Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage amendment

[Quicksilver]

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.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/...n_gay_marriage

[Wagner]

Looks like it is working for them.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...-florida-ohio/

[Quicksilver]

Oh I don't know about that.

"Still, despite McCain's gains in key states and in the national numbers, the overall state of the race continues to favor Obama with just over two weeks left until Election Day."

[Wagner]

We'll know by Nov 5th

[E61Silver]

Palin is good reason to vote for Obama.

[JGQ]

If my memory is not failing me, I recall that during the debate with Biden she agreed with Biden on the gay rights issue. And actually Biden stated admiration for her position and hoped that she could convince the top of the ticket of that position??

What gives?

[JGQ]

I am not sure that they threw anyone under the bus! I remember the conversation as a constructive one where both agreed that the gay couples deserve the same right as heterosexual couples. The only exception is that they did not want gays to claim the word marriage. In the age of advocating moderate stands on many issues and keeping an open mind to ones surrounding, I don’t see this approach as negative. I think we all agree that we need to be sensitive to the other side’s views. The right is sensitive to the word marriage, then let's not call that, if gay couples were to get all the right that are associated with that word.

As far as Ms. Palin calling for the amendment, this is becoming a trend. She speaks out about an issue, a day or two later, she corrects the record, or make a clarification that speaks against her initial views. Examples:
1) Gay couples rights… later the amendment
2) Against robo-calls initially, later recording one herself
3) Etc, (I need to come up with the third one to make it a trend, but can’t remember, therefore you get the generic etc. )
The trend is clear; her initial logical instincts sometimes are on the right place, later to be derailed by her handlers.

[blondboinsd]

Originally Posted by JGQ

I am not sure that they threw anyone under the bus! I remember the conversation as a constructive one where both agreed that the gay couples deserve the same right as heterosexual couples. The only exception is that they did not want gays to claim the word marriage. In the age of advocating moderate stands on many issues and keeping an open mind to ones surrounding, I don’t see this approach as negative. I think we all agree that we need to be sensitive to the other side’s views. The right is sensitive to the word marriage, then let's not call that, if gay couples were to get all the right that are associated with that word.

As far as Ms. Palin calling for the amendment, this is becoming a trend. She speaks out about an issue, a day or two later, she corrects the record, or make a clarification that speaks against her initial views. Examples:
1) Gay couples rights… later the amendment
2) Against robo-calls initially, later recording one herself
3) Etc, (I need to come up with the third one to make it a trend, but can’t remember, therefore you get the generic etc. )
The trend is clear; her initial logical instincts sometimes are on the right place, later to be derailed by her handlers.

I would say my issue is clear, Marriage isn't a religious captive as much as people would like to feel it is. I understand the feeling otherwise but let's be frank, marriage is recognized by all major demographics, countries and cultures. Due to this I have major issues with those who call it a "Christian" etc thing. This is a government afforded word that offers many many protections and a certain enchantment. This is simply why supreme courts will continue to shoot it down, it's simply unconstitutional to say one segment of the population is somehow less than another. It's not right no matter how you attempt to justify it. I would like this mentality (not saying you) to the Black's being told the back of the bus is the same as the front, it's not right, it's not equal and it never will be. People always seem to say "Gays need to stop pushing their lives on people" I will always argue their defending themselves against those who are on a hell-bent path to strip me of my rights. Can you tell I'm passionate about the issue?

[Wagner]

It also offers you the right to lose 50% of your crap and pay your ex if they leave.

On a serious note, I thought a civil union was setup to provide the same "attributes" as marriage under law?

[blondboinsd]

Originally Posted by Wagner

It also offers you the right to lose 50% of your crap and pay your ex if they leave.

On a serious note, I thought a civil union was setup to provide the same "attributes" as marriage under law?

Again back of the bus mentality, Isn't the back seat of the bus the same seat as the front? It's not equal, it never will be and it's not right. This country can do better.