November 12th, 2010
11:27 AM ET
3 years ago

Cindy v. John McCain on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

(CNN) – Cindy McCain, the wife of Arizona Republican Sen. and former GOP presidential nominee John McCain, is again publicly at odds with her famous husband, this time appearing in a web video advocating for the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

"Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future," Mrs. McCain says in the video. "They can't serve our country openly."

The video is sponsored by the NOH8 campaign and features several celebrities, including actress Denise Richards, musician Dave Navarro and reality star and tattoo artist Kat Von D,  along with Mrs. McCain.

Her comments are in contrast to the position Sen. McCain has taken on the controversial military policy that currently forbids homosexuals from openly serving in uniform.  McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, pledged last spring to filibuster any defense authorization bill that included language repealing the policy. McCain said that he was against repealing the policy until a full Pentagon Review on the matter was conducted, and characterized the White House- backed measure as part of a "political agenda." 

The language was ultimately dropped from the bill, and he reiterated his filibuster pledge last month if Democrats attempt the move again.

McCain's Senate office has not responded to CNN's request for comment on the web video.

This is the second time Mrs. McCain has lent her efforts to the pro-LGBT group; last January, she appeared in an ad in support of same-sex marriage – another position her husband opposed during the 2008 presidential campaign.

NOH8 was created in the wake of California's 2008 Proposition 8, a ballot measure that successfully banned same-sex marriage in the state.


Filed under: Cindy McCain • John McCain
soundoff (93 Responses)
  1. Dominican mama 4 Obama

    Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future,"
    -----------------–
    Seriously:
    The Deacon at my Catholic Church (yes, I said deacon, THEY'VE lowered their religious recruitment standards due to the HUGE shortage of priests) likes to point out in his sermon how a household composed of 2 homosexuals does not comprise a marriage. Marriage, he likes to say, is reserved for a man and a woman, and then he proceeds to talk about a TOLERANT and LOVING God when it comes to everything else! After the sermon gays and heteros are supposed to fulfill their tithes when they pass the collecttion plate! Hypocrites.
    My point is that if gays want to serve in the army,and they are qualified to do so, then I say let them. If they want to get married and suffer like the rest of us, I say let them do that too.
    Equality, and justice for ALL

    November 12, 2010 01:57 pm at 1:57 pm |
  2. Sgt Barnes

    If I were an openly gay soldier in an Infantry regiment, I would not want to be in the front fox hole unless my rear was being covered by some other openly gay unit...

    November 12, 2010 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  3. usmc

    I'm sure most of you responding to this have never served in the military. You can not be openly gay in the military it would cause so many problems there would then be a thing called segregation no straight man would want to room with a gay guy. You can not room two gays together cause men and women can not room together. It would also make our military look weak I know I wouldn't be very motivated to be led into war with a first sgt who talks with a lisp and acts feminine. If they are amart they won't change a thing.

    November 12, 2010 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  4. mango33

    Who she is tell what to do,she is not president wife. But i like her new style.

    November 12, 2010 02:02 pm at 2:02 pm |
  5. Tom

    Actually, her husband used to believe all these things, too. But to get re-elected, he had to sell out to the hard right nuts. And he caved.

    November 12, 2010 02:03 pm at 2:03 pm |
  6. markiejoe

    Can a McCain divorce be far behind?

    November 12, 2010 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  7. Peter s

    I have heard alot about repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' but what I don't understand is why was it initially implemented ? if we can answer why! then it will be easier to answer how to deal with it going forward! and I think its healthy the Mcain's family is talking about it rather than shying away from the issue!

    November 12, 2010 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  8. Michael

    The military has already said they, for the most part, are okay with openly gay and lesbian service members. However, soldiers have no business getting a vote on this. You don't sign up to participate in Army policy – you sign up to follow orders and serve. John McCain is a real pr*ck who is simply trying to hang on to power, nothing more. Don't Ask, Don't Tell won't be repealed now. I understand Obama wants Congress to do this correctly, but if he wanted that to happen then this should have occurred in 2009 when Dems could push it through. Republicans aren't going to allow this repeal to be passed, and if Dems try to do it before January Republicans will accuse them of trying to push it through against the will of the American people. Obama effed up, plain and simple, and rather than let Judge Phillips' ruling stand, he had to let his Pride get in the way. The GLBT community will not forgive him for this. PS, to all you bigots out there ... your right to vote does not give you the right to discriminate. I can't wait til all you idiots finally get what's coming to you when your own Teabaggers turn on you and put the screws to you.

    November 12, 2010 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  9. sara

    Thank you Cindy – Glad you and your daughter don't hide.

