Palin On Pot, Civil Unions, Gay Marriage and Abortion

When running for Governor in 2006, Sarah Palin was interviewed by the Anchorage Daily News. Among her dislosures: She tried pot but didn't like it and opposed civil unions as well as gay marriage and abortion. Quotes below:

Palin doesn't support legalizing marijuana, worrying about the message it would send to her four kids. But when it comes to cracking down on drugs, she says methamphetamines are the greater threat and should have a higher priority.

Palin said she has smoked marijuana -- remember, it was legal under state law, she said, even if illegal under U.S. law -- but says she didn't like it and doesn't smoke it now. "I can't claim a Bill Clinton and say that I never inhaled."

On gay rights: [More...]

In October, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled the state couldn't deny spousal benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. That means that while Alaska has banned gay marriage, it can't withhold, say, health insurance from a state employee's gay partner.

... Elected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples.

"I believe that honoring the family structure is that important," Palin said. She said she doesn't know if people choose to be gay.

She supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Palin said she's not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay, but that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.

On abortion:

In 2002, when she was running for lieutenant governor, Palin sent an e-mail to the anti-abortion Alaska Right to Life Board saying she was as "pro-life as any candidate can be" and has "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion."

Update: Firedoglake has more about Palin on the issues.

< Hillary Clinton on John McCain | Palin on Pot Policy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    On Abortion (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    She is a nut, as I posted in an earlier thread

    In a gubernatorial debate, Palin stated emphatically that her opposition to abortion was so great, so total, that even if her teenage daughter was impregnated by a rapist, she would "choose life" -- meaning apparently that she would not permit her daughter to have an abortion.

    Wow. I have to wonder does she really (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    believe that. I don't take issue of course with having a baby that is the product of rape. But it should be the mother's CHOICE 99% to 100%.

    That was a personal (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    choice and she has said that much.

    Enjoy the "dirt":  that's the change you've been waiting for...(snark)


    FDL has a bucket of dirt on her (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:25:10 PM EST
    Also posted on another thread.

    That bucket is pretty empty. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by tootired on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    Why is everyone so surprised that McCain chose a Republican running mate? Did you expect him to choose Claire McCaskill? Or did you expect him to choose someone who would put everyone to sleep? Like Kathleen Sebelius? Or another old white guy? Jeez, Louise. She's a REPUBLICAN.

    She is not like a lot of the (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    Republicans that I know.

    She is far more of an extremist.


    I'm not campaigning here (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by tootired on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    for Sarah Palin, but what views does she hold that are extremist for the Republicans? She's anti-choice, against gay marriage, pro-business, for the death penalty in limited cases, against legalization of street drugs. . . Where is she extreme? She's definitely not a Democrat. My point is why would you expect John McCain to choose a running mate who would appeal to a person who hangs out at a blog called "Talkleft"? The prospect of a McCain White House is no more or less scary to a Democrat with or without Sarah Palin in it unless you think she improves his chances of actually getting there. If you think she'll be a great asset to his campaign, then the question is not what she believes in, but why you think she'll help the Republicans win.

    My Republican friends are (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    mostly pro-choice and those who aren't wouldn't support a ban on abortion in the cases of rape and incest.  They are also not that religious and feel that their party is being taken over by fundamentalist thinking.  Furthermore, they are very pro-business and into the fiscal responsibility thing, but their faith in their party to execute in those areas in recent years.  The main reason that they have lost confidence has come from the fact that as accomplished business people, they have seen how ideology has won out over good business sense.  I haven't touched base with any of them yet, but I am pretty sure that one in particular is going to be horrified by the Palin pick on several levels.

    The right talkers who often reflect the thinking of my friends have already expressed discontent with this pick.  I think that it is possible that Palin will ultimately hurt McCain and that Obama's more moderate image could quite possibly make him attrative to them when he would never have been had McCain chosen a Romney or Pawlenty type.  The experience question given McCain's age will be serious for some of these people - and that is a question that I don't think cuts both ways in quite the same way.  Obama's resume is a bit longer, he has Joe Biden and he has party support across the board now.  Palin is a total outsider to the GOP power structure - most of them know about as much about her as we do - the question of McCain's age leaves people seriously wondering what would happen if she were to have to take over the country suddenly - a question that with other possible picks like Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Kay Bailey Huchinson, Romeny, or Pawlenty would never have been nearly as difficult to answer only 66 days out from an election.

