This is one Cindy McCain — wife of former Presidential candidate John McCain — posing for the NOH8 campaign, a part of the fight for marriage equality in this country. Cindy joins her daughter, Meghan, who has long been a vocal supporter of gay marriage.
John McCain’s office said in a statement that the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage. “Sen. McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman,” the statement said.
Ummmm, right. Senator McCain’s political career — financially supported by fearful hate-mongerers — is opposed to gay marriage. I assure you the man himself is not.
It’s fantastic to see high-profile Republicans speaking out in favor of gay marriage. And I’ll bet good money that once McCain retires from politics, he’ll come out in favor of gay marriage as well. Because, ya know, hating people for who they love shouldn’t be a part of government.
I’ll be really interested to hear his real opinion when time comes.
Theres no way that if he opposed it strongly, he would want his wife and daughter doing these campaigns.
Damn, she’s hot too. Now I know where Meghan gets her looks.
Is it possible for anyone with opposing views not to be a hate-monger? If McCain truly believes his stand on gay marriage I can’t imagine he hates his daughter or wife because their views are different. I just don’t understand reducing issues to either you believe things one way or you’re a hate-monger. Grow up!
Well said!
Hear, hear!
You should change your name to Half Whit.
Should I? I was thinking “Ramona,” but “Half Whit” does have a lovely ring to it.
The hate mongering comment has nothing to do with McCain hating his daughter and wife. It has to do with holding and/or promoting a view that creates and sustains hatred towards people who are homosexual.
McCain never stated he hated homosexuals and because he feels one way about marriage does not promote hatred. People like yourself try to make a leap from a personal view on a single issue to outright hatred of everyone the issue touches. The fact that I believe Indians should collect taxes from non Indians buying cigarettes does not mean I hate Indians or the non Indians buying the cigarettes.
Sure.
I don’t hate you. I just don’t think your lifestyle is valid. I think I deserve to engage in certain social activities you should be banned from.
Not religious activities, mind you.
Governmental activities. That are sanctioned under the same ideals as “All men are created equal”…I just want it to add “except you.”
It’s not about homophobia.
Just because I think I should have certain tax, immigration and insurance rights that I, frankly, don’t want YOU to have.
Just because I want to restrict you to a separate class of existence than me does not = hate.
Just because I think your way of life is a joke and mine is sacred does not make me cruel.
Just because I’m unwilling to accept your feelings as equal to mine with the right to be celebrated in the same manner isn’t…unjust.
hate
??/he?t/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [heyt] Show IPA verb, hat?ed, hat?ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
Of course why would you want to restrict the rights of others unless you…I don’t know…disliked their lifestyle intensely or passionately. Unless you dealt some extreme aversion or hostility towards it. Unless you detested someone enough to keep them at a status below yours.
I can’t think of a good reason besides hate.
Ren, you make so many good points. I agree you should fight for equal rights for tax, insurance, immigration, etc. But what does this have to do with marriage??? Maybe I’m to much of a black and white type of girl. Are you saying none of those rights can be achieved without marriage? I completely disagree.
Fight for your right to share health insurance with someone you love, fight for your right to be seen as just as important and valid as everyone else. I just don’t see what marriage has to do with it. I’m not married. Are you implying that because I choose not to wed that I have a sub status? I’m not buying it.
LISA,
You CHOSE not to get married. Most gay people do not have the CHOICE.
The more you talk, the dumber you sound.
OH my goodness. It’s 2010. They’re Native Americans. India is a sub-continent of Asia. People, PLEASE recognize the difference.
I bet you hate the word Orientals too, worry wart!
Amen! Just because you don’t support gay marriage does not mean you hate gay people. It means that marriage has a personal meaning to you. That’s all. Don’t make more of it than it is.
Yes, but marriage has a personal meaning for many gay people as well, and their taxes pay those representatives salaries, the police, military, etc., as well; they are entitled to the same rights as the next citizen, regardless of if that citizen is gay, straight, Muslim, Catholic, etc. You may keep your own personal view til the end of time but what you cannot do is LEGALLY force your definition onto a fellow citizen because you don’t agree with their right to something you already have.
It’s simple….religion has no basis for governmental law making and procedure, and if a religion different from your own came to power and outlawed your marriage rights, or anything else, based on THEIR belief, you’d scream bigotry and discrimination.
Your neighbor’s marriage has absolutely no impact on your own; and the fallacy of it impacting your children is ludicrous. It’s a parent’s responsibility to raise their child and through time many things have been exposed through schooling to all children regardless of their own individual family system. Your own family life is your own; you do not have the right to dictate someone else’s.
