Election 2008 | Gay Rights | John McCain | News | Republican Party

High School Student Slams McCain After Gay Rights Question


In New Hampshire today, John McCain was slammed by a Concord high school student after responding to a question about gay rights, ABC reports.

After McCain reportedly answered student William Sleaster's question by reiterating his support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and "his belief in the sanctity of marriage" the student spoke up again:

SLEASTER: "Do you support civil unions or gay marriage?"

MCCAIN: "I do not. I think that they impinge on the status and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman."

SLEASTER: "So you believe in taking away someone’s rights because you believe it’s wrong?"

MCCAIN: "I wouldn’t put that interpretation on my position, but I understand yours."

ABC adds, "Sleaster went on to ask another question about how to help the working class in America, which McCain fielded by talking about the country’s need to figure out education and health care, and to secure the environment. Sleaster indicated that he wanted to follow up again."

MCCAIN: "You have one more? Go ahead you’re doing good."

SLEASTER: "I came here looking to see a leader. I don’t."

MCCAIN: "I understand. I thank you. That’s what America is all about."

High School Student to McCain: You're No Leader [political radar - abc blogs]

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. William Sleaster would have my vote in a few years.

    Posted by: dave | Sep 4, 2007 12:47:18 PM

  2. Hot.

    Posted by: Br!on | Sep 4, 2007 12:55:49 PM

  3. Ballsy!

    Posted by: David | Sep 4, 2007 1:11:53 PM

  4. Cheers for William Sleaster, more of us should publicly challenge these guys when the opportunities arise.

    Posted by: mike | Sep 4, 2007 1:16:32 PM

  5. DA-YUM!

    This kid ROCKS!

    If only someone in the mainstream media would have those kind of balls.

    McCain got punked!

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 4, 2007 1:17:40 PM

  6. I'm all for challenging the candidates.

    Posted by: Allen | Sep 4, 2007 1:19:03 PM

  7. Damn, I wish I'd had cojones like that when I was in high school. Makes me think that all hope is not lost.

    Posted by: Frank L | Sep 4, 2007 1:19:04 PM

  8. At last SOMEONE has started asking the tough questions and pointing out these hypocrisies. I love that it came from a high school student... Sleaster rocks.

    Posted by: Brian | Sep 4, 2007 1:21:33 PM

  9. If McCain (or any other president - insert candidate name here) were to provide any rights to Sleaster, but call them something else, it isn't taking away rights. Sleaster's attempt to twist McCain's response to the question - and subsequent answer - is blatant and typical of militant gays.

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 4, 2007 1:23:40 PM

  10. John McCain divorced his first wife for a younger, richer wife before carpet-bagging himself to Arizona to get a Senatorial seat by playing up his POW-ness. Why the views on marriage by a confessed cheater should be respected is something I don't understand.

    Posted by: homer | Sep 4, 2007 1:26:27 PM

  11. "Sleaster's attempt to twist McCain's response to the question - and subsequent answer - is blatant and typical of militant gays."

    Actually, what you're talking about (which is not what the high school student did) is much more typical of right-wing religious fundamentalists and zealots, but whatever.

    Posted by: Frank L | Sep 4, 2007 1:34:21 PM

  12. Stephen, John Mccain said he would be against both gay marriage and civil unions, so yes Mccain would be taking rights away from the LGBT community. In other words your comment "to provide any rights to Sleaster, but call them something else" is completely inaccurate. Next time you type something as rude as this, try to read the whole story. This student was simply asking the questions that the media does not have the nerve or gumption to ask. Also, in response to your militant gays remark, I would rather be a militant gay than a bigot.

    Posted by: matthew | Sep 4, 2007 1:36:31 PM

  13. Warning, everyone. "Stephen" is the same Right Wing Troll who has infested Towleroad for quite a while now pretending to be gay but he's actually just a part of the Repug Noise Machine. Ignoring him won't make him go away any more than your ignoring a cockroach with more than two legs but you're wasting your time trying to change his mind because he doesn't have one.

    Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 4, 2007 1:48:52 PM

  14. The McCain campaign is in a tailspin. He's socially conservative and fiscally liberal--quite the opposite of Ron Paul. Log Cabinites should come out and endorse someone before the first primary. It better not be McCain.

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Sep 4, 2007 1:50:35 PM

  15. Stephen, John Mccain said he would be against both gay marriage and civil unions, so yes Mccain would be taking rights away from the LGBT community."

    Not to mention that civil unions don't provide all the rights of marriage and never could anyway. There's over a thousand rights and privileges that come with marriage. Just because homophobes are desperate for there to be a "separate but equal" answer to the gay marriage issue, doesn't mean civil unions do, or ever could equal the rights bestowed by marriage. And I'm beginning to lose my patience with people who expound on the subject, but are totally ignorant to that fact (referring to Stephen.)

    Posted by: Johnny | Sep 4, 2007 1:53:24 PM

  16. Stephen's twisting of Sleaster's questions and observations is typical of self-loathing conservative closet cases.

    Posted by: DB | Sep 4, 2007 2:04:22 PM

  17. See? Even high school kids are better than "professional" journalists from the "mainstream."

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Sep 4, 2007 2:07:40 PM

  18. I'm sorry Stephen, but where does it say that this high school student was gay at all, much less a "militant gay"?

    Posted by: Gregoire | Sep 4, 2007 2:22:22 PM

  19. Gregoire:
    I don't know that the student is gay. I assume he is.

    General comment:
    Much like the Federal ADA, if Congress wanted to write and enact laws that provide EVERY benefit to same sex couples (that married couples possess), they could do so - and call it civil union, domestic partnership, or the fruit loops law. Anyone touting "separate but equal" becomes an orstrich on this point, sticking their head in the sand.

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 4, 2007 2:41:15 PM

  20. What's an orstrich?

    Posted by: Scooter | Sep 4, 2007 3:04:40 PM

  21. time for the token yay canada comment. yay canada. and thanks, god.

    Posted by: brad | Sep 4, 2007 3:15:48 PM

  22. time for the token yay canada comment. yay canada. and thanks, god.

    Posted by: brad | Sep 4, 2007 3:16:52 PM

  23. Oh god, Stephen's back.

    At least he's being a bit more honest with his comments than he used to be when he was pretending to be just another gay man with a different point of view. "Militant gays" is much more in line with his real Focus on the Family way of thinking.

    Where have ya been the last couple of weeks Stephen? Was there a FOF or Exodus convention in town that I didn't hear about?

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 4, 2007 3:43:04 PM

  24. Wow Josh. How manly of you. We're all very impressed. Just make sure you don't skip English class to jump him as your grammar is quite awful.

    Posted by: Scooter | Sep 4, 2007 3:43:30 PM

  25. Typical hypocritical hetero politcial pig-someone get the pie out.
    Stupid straights that believe in the sanctity of marriage decry homosexuality as the cause of the declline of marrige when clearly it's their own doings (divorce,extreme differences between the sexes,adultery,etc.)that cause the breakdown of family values and they have the gall to point the fingers at homos!!!!??
    Hey stupid masses, take the plank out of your eyes before pointing the fingers at others,bunch of f*tards.

    Posted by: Nikko | Sep 4, 2007 4:00:17 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «France Gears Up for Rugby World Cup, 2008 Dieux du Stade« «