    So I think she may hurt McCain.  How much she does will depend somewhat on how much confidence Obama can instill in the American public between now and the election.


    So you like McCain's choice (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by tootired on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    because it should help Obama, right?

    No I don't like his choice because (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:30:49 PM EST
    he might win and I feel like he is playing a political game that could potentially have very bad consequences for this country.  It is a risky proposition he has made to the American people and that kind of troubles me.

    Obama's obsession with process drives me a bit batty, but at least I know he understands that there is a process that must be tended to.  He also has a law degree which counts for something with me.  Everything I am reading about this woman including the "Troopergate" story and the fact that she said she didn't know what a Vice President does suggests to me that her understanding of our government and our laws is thin at best.


    On global warming : (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:27:26 PM EST
    "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made."

    Well, she differs from McCain on this one. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:19:11 PM EST
    Somehow they'll have to reconcile their positions.  

    What do you mean? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:31:13 PM EST
    She doesn't believe it is man-made and he doesn't seem to really care considering the fact that his solution to our energy woes it to promise more off shore oil drilling that does nothing for gas prices now and only ensures that ten years from now we will still be an oil dependent nation.

    There is nothing to reconcile.  They have a common purpose and that is all that counts really.


    And the hits just keep on coming (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:35:12 PM EST
    Not all the R's are so happy

    Interesting to see if a disunity storyline develops re Romney and Pawlenty .  And then there is Ron Paul, he is the PUMA for the Rs, except with actual people apparently

    I still see a remarkable number of (none / 0) (#10)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:40:44 PM EST
    Ron Paul signs around Virginia.

    He could do some dammage to McCain in states like that.


    Do you think. . . (none / 0) (#16)
    by Tzal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    most of the Paulites will go to Barr of come home to McCain? It was pretty stupid of the GOP to not allow Paul to speak at the convention.

    Of course, these positions are ... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    one of the reasons she was a good pick for McCain.

    Her youth, appeal, gender, personal story and reformer stance are other reasons.

    She wasn't chosen to get Liberal Democrats to vote for McCain.

    Appeal to base (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Manuel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:10:47 PM EST
    She is meant to counteract Obama's outreach to evangelicals.  On all the hot button social issues she is a conservative and not a libertarian.  I wonder if moderate pro choice Republicans will abandon McCain over this pick.  OTOH this may attract pro life conservative Democrats.  Upcoming PA and OH polls bear watching.

    Exactly ... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:54:15 PM EST
    people seem to be acting like it's a shock that she's a conservative.

    And, yes, she is designed to appeal to Conservative Dems who mostly agree with Republicans on social issues.

    Her personal style and story will appeal to a wide swath of non-ideological voters.

    And the boldness of the choice, earns McCain back some of his maverick cred.

    This could all backfire.  But that doesn't remove the fact it's a smart and gutsy political move.


    I can't believe (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:11:23 PM EST
    the Left wing echo chamber at all. The non-stop misogyny is bad enough but so many people seem to be of the mind that 'well, I don't like her! So why did McCain pick her?' Are they all so self-absorbed that it doesn't occur to them that he didn't pick her to appease them, but to appeal to HIS base?

    Plenty of Republicans and conservative swing voters will and do. And they don't come here or the great Orangstan or HuffPo or other 'progressive' blogs. Of course the majority of people here aren't on board with her. So pointing out her flaws is pretty much preaching to the choir.


