Like Palin cares about what McCain says anymore. Pretty soon we will be seeing her jump ship and run her own campaign.

Palin has probably heard McCain talk about this issue, and explain why he opposes an anti-gay amendment. Maybe she can explain why she thinks he's wrong?

2012. Next topic?

As we know from the Vice Presidential debate on Saturday Night Live, Sarah Palin believes in defining marriage as between two unwilling teenagers.

Sigh...I'll never, ever understand the obsession with "protecting" marriage from teh gays.

Honestly, how the hell does two dudes, or dudettes, getting hitched affect anything at all? It doesn't. Not in the slightest. If anything, it's a boon to the wedding (and divorce) industry :)

I get the impression that they think "well if we can just get gay marriage outlawed, then the gay "problem" will just disappear"

umm...no it won't. As the old chant goes: "get used to it."

-end rant-

Meanwhile, gentle reader, if YOU support equality in America, please help defeat the dreadful Prop. 8 in California. Right now, it looks like it will pass, and marriage equality will end in California, and 11,000+ couples that have been married thus far will (presumably) be single again.

Yes, Prop. 8 will probably pass (homophobia remains strong even in liberal California), but there's still a chance to defeat the hate. Go to noonprop8.com and contribute.

Palin's 'tolerant' ramble was rather comical and also transparent(we've seen this in many contexts now).

It was along the lines of the classic standby: "Some of my best friends are__________".

My own view is that the government should get out of the marriage business completely. No government sanctioned marriage. Civil unions all the way for everybody.

Now if a couple wants to get married and their church approves, OK by me. If their church doesn't approve, they can always change churches.

My reasoning is that civil unions can take care of the contractual issues surrounding any relationship. Marriage is considered a sacrament. That means marriage is a religious thing. I am all for religions doing their own thing.

"Golly gosh, Steve! We're both mavericks, and mavericks rarely agree on everything together. You betcha!!"

Can Vice Presidents cast tie-breaking votes on Constitutional amendments?

From Palin's Heaven in the New York Magazine:

Everyone who meets the residence requirement gets a PFD check, which means should you be a Russian immigrant with, say, thirteen children, this year you would have garnered $3,269 (with Palin’s extra $1,200) per family member, or something like $50,000 simply for living here.

Who knows what Palin really believes...
She gives away money just for breathing.
She is a socialist. Everyone knows you can't believe anything that comes of their mouths.

"I get the impression that they think "well if we can just get gay marriage outlawed, then the gay "problem" will just disappear""
Here is the thing: Kind of like mixed race marriage, by outlawing this type of marriage, you reduce the number of mixed-blood offspring being brought into our pure, clean society. Does that make sense? "They" would raise their children to be gay/lesbian, and soon our schools would be overrun by these mixed-up kids. The schools would have to spend extra money to fund special programs for these children, kind of like ESL and programs for special needs children. Where would all this money come from? Us white, middle-class taxpayers, 40% of whom don't even pay taxes, according to Palin. How many issues can I squeeze into this rant? Any unlicensed plumbers out there feeling the pinch of more government-sanctioned regulation? Isn't that just more socialism? Taking tax money to fund another government bureaucracy to prevent Joe the Plumber from opening his own unregulated business and hiring more of his kind at sub-standard wages.
Hey, I feel like I'm talkin' like Palin, scattering my talking points to cover all bases, you betcha.
peace,
st john

After the disconnect on Michigan I started to wonder if they speak at all between joint campaign appearances. Maybe Cindy took his Blackberry so he can't call his "Soul Mate and Partner" when she isn't around.

I'm only surprised she didn't use the opportunity to claim Obama would force every man, woman and child in RealAmerica(TM) into a gay marriage.

(Also, is it me or does she look heavier in this clip?)

Ironic, yes, but I can see Sarah palin being a major fag hag.

Isn't trying to find consistency in Palin's statements a fool's errand?

