Palin supports constitutional amendment banning gay marriage [Archive]

RPG Advocate

20th October 2008, 07:31 PM

Palin breaks with McCain on gay-marriage ban (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/10/palin_breaks_with_mccain_on_ga.html)

by The Associated Press
Monday October 20, 2008, 4:52 PM

NEW YORK -- Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin says she supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a break with John McCain who has said he believes states should be left to define what marriage is.

In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, the Alaska governor said she had voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning same sex marriage and hoped to see a federal ban on such unions.

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage," Palin said. She said she believed traditional marriage is the foundation for strong families.

McCain, an Arizona senator, is supporting a ballot initiative in his state this year that would ban gay marriage. But he has consistently and forcefully opposed a federal marriage amendment, saying it would usurp states' authority on such matters.

Just remember, Gov. Palin, energizing the base might energize the opposition more. Social conservatism is a cancer that needs to be excised from our country's collective consciousness.

Magyar

20th October 2008, 07:36 PM

well all them homos live in the non patriotic parts of 'murika anyway what do they need rights fur anyhow.

SnuggleSmacks

20th October 2008, 07:39 PM

I wonder what effect such a ban on the federal level might have on things like health insurance coverage for same-sex domestic partners, which many employers currently offer.

Aren't the GOP the ones who are supposed to stand for less government?

mortimer

20th October 2008, 07:39 PM

Palin breaks with McCain on gay-marriage ban (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/10/palin_breaks_with_mccain_on_ga.html)

Just remember, Gov. Palin, energizing the base might energize the opposition more. Social conservatism is a cancer that needs to be excised from our country's collective consciousness.

"I wish" = "I support a constitutional amendment"? :rolleyes:

I wish I had a million bucks. However, I do not support a constitutional amendment giving me a million bucks.

Cleon

20th October 2008, 07:50 PM

"I wish" = "I support a constitutional amendment"? :rolleyes:

That's taking word-parsing to an impressive new level.

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage."

There's really no ambiguity here whatsoever, much as you might like there to be.

Malerin

20th October 2008, 07:54 PM

It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

mortimer

20th October 2008, 08:00 PM

That's taking word-parsing to an impressive new level.

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage."

There's really no ambiguity here whatsoever, much as you might like there to be.
Yes, yes there is ambiguity. "our" Constitution? She must mean the Alaskan Constitution, since voters don't vote on Federal constitutional amendments.

Then she wishes that's the way it'd go on the Federal level, and that she doesn't support gay marriage. (p.s. Obama doesn't support it either)

Just because you wish something on a federal level does not mean you support a constitutional amendment to enact it.

You're reading what you want to read into it.

If she is for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, surely you can find an unambiguous statement to that effect from her.

Cleon

20th October 2008, 08:15 PM

Yes, yes there is ambiguity.

No, there really isn't.

You're really reaching, here.

But fine, if you're really into word-parsing, here we go:

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.Yep. That's referring to the 1998 Amendment to the Alaskan Constitution.

I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage.
"That" quite obviously refers to an amendment to the Federal Constitution.

QED.

I don't know why this is hard for you to digest. It's not like the conservative wing of the GOP has been shy about its support for the idea.

Terry

20th October 2008, 08:20 PM

It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

Says who, exactly?

mortimer

20th October 2008, 08:24 PM

No, there really isn't.

You're really reaching, here.

But fine, if you're really into word-parsing, here we go:

Yep. That's referring to the 1998 Amendment to the Alaskan Constitution.

"That" quite obviously refers to an amendment to the Federal Constitution.

QED.

I don't know why this is hard for you to digest. It's not like the conservative wing of the GOP has been shy about its support for the idea.

I take it that you can't find a statement where Palin unambiguously states she supports the federal amendment. I'm not doing the parsing; you are.

Cleon

20th October 2008, 08:28 PM

I take it that you can't find a statement where Palin unambiguously states she supports the federal amendment.

Hey, I found one!

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage."

She's stating unambiguously that she wishes for an amendment to the Federal Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

I'm not doing the parsing; you are.That is simply bizarre, as a quick google search reveals that pretty much every media source, whether liberal, conservative, or in the middle, including the AP article in the OP, is reporting it the same way--that Palin supports a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Note the first line in the article: "Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin says she supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."

I didn't write that, you know.

SnuggleSmacks

20th October 2008, 08:34 PM

(p.s. Obama doesn't support it either)

Obama doesn't support gay "marriage" however he does support civil unions and equal rights. Also:

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

linky (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm)

Does anyone have a link on Palin's stand on civil unions and gay rights?

halfempty

20th October 2008, 08:35 PM

It's comforting to know in these hard economic times that our politicians are putting the important things first. And what exactly does it mean that "traditional marriage supports strong families?" As if monogamous gays are plotting to physically attack "traditional" families, thus weakening them? Bah. Let the states decide this issue. And I really don't think Sarah Palin is in any position to be leveling morality judgements on anyone.

XBoxWarrior

20th October 2008, 08:37 PM

You're reading what you want to read into it.

If she is for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, surely you can find an unambiguous statement to that effect from her.

Did you even read her quote?

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage," Palin said. She said she believed traditional marriage is the foundation for strong families.

Unambiguous? :rolleyes:

Seems pretty clear to me.

Cleon

20th October 2008, 08:38 PM

Obama doesn't support gay "marriage" however he does support civil unions and equal rights. Also:

I'm not really big on that POV, either. "Separate but Equal" doesn't exactly have a good history 'round these parts.

Tony

20th October 2008, 09:03 PM

Aren't the GOP the ones who are supposed to stand for less government?

Less government in your employer's office. More government in your bedroom.

mhaze

20th October 2008, 09:09 PM

Obama doesn't support gay "marriage" however he does support civil unions and equal rights. Also:

linky (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm)

Does anyone have a link on Palin's stand on civil unions and gay rights?Ref: 2nd VP debate. Palin and Biden's expressed views on gay marriage/unions/rights exactly the same.

Puppycow

20th October 2008, 09:23 PM

I take it that you can't find a statement where Palin unambiguously states she supports the federal amendment. I'm not doing the parsing; you are.

Cleon is correct. To interpret her statement as anything other than an unambiguous endorsement of a federal constitutional amendment is not reasonable.

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage," Palin said. She said she believed traditional marriage is the foundation for strong families.

The antecedent of the pronoun that's bolded above is "to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman."

You can hardly get less ambiguous.

Cleon

20th October 2008, 09:27 PM

Ref: 2nd VP debate. Palin and Biden's expressed views on gay marriage/unions/rights exactly the same.

Well, that's not entirely accurate. From the CNN transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/):

IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Sen. Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?
BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.
It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.
But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.
But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

At this point, Biden has been saying that there should be no legal difference between a same-sex and heterosexual couple--basically, he's talking about civil unions. (We can rule out same-sex marriage from what he says below.)

Palin, by comparison, has not said she supports a "no legal distinction" concept, but rather that the government shouldn't interfere in private contracts between two people. (And that she's adamantly against same-sex marriage.)

IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

Here Palin was being clever.

Biden tried to trap her into saying whether she thinks "there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple."

When Ifill directed that back at Palin, she "clarified" the issue by saying "your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not."

So no, not "exactly the same." Biden came out for "separate but equal" (i.e., civil unions), but Palin wouldn't even go that far.

ZenFountain

20th October 2008, 09:36 PM

You really have to wonder sometimes how these two are losing so badly. Oh...wait.

MattusMaximus

20th October 2008, 10:31 PM

Yup, this confirms it for me. Palin is a stupid twat.

SnuggleSmacks

21st October 2008, 12:00 AM

I'm not really big on that POV, either. "Separate but Equal" doesn't exactly have a good history 'round these parts.

