While John McCain continues to fight a repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, his wife, Cindy McCain, seems just as determined to help the other side. Of course John McCain has done a flip flop on this issue, like many others when he decided he wasn’t quite conservative enough to win re-election to his senate seat without a major make-over.
According to Politico.com:
“Our government treats the LGBT community like second class citizens,” the senator’s wife says later in the video.
Though Cindy McCain has spoken out on behalf of gay rights in the past, the video still came as a surprise to some gay rights activists.
“I’m astonished and impressed as hell,” John Aravosis wrote on Americablog Gay. “The woman basically accused her husband of sharing the blame for gay kids killing themselves.”
Cindy McCain previously appeared in the NOH8 campaign, which opposed California’s gay-marriage ban.
John McCain is traveling overseas this week and his press secretary could not be reached immediately for comment.
What must it be like at the McCain dinner table these days? Cindy works for equality for gals and young Ms. Meghan McCain works for The Daily Beast and is about as moderate of a Republican as one can get and still be considered a Republican.
Young gays have the highest rate of suicide in the nation. It is easy to understand why when one considers the messages they hear from our churches and politicians. Do these messages increase the bullying that happens to these young people?
Good for her and for all the celeb’s appearing in that clip. Stand up! Be counted! It is disgusting that the messagesthat these so called “Christian’s” and law maker’s peddle lead to the kind of discrimination and bullying this community receives. Take a stand and make the right one.
another glittering jewel of colossal ignorance. the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree
She sort of backtracked today now her husband is back in the country.
She said even though she believes what she said, she also supports her husband.
e, exactly who is it that you like? Anyone?
Somehow I don’t think that there actually is a McCain family “dinner table” unless they eat while engaged in a conference call.
What do you mean? Cindy is ignorant? Who’s apple did not fall far from the tree?
Good for Cindy and the others who made this ad.
Cindy McCain takes aim. So, what does that mean? Is she demanding that many of our religious leaders rewrite their long-held beliefs and doctrines to match her preferences?Cindy McCain on the warpath. Yeah, I bet the Pope just woke up in a cold sweat.
I don’t think Cindy McCain should be trivialized.
Churches are some of the chief offenders when it comes to making offensive comments about gays. Then the parishioners pick up the rhetoric and so it continues. And everyone is right, in their own minds, because they learned it in church.
That is the point. Many churches are contributing to a feeling of hopelessness with many gay, lesbian, transgendered youth. They need to tone it down.
And while we are at it, maybe the pope needs to do a little introspection.
No offense, but places of worship and those who represent them of not always the pillars of morality for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No kidding, Elena, a Christian happens to fall off the wagon, so to speak, and you have to imply that this should be counted somehow against all Christians? Seems to me like a generalization.
Moon, I prefer to not pay much attention to Cindy McCain on any subject, if you please. She is just another opinion. Even less in my book, since she is clearly playing off the fame of her husband to gain an audience.
I continue to be amazed at how some tend to believe that the Christian faith must somehow shape up in both doctrine and expression of doctrine in order to meet the demands of those at odds with established parts of that doctrine. Otherwise, some people might find their views “offensive” and might even wind up in a state of “hopelessness.” In other words, strong religious convictions must be put into a closet and not aired outside the close confines of that closet. The opponents and the supporters of those opponents get to make the call on freedom of expression. Those opponents are, in effect, claiming the right to call not only for a diminishing of free expression but also a limiting of the proselytization of religious views — something which many people of religion believe to be an integral part of the commands given to them by their deity. Moreover, I am sadly sniffing out a tendency to meld in the admittedly outlandish, hurtful, and counterproductive actions of one miniscule church in Kansas with the deeply held religious beliefs of millions of other people — people who hold sincerely that homosexuality is wrong but who would never go around displaying signs saying “God Hates Fags” simply because a hatred of individuals by their deity is not a part of their religious beliefs. On this particular issue, I personally consider the Westboros to be “apostates” themselves.