    A Republican court in CA (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Prabhata on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    Gave its opinion to allow gay marriage.  These people were appointed by right wing governors. We basically have a Supreme Court that's been mostly appointed by Republicans.  Roe vs Wade is still on the books. Thomas sits on the bench because of Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time.  Oh yeah, and FISA was written by Pelosi and Reid.  Obviously Palin represents a good number of Americans.  Her position on gay marriage is not that different from Obama.  Her veto speaks very loud as to where she stands on the issue. Obama has been courting the Christian right and wants to continue to mix religion with government.  Hey, I'd rather pick a Republican for next four years, and wait until I get a TRUE Democrat.  Obama does not represent my TRUE Democratic views.  Go McCain.

    You say you want a "true democrat" (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    for president that repesents your view on same sex marriage. Who would this future candidate be?

    I don't know who that would be (none / 0) (#62)
    by Prabhata on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:34:43 PM EST
    I'm not a prophet.  But there are some issues that are more dear to me than Roe vs Wade.  The separation of church and state is one of them.  Anyone who calls himself Democrat and cannot see that FISA and mixing church and state are destructive to our democracy doesn't understand what unities us.  The US Constitution is the only glue that keeps us together as a country. How about Feingold? He embodies many of my ideals.  I don't like guns, but I will defend the right of all Americans to bear arms because it's in the constitution.

    Gov. Gray Davis appointed Carlos (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    Moreno to the California Supreme Court.  The CJ and other justices were appointed by Republican Governors.

    ha, doesn't know if being gay is a choice (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    sounds like she's walking the very same tight rope Obama is walking about when life begins. I don't know what to make about either of these things. Seems like you'd have an opinion about both of them. But maybe that's just me.

    Well, as Obama so non-specifically (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    stated in his acceptance speech, we can all agree its better to not have so many abortions.

    lol, yea, that made me feel loads better (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:07:16 PM EST
    about him as the nominee. Can we have a do over?

    just like saying (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:13:27 PM EST
    "Well, we may not be for gay marriage, but we'd like our gay friends to have their partners come see them in the hospital."

    And this is supposed to make me happy because...?


    Uh...the Clintons have said the EXACT same (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    thing, and is the expressed opinion of the whole democratic congress! A woman's ultimate decision is solely hers, but we should enact policies and healthcare programs to reduce the neccessary evil of abortion. For goodness sake, nobody WANTS to have an abortion!

    As I recall, at the convention, both Gore (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM EST
    and Hillary Clinton specifically spoke of a woman's right to choose.  Obama either cannot or will not.  

    The correct question (none / 0) (#50)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:20:25 PM EST
    is "When did life begin" and the answer is around 3.5 billion years ago. Life is an unbroken chain and does not begin at conception. The sperm and egg are living.

    The true question is when does the embryo or fetus become a human person and there is no clear point which can be delineated that everyone can agree on. Catholics say it is at conception because the Church declared in the early 1900's that God breathes a soul in at the moment of conception, a strictly religious belief. I respect people like Palin who believe this and live by their belief but it gives them no basis for enacting their faith into law. (And I know several people who are pro life but agree with me about this.)

    Garry Wills deals with this in his book "Head and Heart: American Christianities". I read an article about it last fall. I think it was in the LA Times. He pointed out that even the Catholic Church doesn't treat a fetus as a full human being because they don't insist on baptism or a Christian burial as they babies.


    Wow, that's really good (none / 0) (#86)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:25:24 PM EST
    I think you've got hold of a great point there. Something candidates that believe in, well, reality, should use. Nice.

    As for the religious side, I think there are many interpretations that talk about life beginning when life is "breathed" into the child. Meaning life begins at birth when the child is breathing. And that's a Christian belief from some quarters, and perfect valid as far as religious based ideas.

    I think I'll come up with a religion that says life only begins when you're child graduates from medical school or law school. And until that time, you can abort them anytime you want. Hey, it's a religion. Just as valid as the others. snark.


    Yeah baby!!! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Munibond on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    Good substantive expose of Gov Palin's extreme positions.  This is a much better strategy than the personal attacks on her experience and gravitas.  Any weaknesses in those areas will present themselves soon enough.  BTW, Palin's views on abortion and gay rights seem to be informed by her evangelical Christian faith.  So can someone please tell me again why it is that the Democratic party is reaching out to those folks?