For the record, I am a Christian, and it’s appalling how that statement is supposed to mean I believe that same sex marriage is any kind of threat to my own, that it means those that are gay are somehow less than, deviant, or need to be pitied for their “sin”. Not in my life, nor my kids. Jesus is love, for all. Funny how God has been used for so many ulterior motives. Poor thing…He’s sure bearing a burden that has been twisted and bent to all kinds of justification.
For me, and my family, it’s all about equality and having others have the same opportunity and rights as anyone else. It’s really not that hard of a concept.
Why are you bringing God and Jesus into this??? What do they have to do with the price of tea in China??? Jesus is love? Are you really ignorant enough to believe a woman named Mary was a virgin and with child?
I can’t believe so many fools fall for these stories. Just like Muhammad was the most important profit and he had visions. Yeah, his visions were caused by mental illness in all probability.
And believe it or not, I believe in God. I just don’t believe all the stories that were made up by men and women to justify his existence.
Yeah, those “profits” are crazy!
What I am saying with the Jesus is Love statement is that I, personally, consider the CONCEPT of that overpowering love for EVERYONE on this earth to be worth ascribing to. Call it what you want…that’s what I’m saying…treat another how you yourself would wish to be treated and interestingly enough, I doubt we’d have the issues we have today. Is that naive? Hell, no. Just someone trying to live and let live.
As to stories passed down..yep, so much is based on historical/cultural norms at the time those passages were written, mainly patriarchal bullshit, and power, etc., and do I believe all the “stories” and multiple translations of those? No. So for me, the bottom line is how you treat your fellow human being, and how you wish to be treated yourself, and I seriously doubt you’d wish your life and choices to be dictated by what another believes. It just isn’t defensible, it is not logical, it’s not remotely showing equality under the law, and it’s just plain not right.
Oops. I meant prophets!
Are you really ignorant enough to believe that there was a big bang? Both are incredible leaps of faith. No?
God hates fags, especially the ones that give shitty blowjobs.
You support restricting another person’s right to marry and you think others are making it more than it is?
Careful, your privilege is showing.
And by the way, if you aren’t ‘personally’ for gay marriage, than don’t personally have a gay marriage. It’s really that simple to avoid. I promise. It’s nothing like white slavery.
I’m a woman married to a man. But I’m not trying to dictate others lives. But that’s because I actually believe in the concept of ‘Equality’ and ‘Liberty’. That whole ‘Pursuit of Happiness’ thing. Call me crazy pants. But for me, it’s about being a good American.
Marriage can have personal meaning to gay people too. It’s not like homosexuals are of a different species. Homosexuals are humans and have feelings too.
I don’t think Cindy cares for her husband much anymore. I also think John McCain’s political career is over, so Cindy feels free to do whatever she wants.
Uh huh, what a brilliant display of logic.
Yay Megan and Cindy! Thank you for proving that not ALL conservatives disagree with gay marriage and a much needed equality that is being denied to the GLBT community.
Good to see this.
I know this is an unpopular viewpoint on this site, but I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I think the whole “say no to hate” campaign is way of the mark. I don’t hate gay people! One of my dearest friends is a lesbian– and she believes marriage is between a man and a woman as well.
What I do believe in is civil unions that allow couples to share health benefits, tax benefits, visitation rights at hospitals, etc. Sorry, Beet.
Then that civil union should apply to all, both the man and woman couple, and the same sex couple. Easy-peasy. But the likelihood of that happening is practically nil. Change is hard but once it arrives many times those fighting so hard can’t believe it was ever so damned difficult in the first place. Sure, others will never change their minds, and that’s all well and good for them, but again, you cannot make law to justify only your own point of view, allowing for special treatment for one citizen while denying another. It’s just not constitutional nor morally right.
The whole purpose of marriage is to ensure a man’s child is in fact his child and not his neighbors. Marriage was created by the Christian church to ensure a man’s property and possessions were passed to his male heirs. This is a fact.
Why take an outmoded, outdated practice and insist that you be included? I honestly don’t get it. I am not trying to be crude with this next statement, but same sex couples are not creating DNA children together (the whole reason marriage was invented). Sure they can adopt or go with in vitro (which I fully support gay adoption), but they won’t be combining their DNA to create offspring.
