Media continue to falsely suggest Palin supports benefits for same-sex couples
SUMMARY: In recent reports, McClatchy News Service and the Las Vegas Sun falsely suggested that Gov. Sarah Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. In fact, while Palin did veto a bill that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, she stated that she did so because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that the bill was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples.
In recent reports, McClatchy News Service and the Las Vegas Sun falsely suggested that Gov. Sarah Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. McClatchy reporters George Bryson and Richard Mauer reported that Palin is in favor of "prohibiting same-sex marriage." They added: "After becoming governor 20 months ago, on the other hand, Palin didn't balk at implementing an Alaska Supreme Court ruling that ordered the state to provide the same benefits to same-sex partners it provides to married couples." The Sun's David McGrath Schwartz reported that, as governor, Palin "vetoed a bill that would have prevented same-sex couples from getting public employee benefits." In fact, while Palin did veto a bill in 2006 that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, she has stated that she did so because the Alaska attorney general had advised her the bill was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented.
Moreover, Palin indicated in a written questionnaire and in December 2006 press releases that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to the same spousal benefits given to other state employees; in another questionnaire, Palin replied, "Yes," when asked whether she would support "a Constitutional amendment to overturn [the] Alaska Supreme Court decision mandating public employers to provide benefits equivalent to marriage to same-sex couples."
Media Matters previously documented numerous media outlets and figures, including the Associated Press, CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, CNN.com, United Press International, and syndicated columnist Debra Saunders, advancing the myth that Palin supports benefits for same-sex couples.
From the September 14 McClatchy article:
Palin considers herself a born-again conservative Christian. She supports teaching creationism in the public schools, outlawing nearly all abortions (even in cases of rape or incest) and prohibiting same-sex marriage.
After becoming governor 20 months ago, on the other hand, Palin didn't balk at implementing an Alaska Supreme Court ruling that ordered the state to provide the same benefits to same-sex partners it provides to married couples.
And she has yet to advance legislation that insists that creationism, or ''intelligent design,'' be taught in public school science classes whenever biological evolution is taught -- as urged by a plank in the official Alaska Republican Party platform.
From the September 15 Las Vegas Sun article:
Of course, both sides are trying to make Palin into a caricature. For the left, it is to cast her as a frightening religious zealot. However, as governor she vetoed a bill that would have prevented same-sex couples from getting public employee benefits; she also drew flak from pro-life groups because she declined to take up two abortion-related measures during special sessions aimed at getting a natural gas pipeline agreement passed, saying the abortion-related proposals would be a distraction.
You would think someone in the press corps following her since her selection as the GOP VP candidate would have asked her by now, at one of her many press conferences, where she stands on this issue. Oh, wait...Sarah Palin is off-limits to the press. Nevermind...
Sarah Palin is off-limits to the press. Nevermind...
That is the scary thing about her as a VP pick, no one talks to her , except cupcake interviewer Charlie Gibson.
Hannity - "Governor Palin, you are doing a great job especially against all the liberals and teh vicious attacks they have been conducting against you and your children and your family, you are a Great American"
Palin- "Thank you Sean, heee heee heee hee , by they way turn around, see Russia? its right over there"
Hannity- "You are a Great American, God Bless you and Senator McCain"
Next on Hannity and Colmes, an interview with the great Jerome Corsi.
I understand that next week she may get grilled by Katie Couric. Ooooooh.... ;>)
I'd rather see her grilled by this guy.
I'm so looking forward to Hannity's hard-hitting interview with Mrs. Loopner tonight. I caught his promo last night, and he mentioned that they'd be discussing Obama (I predict 85-90% of the interview will be about Obama).
The rest should be made up of Feminist Outrage from the little whiny Republi-Troll.
Palin replied, "Yes," when asked whether she would support "a Constitutional amendment to overturn [the] Alaska Supreme Court decision mandating public employers to provide benefits equivalent to marriage to same-sex couples."