Since Cleon has already made my point for me regarding the apparent difference in the views of the VP candidates, I'll address this one:

I'm also not fond of the "separate but equal" idea, however, I can see it both ways. Marriage was originally a religious institution. Government only got involved in order to enforce rights, such as inheritance, and decisions regarding health. I can understand how, in a predominantly fundamentalist Christian society, the majority might object to use of the word "marriage" in regards to same sex unions, of which that same organization does not approve. So, in regards to the word itself, as much as I dislike the idea of "separate but equal," I think it's far more important at this point that equal rights are granted to same-sex couples, rather than argue semantics about what to call it. And that seems to me to be what Biden was supporting. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

DarthFishy

21st October 2008, 02:16 AM

Unambiguous? :rolleyes:

Seems pretty clear to me.

Ah but there's a bit you're missing. See if you can follow the logic here:

Palin wants to ban same-sex marriage (via a Constitutional Amendment) in Alaska.

Palin wants Alaska to cede from the USA.

Thus, she cannot really want to ban same sex-marriage (via a Constitutional Amendment) in the USA.

QED

:p

mhaze

21st October 2008, 06:26 AM

Well, that's not entirely accurate. From the CNN transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/):

At this point, Biden has been saying that there should be no legal difference between a same-sex and heterosexual couple--basically, he's talking about civil unions. (We can rule out same-sex marriage from what he says below.)

Palin, by comparison, has not said she supports a "no legal distinction" concept, but rather that the government shouldn't interfere in private contracts between two people. (And that she's adamantly against same-sex marriage.)

Here Palin was being clever.

Biden tried to trap her into saying whether she thinks "there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple."

When Ifill directed that back at Palin, she "clarified" the issue by saying "your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not."

So no, not "exactly the same." Biden came out for "separate but equal" (i.e., civil unions), but Palin wouldn't even go that far.

Nope. Here is your confirmation bias. Neither candidate used the phrase "civil union" however your bias yields -
Biden - "Basically he's talking about civil unions "
Palin - "wouldn't even go that far ". "Here Palin was being clever"
From the facts equally false but equally plausible is -
Palin - "Basically he's talking about civil unions "
Biden - "wouldn't even go that far ". "Here Biden was being clever"
My comment more accurately provides the gist of the paragraphs:

"exactly the same."

CFLarsen

21st October 2008, 06:42 AM

When someone speaks of a particular political platform being a "cancer" and in need of being "excised" from some vague "collective consciousness" of a country, it is time to take notice.

First they came for the social conservatives...

Cleon

21st October 2008, 07:48 AM

Nope. Here is your confirmation bias. Neither candidate used the phrase "civil union" however your bias yields -

Yes, yes, I know, everyone's biased except you. (If you would take the time to actually read my posts before screaming "confirmation bias!" you will probably notice that I don't agree with either candidate's position.)

I used the term "civil union" to summarize Biden's position - that "there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple." He didn't use the words "civil union," but I can't imagine what else he was talking about. If you have a better phrase to describe his POV, kindly clue me in. Palin - "Basically he's talking about civil unions "
Biden - "wouldn't even go that far ". "Here Biden was being clever"
They were both trying to be clever, really, and it's my mistake if I wasn't making that clear. Biden was trying to be clever by trying to pigeonhole Palin into saying something like "there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple."

Palin was trying to be clever by focusing on the question of gay marriage--and by doing so, she went out of her way to not say that she agreed that "there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple."

There was no agreement on the issue. A lot of dancing, but not agreement.

My comment more accurately provides the gist of the paragraphs:

"exactly the same."Incorrect.

Biden supports a system where "there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple."

Palin, by contrast, said she's against gay marriage, that she supports people being able to choose whatever partner they like, that she's against gay marriage, that the government shouldn't interfere with private contracts (for visitation etc), and that she's against gay marriage. (She's really against gay marriage.)

Palin specifically used the words "contracts being signed, negotiated between parties." While Biden is clearly aiming for a legal institution for same-sex couples with the same benefits as legal marriage, Palin wants to leave things like hospital visitation to a private contract "negotiated between parties."

That's not "exactly the same."

So please explain to me what's incorrect about my summary of each candidate's position (without the invective, if you can manage it):

Biden: Against gay marriage, but supportive of some sort of "separate but equal" institution.

Palin: Against gay marriage, but thinks people should be allowed to sign legal contracts allowing some of the common benefits of marriage (i.e., hospital visitation). (I believe this is the status quo.)

Cleon

21st October 2008, 07:57 AM

I'm also not fond of the "separate but equal" idea, however, I can see it both ways. Marriage was originally a religious institution. Government only got involved in order to enforce rights, such as inheritance, and decisions regarding health. I can understand how, in a predominantly fundamentalist Christian society, the majority might object to use of the word "marriage" in regards to same sex unions, of which that same organization does not approve. So, in regards to the word itself, as much as I dislike the idea of "separate but equal," I think it's far more important at this point that equal rights are granted to same-sex couples, rather than argue semantics about what to call it. And that seems to me to be what Biden was supporting. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, I do understand your POV, and I won't say you're exactly wrong, but I don't really agree with it.

The reason I use the phrase "separate but equal" to describe civil unions is not only because it's accurate, but specifically to make the analogy to the Civil Rights struggle--and I do believe it's a civil rights struggle.

Segregation was an improvement over slavery, but does that mean Jim Crow was something to be supported? Well, no, not as such, even though the end of slavery was certainly a Good Thing. Likewise, "Civil Unions" might bring substantial improvement over the status quo, but frankly I can't bring myself to support something that's less than 100% equality. And history shows us quite well that "separate but equal" rarely turns out to be truly "equal."

TheDeeMan

21st October 2008, 08:02 AM

Palin's a religious nut IMHO. And the number one reason to vote against McCain.

Dee

SnuggleSmacks

21st October 2008, 10:10 AM

Well, I do understand your POV, and I won't say you're exactly wrong, but I don't really agree with it.

The reason I use the phrase "separate but equal" to describe civil unions is not only because it's accurate, but specifically to make the analogy to the Civil Rights struggle--and I do believe it's a civil rights struggle.

Segregation was an improvement over slavery, but does that mean Jim Crow was something to be supported? Well, no, not as such, even though the end of slavery was certainly a Good Thing. Likewise, "Civil Unions" might bring substantial improvement over the status quo, but frankly I can't bring myself to support something that's less than 100% equality. And history shows us quite well that "separate but equal" rarely turns out to be truly "equal."

I guess that I have a different perspective because I'd like to see Civil Unions for heterosexual couples as well. So, it wouldn't really be separate but equal, exactly. It should be exactly the same set of rights and obligations, just a different name, and because it's not seen as a religious institution, but rather a civil contract, severing the contract if needed would be much easier and less expensive for amicably parting couples.

I've been married for 10 years, 3 of which I've been separated, and I have no plans for a divorce due to the expense, and the fact that we don't hate each other. We paid around $60 for a marriage license. I wish we could sign a paper and pay the same fee for a divorce.

I think you'd be surprise at how many straight couples would go for a Civil Union over a traditional marriage.

Now, I'm not sure that Biden would go that far, but he's at least made it clear that he does indeed support equal rights for homosexual couples, and that's much closer to my personal ideal on the subject than Palin's stand on continuing the discrimination.

Cleon

21st October 2008, 10:16 AM

I guess that I have a different perspective because I'd like to see Civil Unions for heterosexual couples as well. So, it wouldn't really be separate but equal, exactly. It should be exactly the same set of rights and obligations, just a different name, and because it's not seen as a religious institution, but rather a civil contract, severing the contract if needed would be much easier and less expensive for amicably parting couples.

I've been married for 10 years, 3 of which I've been separated, and I have no plans for a divorce due to the expense, and the fact that we don't hate each other. We paid around $60 for a marriage license. I wish we could sign a paper and pay the same fee for a divorce.

I think you'd be surprise at how many straight couples would go for a Civil Union over a traditional marriage.

Now, I'm not sure that Biden would go that far, but he's at least made it clear that he does indeed support equal rights for homosexual couples, and that's much closer to my personal ideal on the subject than Palin's stand on continuing the discrimination.

I get you. In some areas, New York I believe, Civil Unions are available for heterosexual couples (I know one such couple).