    November 12, 2010 02:18 pm at 2:18 pm |
  10. USMC Ret.

    What people don't seem to realize is the military is a product of our society. We live in a country where 5 out of the 50 states recognize gay marriage. Isn't this like putting the cart befor the horse?
    The federal governments position on marriage is they go by the state of residents policy. Example two gay people who live in Missouri go up to Iowa get married and come back to Missouri, and try to file their taxes as a couple and the IRS says sorry you have to be resident of Iowa to do that.
    What if two gay servicemembers who are stationed in a state that recognizes gay marriage get married. The military by policy of that state will be required to honor that marriage. If the couple tranfer to another state the military won't be required to honor the marriage any longer. Isn't that descrimination too? I agree that DADT should be repealed but with 45 states not recognizing gay marriage, I would say our society has to be fixed first.

    November 12, 2010 02:18 pm at 2:18 pm |
  11. Jim in San Mateo

    Congratulations to Cindy McCain. First for speaking the truth and standing up to that Neanderthal husband of hers and second for ditching that bitter school marm hairdo from the campaign.

    Note to Cel. Marriage is a state institution recognized by the Federal government. Churches perform the "ceremony of marriage", but a marriage itself is NEVER constituted by a church and can only be consummated by a State government. This is one of the reasons why Judges can marry people. Of course the ceremony isn't completed until both wives, both husbands or the wife and the husband sign on the dotted line.

    November 12, 2010 02:23 pm at 2:23 pm |
  12. andy

    A republican making sense! Wow! Just think if the government ever needed to re-institute the draft. Instead of draftees running to Canada, all they would need to do is declare being gay. The government would have a tough time drafting enough recruits for a war.

    November 12, 2010 02:31 pm at 2:31 pm |
  13. dcgonz

    cel: By the way, marriage is an ordinance of churches and in this country, is accepted by the state.
    WRONG. I was married at the court house by a justice of the peace NOT in a church. My license issued by the great state of Texas has "Marriage Certificate" not "Civil Union" listed on it!

    November 12, 2010 02:32 pm at 2:32 pm |
  14. Jared from Delaware

    Meghan and her mom RULE. It's a shame John is so out-of-touch with present-day America when his wife and daughter are both pretty in-tune with it.

    I'm a far-left liberal. Yet, I seem to agree with almost everything that Meghan says to the media.

    Meghan should seriously consider running for political office one day. I think she'd be great!

    November 12, 2010 02:33 pm at 2:33 pm |
  15. Mack

    Is the picture touched up or did Cindy have a make over? That's the best I've ever seen her look!!

    November 12, 2010 02:38 pm at 2:38 pm |
  16. IHTCF

    Wow. I'm impressed. I just hope she has a nice cushion to land on when her Republican pals turn their backs on her. Just ask Murkowski.
    Still, I am impressed. Thank you Cindy McCain.

    November 12, 2010 02:42 pm at 2:42 pm |
  17. Marcus

    Nancy Pelosi, the wicked witch of the west, the DemocRAT gift that just keeps on giving – Sigh, 'This is NOT a political issue'? Are you homeschooled? If not, do you remember that practically the very same 'arguments' against homosexuals serving in the military forces were used 50/60/70 years ago when it came to black/African-American folks in the military, don't you?
    First 'they', those who claimed that it was against the good of the country and its military forces to use more effectively the black recruits on the War effort, tried to deny the right of black soldiers to fight (and not just 'serve') becaus that would mean sure loss of white boys' lives... they were proved wrong. Then the same folks tried to say that 'ok, they are fit to fight, but not to lead (white soldiers)' in order to avoid that they (black soldiers/sailors) got their deserved promotions. Finally 'they' were against the end of that stupidity that it was to divide the recuits based on their skin color, and thus integrate the military forces... boy weren't 'them' (politicians, specially the so-called Dixiecrats, and generals) hysterical when they realized that their racial prejudice was no longer acceptable since it had been proven as prejudicial to the effectiveness of the military forces under their command.
    True, it still took a few decades for some die-hard racist behaviors be finally eliminated from the military forces, still...
    The point is, the draft is gone and only THOSE WHO WANT TO SERVE do that. If someone is unfit to the military forces due to his/her/their actions then he/she/they have to be expelled of course, but to expell someone based only on his/her sexual orientation (when it's no longer considered a crime or a mental disease)... and say that this does not hurt the military forces (again)?

    November 12, 2010 02:42 pm at 2:42 pm |
  18. FauxNews

    Gee, another person who has never been in the Military telling it what to do.

    November 12, 2010 02:48 pm at 2:48 pm |
1 2 3 4