Palin supports constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

[RPG Advocate]

Palin breaks with McCain on gay-marriage ban

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]

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

 

[SnuggleSmacks]

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]

Palin breaks with McCain on gay-marriage ban



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"?

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

 

[Cleon]

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

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]

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

 

[mortimer]

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]

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]

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

Says who, exactly?

 

[mortimer]

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]

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]

(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

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

 

[halfempty]

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]

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?

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Cleon]

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]

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]

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

linky

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]

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]

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:

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]

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