Gay Patriot Header Image

Sarah Palin on her gay friend

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Over at her blog, Lloydletta’s Nooz and Comments, Eva Young alerts us to a video of Sarah Palin commenting on her attitudes toward homosexuality:

While I disagree with the Alaska Governor’s contention that her friend “made a choice” to be gay, I’m pleased that we have yet another piece of video showing Palin saying that she doesn’t judge people because they are gay. She has remained friends with a woman even after learning of her lesbianism.

These remarks are consistent with her past statements on homosexuality.

Importantly, she doesn’t define her friend by her sexuality: “She’s not my gay friend, she is one of my best friends.” That’s how I hope my straight friends see me.  How we all should hope our straight friends see us.

This seems in fitting with the “live and let live” spirit of Alaska, something I’d like to see become increasingly regnant in the Republican Party. With the prominence of John McCain and Sarah Palin in the GOP, that seems to be becoming increasingly likely.

We know how John McCain treats friends and colleagues when he learns they’re gay. His running mate has the same attitude.

****
UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot): Dan, I never watch any of the network news programs, but oddly happened to change channels just as this clip was being aired. My take immediately was that her friend had the choice to “come out” and that she admired her friend for doing so. But that’s just my impression of her comments.

UP-UPDATE (from Dan): Good point, Bruce. We do make a choice in coming out.

Share

86 Comments

  1. Do your homework dude. Palin fought to ban same-sex benefits and when the AK Supreme Court overturned her ban she signed a bill that called for an advisory vote on whether the Alaska Constitution should be amended to ban such benefits. She is no friend of the GLBT community.

    http://dwb.adn.com/front/story/8508726p-8401181c.html

    Comment by akiceman — October 1, 2008 @ 3:43 am - October 1, 2008

  2. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but we straighties often say “choose to be homosexual” when we just mean, “have chosen to live outwardly homosexual lives”.

    It doesn’t necessarily mean that we are denying the innateness of homosexuality, just that at some point in their lives, gay people have a choice — stay in the closet or come out.

    So, she said with a nervous clearing of throat, there you are. ;)

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    Comment by Victoria — October 1, 2008 @ 7:19 am - October 1, 2008

  3. RE Victoria:

    I’ve no reason to doubt you, but I don’t recall that custom in our straight culture. Is it a new trend? :)

    Comment by Typewriter King — October 1, 2008 @ 7:42 am - October 1, 2008

  4. I concur with Victoria. Given Palin’s worldview, choice does not mean attractions or feelings but rather behavior.

    Comment by Warren Throckmorton — October 1, 2008 @ 7:42 am - October 1, 2008

  5. Heh, Typewriter King. I did preamble by saying I can only say that I can only speak for myself with absolute certitude about this phrase.

    But on the rare festive occasions when my co-heteros and I have spoken of gayness, that’s what I gathered they meant too. Most people know one didn’t up and choose to be gay one day, like choosing a particularly fabulous scarf to wear. It just comes out as “choice” because the other way is too lumbering to say. ;)

    Comment by Victoria — October 1, 2008 @ 7:49 am - October 1, 2008

  6. Not to mention I am one who doesn’t think the matter of “choice” should be an issue when it comes to how gays should be treated in society.

    I sometimes think the gay activists get so hung up in the whole “it isn’t a choice” argument that they end up putting all their eggs in that basket to the point they almost seem to be arguing that the only reason to advocate for gays being treated fairly is because they didn’t choose it.

    If science discovered tomorrow that homosexuality is 100% due to choice with no biological connection at all, does anyone really think it means gays shouldn’t have the right to be treated fairly and equally in society?

    That said-this straight person generally doesn’t use the words “chose to be gay” or some version of that. If I mean a person is living openly gay, I will generally use “openly gay” or some version of being out of the closet. But Victoria is right that even if the sexual attraction component isn’t a choice, at some point every gay man and woman does have to choose to identify as gay. Maybe clarification is needed.

    But in the end the issue of choice isn’t a big deal to me. The gay people I know and am friends with would still be my friends whether they were gay by choice or gay due to some biological factor.

    Comment by just me — October 1, 2008 @ 7:56 am - October 1, 2008

  7. As a straight guy, I have to say I have NO IDEA how one comes to be gay. Some feel they’re born that way and some learn at some point that they want to change and then they manage to DO it.

    I am not interested in trying to convince the first one that the second one is right, or vice versa.

    I do have strong feelings about marriage, though, but it’s not anti-gay so much as pro-rationality. IF marriage doesn’t mean a man and a woman, then 5000 years of human society is just wrong and the definition is up for grabs. Two people? How antiquated your thinking is… I’m going to marry a man AND a woman. Or a platoon of my army buddies. We do love each other.

    And ‘people’? How antiquated. I’m going to marry my five cats, or my BMW.

    My point is that a word means something, and to claim the word and then apply it in a situation where its meaning is changed contributes toward a dilution of language and a blurring of meanings and an overall growing problem with communication in general.

