Cindy McCain supports DADT repeal while John McCain fights against it

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

It's a story that you have probably already heard about but it bears repeating.

It seems that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is creating a bit of a conundrum in the McCain house.

Cindy McCain, the woman who would have been First Lady if her husband, Sen. John McCain, had won the 2008 presidential election, recently took part in an ad campaign from the NOH8 campaign, group formed in response to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage. The ad included other celebrities explaining why there is a problem with lgbt youth suicide, listing the ways in which society has told these youth that they are second class citizens:

Mrs. McCain says in the ad, which features her alongside celebrities such as Denise Richards and Gene Simmons. “They can't serve our country openly.”

After other speakers suggest that laws which limit the rights of gay Americans reinforce that derogatory treatment of them is acceptable, Cindy McCain asks rhetorically, “Our government treats the LGBT community like second class citizens — why shouldn't they?”

 


It was admirable for all of these celebrities, McCain included to do this ad. But the problem is that her husband, John McCain, has been very vocal in efforts to filibuster legislation that would end DADT.

During the last repeal effort, John McCain defended the policy, even at the point of snapping at reporter who challenged him about the military's history of distorting the policy to seek out and dismiss lgbt troops. This happened in September:

As far as I know, no one has asked the McCains about their very public opposite stances to DADT.

But wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall of at least one of their houses when the issue comes up between the two?

Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  admin

Video: Iowa for [denying courts should play same exact roles they played in other minority rights fights]

To sum up what Iowa For Freedom‘s Bob Vander Plaats and WHO radio’s Jen Green are saying in the following video: LGBT people have no right or responsibility to use the court system to keep discrimination in check. Not in California, not in Iowa, not in the the Florida adoption matter. To hear Vander Plaats and Green tell it, those who invoke “the laws of nature and nature’s God” are simply not beholden to the constitutional assessments from one co-equal branch of government. At least not until “the people©” get to say if the constitution, as written, is hetero-y enough for their liking.

Have a listen:

How could using the retention vote be an abuse, Jen? Oh, in practical terms, no, the right to vote itself is not an abuse. But when one group who is motivated 100% by faith-based discrimination against LGBT people joins forces with anti-LGBT organizations like American Family Association and the National Organization For Marriage to vindictively oust judges who did nothing more than cast one opinion that supports a minority population in ways that they themselves do not? Well again: That’s not an overstep in terms of the rights of citizenship, a role that allows people to cast a vote for whatever reason. But it is a completely callous, anti-intellectual, anti-civic, unprovoked, undeserved bout of retribution that is based on personal biases, not a fair, well-rounded assessment of the judges’ overall performance. And that’s what we’re saying about this current effort. It’s not that those who wish to deny gay people of rights CAN’T act like this one vote is the only way to drain the piss form their Iowa cornflakes. It’s to say that they, as non-persecuted members of a state that includes good and decent LGBT neighbors, simply shouldn’t act so damn unneighborly!

This Iowa For Freedom effort is all about providing a catharsis to the anti-marriage equality set, in hopes of keeping the momentum going until they someday get to turn this unanimous court ruling into a popularity contest. Also, as everyone involved admits: It’s all about making an example of these judges, so as to send a message to the rest of the nation. That might be an acceptable thing to do, if the Iowa Supreme Court were a cheating ex-boyfriend and this vote were an effigial voodoo doll. But the fair and independent judiciary should probably command just an eensy bit more head voice and a little less personal heart fire than Iowa For Freedom is affording it.

***

*Oh, and about that David Barton who Vander Plaats mentions at 2:21: Right Wing Radio Host David Barton: Government Should ‘Regulate Homosexuality’ [Towle]




Good As You

—  John Wright

CANADA: Website Fights Tax Exempt Status Of Exodus International

The website Slap Upside The Head says that the “ex-gay” group Exodus International, which recently lost its tax exempt status in New Zealand, does not deserve that status in Canada either.

All registered charities operating in Canada must provide what the Canada Revenue Agency calls a “public benefit.” This is a long legal definition that I can’t claim to fully understand, but, of particular note, a charitity’s activities must be “regarded as valuable by the common understanding of enlightened opinion,” and such value “must be weighed against any harm that may arise from the proposed activity and a net benefit must result.” Since homosexuality is not a recognised disorder by any respected medical organisation, it’s questionable as to what benefit could come out of trying to treat it as one. Moreoever, the consensus in the medical community is that all attempts to treat homosexuality as a disorder may cause serious psychological harm. With no clear benefit, and demonstrable harm from Exodus’ actions, I think there’s a strong case to argue that Exodus’ activities do not meet Canada’s criteria for charitable status.

If you are a Canadian citizen, please consider visiting the site’s action page, which includes email addresses and phone numbers for the compliance department of Canada’s Revenue Agency. This movement is in its early stages and the site’s authors are seeking legal and medical experts willing to testify that the “ex-gay” movement is doing real demonstrable harm to the citizens of Canada.

Joe. My. God.

—  John Wright