Good. I like her more than I like McCain. She's seems to be a bit more Conservative than he is. And no, I don't hate homosexuals. I hate mandates.
And no, I don't hate homosexuals. I hate mandates.
Well, if that's how you feel, date women.
:-)
I don't know about other posters here, but I am tired of zealots like Palin who use the power of our government to ostracize those who do not share their religious views.
There's a huge, undeniable difference between smearing someone, like Ann Coulter did to Al Gore, with a malevolent heart, and making a funny play on words that have nothing to do with you personally and only related to the words you used in your post.
The fact that you didn't recognize the difference, and tried claim that there's some kind of similarity between those two events, makes you a hypocrite, Dave!
So if Ann called ole Al a throat warbler, that would've been a OK? Just because she is a pundit and I'm just an annonymous poster doesn't make your party look any more tolerant to gays than mine does when those from your party use it to berate other people.
Just because your party claims to support gay rights but still places them in the "comedy" category makes you all a bunch of hypocrites.
Just because your party claims to support gay rights but still places them in the "comedy" category makes you all a bunch of hypocrites.
Nope - the GOP has cornered the market on hypicrisy.
Right, gay people who fight against gay rights, bad. Gay people who support gay rights, good.
It makes perfect sense when you think about it that way.
Typical conservaitve. Hates that which is necessary for progress.
Palin is a religious nut. So is anyone who still she's qualified...
...And THAT is an agenda FULL of mandates. Conservatives who HATE MANDATES but embrace RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT are fools. (Or hypocrites. Or liars. Take your pick.)
Necessary for who? What progress? And what is a religious nut exactly? Anyone who goes to a different church, or any, than you? In case you haven't noticed, my party is not exactly pro gay, so what did you expect?
I liked being called a typical Conservative though. These days, we are few and far between.
Religious nut: Wants to teach creation in the science class. (check) Outlaw abortion, w/o even a rape exception. (check) Believes that the war (ANY war) is truly the will of God. (check, and scary) Believes strongly and literaly in the end of days. (check, and scary) Wants to limit funding of stem cell research. (check) Support discrimination against non-heterosexuals (check). Against comprehensive sex education. (check)
Did I miss anything? Aside from the whole MASSIVE hypocrite and LIAR thing, and the fact that Jesus would more likely shun than embrace her, I mean.
Progress for who? ANY social progress that increases liberty and equality is to the benefit of all mankind. Only troglodytic thugs like you fail to see this. And the republican's haven't stood behind (or indeed failed to fight) any significant progressive reforms since the emancipation proclamation.
Putting Caribou Barbie on your ticket is a cynical and transparent attempt to hide your embarrassingly regressive policies and record.
If you guys are so hip to go kill all the terrorists, and so quick to demonize all the muslim countris of the world; Why do you want so desperately for us to be MORE LIKE THEM?
Mandates? So protecting people is a mandate? Sigh
yes I agree, mandates are bad
In fact lets get ride of all past mandates
Brown vs Board of Education
Marbury v. Madison http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Marburyv.html
Well actually there are far too many to post here, but here is one link Court Mandates
Maybe look up the word mandate, before you decide you hate them.
You're full of crap. Congress mandates that rich bastards like you get a better tax deal than a working class guy like me. I bet you're all for that kind of mandate.
It ain't mandates you hate, you don't like those faggots digging into your wallet. Just be honest, Dave.
It ain't mandates you hate, you don't like those faggots digging into your wallet.
I don't like anyone, not you, "faggots", illegals, Govt, etc, digging into my wallet. Mandate is just a word politicians use to hit my wallet again. And if you are so pissed off about rich guys like me, why don't you apply that brain GOD gave you and use it to become like me and stop your whining? A living wage is what you can negotiate....not what you demand.
And if you are so pissed off about rich guys like me, why don't you apply that brain GOD gave you and use it to become like me and stop your whining?
