2008 Sarah Palin Likes Her Gay Friends Like She Likes Her Teen Mothers…
posted by on October 20 at 8:56 AM
…single.
Christian Broadcasting Network: On Constitutional marriage amendment , are, are you for something like that?Palin: I am, in my own, state, 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 that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage. I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.
Sarah Palin doesn’t want to tell you what you can and can’t do… she wants to amend the United States Constitution so that it tells you what you can and can’t do. See how that works? If we could just write intolerance into the Constitution, ya know, then Sarah Palin can go back to being so gosh darn tolerant of all of her many, many gay friends. John McCain—Sarah Palin’s running mate—opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). But McCain does not, as Log Cabin dopes would have you believe, oppose the FMA he is tolerant or brave or a supporter of marriage equality. McCain believes that marriage is a state matter—and he has endorsed efforts to amend state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. Check this ad out.)
Via JoeMyGod. Palin video after the jump.
The cognitive dissonance here is really mindblowing.
Bravo, Dan. Very well stated. Thanks.
"Some of my best friends are second-class citizens."
fun with words! note: She uses the word "that" nine times by my count in that last sentence/train wreck excerpted here.
Currently on facebook there is a group, "defend marriage 1 man, 1 woman" or some such nonsense. I have been battling these morons for a few days, but please, if you have a facebook account...COME HELP ME!
http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=5002205122450
These people are serious morons though, so I understand if you can't deal with them.
monique, give yourself a break. just call them the reactive balls of ganglia they are and get on with your life. seriously, you're not going to change what passes for their "minds." all we can do is outvote them, if we're legion enough. are we yet? i hope so.
@4: As my running battles with the folks on (un)Sound Politics prove, you can't change far-right-wingnuts, no matter how hard you try.
You CAN rile them up, though... which is really funny.
I'm there, OM.
@4,
Are there anti-Prop 8 groups on Facebook? If so, you should spend at least as much time promoting them as you are in trying to beat some sense into the stupids.
I realize that part of it is fruitless, but yes it is fun. :D
And hell, if one person is going through there and reading things....it just might be what changes their mind. Or gives someone hope. We don't know, but I want to be a voice to go against them, in their own territory. I don't want them to have one moment without confrontation.
@Kesh, I haven't looked for an anti-prop 8 yet, since my limited time on facebook has been with this group. Don't worry though, I'll spread the love.
I am surprised that the CA Supreme Court didn't strike Prop 8 from the ballot since it puts to a majority vote a constitutional right granted to what they determined is a suspect-class minority, but perhaps this was allowed as an open door to challenge it on constitutional grounds in case it passes. In any case, it would be much cleaner if the initiative is defeated.
Oh, and one more thing: when, oh when will any ballot initiative or piece of legislation designed to "protect marriage" include banning divorce and nullifying all remarriages? Oh, yeah, I think I know the answer to that question already...
"Sarah Palin doesn’t want to tell you what you can and can’t do… she wants to amend the United States Constitution so that it tells you what you can and can’t do. See how that works?"
Yes, it's called politics in America. I remember back in the day when a lot of people were upset over gender equality, and decided they wanted "to amend the United States Constitution so that it tells you what you can and can’t do." You get to have your own opinion, and you also get to see how many other people stand up and agree with you. Kind of like with the ERA, not to mention those pesky Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
ABC News, hardly a right-wing echo chamber, found a couple of years ago that 58% of Americans "strongly oppose" gay marriage, though support for a Constitutional amendment falls to 42%. However, Mrs Palin realises, to her credit, that you don't govern on polls. People who "strongly support" tne proposed amendment turn out to vote in twice the numbers of those who "strongly oppose" it. This also is politics in America.
Homosexuality is unnatural activity at least with respect to procreation.
Why do we have to listen to 2-3% of the population with a brain defect?
Long live caribou Barbie!
More Nanny State Socialist Republicants.
Just say NO to them!
@13: Monogamy is an unnatural activity too, at least with respect to procreation.
I'm missing where she says anything about teen mothers.