I don't think we disagree that strongly with each other--my ideal scenario is the total elimination of the legal institution of "marriage" altogether, in favor of "civil unions" for both same-sex and heterosexual couples. Make the law 100% neutral, in other words.

mortimer

21st October 2008, 10:30 AM

Hey, I found one!

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage."

She's stating unambiguously that she wishes for an amendment to the Federal Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, here.

Note the first line in the article: "Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin says she supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."

I didn't write that, you know.

She didn't write it either, you know.

Tricky

21st October 2008, 10:45 AM

All four candidates are talking out of both sides of their mouths as fast as they can on this issue. For example, Biden says:
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
So is "marriage" reservered for only religious purposes? Government forms will not ask for "marital status", but rather will ask for "Civil union status"? Will the marriage license be exactly the same as the civil union license? And what if a couple says, "We call gay couples 'married' in our faith"? Since all the pols seem to agree that it is only a religious designation, then they should have no problem with this, unless they are hypocrites.

And of course, they are hypocrites. If you word laws to prevent a legally joined couple from using the word "marriage" then you are discriminating against them, pure and simple. Anything else invites distinctions between a gay union versus a straight union, distinctions that have one purpose only: to allow prejudice.

Cleon

21st October 2008, 10:47 AM

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, here.

Your disagreement is neither rational nor reasonable.

She didn't write it either, you know.

Well, that was in response to your claim that I'm the one "doing the parsing," that I'm "reading into it" what I supposedly want to be there.

Which doesn't make much sense, seeing as how everyone is reading it the same way I am, including the article in the OP, not to mention those Palin-hating liberals over at Fox News (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/palin-on-federal-marriage-amendment-angry-crowds-and-religion/).

But cling to your fantasy, if you like.

I for one am happy that you don't want your chosen candidate to be a supporter of legalized discrimination. It's a shame that, rather than acknowledge that your candidate does support said discrimination, you've chosen denial. It's not just a river in Egypt, you know.

mhaze

21st October 2008, 11:31 AM

So please explain to me what's incorrect about my summary of each candidate's position (without the invective, if you can manage it):

Biden: Against gay marriage, but supportive of some sort of "separate but equal" institution.

Palin: Against gay marriage, but thinks people should be allowed to sign legal contracts allowing some of the common benefits of marriage (i.e., hospital visitation). (I believe this is the status quo.)

The correct statement based on the reference link is:

Neither Palin nor Biden specifically addressed "civil unions".

However, FYI I have the impression Palin is NOT opposed to civil unions. You've provided NO evidence to the contrary.

Also, you may have misunderstood her comments about solving it at the federal level. As state laws diverge on this issue and affected parties move between states, cases will start to work there way through the federal courts and thus to the Supreme Court.

Cleon

21st October 2008, 11:40 AM

The correct statement based on the reference link is:

Neither Palin nor Biden specifically addressed "civil unions".

However, FYI I have the impression Palin is NOT opposed to civil unions. You've provided NO evidence to the contrary.

So you ignore everything I said, and just repeat what you said earlier.

Thanks for your contribution.

Also, you may have misunderstood her comments about solving it at the federal level.

...No, no, I didn't.

Pookster

21st October 2008, 11:58 AM

Also, you may have misunderstood her comments about solving it at the federal level. As state laws diverge on this issue and affected parties move between states, cases will start to work there way through the federal courts and thus to the Supreme Court.

I agree ... which is why she supports a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

21st October 2008, 11:59 AM

I take it that you can't find a statement where Palin unambiguously states she supports the federal amendment. I'm not doing the parsing; you are.

You know, this is taking spin to a new, faster cycle. What Palin said is completely, totally, and absolutely unambiguous.

Arguing otherwise indicts every word one says.

thaiboxerken

21st October 2008, 12:15 PM

But she "tolerates" the gays. She even knows of gays.

Thunder

21st October 2008, 12:17 PM

I do not support gay marriage. Thats just what I think. I believe in civil unions, domestic partnership, everything short of marriage. But we should all have the same rights.

Why Palin feels the need to enforce her beliefs nationwide, however, is beyond me. What ever happened to State's Rights? This should be left to each state, church, etc.

Or maybe the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. We will all just call our special buddies "partners" like they do in Ozzyland. Let the Churches and Synagogues and Mosques decide if you are married or not.

thaiboxerken

21st October 2008, 12:20 PM

She wants it left to her church, that's why.

Vorticity

21st October 2008, 12:23 PM

It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

"Not Adam and Steve. Never Adam and Steve. Adam and Stephen."

-David Sedaris

Upchurch

21st October 2008, 12:25 PM

aEukKxeA55Q

thaiboxerken

21st October 2008, 12:37 PM

Does she not hear the words she's saying? "I don't want to judge them and tell them what they can and cannot do." "I'll do what I can to stop them from getting married."

DavidJames

21st October 2008, 12:42 PM

Does she not hear the words she's saying? "I don't want to judge them and tell them what they can and cannot do." "I'll do what I can to stop them from getting married."Some times I think such statements are made intentionally to allow them and their supporters to pull quotes to support their beliefs. When someone pulls the negative quote, they just pull the positive one and say, see, this is what they really mean.

ImaginalDisc

21st October 2008, 12:42 PM

I do not support gay marriage. Thats just what I think. I believe in civil unions, domestic partnership, everything short of marriage. But we should all have the same rights.

What specific rights and or privilages do you believe two people of the same sex should not have in their union that you are allowed to enjoy with a member of the opposite sex?

mortimer

21st October 2008, 01:34 PM

Well, that was in response to your claim that I'm the one "doing the parsing," that I'm "reading into it" what I supposedly want to be there.

Which doesn't make much sense, seeing as how everyone is reading it the same way I am, including the article in the OP, not to mention those Palin-hating liberals over at Fox News (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/palin-on-federal-marriage-amendment-angry-crowds-and-religion/).
I thought you were parsing what she actually said, and not parsing what the media has said. My mistake. I guess if the media says it is so, that's good enough.
I for one am happy that you don't want your chosen candidate to be a supporter of legalized discrimination. It's a shame that, rather than acknowledge that your candidate does support said discrimination, you've chosen denial. It's not just a river in Egypt, you know.
First, don't make assumptions on who I voted for (hint: it wasn't McCain or Palin). Second, ALL the candidates are for discrimination against gays (or at least, not against it), and I think they are all wrong. In fact, I think Obama's position is a mark against him, because I believe he is against gay marriage only for political expediency.

Nogbad

21st October 2008, 01:39 PM

"I wish" = "I support a constitutional amendment"? :rolleyes:

I wish I had a million bucks. However, I do not support a constitutional amendment giving me a million bucks.

Why ever not? Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The Government will prolly just give it to a banker if you don't get it. ;)

mortimer

21st October 2008, 01:53 PM

Why ever not? Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The Government will prolly just give it to a banker if you don't get it. ;)
Why of course, because I support the competing amendment that gives me $2 million! :D

Cleon

21st October 2008, 01:59 PM

I thought you were parsing what she actually said, and not parsing what the media has said. My mistake. I guess if the media says it is so, that's good enough.

That's probably the weakest excuse you could possibly have come up with.

You accused me, personally, of "doing the parsing" and said "you're reading what you want to read into it."

I pointed out that this is not true, that pretty much everyone from all viewpoints is interpreting those statements the same way.

So now you come back with "I thought you were parsing what she actually said, and not parsing what the media has said."

As I said...Weak excuse.

First, don't make assumptions on who I voted for (hint: it wasn't McCain or Palin).

Riiight.

Second, ALL the candidates are for discrimination against gays

I will assume you mean "ALL the Democratic and Republican candidates."

Because if you really meant ALL the candidates, well, that's just silly.

(or at least, not against it), and I think they are all wrong. In fact, I think Obama's position is a mark against him, because I believe he is against gay marriage only for political expediency.

