More Good News About McCain’s Attitude toward Gays
The evidence keeps coming in about John McCain’s attitudes about gays. And guess what? It confirms what we already know about this good man from Arizona: he harbors exactly the attitude toward gays we would want from our friends, family, colleagues, employers and leaders. He treats us as individuals and does not define us by our sexuality.
Yesterday, when checking my e-mail upon returning home from celebrating the Second Day of Rosh Hashanah and running various errands, I discovered a myriad of e-mails from readers and other friends about McCain’s interview with the Washington Blade, “the first known time a Republican presidential nominee has agreed to an interview with a gay publication.”
He cites his friendship with former Congressman Jim Kolbe and former Tempe, Arizona Mayor Neil Giuliano as shaping his views on gay issues. He calls 9/11 hero Mark Bingham a “role model.”
Asked whether he would decline to appoint someone because of his sexual orientation, McCain replied, “I have always hired the most qualified and competent people — regardless of their political party, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.”
While he currently opposes repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, he indicated he would consider changing his position based on what military commanders say:
I promise to give full consideration to any legislation that reaches my desk. On “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,†I’m going to defer to our military commanders. So far they have told me it’s working. I’m willing to have the policy reviewed to make sure that’s the case, but at the end of the day, I’m going to rely on the commanders who will be impacted by a change in the law.
He supports the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and offers a responsible view of sex education:
I have supported including abstinence as a component of sex-education programs. Decisions regarding programs targeted specifically at gay youth should be made based on a review of the scientific data to determine what works and what doesn’t, but they must encourage responsible individual behavior.
When asked about his position on gay adoption where he has been widely misrepresented in the gay (and sometimes even mainstream media), he points out that adopion “isn’t an issue the president deals with. I’m a federalist, and this is an issue reserved to the states in our system of government.”
Indeed, this is not the only issue relating to gays where John McCain takes a strong federalist stand, yielding such decisions to the states where they belong.
Whatever you do, be you supporter of John McCain or opponent, read this interview and you’ll see that gay people have nothing to fear from a McCain-Palin Administration.
Even as we learn of John McCain’s tolerance, don’t expect the gay organizations to cut him any slack. As Glenn Reynolds observed yesterday, Sarah Palin “and John McCain get so little credit from the gay community for what have actually been quite progressive attitudes.“
Glenn, it’s all because of that pesky little (R) after their names.
21 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
He supports the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman
Well, at least you admit he opposes marriage equality. You didn’t exercept these parts of the article, for some reason, so let’s do that, just to flesh this part out:
So your candidate supports legalized discrimination on the basis of sexuality. At the state level, even. Just so we’re clear.
Comment by torrentprime — October 2, 2008 @ 3:15 am - October 2, 2008
Um, torrent, if that’s how you define it, then your candidate also supports such discrimination as he has said he favors the traditional definition of marriage.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 2, 2008 @ 3:45 am - October 2, 2008
Actually, GPW, by TP’s standards, Obama is PERSONALLY discriminatory but LEGALISTICALLY tolerant. He opposes State marriage amendments.
Full disclosure: McCain and I are on perfect terms; I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate.
Comment by Damian G. — October 2, 2008 @ 4:28 am - October 2, 2008
McCain and Palin is the ones i am going to vote for. Obama hates gays and lesbains period. People you need to wake the hell up. The repubicans have never lied about being on the gay and lesbains side. The dems they lie and say yes we are going to do this for you and that for you. But the real truth is hell no we just want your vote! SO there you have the truth. You will know were you stand with them. The dems are full of crap and all ways have. I was a dem. But when they did what they did to Hillery that was it for me! Obama will never get my VOTE PERIOD.
Comment by Tonja — October 2, 2008 @ 8:15 am - October 2, 2008
The issue is what each candidate has to do to cozy up to their constituency. Obama doesn’t associate with Dobson, Falwell Jr., or the like.
With McCain, we shouldn’t adopt, can’t serve openly in the military, and you get an unclear stance on whether he will support even civil unions - all the while employing Mr. Buce. He will also lobby for and support more candidates who are more aggressively anti-gay. Admittedly, Obama is taking the same stance - so it appears - on gay marriage, but that hardly makes McCain more desirable on issues affecting the gay community.
Always interesting when gay republicans defend McCain by saying that he doesn’t define gays by their sexuality. When you are fired because you’re gay (usually by a Republican), gay bashed, harrassed, guess what, it’s because you’re being defined by your sexuality.
If you’re a republican, that’s your right. But what’s comical is your insistence on trying to color McCain as better on gay issues. What comes across is a tendency to desperately cherry pick anything McCain says to prove he’s not anti-gay. I don’t think McCain is personally anti-gay, but that’s just not good enough.
Comment by David T — October 2, 2008 @ 9:35 am - October 2, 2008
GPW-
Yeah, but when the guy with the (D) says that, he’s hiding his true support for us for electoral gain. When the guy with the (R) says it, he’s talking in code about rounding us up into reeducation camps on Alaska’s north slope.
