Comments on: 11th hour anti-gay attacks against Cicilline?

By: Christy

Christy — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:35:33 +0000

I don’t agree with Loughlin’s position on DADT. I was responding to your outrageous assertion that Loughlin’s mention of a wife and children was some sort of directed attack on Cicilline’s sexuality. I also think if you looked at Cicilline’s shocking record of corruption, mismanagement, lack of ethics and the fact that the city he has run for 8 years is on the brink of receivership, you would be ashamed of your knee-jerk blind support. There is a lot more to him than his sexuality.

By: equal

equal — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:34:06 +0000

Polls show over 70% of the country realize prejudice is the only reason we have DADT, and it only works to support the prejudice it indulges, while weakening our military, and wasting millions if not billions of tax dollars. The only excuse for it relies on unjustifiable prejudice.

By: equal

equal — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:28:46 +0000

His support of DADT demonstrates his homophobia. The only excuse for DADT is prejudice. It serves no puropose other than to support and perpetuate prejudice.

By: equal

equal — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:18:53 +0000

gay people have been serving since there were armies. The only excuse for DADT is to perpetuate the scientifically unjustifiable prejudice it was designed to indulge. We should have ended the ban in 93, as Barry Goldwater said.

By: equal

equal — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:16:05 +0000

Nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their armed forces, as compiled by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara:
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Britain
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Uruguay

If these nations can do it, so can we.

By: equal

equal — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:12:48 +0000

Leonard Matlovich (1943–1988) was featured on the cover of Time magazine (9-8-75) for challenging the military ban on gay people. He was a three tour Vietnam War veteran, and recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. His tombstone, meant to be a memorial to all gay veterans, does not bear his name. It reads, “When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.”

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:53:39 +0000

Yes, I really want our military to be like Canada or Mexico. I invite you to share your opinions with a military member sometime Brian. Go to Walter Reed sometime. The “war record” interests me though because homosexuals have never been allowed to serve in the military. World War II, Korea, etc. Your logic baffles me, and hurts those trying to overturn DADT. I do not care what the sexual preference is of someone. However, people I have respect for do. These are people that go outside the wire day after day to risk their lives for others. They are outstanding people. I just disagree with them on this issue. Rather than use the self-righteous approach like you, I try to change their mind with compassion and logic. But let me know when you go to Walter Reed so I can be there with my camera. Better yet, let’s try Fort Bragg!

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 02:45:55 +0000

Unlike other western nations, the American soldier is obviously not comforable with his own masculinity enough to serve alongside gay servicemembers. No wonder our war record over the last several decades is abysmal.

By: Christy

Christy — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:48:37 +0000

“I’ve been married for 23 years to my wife, Susan, and we have two daughters,” Loughlin says. “I know about the struggles of working families in Rhode Island because I’m part of one. I’ve had to worry about how to pay for dance lessons, summer camp and all the extras that come from raising children.’

The HORROR. Clearly a homophobe. So by Mr. Johnson’s accounting, the world is divided into 2 kinds of men: gay men, and men who attack gay men.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:47:42 +0000

Mr. Johnson, this is the biggest piece of unethical writing I have seen in a long time, which is saying quite a bit. To insinuate that Mr. Loughlin is trying to use Mayor Cicilline’s sexual preference is utter garbage. If Mr. Loughlin using his role as a husband is what you consider to be an attack on homosexuality, then you might consider every male candidate running, including races where heterosexuals are the only candidates, to be an attack on homosexuality. Plus, I do not know where you are from, but Rhode Island is not Virginia. The largest city in the state has already voted him in as mayor for multiple terms. Providence. We do not care about sexual preference. It is like having different colored hair. Actually, in case you did not know, Mayor Cicilline has a bigger advantage in his last name here in the most Italian state in the country where ethnicity is still unfortunately a factor (i.e. Buddy Cianci). Of course, you neglected to mention that from your desk in Virginia. DADT? Have you ever served in the military, let alone in a combat arms branch, Sir? According to you, we have politicians in the most liberal state in the country trying to raise sexual preference as an issue. If that is the case, then I guess homosexuality must not be accepted everywhere. Why would we then lift DADT then when most of the military is STRONGLY conservative, especially in the middle of two wars?