Some of them vote Republican anyway, of course, because of other issues.  But it's hard for me to imagine anyone in the latter group being dissuaded simply because Palin thinks homosexuality is a choice.  If I'm gay, I'm less concerned about Palin than I am about McCain, whom Barney Frank famously called "a thousand percent anti-gay."

But one Senator Obama has some definite questionable anti-gay, homophobic associations of his own:  Donnie McClurkin to name one.

 Kmiec claims marraige should only be allowed betrween a man and a woman, and for the purpose of procreation.

He links gays marrying to "a claimed universal right to access to genetically engineered children"

This  is one scary guy, so why is he a surrogate for Obama?

The Advocate seems to think this is a bigger deal.

Look, as I wrote below, I don't think this is the news story of the year, but I just don't buy the notion that there are some newspapers, even the NYT, that she "couldn't say."

If, for example, she were to name the Times and Katie were to say, "(Gasp) You read the most liberal newspaper in the country/galaxy/universe?!?!" it would be a very simple matter to just say, "Yes, you keep your friends close and your enemies closer," or "Yes, I find it interesting to know how the other side thinks."

Dan Quayle, for as bad as he was, had it head and shoulders over Palin.

I should watch the tape, but here is my theory - the McCain campaign is at war with the Media - Palin was not sure which Media was McCain campaign approved. She knew she could not say the NYTimes. And she was not sure who was ok to say that day.

But the idea being peddled here is that Palin was unfamiliar with the names of the publications.

It's not only unfair, I think it is particularly ineffective imo.

The attempt by some on the left to characterize/demonize Palin as some kind of dumb scary monster is no different than what has been and continues to be done to Hillary Clinton.  I hate it and I won't be played like that again (I hope).

She's a 44-year-old governor from a remote underpopulated state.  There are a lot of people who can completely relate to her, there are probably many more who can't.  Either way, she's not a monster, no matter how many times she's called that.  And neither is John McCain.

Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Time, US News and World Report.  Safe media that is either viewed as right-center.  

But just so I understand, the idea is that as long as Palin does not hold loopy thoughts about the immorality of homosexuality, it is okay for gay people to support her, even though she would oppose any efforts to provide equal rights to the gay community? (I realize that she does not state this in the interview, but that is her platform.)

I don't follow what you mean by a "true heterosexual", since I don't subscribe to the notion that sexual orientation is carved in stone. I've seen some pretty passionate heterosexuals who crossed over to the home team.

As for your observation that:

All this theory nonsense if [sic] for people with issues to resolve.

I agree with you absolutely. Theory is for people who are intellectually curious about stuff like evolution, philosophy, physics, mathematics, chemistry, art, literature, the social sciences; inclusive of anthropology, communication studies, political science, psychology, sociology, studies of race, class, gender, AND sexuality - I could go on.

All fields of knowledge involve theory to varying degrees. As you know, Newton had a theory of gravity before he established it as a law of gravity.

Anyone who uses Wikipedia for anything more important than a bar bet cannot be taken seriously.

Please give me the benefit of knowing enough about the subject to know that the Wikipedia pages on Queer Theory and Heteronormativity were fairly inclusive and accurate, as of the time when I cited them a few hours ago.

It is a given that the lay editorship of Wikipedia is not to be taken as the gospel. Responsible research requires follow-up reading of some of the original sources.