    Firedoglake comments are savage misogyny (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:43:05 PM EST
    Wow, you should have warned us not to read the comments at Firedoglake. Serious hatred of women like I've never seen. I'll never go to that site again. Yikes. Save yourself some grief, don't hit that link.

    I had the same reaction (none / 0) (#93)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:43:28 PM EST
    DandyTiger... Ugh!!

    Good old Sarah Palin (1.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Faust on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:23:20 PM EST
    Taking a puff of some Alaskan Thunderf*ck.

    From Wordpress.com (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by derridog on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:37:46 PM EST

    Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[34]

    Her intent was to leave it to the legislature (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:55:01 PM EST
    There's no question that Palin, "rejected the bill despite the fact that she disagrees with a recent state Supreme Court measure ordering benefits for same-sex partners." (UPI December 29, 2006).

    Her office issued this statement on the veto: (States News Service December 28, 2006)

    Governor Sarah Palin vetoed HB4001 late this afternoon, under the authority vested in her by Article 11, Section 15 of the Alaska Constitution. This is the Governor's first veto.

    "The Department of Law advised me that this bill, HB4001, is unconstitutional given the recent Court order of December 19th, mandating same-sex benefits," said Governor Sarah Palin. "With that in mind, signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office."

    HB4001 passed during the special session of the Legislature in the final month of the Murkowski administration. The bill prohibited the commissioner of the department of administration from adopting same-sex regulations, allowing them to become law, or implementing them. In the Department of Law opinion passed along to the Governor, Attorney General Talis Colberg writes, "the bill effectively eliminated the regulatory process as a way to comply with the Court's order to provide same-sex domestic partner benefits for state employees and members of state retirement systems." Colberg further states that the December 19, 2006 order is "legally sufficient to authorize the commission of administration to expand state employee health benefits or change the retirement systems to provide benefits for same-sex domestic partners."

    The Governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court. It is the Governor's intention to work with the legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue.

    The Court-ordered regulations are already in effect in accordance with the December 19th order.

    agree, she's a hard core right wing repub (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:58:18 PM EST
    no doubt about it. Any romantic notions of the contrary are silly. So it should all be about issues.

    Am I, as a lesbian activist, (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    supposed to be upset about this?

    "The Department of Law advised me that this bill, HB4001, is unconstitutional given the recent Court order of December 19th, mandating same-sex benefits," said Governor Sarah Palin. "With that in mind, signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office."

    She held to the rule of law and the constitution and did not take away GLBT rights in Alaska. Wow...real terrible person she is. /snark


    Good info (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by eleanora on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    I really appreciate this reality-based approach, as opposed to what's going on elsewhere.

    Stood up for the constitution? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ricosuave on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:43:35 PM EST
    I didn't know republicans could do that!  I though they all just ruled by gut instinct and the bible.

    Are you telling me this one actually vetoed something she agreed with because she thought it was unconstitutional?  How is this argument supposed to make me think she is a nutcase?

    Of course that's just the same kind of courage that Obama showed when he voted against the wiretapping bill, right?

    But another comment here says she did it because she wanted to save the courts money.  So her choices were:
    A. sign the bill into law, take credit for it, and make a big political stink about activist judges
    B. veto the bill, piss off the righties who supported it, and lose the ability to campaign on the issue later.

    I wish our guys had these kind of cojones.  (Actually, I wish our guy had EVER stood up for ANY principle like this.)


    It will be interesting to see (none / 0) (#13)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:43:21 PM EST
    how that plays with the RW folks

    But she went on record (none / 0) (#15)
    by jtaylorr on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    saying she supported the legislation and only vetoed it to save on court costs.

    Where's Kdog when you need him! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    I'd lovet o meet... (1.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    ...one of her good gay friends.  I'd be surprised if they even existed.