Savage, why don't we hear people who practice monogamy crying like retards about having the "right" to marry themselves then?
The ONLY reason politicians pay any attention to rump rangers and carpet munchers is MOST of them vote.
If marriage is solely a state matter, as posited by both McCain and Obama, why are there federal benefits for being married? States can't grant citizenship to spouses nor can they grant federal tax exemptions. It is not a states-rights issue.
Just to be clear: "McCain believes that marriage is a state matter—and he has endorsed efforts to amend state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage" AND CIVIL UNIONS IN ARIZONA.
I wish the CBN had asked Sarah about that. She opposes civil unions, as well.
I'm going to go ahead and accept Dan's interpretation of what Palin said because, dogonit, I can't read the entire passage without getting a severe headache. As best as I can tell it's a lot of nonsense words with some reference to kicking gays in the teeth...in a totally non-judgmental way.
@13: Homosexuality is unnatural activity at least with respect to procreation.
What's your point? Using a condom is an unnatural activity with respect to procreation, but we still let straight people who practice birth control get married.
Doesn't the last guy in the montage of straight couples look like a butch? just sayin...
In Alaska we treat our gays just like our families: we think it's nice when they have unmarried sex. So I think we should support an amendment legalizing both.
Will someone out there PLEASE tell me if Palin actually shot wolves from a helicopter?! I know it was allowed at one time in Alaska, but then was banned, I believe. Thanks!
Hey I'm totally supportive of gay rights and not the least bit homophobic, but I have a legitimate question that I keep wondering about. Given the staunch resistance to the word 'marriage', why do you have to go there? Why not just get the civil rights you seek via civil unions and forget about the semantical argument? It's the word marriage that all the haters are so hung up on, why not just subvert and we can stop having this issue crop up every election cycle?
Dino, think back to the days when biracial marriage was illegal. If no one had "gone there" with respect to biracial marriage, then those couples would be stuck with a civil union status which would be better than nothing, but clearly marks them as second-class citizens. Why shouldn't they be allowed to "marry" their partners, just as all-white or all-black couples do? The answer is they should, of course. It's the same for same-sex partners. Why should they be marked forever as second-class or not good enough for the real thing?
Well said as always, Mr. Savage. Sarah Palin and John McCain don't seem to see the inherent hypocrisy of personal tolerance and supporting Constitutionalized intolerance. . .I wish you could get a one-on-one with both of them, but John McCain will join The Village People before that happens.
dino: one big reason: you don't get all the benefits with civil unions...
as the person who mentioned the fact that marriage is a federal matter, citizenship and tax breaks, not all benefits are being granted.
Hey, the Caucus Blog (political blog on the NY Times page) has a link to this thread. Thought you might wanna know...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/palin-calls-reported-attacks-atrocious-and-unacceptable/
Under the heading "From Around the Web", right below the text of the article.
I’m not going to be out there judging individuals...
English motherfucker! Do you speak it?!?!
(apologies to Samuel L Jackson)
@10: The entire point of a State _constitutional amendment_ is to change what is permitted under the state constitution. A constitutional amendment cannot be struck down as unconstitutional because it becomes part of the constitution.
John, that word "monogamy." I do not think it means what you think it means.
I love how she thinks the federal government should only make the decisions when it agrees with her. Roe v Wade? Yeah, that should be overturned because abortion should be a state issue. Gay marriage? The states can't handle it, they're starting to approve it, the federal government better step in and stop them. Blah. I hate her.
nyyy: if that's true, then you're right, that's reason enough for me.
Zoey: Alright I hear ya, but again you're getting into semantical argument. They do not want to allow 'marriage' to be anything other than woman and man. Biracial okay, but homosexual no way. That's their beef. I personally feel that if you want the right to "marry" then so be it, you should have that right. But I also feel like maybe gays and lesbians should compromise a little here. Get a guarantee for all the same rights, but back off of the word. The whole debate would just end and most states would pass it. What I'm asking is, what do you want - the rights, the word, or both? If it's both then so be it, but I argue that that's where the conflict lies. Respectfully, Dino.
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.