/liberal pretzel logic
Comment by Clint — October 2, 2008 @ 10:26 am - October 2, 2008
Actually GWP, the Arizona bill that McCain supported went beyond the bullshit cover words of “the traditional definition of marriage” It stated that NO LEGAL STATUS similar to marriage be granted to unmarried couples. While Obama does use the same words about marriage he also supports FULL legal protection for LGBT couples (in words at least). Y’all can desperately over and over try to paint your candidates as supportive but it’s a lie you tell yourselves to make you feel better. If you want to vote for them because you believe their other views are better than the Dems or simply to vote against Obama fine but why do you feel you have to make them something they are not? That makes you no different than those who naively think that Obama represents change. The attitude of McCain/Palin is just more rebaked “some of my best friends are black” until one tries to move into the neighborhood. The Republican platform is anti-gay and there is no way to make that smell different than the pure putrid shit it is. You whine over and over and over about liberals and Dems, but ignore the fact that some of your allies actually blame LGBT folks for the current financial ills. Why is it so hard to at least be honest that those you support do NOT have your best interests in mind when it comes to LGBT issues. You may just “happen” to be gay but you’ll go down (no pun intended) with the rest of us if the lunatic fringe that wields so much power in your party get’s their way. Those hardcore folk are actually less pitiful than you - they are honest.
Comment by Dave — October 2, 2008 @ 10:34 am - October 2, 2008
#’s 3, 4: Let’s grant that the Devil’s in the details in the AZ bill you mention (with which I’m not familiar). But let’s also take McCain at his word. The operative word here is “federalist” - not an identity nor a hot-button issue, but a philosophy of law and of governance.
Sometimes federalism translates into things that repel you (like him seeming to punt on the issue of gay adoption), other times it translates into things that attract you (like in the 2004 vice-presidential debate, when Cheney claimed federalism as the basis for his difference with President Bush over DOMA).
Comment by Jeremayakovka — October 2, 2008 @ 11:21 am - October 2, 2008
#4 Hey Dave: you said “some have blamed GLBT folks for the current financial ills”. Examples please. Names (not just wacky nutjobs, but mainstream people).
Comment by Jimbo — October 2, 2008 @ 11:33 am - October 2, 2008
So your candidate supports legalized discrimination on the basis of sexuality. At the state level, even. Just so we’re clear.
Which, of course, torrentprime, Dave, and their fellow gay liberals endorse and support when Democrats do it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2008 @ 12:39 pm - October 2, 2008
Johnny Mac is first and foremost a military man. Leaving the decision up to the brass is the best you can expect from him.
However, if you want to repeat DADT, look not to the White House, but Congress.
Comment by rightwingprof — October 2, 2008 @ 12:42 pm - October 2, 2008
Always interesting when gay republicans defend McCain by saying that he doesn’t define gays by their sexuality. When you are fired because you’re gay (usually by a Republican), gay bashed, harrassed, guess what, it’s because you’re being defined by your sexuality.
And oddly enough, it doesn’t appear that McCain has ever done any of that.
Obama and the DNC, though, have already fired, harassed, and treated people with contempt because of their sexual orientation.
Herein we have the issue. Even though McCain doesn’t appear to have done any of the above and, as we’ve seen with his chief of staff and his praise of gays like Neil Giuliano and Jim Kolbe, he’s accused of them; however, when Dems like Obama and his supporters at the DNC who claim to be opposed to those things do them, they’re praised as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2008 @ 12:44 pm - October 2, 2008
#9 Again NDLabarbera in his extreme ignorance and foolish arrogance believes he claim to know who and what I support. You deserve what’s coming to us if those whose asses you kiss come into full power.
Jimbo, I’ll provide examples later today, have to get to work. But what you need to understand is that those you call “wacky nutjobs” are mainstream and important to any Republican victory - that is the ONE AND ONLY reason that Palin was selected as McCain’s VP, to get the “wacky nutjob” vote.
Comment by Dave — October 2, 2008 @ 12:49 pm - October 2, 2008
I think some of what Dave says is basically right regarding the GOP and GLBT issues, and I still support McCain because GLBT issues are not the most important things in my life, and they don’t figure at all in my decision. My partner and I don’t need or want the gubbement to recognize our relationship…the people that are important to us do, and that’s what counts. In our particular situation, there are some distinct (mostly financial) reasons not to be married. I’m much more concerned about keeping the Congress out of my health care, away from my business, focused on the threats from the outside world, and prudently spending my tax money. I don’t see that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al. are the ones that are going to do those things to my satisfaction. Frankly the GOP’s straight forward stance on Gay issues is less offensive to me than the DEM’s lip service. Where is the legislation repealing DOMA? DADT? Changing the tax code? I haven’t seen that from Obama, Hillary or anyone. Those two always say they support us, and most of us vote for them based on that, but in reality, they done nothing proactive. I figure that folks with Dave’s thinking have being gay as a central part of their lives, and that’s fine, but it still doesn’t mean that all gay people have to think gay-centrically. I’m male, blond, rural, not that bright, tall,etc. , and I don’t let any of those things control my life so I’m sure not going to let a little thing like loving men do it.