    Thanks for this post BTD (none / 0) (#5)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:28:43 PM EST
    I would welcome some factual information on where she stands on some of these issues.  The left is so out of control right now that much of what being are reporting is gibberish.  I have read that she vetoed a bill that would have banned civil unions/benefits.  Maybe she is against gay marriage as most of the US citizenry are (I am not, who CARES) but if this is true she seems mainstream.  What has she done about banning abortion?

    According to Palin's own words (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by jtaylorr on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:41:09 PM EST
    she supported the bill to ban civil unions (HB 4001) but was told by advisers it was unconstitutional and vetoed it to save on court costs.
    She didn't veto HB 4002, which  would have set up a nonbinding vote on whether citizens believe the state should put a constitutional amendment to ban benefits on the 2008 ballot and will without a doubt pass.  

    She like so many other social (none / 0) (#14)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:43:48 PM EST
    conservatives are just waiting for the new Supreme Court picks to be Scalias and Alitos - now she's joined the fight for them on the front lines.

    I actually don't find her (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST
    postion on gay marriage that extreme. It may be WRONG, but not extreme. There has not ever been ONE major party contender (a serious one) that is for gay marriage to my recollection. I give her a pass on that.

    How many left politicians (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    support putting up civil rights for homosexuals up for popular vote these days?

    I disapprove of either side putting someone's civil rights up to a popular vote. I will not give her a pass.


    excellent point! (none / 0) (#33)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    dealing with basic civil rights in this way is simply horrible. The repubs continue to be on the side of evil on this issue. Period.

    You'd think if she has gay friends, that they could reason with her. Saying something like only a few years ago your interracial marriage would have been illegal. Aren't you happy it's now legal. Don't you think it should be that way for me.

    That is indeed a bad mark. Then again, a surprising many Democrats walk that same tight rope and are on the wrong side.


    Because here (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:17:11 PM EST
    there is a difference in terms of benefits and legalities. A civil union in most states does not give partners as many legal rights and benefits as a legal marriage, even though the marriage can be a civil one and not a religious one. So having a civil union is not the equivalent.

    personally, I think the best way to end this whole mess is to allow civil unions for everyone, regardless of gender. Just do away with the word marriage and make the others completely legal. Don't get involved with the religious institutions and let them decide what marriage means to them. It keeps the whole religious question out of the picture.


    I dont think there should be a difference (none / 0) (#90)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:02:24 PM EST
    Just make all civil marriages a civil union/partnership. Take away the word 'marriage' from the actual legal paper. Let the religious institutions keep marriages since that seems to be the big sticking point that a 'marriage' is between a man and a woman. If a couple wants to have a religious marriage too, they can, but it wouldn't effect their legal standing in any way.

    It's just silly to me. And yeah, it's about all the benefits and all the legal points for everyone. You don't need a certificate to have sex!


    Marriage isn't just a Christian institution. (none / 0) (#46)
    by tootired on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:16:02 PM EST
    For example, Greeks and Romans were getting married long before Christ arrived. "I am Gaius. You are Gaia." Now go make each other miserable.

    Marriage is a civil institution... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ricosuave on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    ..not a christian one.  When the priest pronounces "by the powers vested in me by the state of Texas" he is not talking about the church.  You get a license from the government and the priest signs it.

    Also, please be aware that even though you think it is a christian institution, my people had already been getting married for thousands of years before Christians came along.  I won't say that we Jews invented marriage (we did invent the weekend, and I will rest our laurels on that), but we certainly knew about marriage before Jesus came along.  (Actually, I think some of Paul's early christianity stuff may have been anti-marriage, but I can't remember the details.)


    I think of it as a cultural/civil thing (none / 0) (#84)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:20:39 PM EST
    much more than a religious thing. But that's just me. It's a classic right of passage that's been around in one form or another way before the big three religions. To me it's more about gathering in a community and saying hey, we're like together, and hey, you guys should all help us out as we try to make our way as adults together. To me it's a really basic thing that is about a core family and it's connection to the nearby community/family/village. And that family can be anything in my opinion, from same sex to a small group of people. Yea, I'm a crazy radical.

