenters were not just kids from poor low-educated families either, they were from affluent and well-educated families.

Bullying is just plain wrong!

Posted by: bonitatibus | November 12, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

People can be bullied for many different reasons and in many different situations. It is not just a gay-issue or just a military-issue or just an "acceptance of deviance" in society issue - it is a human issue.
My sister was bullied during grade school because she was one of the smaller kids in her class, she was a newbie in the school where my family was on sabbatical for the year, and she was smart. While her tormenters were not just kids from poor low-educated families either, they were from affluent and well-educated families.

Bullying is just plain wrong!

Posted by: bonitatibus | November 12, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

dem4life1- I agree with you concerning Bcamp55.

Posted by: ILuvUS | November 12, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Alexander the Great, the famous gay general and campaign wizard: one wonders what he would say about this matter?

Posted by: elizabeth6 | November 12, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"Bullying" is not the cause of Gays problems. This is pure PC Rubbish.

Homosexuals (particularly men) suffer addiction, suicide and other mental health issues at rates multiples higher than the general population. Without doubt, homosexuals problems are caused by their own lifestyle.

Posted by: pgr88 |

-----------

Maybe they have problems because they have been treated like dirt, by people like yourself, for a long, long time.

Posted by: johng1 | November 12, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

pgr88 wrote

Homosexuals (particularly men) suffer addiction, suicide and other mental health issues at rates multiples higher than the general population.
______________________


Couldn't the same be said about Vets?

Posted by: larsonlk | November 12, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

What I wonder about is how much money the McCain family is paying some media relations company to keep their faces in the news. Trust me, no news sources would spend their own time or money on the McCains because they are so uninteresting.

Posted by: pkbishop1 | November 12, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I am "straight" and served (82nd Airborne) my country during Vietnam and after. I served with brethen who we all knew were gay. Their dedication to god, country and family was no different than mine. I am proud of that service with them. We have more to be concernd about with "straights" who harressed our young ladies who also serve god, country and family than we do with our gay brothers. By the way, in close quarters, during combat, the sexual preference of one who is protecting your ass is the last thing on your mind. This is just another excuse for those who practice hate to hate.

Posted by: ILuvUS | November 12, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I was in the military. Served for 6 years. There were gay people in then as there have always been. Allowing them to be themselves will not hurt moral. It hasn't hurt any militaries in the world.
Ironically the only militaries that don't allow gays are America, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Cuba and a dozon other 3rd world backwater dumps we strive not to be.
Get educated and stop wearing your hate on your sleeve, it's unbecoming.
Posted by: madest

Thank you for this, madest. Wish there were more like you out there.

Posted by: dcn8v | November 12, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"Bullying" is not the cause of Gays problems. This is pure PC Rubbish.

Homosexuals (particularly men) suffer addiction, suicide and other mental health issues at rates multiples higher than the general population. Without doubt, homosexuals problems are caused by their own lifestyle.

Posted by: pgr88 | November 12, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"Bullying" is not the cause of Gays problems. This is pure PC Rubbish.

Homosexuals (particularly men) suffer addiction, suicide and other mental health issues at rates multiples higher than the general population. Without doubt, homosexuals problems are caused by their own lifestyle.

Posted by: pgr88 | November 12, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"Bullying" is not the cause of Gays problems. This is pure PC Rubbish.

Homosexuals (particularly men) suffer addiction, suicide and other mental health issues at rates multiples higher than the general population. Without doubt, homosexuals problems are caused by their own lifestyle.

Posted by: pgr88 | November 12, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Bcamp55: Just how stupid are you? If you served, you know it's not a problem. I did serve, eight years in our Navy without incident. Nor heard of any incidents. Your "arguement" is false and contrived. It is the worst of false claptrap. The current sexual issues the military is dealing with is heterosexual harrassment and rape. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't enter the discussion. If haven't served, or don't plan to, what the hell do you care? Grow up.

Posted by: jckdoors | November 12, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

The family money is hers. Why should she have to tow some homophobic line just because her troglodytic husband does?

Posted by: Itzajob | November 12, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

If I were approached in the military by someone with unwanted sexual advances, I think I could discourage them and know I would get plenty of help from others. Most gays seek out their own friends and barring them from serving their country is a case of overkill (no pun intended).

Posted by: amac3 | November 12, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse


Gene Simmons, now there is a titan of moral authority. Who next, Perez Hilton?

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 12, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

"What I said was that I disagreed with those who would consider homosexuality or cross-dressing or identity change to be 'normal'. It isn't."

That still presumes that "normal" is inherently good, and doesn't recognize that normality is an inherently contextual concept. The question of whether those things are "normal" is not the same as whether those things are harmful.

"I know homosexuals (who doesn't?)and have counted them among my friends, but I hoped there were none aboard my ship when I was in the Navy."

Dumb question - why? Every example I've ever heard of that argument presumes that gay service members constantly lust after their straight comrades and will sexually harass them or maybe try to rape them. As a man I don't assume that most women find me attractive, so why would I assume that most gay men would?