If I was like you, Dave, I'd kill myself.
If I was like you, Dave, I'd kill myself. WZ
As always WZ, usefull information. If your going to actually do it, use a gun....don't wuss out on me and try to do it with Tylenol.
God didn't give anyone a brain, because our brains evolved just like every other animal's brain did.
And you live in a society, which means we all contribute to the lives of the collective, including you. You're going to have to fork it over anyway, so you might as well just relax and enjoy it.
I wish I could, Neon. But I have a big problem handing my wallet over to politicians who are less Conservative than I am and who would do less with it than I would. Handing my money over to the Govt is no better than handing it over to a drunken sailor. I can't find any reason to just relax and let them spend it. I've earned it. They didn't.
Please.
When was the last time you built a Hospital, a highway system, or a banking system, or an army, or a network of police and fire stations? When is the last time you funded the cure for polio, launched the WWW or paid for hundreds of thousands of college scholarships or small business loans?
God you're so blinded by your own arrogance, you give yourself way too much credit, yoyo boy.
Singlehandedly....never. But with my already high NY taxes, I have funded them all. So my answer to you is Apr 8, 2008....the day I filed.
Then stfu about ineffective government. Obviously, the collective imagination of the public servants in our government have done a pretty effective job of using your money better than you could or would.
Nice. I think the Feds could do better with less. BO promises he will raise my taxes, so he gets a no vote from me. I don't like Johnny M, but hopefully he won't make me pay more. More money is not the answer, just don't ask the teachers' union.
BTW, there's no perfect highways, no perfect army, etc, no matter how much I pay in taxes.
Yeah, and I don't think some privatization loving con man is in any position to gripe about public education. Not when the intent of cons is to underfund, mismanage and impose the anti-learning NCLB on our nation's schools in an effort to so dismantle our schools that even privatization looks appealing. It's disaster capitalism to a tee.
Do you actually listen/watch yourself type or is the crap you spew straight from your professor's mouth at school?
The Govt wastes lots of money. Everyday. Spending more money on public education only benefits teacher unions.
What I would hope you understand is that throwing more money at a problem, any problem, will not necessarily make it better.
I know damn well throwing money at problems doesn't solve real problems and I defy you to show me where I advocate such a measure. So take your rightwing pablum and put it where the sun don't shine.
No, it takes using the purse strings to place conditions on funding and demand accountability from teachers, and it takes parental participation, but it doesn't mean starving our education system either. But make no mistake about it, teachers are heroes and they deserve to be well paid for helping our kids grow and learn as they will be the leaders of tomorrow. Their services are invaluable.
I mean do you really believe public school teachers are overpaid? Most teachers purchase classroom supplies out of pocket. I mean seriously. Shoot man, most young people of today chose to forego a life dedicated to public service because the salaries for teachers are so imbalanced with price of higher education that it is impossible to get by.
I think you'll be fine. I'd rather see a few guys like you have have your sweetheart Bush tax deal rescinded under Obama than have honest to God hard working people like me and my neighbors squeezed even harder under McCain.
I'm just tired of footing the bill for jackasses like the ones you admire every time y'all need us to bail y'all out of another avoidable financial crisis. You can afford to pay for your own screw-ups, or you can have the grace to give back your paychecks for job well mangled.
I've earned it. They didn't.
Yet one more conservative who's never taken a macroeconomics and doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking when it comes to the money supply and how that relates to his income.
Newsflash: If it weren't for taxes and spending, that money would nat have been avaialble for you to earn! You worry about forking over .28 of the dollar (or whatever) when your income w/o that would have been .28 cents less anyway. (It's called the balanced budget multiplier - look it up or take an economics course. Your just spouting party BS and continuing to confuse the ignorant.)
NEON...
As I ask all you lemmings who will blindly hand over your money to the government thugs:
How much is enough? What percentage of your income is enough? 30? 40? That's about what anyone with a job pays in all levels of taxation. These aren't "the rich" who are having their money wasted by an insatiable government. And you idiots support Obama because you want MORE government.