    That was a position on civil unions (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    cited in the comment I responded to not gay marriage.  And the most recent polling I saw on gay marriage showed that far fewer people in this country oppose it now than they did in Karl Rove's wedge-issue heyday.

    It is important also to note that most Democrats do support civil unions at least even though many haven't been able to get up the courage to just support "marriage".  


    Marriage is not a Christian institution (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by mexboy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:56:10 PM EST
    anymore than the stupidity that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman.

    Just look up at the number of wives Solomon had in the Bible, was it 700 and 2000 concubines? Approved by God! What about David, etc.

    Anyhow, Marriage started as a business between two men. Women were property of the men and as such had no right to chose their mate. When two families entered into a marriage/business deal, they could then improve their financial standing...oh yeah, women were so worthless the father of the bride had to pay a dowry. I see a lot of people still have that attitude nowadays.

    Marriage today has evolved to a romantic marriage. It has also become a government institution that affords benefits unmarried couples do not have, such as have been discussed before.

    Marriage has also become a symbol of equality, since gay people pay taxes and are prohibited from benefiting from them because they are not married. It is also used to let gays know they are inferior to heterosexuals and their love unworthy of recognition as sacred and whole.

    What frightens those who demonize gays is the realization that gays are just like them.

    Everyone should be equal under the law and therefore allowed civil marriages. Religious marriages should be handled by the religious people...how difficult is that?


    It's not an on/off switch (none / 0) (#44)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:13:41 PM EST
    Schwarzenegger says he is against enacting a state law recognizing  gay marriage, but opposes the California measure that would amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriages.  In other words, now that the Court has recognized gay marriages, he is content to leave it that way.

    So one question is how adamant Palin is against it.  Probably no more than any of the other folks McCain was considering, not that that is saying much.


    It was Jeralyn, not BTD n/t (none / 0) (#6)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:31:21 PM EST
    How can anyone. . . (none / 0) (#9)
    by Tzal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:38:36 PM EST
    with a good friend who is gay oppose her friend's right to marry, or extend benefits to her friend's partner?

    Do you believe she has gay friends? (none / 0) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    Maybe she knows gay people - but are they really people she considers "friends"?

    sure, why not? n/t (none / 0) (#19)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    Okay... (none / 0) (#42)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    But the Evangelicals that I know don't consider the people they know who are gay "friends" of anyone but the devil.

    I'm an evangelical (none / 0) (#63)
    by frenly on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:34:51 PM EST
    and I admit I don't have any gay friends, but is I did, so what... it wouldn't necessarily change my views. Nor would I think they were friends with the devil. I've got gay family members (or did; he died a few years back), but that was never a big deal for our family.  We all sorta knew he was gay and went on with our lives.  There are lots of "evangelicals" out there and they're not all the same.  And most Americans are somewhat ambivalent about the whole gay marriage issue, not just evangelicals.  Heck even some gay people aren't so sure its a good idea.

    the ones i know (none / 0) (#87)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:30:24 PM EST
    that have gay friends don't have a problem with them at all. They are squeamish about marriage, but they're fine with them and fine with basic civil union type rights, and don't think it's a choice.

    It's as if it's a big wide world with people of every walk of life with every opinion you can have. From what I can see, there's pretty much the same amount of ignorance in every quarter of culture and region. Stupidity knows no bounds. And at the same time, great people can be found in ever quarter. Just my observation.


    You know I have been doing (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:47:19 PM EST
    some research about Mrs. Palin the last two days. She seems like a nice person with a beautiful family. But I got to tell yall I've come across a pretty stunning rumor about her that I will not reveal because it's just a rumor and hasn't been suffiently explored. I hope it's not true because it would just be sad imo. Anyway, Palin's positions on just about everything I disagree with so I don't know where the "maverick" label comes from. Against abortion even in cases of rape or incest are you kidding me? Animal rights activists won't like her penchant for fur coats (lol) and oppostion or reluctance to protect endangered species. I could go on about her positions but I wonder who she even compares to on right wing ideology.

    please keep rumors off the site (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:56:22 PM EST

    I think she's a maverick (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    because she's against government corruption, not because she holds these right wing positions.  