If you would read what I actually post, rather than what you think I would post, you would not find me making excuses for Obama or Biden in this matter the way you are for Palin. When I say they're pushing a concept akin to "separate but equal," that's not a compliment.

noch1Narr

21st October 2008, 01:59 PM

Cleon-you're never going to get 'mhaze' or 'mortimer' to concede anything of substance. Their ideological heels are anchored far below the surface. They'll pretend to be rational while all the time repeating their biased points of view....

SnuggleSmacks

21st October 2008, 02:14 PM

Ok...we've looked at Biden/Palin stances on gay marriage. Here (http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Gay_Marriage) are summaries of the Obama/McCain views.

McCain: McCain says marriage should be between a man and a woman and should be regulated by the states. He opposed a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage because "it usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed." McCain endorsed a 2006 Arizona ballot initiative to limit marriage to be between a man and a woman and said, "I'm proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state constitution and to protect the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman." He also supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriage and domestic partnerships. He supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and says that to "even reopen the issue" would be a "terrific mistake."

Obama:Obama says that he personally believes that "marriage is between a man and a woman" but also says that "equality is a moral imperative" for gay and lesbian Americans. He advocates the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because "federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does." He supports granting civil unions for gay couples, and in 2006 he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In March 2007, Obama initially avoided answering questions about a controversial statement by a U.S. general that "homosexual acts" are "immoral," but Obama later told CNN's Larry King, "I don't think that homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral."

Thunder

21st October 2008, 02:17 PM

What specific rights and or privilages do you believe two people of the same sex should not have in their union that you are allowed to enjoy with a member of the opposite sex?

the only right that straight couples should have that same-sex couples should not have, in my opinion, is a state sanctioned status of "married".

thats it. everything else should be the same.

mortimer

21st October 2008, 02:21 PM

That's probably the weakest excuse you could possibly have come up with.

You accused me, personally, of "doing the parsing" and said "you're reading what you want to read into it."

I pointed out that this is not true, that pretty much everyone from all viewpoints is interpreting those statements the same way.

So now you come back with "I thought you were parsing what she actually said, and not parsing what the media has said."

As I said...Weak excuse.
So I take it that you indeed do let the media do the parsing for you. I really did expect a rational person to look at the words spoken, and not someone else's interpretation of the words, even if the vast majority of media outlets interpret it the same way. If that's a weak excuse, I'm sorry.
Riiight.
Because any rational person will only defend the candidate they are voting for and only attack the other candidate. :rolleyes:
I will assume you mean "ALL the Democratic and Republican candidates."

Because if you really meant ALL the candidates, well, that's just silly.
Yes, sorry. I meant all the candidates that stand more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
If you would read what I actually post, rather than what you think I would post, you would not find me making excuses for Obama or Biden in this matter the way you are for Palin. When I say they're pushing a concept akin to "separate but equal," that's not a compliment.
I wasn't accusing you of making excuses. Fact of the matter is we likely agree completely on gay rights.

noch1Narr

21st October 2008, 02:24 PM

parky76:
why insist on state-sanctioned status? Whatever happened to separation of church & state?

Cleon

21st October 2008, 02:29 PM

So I take it that you indeed do let the media do the parsing for you. I really did expect a rational person to look at the words spoken, and not someone else's interpretation of the words, even if the vast majority of media outlets interpret it the same way. If that's a weak excuse, I'm sorry.

You take it incorrectly.

Reading comprehension is apparently not your strong suit.

Because any rational person will only defend the candidate they are voting for and only attack the other candidate. :rolleyes:

Well, a rational person wouldn't give an irrational defense of a candidate they didn't vote for.

Note that even Palin hasn't come out and "clarified" her position, in the face of the quintillion media articles and blog posts saying that she came out in favor of a federal amendment against same-sex marriage.

SnuggleSmacks

21st October 2008, 02:43 PM

parky76:
why insist on state-sanctioned status? Whatever happened to separation of church & state?

This is exactly what we're talking about...marriage is a religious institution. Let the religious folk have thier little monopoly on the word "marriage" and the rest of us can have state-sactioned civil unions which involve no religion, and simply represents a legal contract granting your partner a specified set of legal rights and obligations. Which means civil unions would be for straight couples as well as same-sex, and we'd be taking the religion out of marriage, except for those who want to have a religious ceremony.

I'm not sure about the term "civil union."
Matramonial union?
Matramonial contract?
Legally bound?
Spousal contract?

I'm sure we can think of something better.

Cleon

21st October 2008, 02:47 PM

This is exactly what we're talking about...marriage is a religious institution. Let the religious folk have thier little monopoly on the word "marriage" and the rest of us can have state-sactioned civil unions which involve no religion, and simply represents a legal contract granting your partner a specified set of legal rights and obligations. Which means civil unions would be for straight couples as well as same-sex, and we'd be taking the religion out of marriage, except for those who want to have a religious ceremony.

I'm not sure about the term "civil union."
Matramonial union?
Matramonial contract?
Legally bound?
Spousal contract?

I'm sure we can think of something better.

"Bondage." :D

mortimer

21st October 2008, 02:53 PM

Well, a rational person wouldn't give an irrational defense of a candidate they didn't vote for.

Note that even Palin hasn't come out and "clarified" her position, in the face of the quintillion media articles and blog posts saying that she came out in favor of a federal amendment against same-sex marriage.
Please note that Palin hasn't come out and clarified much of anything about anything. Does that make everything said about her, and not countered by her, true?

SnuggleSmacks

21st October 2008, 03:02 PM

Here (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/8/30/132017/906)you go. Granted, it's from 2006, but unless she's changed her views, this is what she said:

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.

Dragon

21st October 2008, 03:52 PM

ImaginalDisc

21st October 2008, 03:57 PM

the only right that straight couples should have that same-sex couples should not have, in my opinion, is a state sanctioned status of "married".

thats it. everything else should be the same.

Thank you for being clear.

Why?

mhaze

21st October 2008, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon
Well, a rational person wouldn't give an irrational defense of a candidate they didn't vote for.
Note that even Palin hasn't come out and "clarified" her position, in the face of the quintillion media articles and blog posts saying that she came out in favor of a federal amendment against same-sex marriage.

Please note that Palin hasn't come out and clarified much of anything about anything. Does that make everything said about her, and not countered by her, true?
I assume you are joking, but Cleon actually believes himself?

By Cleon logic-

There have been slew of articles saying Obama is a Marxist or leans heavily toward Marxism. He hasn't disputed it, so it is true.:clap:

Wheee!!!

gdnp

21st October 2008, 05:01 PM

I think Palin and Biden's statements at the debate, stripped of the rhetoric, were quite clear.

Biden said he was against gay marriage
Palin said she was against gay marriage
Biden said he wanted equal rights for same-sex couples and asked Palin if she agrees
Palin said she was against gay marriage.

Since Palin ducked the question asked of her at the debate, and has not, to my knowledge, answered it since, I can only conclude that she does not support equal rights for same-sex couples.

SnuggleSmacks

21st October 2008, 05:03 PM

...she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples.

From my post above. How much clearer can it be?

mhaze

21st October 2008, 06:23 PM

Quote:
..she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples.
From my post above. How much clearer can it be?

What is clear is that her statement indicates she would put the question to the voters. Got a problem with that, eh?

I think Palin and Biden's statements at the debate, stripped of the rhetoric, were quite clear.....Since Palin ducked the question asked of her at the debate, and has not, to my knowledge, answered it since, I can only conclude that she does not support equal rights for same-sex couples.

Cool, I am sure you apply your logic in unbiased skeptical fashion and therefore you, I and Cleon conclusively concludify:

Obama a proven Marxist!
By Cleon logic-
There have been slew of articles saying Obama is a Marxist or leans heavily toward Marxism. He hasn't disputed it, so it is true.:clap:
Wheee!!!

ponderingturtle

21st October 2008, 06:45 PM

Since Cleon has already made my point for me regarding the apparent difference in the views of the VP candidates, I'll address this one:

I'm also not fond of the "separate but equal" idea, however, I can see it both ways. Marriage was originally a religious institution.