Furthermore, we don't live in a Collectivist society. This is America, not the Soviet Union or Cuba. And isn't interesting that those countries, which existed for the collective good of everybody, is where the masses lived -- and still live -- in the some of the most oppressed and impovershed conditions the modern world has ever known.
Instead, we see wealth accumulating at the top while the rest of us are struggling to get by on ever shrinking real wages. Since 1979 worker productivity has grown 70% but real inflation adjusted wages have grown just 7%. Do you realize that corporate executives earn 275 times more than the average worker? In 1973 it was only 27 times more. You do know that .01% of our country controls 90% of our wealth, right? We have seen your way create a society that has drifted far from the egalitarian society our founding fathers envisioned, to a society of inherited wealth.
The funniest aspect of your post is that given our dangerous rift of economic inequality, a rift that inhibits mobility, we have become more like Russia and Latin America.
I mean, what the Hell happened to the Republican Party? You used to have guys who said things like, “The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us.” Now your Party is ate up cynics who have nothing to offer but canned attack lines on liberal ideas like, "And you idiots support Obama because you want MORE government."
So you're OK with organized labor.
You're going to have to get it through your thick skull that investing in the American worker, giving them a significant portion of power and protecting their interests is the key to our long term survival and competitiveness as a global economic super power.
Companies go over seas so the owners can keep a bigger slice of the pie all for themselves and to hell with the American people.
You have an amazing grasp of the obvious, Sherlock.
Elitist bastard.
I do have a keen grasp of the obvious. Such as, you're going to have to get it through your thick skull that investing in the American worker, giving them a significant portion of power and protecting their interests is the key to our long term survival and competitiveness as a global economic super power.
And you have no grasp of what it means to love your country enough to sacrifice for the greater good. RH
And you call me an elitist?
Yes. You are a pugnacious, anti-American elitist.
Go to hell, Dave. Your dreams of avarice are not the same dreams I have. I simply want the reward for the quality of my labor, and every laborer, to meet basic living standards. Shelter, food, transportation, college loans, medical insurance. That's it. To me prosperity is well- being, nothing more nothing less. Prosperity is not how many homes I can afford. In other words, the corporate path is not the only path to success.
The American dream has been mandated out of reach for working people by hostile conservative government policies. Profits and productivity have soared in recent decades yet the men and women responsible for your extravagant wealth are left in need. Since 1979 worker productivity has grown 70% but real inflation adjusted wages have grown just 7%. So don't tell us we can just go negotiate better wages you blithely ignorant man. Thanks to the union busting thugs your privileged white ass votes for, no, I can't negotiate for better wages, or pensions, or medical plans. I can take what a million dollar CEO deem is proper for me and my family, or I can be fired.
Meanwhile, the same bastards who have busted our economy expect us to purchase their golden parachute.
Screw your elitist arrogance, Dave.
>>A living wage is what you can negotiate....not what you demand.
And the democratic process is a form of negotiation.
Voting for candidates that promote labor issues is much like labor unions themselves.
How do gay couples getting the same benefits that you would, assuming you're married, "dig into your walllet"?
It's nonsense.
Anyone that is awake...sitting up...and taking nourishment...knows Gov.Palin's position on same sex marriage...she opposes it.
She could have easily signed the bill that would advance her position. She followed a rule of law and did her duty...good for her.
-- "The Supreme Court has ordered adoption of the regulations by the State of Alaska to begin providing benefits January 1. We have no more judicial options. We may disagree with the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and follow the Constitution." -- Gov.Palin
Homosexuals owe her a hearty thanks...not criticism.
Yes, gays in Alaska could thank Palin for not violating both their rights and the constitution, which is what many Republicans wanted.
However, if people think Palin is sympathetic to gay rights, which they could conclude from the articles Media Matters has highlighted here, they would be wrong. She is hostile to them.