So, we have, in effect, a situation in which you have a set of long-followed and firmly held beliefs. For every person who falls away from those beliefs in word or deed and makes the headlines in so doing, there are millions who do not fall away. Then a fellow comes along and says that he disagrees with a certain part of those beliefs. When the believers reject this fellow’s viewpoint, the fellow claims that they are biased against him, that they are completely in the wrong because they do not accept his views and place them on a equal footing with their own. They must, therefore, cease and desist from an advocacy of their own views or be considered as unfair and intolerant and perhaps even the instigators of hopelessness and suicidal tendencies in some of our youth.
I would guess then that no “belief” is free from being labelled as evil and intolerant and the source of hopelessness and despair if it does not adopt the counterbeliefs of self-appointed apostates.
Well done Wolverine. A sensitive subject sensitively addressed. As noted, I agree that those that have fallen out of their religous community tend to shop for a new community of like minded folks and also tend to be the most vocal in the defense of the Church of liberalism. While religous experiance and belief is a deeply personal thing, making up your own, brings with it other serious concerns and dangers.
@Wolverine,
I don’t think Westboro has a thing to do with this thread.
There is a fine line between sticking to one’s beliefs and hurting others. Cindy McCain is her own person as is her daughter. I was pleased to see her speak out. Too much is done politically and by churches to hurt those who don’t conform to the norm.
I don’t give churches a pass. They are all too quick to point out who is a sinner and who isn’t and to pass judgement on things that should be left to the Lord to sort out. If churches really followed the teachings of Christ they would reach out to help those in pain rather than castigate them.
Perhaps Ms. McCain and the others are asking the churches to tone it down rather than to change their beliefs. And as for the politicians, there is simply no excuse. 10% of the population approximately is gay. Do those people have no representation?
As as for the Church of Liberalism, TP, is that sorta like the church of what’s happening now?
No one controls anothers thoughts. People are free to believe what they want to believe. However, they are not permitted to bully others.
Moon, I find your last post rather startling. Are you (and Cindy McCain) then presuming some moral authority to tell organizations of religious faith whose beliefs you do not share that they must tone down their freedom of expression and withdraw from the carefully designed playing field set up by the Constitution for a contest of beliefs? Are you saying that only those with beliefs based on secular philosophy or, at the least, on a religious faith which meets your personal approbation are eligible to advocate their views in the arena of public policy? And are you telling certain religious faiths to cease and desist from expressing publically their defintion of sin as based on the dictates of whatever holy scriptures to which they adhere or they will be considered as bullies? In short, are you telling religion to stiffle and to consider themselves as banned from the constitutional playing field — a field carefully designed for the use of ALL of us without exception so long as we play by established rules which serve the majority while simultaneously protecting the minority?
Moon, I do not think you would be a happy camper if I were to say that your particular views, based on whatever has influenced you, are hurtful to others; have reached the level of bullying;and should, therefore , be excluded from the constitutional playing field. You know I would never actually say such a thing. But, it does seem to me that, if we start excluding certain players from public discourse and from that playing field because we happen not to be in accord with their beliefs, if we start dictating to philosophical opponents the terms by which they will be allowed to express their beliefs, we are opening a Pandora’s Box in which our own beliefs could eventually face the turning of the worm.
I thought I was rather clear. No one has mentioned moral authority. I am not sure anyone has moral authority. I am not sure that authority is really given to mortals.
As long as churches hurt others then I will speak out. No church is above reproach.
Too many people grow up thinking they are worthless because of the teachings of churches. I really don’t care what churches think of me. Churches are instruments of mankind. They can be used for extreme good or extreme bad. When man condemns people for what they are, then then churches can be hurtful. There is only one being on judgement day…and He isn’t mortal.
Cindy is free to voice her opinion as are you and I. No one is proposing legislation. Fortunately, that isn’t required to have an opinion.