I think that this is murky. If you want to go far enough back, marriage was about the transfership of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband.

And I am not at all convinced that broadly accross cultures it was concidered primarily religious, instead of cultural.

But it will be interesting to see if say Obama and Biden if elected do things like change how the State Department considers pets to be higher than homosexual partners.(they will give you money to relocate your pet, but they make sure that you don't have your partners underware packed in you suitcase when they pay for it to go overseas).

Hearing the first homosexual ambassador from the US talk about this showed how skrewed up it is.

Malerin

21st October 2008, 06:50 PM

What is clear is that her statement indicates she would put the question to the voters. Got a problem with that, eh?

Lame. That 2006 statement could not be any clearer: if she could, she would deny benefits to gay couples. Her homophobic views fit in perfectly with her fundie extremism, anti-science beliefs, and general all around ignorance.

Let's not forget her church sponsored a "Pray Away the Gay" conference.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1150170,gay090708.article

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin’s church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer."

:rolleyes:

To think she is open-minded about gay rights in the SLIGHTEST is delusional. Like a lot of fundies I've talked to, I would be very surprsied is she thought homosexuuality was NOT a sin and gays were NOT going to hell.

ponderingturtle

21st October 2008, 06:51 PM

ponderingturtle

21st October 2008, 06:57 PM

moon1969

21st October 2008, 07:00 PM

Great Palin is just like George W. Bush. She is a religious homophobe. Just like Larry Craig, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Mark Foley, Mary Cheney and Ted Haggard.

ponderingturtle

21st October 2008, 07:01 PM

parky76:
why insist on state-sanctioned status? Whatever happened to separation of church & state?

We we get rid of all laws that recognise marriage, and so that spouces for the state department overseas positions have to pay their own way, just like homosexual partners?

ponderingturtle

21st October 2008, 07:05 PM

This is exactly what we're talking about...marriage is a religious institution. Let the religious folk have thier little monopoly on the word "marriage" and the rest of us can have state-sactioned civil unions which involve no religion, and simply represents a legal contract granting your partner a specified set of legal rights and obligations. Which means civil unions would be for straight couples as well as same-sex, and we'd be taking the religion out of marriage, except for those who want to have a religious ceremony.
And that has been done for a long time, civil cerimonies have a long history in this country, including the pilgrims, who thought that as marriage was not explicitly shown as a religious event in the bible that it was secular, well to the extent that they believed anything could be secular.

ponderingturtle

21st October 2008, 07:08 PM

What is clear is that her statement indicates she would put the question to the voters. Got a problem with that, eh?

So you are against all the civil rights court decisions as they took the power from the voters in those states where it belonged?

mortimer

21st October 2008, 07:22 PM

Great Palin is just like George W. Bush. She is a religious homophobe. Just like Larry Craig, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Mark Foley, Mary Cheney and Ted Haggard.
Add Barack Obama to this list.

SnuggleSmacks

21st October 2008, 07:25 PM

They you want civil unions to be substantialy different from marriage as you are reworking divorce and removing it from them. This shows you are significantly reworking the issues of property rights that are changed by marraige.

So you do not want them to be equal at all.

Actually, you are correct. I'd love to see the entire concept reworked so that civil unions are available to any two human beings, to give them the same rights and obligations as traditional marriage, with the option of choosing which rights and obligations are to be included in the contract, and provisions for ending the contract with little or no expense. With divorce rates rising further, and an increasing number of couples choosing to live together indefinitely and choosing not to have children, the traditional role and purpose of marriage in our society no longer fits a large portion of the population.

You are correct...it would not be equal, it would be better.

Your little deflection aside, Palin has indeed made her stance on gay marriage/civil unions/equal rights (because without the semantics and religious idealism, it's all the same)

Palin did put the question of benefits for same-sex partners to the vote in her state...she spent $1.2 million of the taxpayer's money on it. This occurred on April 3, 2007, and was called HB 4002. Look it up.

link (http://www.bentalaska.com/search/label/Sarah%20Palin)

Upchurch

21st October 2008, 07:25 PM

Add Barack Obama to this list.
Obama is a religious homophobe?

mortimer

21st October 2008, 07:26 PM

Obama is a religious homophobe?
Yes. Why else would he be against gay marriage?

mhaze

21st October 2008, 07:27 PM

So you are against all the civil rights court decisions as they took the power from the voters in those states where it belonged?
No, although I lean pretty far toward states right as that gives us many experimental scenarios that can be played with over time, thus mistakes can occur on a smaller scale. As opposed to top down planning. These days, seeing the nonsense from the DC Congress and Senate, certainly leaving much at the regional level is sensible.

Of course, here in a largely "progressive" environment it might be foolish to suggest looking at the basics:

the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[/URL] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law"]citizenry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#cite_note-1) or States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state)

Tricky

21st October 2008, 07:59 PM

What is clear is that her statement indicates she would put the question to the voters. Got a problem with that, eh?
You got a problem with a ballot initiative to deny rights to blacks or any other ethnic group? Eh?

Malerin

21st October 2008, 08:02 PM

Yes. Why else would he be against gay marriage?

Same reason he has to wear a flag pin- to get elected in this homophobic country.

mortimer

21st October 2008, 08:13 PM

Same reason he has to wear a flag pin- to get elected in this homophobic country.
I suspect you are right. I don't know which quality is worse in a Presidential candidate: homophobia, or selling out your beliefs to get elected. Both McCain and Obama fail here.

Cleon

21st October 2008, 08:15 PM

I assume you are joking, but Cleon actually believes himself?

By Cleon logic-

There have been slew of articles saying Obama is a Marxist or leans heavily toward Marxism. He hasn't disputed it, so it is true.:clap:

Wheee!!!

This is what happens when you just make stuff up. It really doesn't work.

Try again, maybe?

The contortions you are going through to avoid acknowledging the woman's very own words is beyond bizarre.

SnuggleSmacks

21st October 2008, 08:16 PM

Yes. Why else would he be against gay marriage?

Here's (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm)Obama's answer to that, when asked what he would say to his child if s/he was homosexual:

OBAMA: Well, to answer the original question, I would love that child and seek to support them. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but I detest the bashing and vilifying of gays and lesbians. Most gays and lesbians are seeking basic recognition of their rights so they're not discriminated against in employment or renting a house, so they can see their partner in a hospital. These are rights for everybody, not just some people.

Bolding mine.

I think it's pretty clear that Obama supports equal rights, regardless of the name, and is not homophobic.

Malerin

21st October 2008, 08:26 PM

I suspect you are right. I don't know which quality is worse in a Presidential candidate: homophobia, or selling out your beliefs to get elected. Both McCain and Obama fail here.

Yes, but Palin is an actual homophobe, based on her church, comments, and overall ignorance. I suspect Obama and Biden are much more liberal about gays than they let on. It sucks they have to move right-center to get elected, but that's where we are in this country. I bet Lincoln (who I admire as one of our greatest presidents) was a lot more abolitionistic than he let on when he ran for president.

ponderingturtle

21st October 2008, 08:29 PM

Actually, you are correct. I'd love to see the entire concept reworked so that civil unions are available to any two human beings, to give them the same rights and obligations as traditional marriage, with the option of choosing which rights and obligations are to be included in the contract, and provisions for ending the contract with little or no expense. With divorce rates rising further, and an increasing number of couples choosing to live together indefinitely and choosing not to have children, the traditional role and purpose of marriage in our society no longer fits a large portion of the population.

You are correct...it would not be equal, it would be better.

Most of these seem like they would be better for the lawyers, as there are literaly hundreds (I have heard numbers over 1000) different legal effects that would need to be specificaly included or excluded, and when ever it came up you would need to check to see if that couple had that specific provision of marriage law covered.

It would have prevented you from getting a $60 marriage that is for sure.

mortimer

21st October 2008, 09:01 PM

Here's (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm)Obama's answer to that, when asked what he would say to his child if s/he was homosexual:

Bolding mine.