She's been both for and against several things and I think it's because she doesn't really know what's being asked. She doesn't think through the question and her answer, she just starts talking. Witness the question about sending troops into Pakistan. She didn't know McCain's position, started talking and later had to be told the problem.

In short, she's a twit.

It would appear that Gov. Palin is far more suited to a celebrity/B-actress type of job than VP or even governor. It appears that self-promotion is her ultimate goal. She clearly has that natural ability to play to the audience and isn't embarrassed by her own behavior which reflects a blissful lack of real understanding about what she's gotten into. She is assured of a spot on 'Dancing with the Stars' after all this is over.
The NYT came to that conclusion too.

After the Veep debate, I laughed at liberal analysts who talked about her "agreeing with Biden" on the issue. It was clear she didn't, if you watched and listened carefully.

But, people sometimes see/hear what they want to.

I'm looking forward to the McCain-Palin debate--next week, right?

But seriously, this sort of post is ludicrous on the face of it--it assumes that whatserface has a coherent position on the issue. She doesn't--on ANY issue. She just strings together phrases she thinks a grown-up might include in an answer to a question.

Socratic Gadfly - Gwen Ifill completely blew the questioning on gay marriage/civil unions. She started by saying that Palin had signed benefits for gay partners for state employees into law, without adding that she was compelled to do so by a state Supreme Court opinion. So the whole discussion started on the false premise that Palin favors equal rights for gay couples, and the question and answers never cleared that up. Then at the end Ifill summed up by saying that the candidates appeared to agree, when it was clear to anyone with an understanding of the issue that they disagreed - Biden is for equal rights via civil unions, but not marriage, while Palin is against civil unions and against equal rights under any name, and is only for tolerance (i.e. no criminal penalties or express civil disabilities for gay couples). It was Ifill's worst moment.

After the Veep debate, I laughed at liberal analysts who talked about her "agreeing with Biden" on the issue. It was clear she didn't, if you watched and listened carefully.

Actually that was Gwen Ifel's fault.

She was the one that insisted on a congruence that there wasn't. It was really the only time she inserted her personality into the debate. And got it absolutely wrong...

Of course that didn't stop Gwen from complaining afterwards about being blown off. Hint to Ifel: You got blown off because you willfully played the roll of the passive dummy. Crikey. A Turing-test-failing-droid could have done a better job...

She told CBN exactly what both she and McCain wanted her to say. Don't think this was anything but calculated. Her job is rally the intolerant, the angry, and the "religious" bases of the GOP. Many in these groups don't listen to what McCain says anyway. She is one of this angry, ignorant army of name-callers, and they're happy to have one of their own lead the charge.

Wow, just more "wow"! Welcome back to the 14th century America!

Look, the simple answer is that she doesn't care what McCain says. If they're elected, Palin is counting soon thereafter on McCain's being dead.

She's just continuing a Republican tradition -- Cheney and Bush disagreed on this issue too.

then the gay "problem" will just disappear"
Posted by: neilt on October 20, 2008 at 12:43 PM

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Few of the hot button issues for Republicans are workable solutions for the human race. As they present them, solutions for the religious right is just to erase the evidence that such activities take place, keeping religious people's lives comfortable and unaffected by the need to act in any compassionate or philanthropic way.

Take ceasing gay marriage and abortion:

I really have to ask: How much social change would these two issues really impart if they are done away with, and would that change actually be positive for society?

I say no, because legal or illegal, both abortions and gay coupling will continue.
Banning them means more abortions will again be performed in unsanitary places by unqualified people. Denied normalcy, the gay lifestyle will continue to hide itself in places like Minnesota airport bathrooms and rest stops off the highway.

Religious folks just want these issues off their radar. But someone will be taking care of the fall-out and the human toll and the victims of banning these acts. Where will the religious right be then? Will the ones responsible for banning abortion and gay marriage be on the front lines dealing with the resultant deeper problems of the victims of repressed sexuality, more Aids, more dead women from botched abortions?

I doubt they will be. I think they'll be sitting in their nice clean churches, congratulating themselves on a job well done.