Posted by: Carstonio | November 12, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

What is the name of the media relations firm that the McCain family pays hundreds of thousands to to keep their every move in the news? Somebody must know it. What a waste of money!!!

Posted by: pkbishop1 | November 12, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

@Bcamp55 and Tdavis11...

If you polled the majority of military members prior to blacks being integrated into the military, 80 plus percent of them would have said that they would not want to serve alongside African-Americans for various idiotic reasons. I'm glad that we didn't let the "feelings" of ignorant people dictate the decision of whether or not to integrate the military. Blacks actually make a significant percentage of the military now and what is the problem with them serving exactly? Yeah...I thought so. You and your homophobic friends are on the wrong side of history on this particular issue. You don't think you served with gays in the military. LOL! I am sure you did. And what happened to you? You are alive aren't you? The world didn't stop turning, the military was and is fully functioning.

Posted by: rochjeff | November 12, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Why do I care what Cindy McCain says about stuff? I forgot.

Posted by: AHappyWarrior | November 12, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"Apparently none of those posting at this point have been in the military and do not understand the close quarters that are required to function efficiently."
----------------
I was in the military. Served for 6 years. There were gay people in then as there have always been. Allowing them to be themselves will not hurt moral. It hasn't hurt any militaries in the world.
Ironically the only militaries that don't allow gays are America, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Cuba and a dozon other 3rd world backwater dumps we strive not to be.
Get educated and stop wearing your hate on your sleeve, it's unbecoming.

Posted by: madest | November 12, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Okay, for the dictionary junkies and the social butterflies out there...
Non-conformity is not necessarily a bad thing. Behavior outside the "norm" is not, in and of itself, evil. I never made that claim, nor does the Pentagon, or John McCain I don't believe. What I said was that I disagreed with those who would consider homosexuality or cross-dressing or identity change to be "normal". It isn't. Most of us don't do it and it is preposterous to make special accommodations for those FEW who do. I'm not particularly religious, being neither Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist and I don't think my feelings are colored by society. I know homosexuals (who doesn't?)and have counted them among my friends, but I hoped there were none aboard my ship when I was in the Navy (in vain, as it turned out). If the majority of the crew, whether on a ship or in a tank or bomber or heavy weapons squad, has no problem with serving alongside a person of this persuasion, fine! Well and dandy! But it's goofy to think that this question should be decided by people who are ultimately unaffected by the decision. I don't care what Cindy or Meghan McCain think. They are irrelevant to the issue. So is Gene Simmons, Richard Simmons, Lindsey Lohan or any other personality who is not prepared get down in the bilges or the trenches!

Posted by: tdavis11 | November 12, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Bcamp55 is one sick homophobic POS.

Posted by: dem4life1 | November 12, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Bcamp55 is one sick homophobic POS.

Posted by: dem4life1 | November 12, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Bcamp55 is one sick homophobic POS.

Posted by: dem4life1 | November 12, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

@tdavis11...

I am gay and I lived, worked, and went to school around "normal heterosexual" people all of my life. I lived with my parents who are "normal heterosexuals'. I lived with my siblings who are "normal heterosexuals". I own a business where my clients are all "normal heterosexuals". There are gay doctors, police officers, nurses, teachers, and dare I say...military officers, who are gay. And the world keeps turning. Knowing that someone is gay should not make your job any more difficult if you are a mature and well-adjusted adult. It is only a distraction if you are an idiot. Gay men and women are not going to come on to their fellow soldiers in such a highly homophobic and macho culture. Get real.

Posted by: rochjeff | November 12, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

John McCain can't end DADT because he'll look weak. That's the only reason he'll fight to keep it. Divorce the old hater Cindy. You got a few good years left.

Posted by: madest | November 12, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Apparently none of those posting at this point have been in the military and do not understand the close quarters that are required to function efficiently. In theory, I "should" be be able to walk down the middle of Harlem at 3AM on Saturday morning flashing wads of cash and jewelry - after all, that's my right. To do so would mean almost certain theft and possible harm. No different with gays living openly in the military. Sorry but PC crapola doesn't fly in the real world; only in the ivory tower panacea liberals want to occupy. The outcome will be no different than all the gays who died as a result of AIDS when quarantine would have greatly limited the death tool. They had their "rights" and surly died, along with millions of others, as a direct result of forcing the issue to express them.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | November 12, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Now tdavis11 wants the military to be a democracy??? No repeal until the membership assents? The military as a democracy; the ultimate act of desperation by those attempting to defend a sinking ship.

Posted by: ajlerner1 | November 12, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

A previous example of policy and death:

"July 1946: Two African-American veterans and their wives are taken from their car near Monroe, Georgia, by a white mob and shot to death; their bodies are found to contain 60 bullets."


"January 1948: President Truman decides to end segregation in the armed forces and the civil service through administrative action (executive order) rather than through legislation."

Online reference. Truman Library

Harold A. Maio

Posted by: khmaio | November 12, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

A previous example of policy and death:

"July 1946: Two African-American veterans and their wives are taken from their car near Monroe, Georgia, by a white mob and shot to death; their bodies are found to contain 60 bullets."