I think it's pretty clear that Obama supports equal rights, regardless of the name, and is not homophobic.
Separate, but equal. No gay marriage, but he'll give you something that's basically the same thing. Where have we heard that before?

mortimer

21st October 2008, 09:02 PM

Yes, but Palin is an actual homophobe, based on her church, comments, and overall ignorance. I suspect Obama and Biden are much more liberal about gays than they let on. It sucks they have to move right-center to get elected, but that's where we are in this country. I bet Lincoln (who I admire as one of our greatest presidents) was a lot more abolitionistic than he let on when he ran for president.
Based on her church? Do you really want to go down that road again? And where are her actual homophobic comments?

Malerin

21st October 2008, 09:16 PM

Based on her church? Do you really want to go down that road again? And where are her actual homophobic comments?

I didn't realize we'd gone down it in the first place. Her church sponsored a "Pray for Gay" conference. Have you ever met a fundie who believed prayer could "cure" homosexuality who didn't ALSO believe homosexuality was a sin and homosexuals were going to hell? I'm been on many a Christian MB and never come across such a person. Their existence must be likened to that of unicorns.

As for her comments? "she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples". I would NEVER support such a ballot, and the only people I can imagine supporting it would be homophobic.

Would you support a ballot question that would deny benefits to interracial couples? Didn't think so. Isn't that something a racist would do? Yes.

mhaze

21st October 2008, 10:04 PM

Lame. That 2006 statement could not be any clearer: if she could, she would deny benefits to gay couples.
"Let the voters decide" is obviously homophobic...:)

Let's not forget her church sponsored a "Pray Away the Gay" conference.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1150170,gay090708.article

Promoting? Sponsoring? Really?

Little old Wasilla sponsors something in Anchorage?
Focus on the Family, a national Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the ‘‘Love Won Out’’ Conference in Anchorage, about 30 miles from Wasilla.

Tricky

21st October 2008, 10:17 PM

"Let the voters decide" is obviously homophobic...:)
In spite of your smilie to suggest that this is funny, subjecting a human rights issue to a popular vote is indeed bigoted. When I was growing up in Alabama, a popular vote would have easily decided that negros could not vote.

Are you seriously suggesting that because a state has a majority of bigoted people that they have the right to encode that form of bigotry into law? That is exactly what is done when you "let the voters decide" on human rights issues.

Where would you stand on such a procedure? Would your position change if your racial or ethnic group were the one that was in a minority?

gdnp

21st October 2008, 10:19 PM

What is clear is that her statement indicates she would put the question to the voters. Got a problem with that, eh?

Yep. I have a problem with putting a question of civil rights to the voters.

Cool, I am sure you apply your logic in unbiased skeptical fashion and therefore you, I and Cleon conclusively concludify:

Obama a proven Marxist!
By Cleon logic-
There have been slew of articles saying Obama is a Marxist or leans heavily toward Marxism. He hasn't disputed it, so it is true.:clap:
Wheee!!!
Palin was directly asked whether she would support equal rights for gay couples and refused to answer. I refer you to the transcript of the debate. Your example would make some sense if Obama had been asked a direct question as to whether he was a marxist on national TV and had refused to answer. Since he was not, the comparison is not valid. Another fail. :bigclap

Malerin

21st October 2008, 10:21 PM

"Let the voters decide" is obviously homophobic...:)

So I take it you would have no problem supporting a ballot letting voters decide to strip away the rights of interracial couples? Or voters deciding to install "seperate but equal" facilities? Or voters deciding muslims should not be allowed to hold government jobs?

After all, "let the voters decide", right? :rolleyes:

Promoting? Sponsoring? Really?

Little old Wasilla sponsors something in Anchorage?
Focus on the Family, a national Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the ‘‘Love Won Out’’ Conference in Anchorage, about 30 miles from Wasilla.

From the article:

"FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin’s church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

‘‘You’ll be encouraged by the power of God’s love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,’’ according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years."

Your defense of this woman is laughable. What did she do to inspire such loyalty in you?

Cleon

21st October 2008, 10:32 PM

Your defense of this woman is laughable. What did she do to inspire such loyalty in you?

She put a little "R" next to her name.

gdnp

21st October 2008, 11:03 PM

SnuggleSmacks

22nd October 2008, 02:10 AM

Regarding the "separate but equal" question, I feel the people who support "separate but equal" civil unions but not gay marriage are making a pragmatic choice. The vast majority would support gay marriage if they felt it were politically feasible, but at the moment it is not. Supporting civil unions achieves the same goal in everything but name.

"Separate but equal" treatment for blacks was rightly vilified because it was inherently unequal. Black schools were not equivalent to white schools, and could not be made so even if they had identical facilities and identical teachers because part of being equal is the ability to interact with and make connections with others, especially those in power.

Civil unions with all the rights and privileges of marriage is a reasonable compromise because it really would be equal in everything but name. After the majority of the population realizes that this has not caused the end of the world, which might take 20 years or so, I would expect an amendment to just call it marriage.

I agree wholeheartedly, and so does a lot of the gay community. They would prefer to get the rights, rather than argue semantics.

I have very good friends who are a lesbian couple who had an actual marriage ceremony, call each other "wife," own property together, and are currently planning to have a child together. The marriage is not legally recognized in this state. They are very concerned that the one who does not actually birth the child will have no legal rights over the child in case of medical concerns or the death or incapacitation of her spouse, not to mention the inheritance of the property, life insurance, health benefits, and medical decisions and even medical visitation of the spouse.

In our current society, "The Church," regardless of denomination, seems to hold a patent on the term "marriage." Those who follow The Church are not going to let that go in our lifetime. Let them keep it, and give those who need it something just as good, if not better.

@ponderingturtle: I was expressing my own ideal of a "civil union." I don't expect that to actually come about any time soon. However, I do deeply resent the fact that marriage is so much more difficult and expensive to get out of than it is to enter into. Even if civil unions were exactly like marriage, with all it's drawbacks as well as the privileges, that is still a huge win for equality for same sex couples. I'd be happy to see that, even if my own personal agenda is not accommodated by it.

I wish I could say the same for you, but the evidence in these posts does not lead to such a conclusion.

@cleon: Supporting someone because they have an "R" beside their name, without regard to their position, seems rather naive. I could never support someone for the sole reason of having a label that I identified with. I truly hope you were joking, but if not, at least you are honest about your blind loyalties. I had a gentleman tell me recently that he was voting for McCain because he was white and male. Although I was repulsed by his views, I had to respect the fact that he was honest about his bigotry, rather than make up a bunch of bull about the issues.

ponderingturtle

22nd October 2008, 07:53 AM

ponderingturtle

22nd October 2008, 07:59 AM

@ponderingturtle: I was expressing my own ideal of a "civil union." I don't expect that to actually come about any time soon. However, I do deeply resent the fact that marriage is so much more difficult and expensive to get out of than it is to enter into. Even if civil unions were exactly like marriage, with all it's drawbacks as well as the privileges, that is still a huge win for equality for same sex couples. I'd be happy to see that, even if my own personal agenda is not accommodated by it.

And I was expressing why I am against the choose what you want from the thousand or so provisions of mariage that some advocate. You would be making getting any of the benefits of marriage significantly harder to get.

Now haveing a few distinct level of marriage effects might be workable, but needing to have someone go through your specific marriage contract to see if you have the specific rights needing in an individual situation, instead of simply needing to prove that you are married really increases beurocracy.

Pookster

22nd October 2008, 08:05 AM

What is clear is that her statement indicates she would put the question to the voters. Got a problem with that, eh?

Echoing what others have stated, I have a huge problem with putting peoples rights to a vote. I suggest you think carefully about the wisdom of doing such a thing. Palin's mindset should terrify anyone who is a defender of human/civil rights. I can only imagine the eloquence of how the Founders would reply to such a proposition.

mhaze

22nd October 2008, 09:18 AM

Echoing what others have stated, I have a huge problem with putting peoples rights to a vote. I suggest you think carefully about the wisdom of doing such a thing. Palin's mindset should terrify anyone who is a defender of human/civil rights. I can only imagine the eloquence of how the Founders would reply to such a proposition.I fully realized when I posted the relevant section from the Bill of Rights it would generate an onslaught of comments such as yours, however it is what it is and I fully recognize that you and others do not respect this document.

