http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-book-banning.html

The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”

Because, as your own cited source makes clear, there is no evidence that any books were banned or removed, and there is no evidence that the town librarian was fired for anything of the sort.

Interesting to see that you’re so supportive of Palin, whose church promotes a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

Which shows that they care to help instead of declining to piss on you if you were on fire. It’s still nothing like the left’s buddy at Westboro Baptist.

Besides, I seem to recall some wailing and gnashing of teeth, on the left, about “guilt by association”. If Comrade Obama can’t be held responsible for hanging with Wright and Phleger, therefore Palin likewise shouldn’t be held responsible either.

I’ll take a minister who will pray for me over one who will GOD DAMN me anyday. But that’s just me. Call me kooky.

Gerry..did you read my post? I said Palin followed the law and she could have signed the legislation and she didn’t..she followed the law..the point of my post. Palin’s conduct is that she isn’t homophobic. Indeed, she has spoken of having many Gay and Lesbian friends and it doesn’t matter a bit to her. I want an elected official to not make law (like the whatever they want to do liberals on the Supreme Court) but to enforce the law and she did what an Executive did and enforced the law based upon the Alaska Constitution.

I defy you to show me where Palin as an elected official has been homophobic.

I agree with the most recent topic, which I want government out of my private life and I might add out of my wallet. Palin is the kind of elected leader I want.

Dumbocrats use being GLBT as a club to keep us in line and then do nothing for our community except screw us over as did Bill Clinton with DADT and DOMA.

Also, why do you not mention Palin’s decision to fire her town’s librarian for not removing a gay-themed book? Palin, obviously, had a problem with homosexuality. But she also has a bigger problem believing that the state has the right to tell Americans what they can and can’t read. That’s a little too Soviet for my tastes.

Seems to me that Gibson’s interview pointed out that Ms. Palin is a charming looking opportunist and while politically successful, not very bright in the brains department. I think 8 years of that that has been more than enough.

Here is a link to the original post with the comparison-there is a side by side comparison if you scroll down.

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=29535

Agreed. thuogh I don’t think she did bad, I think she will do better the next time around.

Someone dug up an interview Charlie Gib did with Obama, and the questions were something like:

“So, you mother movied to Hawaii, and then met this wonderfull dashing man from Kenya…”

what explains that

I am also leery anyway of “born that way” arguments, because the born that way argument is used as the reason to treat gays with fairness and protect them from discrimination. If they were to somehow learn that gays 100% aren’t born that way, then does that mean it is okay to discriminate? Does it mean there shouldn’t be any protection in the work place or other areas?

I am pretty convinced that whether or not a person is gay is something that is out of their own control-and that there is likely some genetic but even more likely hormonal factor involved, and I think a lot of the research regarding hormone spikes during pregnancy may influence homosexuality has a lot of possibilities.

In the end-the debate isn’t really about “choice” or even about how parents or other experiences make a person gay (although I do think there is some good evidence that sexual abuse can warp a persons sexuality-I would still be willing to argue that those who were sexually abused and are gay would likely have been gay without the abuse history-but I am not sure there is any reliable research out there on the topic). I think looking into how much is nature and how much is enivronent (like hormone spikes in the womb) is fascinating though, but I think at this point it is hard for anyone to make a 100% argument for or against nature/environment-I think the best bet is it is probably some combination that needs more research.

And in the end even if it was an active choice-should it matter when it comes to advocating gays be treated fairly by their government?