They would conclude no such thing...if they bothered to read the articles instead of being led over the cliff by the mmfa good shepherd of partisan spin.
But thanks for recognizing that homosexuals owe her a debt of gratitude...for following the law and not her personal agenda.
Right, because when you read that someone vetoed a bill, one automatically assumes that there was a legal requirement to do so.
As for the first article, the suggestion that her following the law has some bearing on her views is ridiculous. She followed the law, wonderful. That doesn't make her any less of a homophobe and religious zealot.
That's what makes her such a Mavrick! She's a republican who OBEYS THE LAW...most of the time.
And hey WES - you still owe me a thank-you for not stealing your tv. So far, I haven't got a phone call, a card....nothin'. Makes me wonder if you even care about the sacrifice I made.
"For the left, it is to cast her as a frightening religious zealot. However, as governor she vetoed a bill that would have prevented same-sex couples from getting public employee benefits." Sounds like she supports those rights.
And my "thanks" comment was sarcastic. We shouldn't have to thank leaders for not violating our rights.
"I deserve respect for the things I did not do." - Dan Quayle
I'm not sure how you guys get from a discussion about Sarah Palin to "ball gags" and "restraints"...
Just another example of subliminal liberal sexism.
Sometimes Wes, MMFA twists itself up in such knots it can't get loose. This from McClatchy reprinted here > "She supports teaching creationism in the public schools, outlawing nearly all abortions (even in cases of rape or incest) and prohibiting same-sex marriage"
Yet in the summary here, MMFA says that McClatchy suggested she supports benefits for same sex couples. Ahh, what? So Palin supports prohibiting same-sex marriage, but supports benefits?
No, what the article clearly states is she knew her personal views conflict with the Alaska Constitution, and she did what she had to do.
Palin has plenty to be criticized for, just not this veto of hers, sorry.
"Ahh, what? So Palin supports prohibiting same-sex marriage, but supports benefits?"
Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but supports civil unions.
And...
Nobody's criticizing her for the veto. The point is that it doesn't prove any amount of tolerance on her part.
"She supports teaching creationism in the public schools, outlawing nearly all abortions (even in cases of rape or incest) and prohibiting same-sex marriage"
Please explain to me how this statement is misinformation?
You're quoting the wrong part.
"After becoming governor 20 months ago, on the other hand, Palin didn't balk at implementing an Alaska Supreme Court ruling that ordered the state to provide the same benefits to same-sex partners it provides to married couples."
There's no contrast here. Following the law doesn't say anything about her views, which this clearly suggests. Do you want to dispute the meaning of "on the other hand"?
Same-sex marriage is a different issue from partner benefits. Obama supports civil unions, but not same-sex marriage, again.
Why would I want her views to trump the law? It's good that she followed the law. It just doesn't say anything about her tolerance, as the article suggests. This is not complicated.
I have already said her tolerance, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. You want that intolerance blasted all over everywhere, fine. I am more interested in her actions and her duties as an elected official.
Typical liberal emotional argument again. Argue from the facts, not your emotions.
Her views are relevant to the public debate. The media shouldn't be misrepresenting them.
Why is that "emotional"?
Tommy, Tommy, Tommy...
You miss the point of the article (again), the missinformation was that some Con's are claiming Palin is more accepting of gay rights (that tolerance word).
When in reality her veto of the bill had nothing to do with her being pro-gay, she just did it because she was told it was unconstitutional
Gosh. Why do you need this lesson day after day? Why are you so thick or so dishones that you won't see or won't admit that you see something?
It forwards the conservative agenda by making her look better than she deserves to look to liberal and moderates!
She does not support same sex benefits. If she did, that would make her look better to moderates. Suggesting she supports those benefits, when she really doesn't makes her look better than she deserves to look!
Really, guys, you need to use this argument every time Tommy brings this up.