    And that (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:35:58 PM EST
    is more than a hint of where the campaign will try to drive the narrative.

    A third way.... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Oje on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:50:38 PM EST
    Thinking about your post from yesterday....

    McCain is trying to run a campaign much like Clinton's in 1992. All along, we are hearing about the incompetence of Bush, not the failure of Republican political philosophy. So McCain pops up, with his Alaskan maverick, to suggest that all our government needs is reform, mavericks with a history of reform. Our government (now more Republican than Democratic), the Republican party, they are not broke, they are just mismanaged. McCain-Palin will bring the "right" kind of change. Reform vs. bipartisanship, which sounds more appealing to voters?

    Too bad, as Anglachel wrote, there were only two (I say three with Gore) people at the Convention who had the depth to run a campaign against McCain's strategy. If enough independents agree that we only need a change of leadership, not a change of parties, then he wins (it will not be Clinton Democrat's fault, though the faux progressives will not acknowledge this). Sadly, too, formerly A-list bloggers like digby once knew the necessity of deconstructing the entire Republican political philosophy in this election cycle. Rather than stick to their guns, they either become agitprop bureaus for Obama or chose silence during the primaries.



    McCain likes history (none / 0) (#81)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:04:18 PM EST
    He's a big fan of TR/RR, whom he views as revolutionaries.  It plays into his natural style (and ambition too, I think) to believe his cause will be to inspire a "McCain Revolution".  I don't know if he will give an out-and-out tongue lashing to the party, but I would forecast something along the lines of "we have lost our way and I will find it".

    This will either prove to be brilliant, or Rudy-esque... either way it's gutsy (and in character).


    yes, yes, Yes (none / 0) (#88)
    by jb64 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:34:39 PM EST
    This should have been the point of the entire convention, but sadly, our nominee didn't even bother to accept the nomination of the DEMOCRATIC party. He waited until 10 minutes into "The greatest speech evah!" to mention either party. He essentially did everything he could to keep any emphasis on party during the entire convention.

    McCain was always going to run on reform, suggesting that the probem is George Bush, not the Republican party. Obama seems intent on letting him do this.


    that rumor (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    is hardly as "shocking" as anyone thinks it is AND no one has shown one scintilla of proof.  It's all Springeresque speculation that doesn't do anything but make the rumor mongers look ridiculous.

    Remember that "Michelle tape" that never surfaced?

    It's like someone chummed the internets and people are running around in circles snapping at shadows.

    I imagine Rove and his buds are toasting their success at neutralizing Obama's speech.

    OTOH - It is just more proof of what the faith-based O-blogs have become.


    Danny the Red, is that you? n/t (none / 0) (#28)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:58:26 PM EST
    Thanks for the quotes, Jeralyn! (none / 0) (#18)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:47:50 PM EST
    In my opinion....

    On marijuana, what Palin in 2006 said sounds like the Bill Clinton defense version 2.0.  So she didn't smoke any during her college time in Idaho? It might have been legal under Alaska state law in the 1980s, but I don't remember Idaho law being quite so generous.

    On gay rights/marriage, which republicans office-holders directly support those things?  To me this sounds like lip service towards a topic that she doesn't have much personal interest in.  (Like many other pols.)

    Abortion, however, seems to be a subject which is clearly at odds with the general consensus.  Democrats don't want to talk about abortion, but they'll have to find some ways of stating better options if they don't want Palin and McCain to frame the discussion to serve their own political ambitions.  

    Yep, sounds like a Republican (none / 0) (#24)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM EST
    I think these match McCain pretty well. Ah, I see the firedoglake site has slightly changed the lie about her wanting to teach creationism in schools to say teach it "or at least discuss it". Dems will not like her on the issues, you don't have to exaggerate them. I think she will indeed have a lot of trouble winning the 1/3 of the electorate that are hard core dems. No doubt about it. And I think the disaffected Hillary voters that are liberal will have a lot of trouble voting for her. Unless.... it's not about those issues and is about defending a woman. So the dems may want to tone down the hate and just deal with the issues. Just a thought.