I don’t see this as an equality issue. I just don’t. You can’t change the definition of something just because you don’t like it. Marriage is what is– an agreement between a man and a woman to ensure pure blood lines for hereditary reasons.
Damn, just make up a new institution to suit your needs and move on.
Um, marriage was NOT invented by the Christian church. People were getting married for thousands of years before Christ was even born. Egyptians got married. Persians got married. East asians got married. EVERYONE was gettin’ married all willy nilly, Lisa. Jews even got married; check your bible!
As for the reason people get married, ensuring a man’s children are his own is only ONE reason. There is also protecting your family/tribe from outsiders, creating wealth, maintaining noble lines, etc.
Also, do you consider childless married couples to be invalid? After all, they totally skipped the “point” of being married. Unless, of course, marriage is and always has changed its meaning, including now, when it is less a monetary contract or even a baby-legitimizing union, and more a declaration of love and commitment, regardless of what offspring may or may not spring forth.
I believe you when you say you don’t hate gays, Lisa. But your reasoning is really, really flawed.
Wow. Perfectly said. Thank you for taking the words right out my mouth and saying them better than I could.
Uhm, people have been in unions since the beginning of time. The unions or marriages were between two people without regard to state approval. So, in a sense you are right. These early unions did not require state approval, only the approval of family.
However, modern marriage is based on John Calvin. From wikipedia: In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed “The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage”[36] for recognition.
This was the first known instance of state approval of marriage. We are talking about state approval of marriage, are we not?
I don’t think my logic is flawed. Modern marriage in Europe and America is based on the Christian foundations of a man and a woman to ensure hereditary lines. I stand by what I said.
It is terrifying to me that there are people that think this way.
In reply to Lisa. Well said, Katie!
Give it up guys, the homos will never be equal to us normal straights. I’ll talk to you guys later, I have to go to a Doctor appointment. I will be using the health insurance I receive from my wife’s employer, cause that’s what straight people do, we insure our significant others.
Ah, po’ Dizzle, couldn’t even a hold down a job.
HaHa you’re funny, if you only knew. I never said that I didn’t have a job, only that I receive health benefits from my wife. Your assumption about me only makes you look like an idiot. It is possible for two working adults, who are legally married, and who both work, to choose the best of two health insurance options.
“Dizzle,”
your pesky comments preposterous bastard. What kind of closed minded monster are you? YOU, sir, look like the idiot here. Idiocy and concieted (for no reason) heterosexuality doesn’t make you “normal.” Not only have you shown your true senselessness, but your immaturity level is proven by your “name.”
Nice comeback……lol
Your lack of understanding of proper english and grammar makes you look like the idiot.
Your personal faith has no domain over my civil rights, period. The argument should end there.
Yeah, you’re not the boss of me
I hate everyone. Does that make me a hater, too?
she looks creepily young in this pic it’s not just that she got the shit photoshopped outta her–the way she stands, her makeup, the hair..
Between this crap and the Tara Reid Playboy spread, every Photoshop in the world has been used up.
HAHA good call!
I say lets abolish this whole “marriage” thing once and for all. If two people want to declare their love for one another in a church, go for it. But why does the government need to give us a piece of paper making it valid? Why can’t we just choose to be with someone? I mean as it stands now, people treat getting married/divorced with the same seriousness as just being a couple anyway so save the thousands of dollars one would spend on a wedding. Then there will be no more discussions about who has the right do it because it wont exist. (in terms of the government)
I know, because of personal relationships, that John McCain does actually approve of gay marriage and has (this you can look up for yourselves) gay’s in essential leadership/legal roles and positions on his staff and has for years. Years and years.
His public stance is political. Period. It has nothing to do with religion or the state or law.
As for the above short lesson on the history of marriage – marriage has always been a legal issue, hence it was a matter for the “state” or the tribe or the village or the culture – or you wouldn’t have any reference to divorce, which we in fact do have in the Hebrew scripture, to name one place. Marriage has always been about the legal transfer and ownership of property.
To say that John Calvin is the father of modern marriage as we understand it today is to vastly understate the complexity of marriage custom and law. And it is simply not true. Being in Wikipedia does not make something true.
So, John McCain thinks marriage should be between one man and one woman? OK, we should really take advice about the “sanctity of marriage” from a guy who left his first wife (who waited for him to come home from a Vietnamese prison for YEARS) for Cindy. I’ll be sure to call you for marital advice next time I hit a bump in the road with my hubby, Johnny boy.
i love that last line – hating people for who they love shouldn’t be a part of government. amen to that.