Didn't you read the article?
They were shipping them to Fresno.
Not poor economically, poor meaning "poor soul" its an expression Col.
-- Sometimes Wes, MMFA twists itself up in such knots it can't get loose. -- tommy
Yep...and the same can be said for some of their followers...refusing to give Gov. Palin any credit for her action on the same-sex benefits legislation...preferring to let mmfa stoke their hatred.
Gov.Palin...in opposition to her party and own beliefs...opted to perform her constitutional duty while a democrat governor would have been roundly praised by the liberal folks for the same action.
Talk about being twisted in partisan knots...imagine how angry they could get if she had signed the law. Maybe O'Reilly can host a segment on how angry some of mmfa's legion appear...lol.
"Gov.Palin...in opposition to her party and own beliefs...opted to perform her constitutional duty while a democrat governor would have been roundly praised by the liberal folks for the same action."
Are we assuming that the Democrat opposed gay rights in this scenario? If they supported gay rights, it's wildly different from Palin. If they didn't, they'd still get criticism from within the party for their homophobic views.
What? Yes, nobody should discuss them, nobody. Quiet everybody. Whenever you are losing an argument you either divert, invent, or distort. Grow up.
"Palin should be criticized for her actions, not her feelings. Period."
That doesn't apply to everyone? It sure doesn't sound like you're talking about yourself alone.
Crickets.
Just crickets. You proved that he was being 100% disingenuous, and he just STFU.
And yeah, Jeter, this goes for you too. When you don't/won't call Tommy out when he behaves like this, you are fairly tarred with the same dishonest brush.
And it's not even Friday, and already Tommy is going off the deep end. Friday should be fun, fun, fun!
Crickets.
Just crickets. You proved that he was being 100% disingenuous, and he just STFU.
And yeah, Jeter, this goes for you too. When you don't/won't call Tommy out when he behaves like this, you are fairly tarred with the same dishonest brush.
And it's not even Friday, and already Tommy is going off the deep end. Friday should be fun, fun, fun!
Moreover, Palin indicated in a written questionnaire and in December 2006 press releases that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to the same spousal benefits given to other state employees; in another questionnaire, Palin replied, "Yes," when asked whether she would support "a Constitutional amendment to overturn [the] Alaska Supreme Court decision mandating public employers to provide benefits equivalent to marriage to same-sex couples."
Does the MSM typically give this little bit of information when trying to inform voters about Palin's stance on same-sex couples? Yes, she vetoed a bill that would ban benefits for gay couples, but only because the current law deemed it unconstitutional. The above clearly shows that she would support a constitutional amendment to change the law to fit her extreme views.
Some people personally oppose gay marriage but don't believe it's right for gay couples to be denied benefits. Then there are others who are against gay marriage and want to prohibit benefits for them. Palin is in the later category.
I have already said her tolerance, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. You want that intolerance blasted all over everywhere, fine. I am more interested in her actions and her duties as an elected official.
But Palin is on the record as saying that she would support an amendment to prohibit govt. benefits for gay couples. In other words, while she respects the current law, which is just, she is very willing to overturn it for one that is unjust. So her lack of tolerance does have the potential to affect her actions and duties as an elected official.
I have no idea, hopefully uphold the law and the constitution, as is her duty.
Really, when you lose an argument in the realm of reality, you always drift to hypotheticals......why? Never mind, I know.
It's a possible scenario in the future. What if she becomes President? She would veto any gay rights bill that comes to her desk, surely. That affects people whether it's legal for her to do or not.
By your logic, we can elect a racist, homophobic xenophobe, because following the law is all that matters. Those views can't possibly have any real impact on policy.
Tell me how that's not accurate, please.
"because following the law is all that matters"
That is correct. You are just displaying visual proof why liberals argue from emotion and not facts. I could not have laid it out better if I tried. Not sure you meant to confirm what I have long believed, but thanks anyway.