    It's not about the issues or Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Prabhata on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    It's about Obama

    Palin on the issues: (none / 0) (#47)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:16:03 PM EST
    this is the best source for her and for anyone else.
    Look up Palin, Biden, McCain and Obama.

    Project Vote Smart: The Voter Self-Defense system
    (the link button is not working!)

    Democrats (none / 0) (#54)
    by bocajeff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    I believe where Dems go wrong on issues like marijuana and same sex marriage is that they argue the issue in terms of "interests" as opposed to things like, say, "freedom".

    Marijuana should be legal because adults should have the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. The regulation should come in the form of underage usage and behavior as a result of usage (driving, etc...).

    As for same sex marriage the problem has to do with "gay" marriage and not marriage as a whole. Again, adults should have the freedom to marry whomever they wish. Polygamy, same sex, close familial relations - it shouldn't matter. It's about freedom.

    The Dems have a history of presenting these issues in terms of "gay" marriage and medical marijuana (which we all know is a trojan horse of an argument).

    Dems should be about freedom. With freedom comes civil rights.

    Palin on Gay Rights (none / 0) (#55)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:26:27 PM EST
    much better than the base:

        She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[9] While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with a state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[28] She disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling[29] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[30] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[31] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.[9]

        Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[29]

    The DailyDish (AndrewSullivan)

    See Jerilyn's Comment #22 (none / 0) (#72)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    It addresses this veto.

    I had (none / 0) (#78)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:45:25 PM EST
    Palin on evolution (none / 0) (#61)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    According to The Anchorage Daily News, she has supported allowing the teaching of the debate between creationism and evolution in public schools, if students bring it up, and not necessarily as part of the curriculum.

    Not good enough (none / 0) (#82)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:31:26 PM EST
    Mythology is necessarily not part of a science curriculum - except when you are explaining why said mythology is bunk.  Any decent biology teacher should do exactly that, while explaining that the scientific explanation is merely the best one we have.

    "Not necessarily part of the curriculum" my @ss ...


    The best way to deal (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:24:19 PM EST
    with it in the classroom is to talk about the differences between scientific theories (Evolution, Relativity, Gravity) and pseudo-scientific theories (creationism, psychology, mythology, Marx's theory of history).

    My father used mythology all of the time in his Astronomy class.

    And he had no problem (HS science) with using the Evolution/Creation debate as a place to get the students thinking critically about what makes a scientific theory scientific rather than pseudo-science. Instead of banning the discussion, he had no problem getting students to think critically about the differences and requirements that go into Scientific Inquiry.

    His problem is when certain groups try to force a school system into teaching Creationism as the exclusive and equivalent theory.


    Excellent comment kredwyn (none / 0) (#92)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:39:59 PM EST
    I agree with your Dad.

    PALIN AND ABORTION (none / 0) (#94)
    by RAKER on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:54:26 PM EST
    She right when she says for no reason is abortion other than the mother life at risk acceptable.
     Think about it,society is trying to use the excuse that it,s not a human being we are talking about,it's a fetus or less than that.But unless some woman any where on this planet gives birth to something other than a (human being)sometime, anytime, and it has not happened yet, well then it human.
     You rush home and tell the family or your friend your having a (baby) is that not so, even when it may have just showed up on a test that your expecting. Expecting what? An alien body, or a microbe.No its a baby a human child.
     You can't fix one problem by making another. and by the way there are thousands of people who will be more than glad to take the baby from you and smile doing it(adoption).
     Abortion is the answer to a perceived problem of having something on the way that will cause you distress and take up your time and not actually be productive to society when it arrives.The baby is a has to be taken care of so lets get rid of it first.Well sorry but first was missed when the reproductive act took place.And yes I would be torn aprt if someone raped my girl ,but I would not tear a bigger hole by murder.
     Old folks at sometime become a problem don;t they? They are just like a baby needing constant attention and taking away your life for a while.Should we give them a new name like (oldesus)a pun on the word fetus and now have permission to kill them to. I think not.