Now do me a favor and go back to the first page of this thread. You see there, that when Palin mentioned a "constitutional amendment" and it was interpreted as being at the federal level, she was roundly criticized. (Granted that was a modification or subset of the topic, specifically gay marriage and not the whole subject.).

Seems like she's damned one way, and damned the other, as far as liberal attacks go.

What's reality? I'm sure you realize that any definition of "rights" relative to these issues of (gay marriage, civil unions, whatever terms you want to use) actually are state issues until the the issue is "taken up" by federal courts or the constitutional amendment process. Right now, you can and do have state level referendum, and state level judicial decisions on these matters. It's completely irrelevant if you "like it or not".

Now, what are you arguing exactly? Sort of what you'd like in an ideal world, how things are actually progressing in the USA in the recent term and near future (my comments), or how you'd sort of like things to progress (apparently strictly judicial, but you are quite vague even there)?

Side note: The civil union is an essential solution to this issue, because as noted a thousand legal technicalities make the "writing of a contract" in an attempt to simulate "civil union or marriage" a hornet's nest of problems. Yet this is state level. Think about it. There are not federal laws against murder. That's a state matter. There is no federal "marriage law". Again, state level.....

pgwenthold

22nd October 2008, 09:41 AM

Ballot initiative: We take all of mhaze's money a distribute among the rest of society.

Hey, all we are asking is to put the question up to the voters. mhaze shouldn't have a problem with it, right?

mhaze

22nd October 2008, 10:11 AM

Ballot initiative: We take all of mhaze's money a distribute among the rest of society.

Hey, all we are asking is to put the question up to the voters. mhaze shouldn't have a problem with it, right?

Ah....I'm sure you'll want to review these sections of constitutional law prior to wording your question. Otherwise you might err, and then your question if passed would be vetoed by your Governor. You see, property rights are covered, but gay marriage isn't covered. Don't take it out on me if you don't like black letter law.

Note when the Alaska amendment earlier discussed was found likely unconstitutional, Governor Palin vetoed it.

Wikipedia - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights)The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) from making any law respecting establishment of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion) and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty), or property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property), without due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process) of law.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution) reads:
“ No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law .... ”

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution) reads:
“ No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... ”

mhaze

22nd October 2008, 10:22 AM

From the article:
"FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin’s church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

‘‘You’ll be encouraged by the power of God’s love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,’’ according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years."
Your lame struggles at creating something from nothing are laughable.

Someone inserted a half page insert into a church bulletin. From that you build a house of cards argument about the church sponsoring/promoting some conference discussed in said insert(leaving out it's a completely separate, unaffiliated group

no financial connections,
no joint meetings,
no sharing of facilities,
no attendance by the church pastor at the conference,
no attendance by Palin at the conference

and then you draw inferences about the character of one person attending that church (Palin).

Disregard all evidence negative to your fantasy, to boot....
Promoting? Sponsoring? Really?
Little old Wasilla sponsors something in Anchorage? Focus on the Family, a national Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the ‘‘Love Won Out’’ Conference in Anchorage, about 30 miles from Wasilla.

moon1969

22nd October 2008, 10:30 AM

I guess westboro and Fred Phelps will be voting for Sarah Palin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be a homophobe. Didn"t Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say that there are no gay people in Iran? Maybe Sarah Palin should be the vice president of Iran?

mortimer

22nd October 2008, 10:37 AM

I didn't realize we'd gone down it in the first place. Her church sponsored a "Pray for Gay" conference. Have you ever met a fundie who believed prayer could "cure" homosexuality who didn't ALSO believe homosexuality was a sin and homosexuals were going to hell? I'm been on many a Christian MB and never come across such a person. Their existence must be likened to that of unicorns.
As mentioned above, her church did not sponsor the event. The conference was run by another organization, that placed a flyer for the event in the church newsletter. Its quite a stretch to assume that because Palin attends a church that had an insert from another organization in it's newsletter, she believes the contents of the insert. If you want to follow this line of reasoning, do you believe Obama is racist against white people?
As for her comments? "she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples". I would NEVER support such a ballot, and the only people I can imagine supporting it would be homophobic.
One can believe that homosexuality is a sin without fearing homosexuals.
Would you support a ballot question that would deny benefits to interracial couples? Didn't think so. Isn't that something a racist would do? Yes.
Strawman.

Pookster

22nd October 2008, 10:40 AM

I fully realized when I posted the relevant section from the Bill of Rights it would generate an onslaught of comments such as yours, however it is what it is and I fully recognize that you and others do not respect this document.

It is what you want to make it, sir. I also know the intent and beliefs of the Founders as well. I suggest you do a little research into that.

ETA to this part of my post:

Here is what you quoted ... I've bolded the relevant part ...

the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States

Now do me a favor and go back to the first page of this thread. You see there, that when Palin mentioned a "constitutional amendment" and it was interpreted as being at the federal level, she was roundly criticized. (Granted that was a modification or subset of the topic, specifically gay marriage and not the whole subject.).

Seems like she's damned one way, and damned the other, as far as liberal attacks go.

As she should be damned. Her desire to take away rights of some citizens should be damned, no matter what approach she takes.

Now, what are you arguing exactly? Sort of what you'd like in an ideal world, how things are actually progressing in the USA in the recent term and near future (my comments), or how you'd sort of like things to progress (apparently strictly judicial, but you are quite vague even there)?

I thought I was quite clear in my post. Here it is again ...

Echoing what others have stated, I have a huge problem with putting peoples rights to a vote. I suggest you think carefully about the wisdom of doing such a thing. Palin's mindset should terrify anyone who is a defender of human/civil rights. I can only imagine the eloquence of how the Founders would reply to such a proposition.

Side note: The civil union is an essential solution to this issue, because as noted a thousand legal technicalities make the "writing of a contract" in an attempt to simulate "civil union or marriage" a hornet's nest of problems. Yet this is state level. Think about it. There are not federal laws against murder. That's a state matter. There is no federal "marriage law". Again, state level.....

It doesn't surprise me to see this kind of ignorance given your post about the Constitution. I suggest you do just a little bit of research and you'll find there are federal laws for marriage and murder. Think about it.

22nd October 2008, 01:06 PM

One can believe that homosexuality is a sin without fearing homosexuals.

Yes, and you have every right to. However, you have forever and absolutely conceeded the point that then we can never, under any circumstances whatsoever, ban or regulate homosexual marriage in the USA, because you JUST ADMITTED IT WAS A RELIGIOUS REASON.

With your admission that the issue is religious, any argument barring homosexuals from the same legal status as anyone else is anti-Constitution, and frankly anti-American.

I hope you don't think that way.

SnuggleSmacks

22nd October 2008, 02:39 PM

It seems to me that this line of thought is very similiar to alcoholism or drug addiction, only it would be an "addiction" so extreme that it effects every aspect of the "sufferer's" life. This, to me, would seem to qualify homosexuals for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and therefore equal rights must be granted until such time as a "cure" is found.

Ridiculous? Convoluted? No more so than the thinking which led to the discrimination of a large, and still growing, portion of our population.

mhaze

22nd October 2008, 02:57 PM

It is what you want to make it, sir. I also know the intent and beliefs of the Founders as well. I suggest you do a little research into that.

ETA to this part of my post:

Here is what you quoted ... I've bolded the relevant part ...

the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States

As she should be damned. Her desire to take away rights of some citizens should be damned, no matter what approach she takes.
The "controversy" over the issues in this thread is over whether, when and how the rights of homosexual couples may be established. You seem to be in some fantasy world in which those rights exist right now. In the real world, they do not clearly exist. They exist in various vague forms that vary between states. In such a case I don't personally see any problem say with bringing a referendum up at the state level as to "marriage is between a man and a woman". Perhaps you do, but if you do, then you need to seek your particular solution at the federal level, don't you? And then you need to find an activist judge, because you won't get your agenda easily passed through Congress.