"January 1948: President Truman decides to end segregation in the armed forces and the civil service through administrative action (executive order) rather than through legislation."

Online reference. Truman Library

Harold A. Maio

Posted by: khmaio | November 12, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

@tdavis11...

LGBT people are deviant. It is such an awful sounding word isn't it? But what does being deviant really mean?
–adjective
1.
deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant

It is also the "norm" for most people to right-handed. Or for people of the same race to marry and engage in relationships with people of the same race. So interracial marriages and relationships are "deviant". There are those that would argue that it is unnatural. Sometimes it even looks a little weird. Seeing two people from different races together. Like a big dark black man and a small blonde woman. Get real.

People are different. People have different sexual preferences, even heterosexuals don't all find the same people and things attractive. I am sure you have your own sexual preferences that are inexplicable. Why do some people find blondes more attractive than redheads? Or vice versa. Who knows how these things come about? I have yet to hear or see one "anti-homosexual" argument that is based on anything than being gay is weird or different. So? No one is being hurt by it. In fact the more accepted it is, the less problems you will probably see in our society in general. Two women or men loving each other and living their daily lives with one another is going to make the world turn upside down.

Posted by: rochjeff | November 12, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

@tdavis11...

LGBT people are deviant. It is such an awful sounding word isn't it? But what does being deviant really mean?
–adjective
1.
deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant

It is also the "norm" for most people to right-handed. Or for people of the same race to marry and engage in relationships with people of the same race. So interracial marriages and relationships are "deviant". There are those that would argue that it is unnatural. Sometimes it even looks a little weird. Seeing two people from different races together. Like a big dark black man and a small blonde woman. Get real.

People are different. People have different sexual preferences, even heterosexuals don't all find the same people and things attractive. I am sure you have your own sexual preferences that are inexplicable. Why do some people find blondes more attractive than redheads? Or vice versa. Who knows how these things come about? I have yet to hear or see one "anti-homosexual" argument that is based on anything than being gay is weird or different. So? No one is being hurt by it. In fact the more accepted it is, the less problems you will probably see in our society in general. Two women or men loving each other and living their daily lives with one another is going to make the world turn upside down.

Posted by: rochjeff | November 12, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

And another thing...
The McCain chicks don't serve in the US military. Despite their association with Senator McCain, they never have served. So maybe they should leave the stupid DADT-No gays in the military issue alone. Maybe they, and the Hollywood freaks and the liberal, non-productive sector of society should leave this question to be decided by the institutions and people most directly affected. Yes, we know how the LGBT community feels about it. How do the men and women in uniform feel? All of them!! I would suggest that before we start allowing LGBT's to live and work in close quarters with normal people (yes, I made that distincton) we first come to terms with whether or not we are mature enough to eliminate restrictions on fraternization between the sexes!

Posted by: tdavis11 | November 12, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

"to legitimize deviance is socially irresponsible and reprehensible"

Why? In the generic sense, deviance simply means that something doesn't conform to a norm, and nonconformity is not bad or wrong. Or put another way, social norms are not necessarily moral concepts, and conforming or not conforming to a norm is not the same as acting morally or immorally. Arguing otherwise turns the old parental adage about the Brooklyn Bridge inside out, where one should refrain from jumping off only because most people don't jump either.

Morality is about whether actions help or harm others, and by that standard there's nothing intrinsically immoral about homosexuality.

Posted by: Carstonio | November 12, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Good for Cindy McCain!

She is using her good name to fight against bullying and against discrimination.

Now, if only her husband, a man who once had principals, would man-up again and stand for what is right rather than what is politically expedient.

Posted by: amelia45 | November 12, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Good for Cindy McCain!

She is using her good name to fight against bullying and against discrimination.

Now, if only her husband, a man who once had principals, would man-up again and stand for what is right rather than what is politically expedient.

Posted by: amelia45 | November 12, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Cindy McCain and her daughter, Meghan McCain are nothing less than irrelevant.

Folks, you were rejected by your own party at the General Election two years ago.

Please, go away.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | November 12, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Bullying is wrong, no matter who the victim or perpetrator. But it is also wrong to demonize people who do not support or respect the "LGBT" community. People are entitled to their unalienable rights simply by the fact that they are people. The creation of "Hate Crime" legislation and the efforts to normalize un-natural behavior is also wrong. Homosexuality is a fact. There is nothing new about this sort of deviant behavior. But it is deviant and it should be recognized as such. It is wrong to fail to treat LGBT deviants with anything other than equality as human beings. It is just as wrong to criticize me and others like me who feel very strongly that Gay Pride parades and the efforts by teachers and others to legitimize deviance is socially irresponsible and reprehensible. Another act of dissolution as we make our shambling way to Gomorrah.

Posted by: tdavis11 | November 12, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Cindy needs to dump this bitter old lounge lizard once and for all.

Posted by: edismae | November 12, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company