"What is relevant is that she upholds the law and doesn't let her personal prejudices or feeling interfere with her official duties, period."
"I am more interested in her actions and her duties as an elected official."
"It's not against the law to be a homophobe, if her homophobism extended to breaking the law, then I am with you. Until that happens, her personal feelings are irrelvant to me - I may certainly consider that when voting for her, but that is another matter."
"If she acts unlawfully because of her personal feelings then that is another matter, otherwise who she likes or doesn't like, personally, is not relevant, only her actions as an elected official are."
Am I supposed to be misrepresenting you? Or are you saying that racism and xenophobia might manifest themselves in policy while homophobia can't?
You are becoming unhinged Brab, you just reiterated what I just said. That her actions are what is important, not her personal feelings, with regard to upholding the law and the constitution.
Her feelings are not actionable or will they ever be put to any constitutional test. Her actions on the other hand most definitely will be. That is my concern. As I said, of course her personal feelings may be a factor in my voting decision, but they have no relevance as to her official capacity. I fully expect, if the two are at odds, that her duty as an elected official trump her personal feelings, every time.
"You are just displaying visual proof why liberals argue from emotion and not facts. I could not have laid it out better if I tried. Not sure you meant to confirm what I have long believed, but thanks anyway."
So if I interpreted you correctly, how is that "emotional" at all? That makes zero sense at all.
It doesn't have anything to do with whether she's operating within her boundaries or capacity or not. It affects the actions she would take in office, and that's important to people besides you. What part of this are you denying?
Your comments below on this very thread today tell me that her following the law, or operating within her capacity, is secondary to you over your concern for her personal feelings, which are obviously far more important to you than her actions in office.
So tell me again how you aren't arguing this from a strictly emotional standpoint, because you absolutely are. Facts and actions run behind feelings and personal views, for you, you have as much as admitted it. Your excuse is well it could affect policy. Duh, nobody is arguing that, if it does then you have a completely different argument and a far more serious matter, But Hey, no problem, just be honest about it....if that is possible. Enjoy your day....
"It doesn't have anything to do with whether she's operating within her boundaries or capacity or not"
"Following the law doesn't say anything about her views, which this clearly suggests"
"Your comments below on this very thread today tell me that her following the law, or operating within her capacity, is secondary to you over your concern for her personal feelings, which are obviously far more important to you than her actions in office."
First off, those quotes came after your comments about emotional arguments, so they don't support your charge. Look up "linear time".
I'm not making any comments about what's "secondary" to me. I already said it's great that she followed the law. At the same time, her views are not friendly towards the gay community, and people should know that. These two things are not conflicting at all.
"So tell me again how you aren't arguing this from a strictly emotional standpoint, because you absolutely are. Facts and actions run behind feelings and personal views, for you, you have as much as admitted it. Your excuse is well it could affect policy. Duh, nobody is arguing that, if it does then you have a completely different argument and a far more serious matter, But Hey, no problem, just be honest about it....if that is possible. Enjoy your day...."
It's not from an emotional standpoint because you're misrepresenting what I'm saying.
If you're not arguing that it could affect policy, then what do you think you've been arguing? She should be judged on her actions, not her views, remember? If her views affect her policy, then people can judge her on them. And now you understand the point of the hypothetical, because that would be "a far more serious matter". This is the argument I've been making all along, glad you could finally catch up a little bit.
It's remarkable, isn't it? The potential for one's personal views to affect their actions is quite obvious. Tommy's always stood up for gay rights here in the past. He doesn't support McCain or Palin. And the media is acting as if Palin is more tolerant than she really is.
It would seem he should see the point of the item quite clearly, and support it wholeheartedly.
Just to be clear, and to avoid your typically distorted and dishonest take on my position on anything, stick to explaining your own if you don't mind.