For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1968/1974/1988 does not define "Civil Rights" as a term that includes sexual orientation. Various cities and (I think) some states have ordinances that address this, but not the federal law mentioned. So when you assert something like "Her desire to take away rights of some citizens should be damned" shouldn't you first establish whether that right exists in the statutes?

A clarification in law of rights is not a "taking away of rights of some citizens", but a clarification of what rights actually exist. Duhhh.....

ponderingturtle

22nd October 2008, 03:39 PM

The "controversy" over the issues in this thread is over whether, when and how the rights of homosexual couples may be established. You seem to be in some fantasy world in which those rights exist right now. In the real world, they do not clearly exist. They exist in various vague forms that vary between states. In such a case I don't personally see any problem say with bringing a referendum up at the state level as to "marriage is between a man and a woman". Perhaps you do, but if you do, then you need to seek your particular solution at the federal level, don't you? And then you need to find an activist judge, because you won't get your agenda easily passed through Congress.

For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1968/1974/1988 does not define "Civil Rights" as a term that includes sexual orientation. Various cities and (I think) some states have ordinances that address this, but not the federal law mentioned. So when you assert something like "Her desire to take away rights of some citizens should be damned" shouldn't you first establish whether that right exists in the statutes?

A clarification in law of rights is not a "taking away of rights of some citizens", but a clarification of what rights actually exist. Duhhh.....

You know that people would make arguments like this was one of the reasons people were against the bill of rights.

Pookster

22nd October 2008, 04:25 PM

The "controversy" over the issues in this thread is over whether, when and how the rights of homosexual couples may be established. ...

The Founders would turn over in their graves if they could read the above. Government can't give rights. It can only restrict or take them away.

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. ~ Thomas Jefferson

mortimer

22nd October 2008, 04:52 PM

Yes, and you have every right to. However, you have forever and absolutely conceeded the point that then we can never, under any circumstances whatsoever, ban or regulate homosexual marriage in the USA, because you JUST ADMITTED IT WAS A RELIGIOUS REASON.

With your admission that the issue is religious, any argument barring homosexuals from the same legal status as anyone else is anti-Constitution, and frankly anti-American.

I hope you don't think that way.
I am 100% pro-gay marriage and pro- gay rights. Unlike Obama, who is obviously a homophobe because he is against gay marriage.

mhaze

22nd October 2008, 05:05 PM

You know that people would make arguments like this was one of the reasons people were against the bill of rights.Accurate....

Conjure Evil Palin the homophobe, while Obama is against gay marriage.

Yeah, right....

mhaze

22nd October 2008, 05:13 PM

The Founders would turn over in their graves if they could read the above. Government can't give rights. It can only restrict or take them away. Nonsense. Let's assert then it is the right of an insurance company to Not Pay survivor benefits to a same sex spouse. It is when rights come into conflict such as on this issue that a controversy exists. Right of A against Right of B, etc.

Nonetheless your blithe dismissal is of, well...reality. If not, then explain how a gay even has standing to bring a case under the Fair Housing/Civil Rights Act.

Pookster

22nd October 2008, 05:27 PM

Nonsense. Let's assert then it is the right of an insurance company ...

I stopped right there. Your ignorance of the Founders and their beliefs is clearly apparent from just those few words alone. And, yes. They would be rolling over in their graves ... again. I strongly suggest you do some research.

Tricky

22nd October 2008, 05:30 PM

I am 100% pro-gay marriage and pro- gay rights. Unlike Obama, who is obviously a homophobe politician because he is against gay marriage.
Fixed that for you.

mortimer

22nd October 2008, 05:44 PM

Fixed that for you.
Problem with that argument is that there are many politicians who are *not* opposed to gay marriage.

moon1969

22nd October 2008, 05:56 PM

Looks like the Pope will be visiting the White House many times if Palin wins. Palin is also pro-life because abortion is a sin. What ever happend to the separation of church and state? No surprise that the pope is a homophobe. Joseph Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler youth. Catholics supported Adolf Hitler but they didn"t support homosexuals and jews. Proposition 8 is wrong and it violates the separation of church and state.

Tricky

22nd October 2008, 05:58 PM

Problem with that argument is that there are many politicians who are *not* opposed to gay marriage.
Are there many who are running for national office? Are they anything close to a majority?

But really, I sort of agree with you. I said earlier in this thread that all four of them are hypocrites for endorsing marriage-in-all-but-name. I strongly support allowing gay couples to be legally married, not just unionized. But I do understand the necessity, in the current political climate, of not giving you opponant a club that he can beat you over the head with, and that's what it would be if any of them ever said they support gay "marriage".

I suppose I should be glad that even the Republicans realize that there is no mileage in coming out against civil unions. It says we are moving in the right direction. We are not there yet.

Alferd_Packer

22nd October 2008, 06:05 PM

I support gay marriage.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?

{rimshot}

mhaze

22nd October 2008, 06:47 PM

I stopped right there. Your ignorance .....
Yada Yada Yada.

Wait...no facts?

gumboot

22nd October 2008, 07:06 PM

Marriage was originally a religious institution.

No it wasn't. Marriage in Ancient Greece and Rome was a private contract between people, with no religious aspect whatsoever. Although marriage was typically only between men and women, in Ancient Rome there were instances of same-sex marriage.

More than anything it was a contractual agreement between two families.

It was only after the emergence of Christian Emperors in the 4th C that same-sex marriage (and then homosexual intercourse) were banned. Even during the medieval period marriage was seen as a private personal agreement between two people, without any religious requirement. For the nobility it was essentially a business deal merging families together, like corporate mergers. It became common to register marriages with the local parish, and it became common to conduct weddings in the local church, but that was a reflection of the church's role as a community focal point, and these religious aspects were wholly optional.

It wasn't until the 16th Century, with the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation, that religious involvement became a requirement of marriage.

Marriage, traditionally, is a private, non-religious agreement between individuals. For the last 500 years it has been hijacked by religious institutions. It's about time those archaic out-dated values are rejected and marriage is allowed to return to what it was always intended to be.

Pookster

22nd October 2008, 07:37 PM

Wait...no facts?

They're all waiting for you. Do the research. Enlighten yourself. I think you'll find the Founders' views and beliefs concerning rights and the role of Government to be quite intriguing and eye opening. Start with Jefferson and Madison, if you want.

mhaze

22nd October 2008, 09:15 PM

They're all waiting for you. Do the research. Enlighten yourself. I think you'll find the Founders' views and beliefs concerning rights and the role of Government to be quite intriguing and eye opening. Start with Jefferson and Madison, if you want.I'm waiting for you to explain how your enlightened, progressive idealism gives you standing under the mentioned laws.

ponderingturtle

23rd October 2008, 12:59 PM

Problem with that argument is that there are many politicians who are *not* opposed to gay marriage.

In america running for national office?

Please provide your evidence.

There was only one canidate for the democratic party who supported gay marriage, and he was concidered by most to be a loon and his canidacy a joke.

So of the 20 odd people who ran for president from the major parties you only have 1 person for gay marriage. THat is not many.

mortimer

23rd October 2008, 06:49 PM

mhaze

23rd October 2008, 07:24 PM

In america running for national office?

Please provide your evidence.

There was only one canidate for the democratic party who supported gay marriage, and he was concidered by most to be a loon and his canidacy a joke.

So of the 20 odd people who ran for president from the major parties you only have 1 person for gay marriage. THat is not many.

At least two - Ron Paul also...

Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[197] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-196) Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[198] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-197) He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[199] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-gaymarriage-198) Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[200] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-atgoogle-199)[201] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-nhdebate-200) Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[200] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-atgoogle-199)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-atgoogle-199)
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act), which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[128] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-wtpa-127) If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_union), from federal jurisdiction.

Herzblut

23rd October 2008, 08:40 PM