« Heh | Main | Rudy rules! »

Boy was I wrong

I recently implied that Sarah Palin's gubernatorial record placed her to the left of the vast majority of Republicans on gay rights. Not so, according to this survey. It says that 49% of RNC delegates support either gay marriage or civil unions, while 46% oppose both. Perhaps I'm not as out of touch with my party as I thought.


I think I told you that, but I'd bet some folks wouldn't believe that. "Actually, her views on homosexual unions are consistent with most Conservatives.

"Most Conservatives OPPOSE "gay Marriage" and SUPPORT civil unions. (JMK)

Interesting poll though, and it says pretty much the same thing; "The poll reveals that 49% of the GOP delegates support either gay marriage (6%) or civil unions (43%)."

The problem with "Marriage," is that if the Bill is not worded correctly it CAN give litigious groups the grounds on which to fight in court in favor of a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment - demanding that the government force all religious institutions to Marry gays on the grounds of "equal access/protection."

This conservative wants the government to get the hell out of marriage altogether.

I share JMK's concern that "gay marriage" will be used as a bludgeon against religious institutions.

In an ideal world you are both right, of course. In the meantime, I'd prefer equal treatment before the law to our current status quo.

Does Palin support civil unions? In her 2006 run, she said she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples. True, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled the state couldn't deny spousal benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. However, she only recognized the ruling of the court.


She also supported the Bridge to Nowhere until its federal funding (as its projected cost increased) began to fall apart. Hardly the "slayer of the Bridge to Nowhere" as she's been depicted.

It also doesn't matter much that 49% support civil unions if those 49% are willing to give in to the 46% on this issue in order to put together a winning coalition.

Like I said on the other thread, you may be pro-gay rights and pro-choice. However, these just are not deal braker issues for you. So your saying "I'm pro-gay rights and I'm pro-choice and I support Palin" doesn't say that much to me.

I would never vote for someone who would support a ballot question that would deny spousal benefits to same sex partners. The fact that she can go along with it if forced isn't enough for me.

>I would never vote for someone who would support a ballot question that would deny spousal benefits to same sex partners.

If I thought I had the luxury of being a single-issue voter, I wouldn't either. But there are lots of important issues out there, and although I disagree with McCain/Palin on quite a few, I disagree with Obama/Biden on many more. That's just politics.

If you'll recall, Rudy Giuliani was one of my early favorites before his campaign imploded. His track record as mayor was quite good on abortion and gay rights, and terrible on guns. Nonetheless, I thought he netted out to a good candidate. I'd happily support him if he were the nominee, but he's not.

Good point regarding your support of Guilliani.

Still, I think that Guilliani would've felt more pressure to adjust his second amendment stance than Palin will have to regarding her stands on choice and gay rights.

The "Gay Marraige" issue is pretty much off the table.

Back in 2006 2/3s of the American people rejected gay marriage. It went down to defeat in 8 of 9 Ballot referendums by huge margins.

It's not even on any Ballots this year. Look, when more than 2/3s of the American people reject "gay marriage" it's probabluy best to accept that "voice of the people."

NOT one advocate of gay mariage has ever made a compelling case of "gay marriage" over civil unions.

Moreover, Palin's FIRST veto was of a Bill that would deny same-sex couples state benefits.

Your own refrenced article acknowledges, “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.

“The constitutional amendment that voters passed 2-to-1 in 1998 to ban gay marriage was clear, he said - the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

"The people of Alaska should have the opportunity to vote on that issue and clarify what their intent was with the amendment that they passed," Binkley said.

“Palin...supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.

But Sarah Palin seems to see Gay Marriage and same-sex benefits as two distinct issues, and they are.

Ms. Palin said she supported Alaska’s decision to amend its Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. But she used her first veto as governor to block a bill that would have prohibited the state from granting health benefits to same-sex partners of public employees.

Same-sex Benefits Ban Gets Palin Veto

Anchorage Daily News
December 29, 2006

“Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples.

“In the first veto of an administration that isn't yet a month old, Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

“Advice from her new attorney general said the bill passed by the Legislature was unconstitutional, she said.


Post a comment