Comment by Hunter — October 2, 2008 @ 1:13 pm - October 2, 2008
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 10/02/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Comment by David M — October 2, 2008 @ 1:31 pm - October 2, 2008
You deserve what’s coming to us if those whose asses you kiss come into full power.
You know, that’s what you and your leftist friends were saying four years ago when you were screaming about how the Republicans were already refitting internment camps for gays in the Pacific Northwest and how you were going to leave the country if Bush was elected.
More idle threats and baseless smears, made by hypocrite gays who fully endorse and support behavior by Democrats that they criticize anywhere else.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2008 @ 1:41 pm - October 2, 2008
True to pattern the Labarbera clone points to one person and claims he represents me and all liberal gays. And true to pattern, he’s dead wrong. Sure there were some that said that in ‘04, but there have also been conservatives who advocated camps for PWAs and they know that gay men are nothing more then disease ridden sex maniacs who purposely spread HIV. Deny, Mr. hate group parrot, that history shows more than one occasion of a a group of people being demonized to the ultimate result of imprisonment and violence against them. Deny that there are voices in the “conservative” communities that LGBT people are a threat to civilization, to the human race, to “traditional” morals and family structure. Do they represent all conservatives, no. Are they in control now, no. Do they have power, yes. Could they get stronger, yes under the right circumstances. The rougher times get the more people look for someone to blame. Perhaps you enjoy being a target and even participating in the condemnation but that’s your problem. Sad that others may have to pay for it.
No Hunter, my sexual orientation is not the central point of my life, in fact it has little to do with my day to day existence. And I hope the day comes when who we love is truly as you say a “little issue”. But that day is not here and there are those who will do their best to keep that day from coming any time soon. And as long as they can influence the law against us, us long as they fight to roll back every single inch we have gained then they cannot be ignored.
Comment by Dave — October 2, 2008 @ 10:01 pm - October 2, 2008
LOL…notice how Dave, in that entire diatribe absolutely, completely, refuses to state that the cited liberal in question was wrong….and then proceeds to claim in roundabout fashion that said person is right and that conservatives want to round up gays and put them in internment camps.
Meanwhile, Dave, using your “logic”, there is ample scientific evidence to show that liberal gays like yourself are nothing more then disease ridden sex maniacs who purposely spread HIV. Perhaps if you could find it in yourself to criticize gays who do this, you could make a case otherwise……but as we know from your screaming fits here, you claim that anyone who criticizes other gays’ behavior is “self-loathing” and a “Jewish Nazi”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2008 @ 1:30 am - October 3, 2008
LOL, notice how NDT again proves that reading isn’t one of his greatest talents. It’s apparently far too difficult for you to understand the concept that some people of any group can have extreme beliefs and the possibilty that they can be taken too far. Some does not mean all. And the issue isn’t even whether it’s right or wrong, the issue is that with every comment you write, you condemn all liberal gays for statements made by a few.
And wrong again, I have nothing against those who speak out about the attitudes and actions of SOME. There are many good reasons to criticize promiscuous destructive behavior - which have NOTHING to do with ones political beliefs, and when done so in a rational manner it can be helpful and productive. You on the other hand have nothing to offer to anyone spouting your sick prejudices that come from the foulest of right wing fanatic thinking.
Whatever, you represent a minority of conservatives so you can sit in your own shit and throw it at others all you want. It’s meaningless.
Comment by Dave — October 3, 2008 @ 6:12 pm - October 3, 2008
And once again, Dave, you demonstrate the point: you whine and cry about being held accountable for the behaviors of other liberal gays while, with your attacks on those pointing out the behaviors versus those practicing them, you make it obvious that you support and endorse those behaviors.
If you opposed disease-spreading sex, you would condemn it and those gays who practice it. If you opposed claiming that conservatives want to put gays in concentration camps, you would condemn it and those gays who say it. Instead you argue that they are justified in saying and doing so and that those who oppose both are representing “the foulest of right wing fanatic thinking”.
What that makes blatantly obvious is that you don’t oppose it. You merely oppose anyone pointing it out. You’re perfectly fine with spreading HIV for sexual gratification and claiming that your own perverted sexual need to spread disease is because you’re gay, just like your fellow liberal gays take children dressed as sex slaves to sex fairs and blame it on their sexual orientation.
There are those of us here who don’t believe that sexual orientation forces that kind of behavior. But because that would eliminate your excuse for doing it, you namecall us.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2008 @ 2:45 pm - October 4, 2008
I would like to do a study and find out how many people who scream about DADT actually WOULD join the military, or would even contemplate it.
I suspect under 1%.
Comment by rightwingprof — October 5, 2008 @ 7:42 am - October 5, 2008