As for gay rights, I do not support discrimination of any kind, including sexual orientation. I believe gays have every right to be included in state sanctioned unions, just as straight couples. I do not support McCain/Palin for many reasons. As for Palin's personal views on same-sex marriage, or gay rights for that matter, it may be one of the reasons I do not support her, but as long as they don't interfere with her duties to uphold the law, then they are not relevant to me.
The media clearly states she is opposed to same sex marriages, as repeated in this very piece by MMFA. They also state she vetoed the bill that would have prevented Alaska from granting same-sex couples benefits. There is no misinformation, the facts are clearly stated.
It is rather ironic however, that Brab complains about the media misinterpreting Palin's position, but he has no problem summarizing mine inaccurately all the time.
"Just to be clear, and to avoid your typically distorted and dishonest take on my position on anything, stick to explaining your own if you don't mind."
You're free to explain exactly how I've distorted anything you've said here. You don't support Palin, you've supported gay rights.
"As for gay rights, I do not support discrimination of any kind, including sexual orientation. I believe gays have every right to be included in state sanctioned unions, just as straight couples. I do not support McCain/Palin for many reasons. As for Palin's personal views on same-sex marriage, or gay rights for that matter, it may be one of the reasons I do not support her, but as long as they don't interfere with her duties to uphold the law, then they are not relevant to me."
She can take legal action that goes against your philosophy regarding gay rights. How on earth is that not relevant to you?
"The media clearly states she is opposed to same sex marriages, as repeated in this very piece by MMFA. They also state she vetoed the bill that would have prevented Alaska from granting same-sex couples benefits. There is no misinformation, the facts are clearly stated."
Again, you can't expect people to assume that she opposes partner benefits just because she opposes same-sex marriages. They aren't the same thing, and many Democrats support the former but not the latter.
"It is rather ironic however, that Brab complains about the media misinterpreting Palin's position, but he has no problem summarizing mine inaccurately all the time."
Again, feel free to show how you're being misrepresented. You don't seem to be able to.
I have no idea, hopefully uphold the law and the constitution, as is her duty.
No idea? She's on the record as saying she would support an amendment to the constitution to reverse the Supreme Court's decisions. It's reasonable to predict what her decision will be. I will not support such a candidate, because while in this instance she chose to uphold a "good" law out of duty, her personal views motivate her to try and change it in the future.
Politicians have to do more than blindly follow the rule of law, Tommy. They need to have the wisdom and good sense to know which laws are just and should be protected or put in place, and which should be challenged, questioned, removed, or rejected.
For instance, while I applaud Palin for vetoing the measure, that's only because I agreed with the outcome. She upheld a law that rightfully gave benefits to same-sex couples. However, I would not be happy if she vetoed a measure that attempted to give said benefits, when the current law banned the practice. So she honored the current law. So what? It was unjust to begin with.
In this case she's using her personal feelings to affect her duty. But the fact of the matter is ther her personal feelings are based on sound judgement. There is NO legitimate argument to deny same-sex couples the same benefits that couples receive.
since Tommy has not replied to my post, let me reiterate what the entire article is about (not about wither Palin will vote pro-gay or her views on abortion or her views on creationism).
Please read:
The article's title
Media continue to falsely suggest Palin supports benefits for same-sex couples
Two of the pieces sited
After becoming governor 20 months ago, on the other hand, Palin didn't balk at implementing an Alaska Supreme Court ruling that ordered the state to provide the same benefits to same-sex partners it provides to married couples. -McClatchy
However, as governor she vetoed a bill that would have prevented same-sex couples from getting public employee benefits; -Las Vegas Sun
MMFA is trying to say that media sources are trying to claim that Palin's views are not anti-gay and that she will support benefits. MMFA is saying that gay and gay rights supporters should not be fooled by these articles, that Palin is anti-gay and only vetoed the legislation because she was told to, not because she felt it was wrong.
Its NOT about how she will vote in the future.
Its NOT about her other views.
It is about a false claim that Palin is more pro-LGBT than she really is.