    Look what happened to the word “gay”, to make my point. IT used to mean “happy and lighthearted” and now NOBODY uses it that way anymore. It was a torturous forty years of misunderstanding and awkwardness and miscommunication.

    Ironic, then, that ‘gay marriage’ is a phrase containing two words, one whose meaning is already forever changed and another whose meaning WILL be if one side wins the argument.

    So that’s my bit. I do not currently have gay friends, as my current life is a bit isolated from larger numbers of people. But I’ve been around gay people enough to know it doesn’t arouse (so to speak) any different feelings than anyone else does.

    Do as you wish in your personal life, and I wish you love and happiness, as always.

    Comment by Dave — October 1, 2008 @ 8:01 am - October 1, 2008

  8. I think it sort of depends when you came of age. Were SP twenty years older (but the same as far as personal values go), she probably would be a bit more, or a lot more, shy about admitting to having a gay friend and being cool with it. She might have a similar feeling of goodwill, but it would be harder to come to terms with that feeling, if that makes sense. Were she twenty years younger, she would probably not be talking about “choosing” to be gay as she talks about the same friendship.

    Consider my grandma. Back when she was alive and a widow, a gay couple moved next door (two guys). She once referred to them as “homos.” But unlike if I were to talk that way (given when I grew up), there was no ill will on my grandma’s part. She liked her neighbors, but she was just referring to them the way she knew—old habits die hard. I realize SP is pretty young, but you have to figure that she might have not come to consider homosexuality a matter of fate rather than choice when coming of age the way I did (a few years later in history). Sure, I don’t agree with her on that point, but certainly she seems to be a far cry from the crazy fundamentalist the Left wants to paint her as.

    Comment by cme — October 1, 2008 @ 8:11 am - October 1, 2008

  9. IMO, it does not matter that she used the word choice… the most important thing that she does and I find most conservatives do: Sarah Palin looks at the the person as a whole individual rather than just one aspect of their “being” … and she knows how to love unconditionally.

    Comment by Colocelt — October 1, 2008 @ 8:29 am - October 1, 2008

  10. I’m gay and agree with #5 Dave .

    Additional I see gay marriage as a platform for Radical Leftists to take another wrack at the foundations of our society.

    Comment by Vince P — October 1, 2008 @ 8:39 am - October 1, 2008

  11. Did Obama choose to be black? Being 50/50 it seems he could go either way. A lot of people in my straight world consider being gay a matter of choice. It seems to me that they consider gayness to be potentially “curable.”

    I don’t see Palin promising a national initiative to cure “gayness” and I am certain that she keeps any questions about being gay to herself. When my gay friends get a little too specific, I excuse myself and go elsewhere. It is all a matter of acceptance and respect. I would suspect that Palin has found the same road.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 1, 2008 @ 8:42 am - October 1, 2008

  12. There are different degrees of choice as well. Assuming that homosexuality is biological it is likely that it is not an absolute. Some people are strongly attracted to members or the same sex only, others are strongly attracted to the opposite sex only, most men have a strong attraction to either men or women but not both, and most women have an attraction to both men and women. (The attraction of men to to only one sex and women to both is supported by research.)

    So if I say that someone chose to be gay, I am correct. Whether that person was 98% straight biologically or 98% gay biologically it was still a choice.

    I think the “Just Me” nails it very well though with the proposal that whether it is free will or destiny does not matter. Either way it is the persons right to be able to live their life how they would like to live it as long as they are not hurting others.

    Comment by Ross — October 1, 2008 @ 8:47 am - October 1, 2008

  13. I see that Glenn linked to this blogpost. Nice.

    But Victoria is right that even if the sexual attraction component isn’t a choice, at some point every gay man and woman does have to choose to identify as gay. Maybe clarification is needed.

    Well, just me, I think that’s right.

    As for Palin, again, this is just a conjecture, but it strikes me that if she has a gay friend for over 30 years, that it’s possibly one made in that State championship basketball team, a long-time pal who probably came out slowly to her near and dear.

    This could exacerbate the tendency to use the word “choice” in Palin’s mind, because using my explanation, it seems like a choice to live out-gay when she knew her before as nominally straight.

    But we’re going into the realm of theory here, so I better stop. Let me just finish by saying that I read the Kaylene Johnson bio on Palin (a thin book, but not altogether unworthy), and there was no mention of this chum.

    That’s good too. Palin doesn’t name-drop unnecessarily, to give herself street-cred, unlike so many other pols.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    Comment by Victoria — October 1, 2008 @ 9:07 am - October 1, 2008

  14. Look at her record in government – not that she has “gay” friends – she is anti-gay, wants legislation to ban same sex unions and any sort of recognition of gays and lesbians as full citizens. How often have we heard that phrase “some of my best friends are …” as if that proves anything about their bigotry.

    Comment by Ann — October 1, 2008 @ 9:28 am - October 1, 2008

  15. The first time I heard anything at all about Sarah Palin and her attitudes about gays was a discussion on NPR the day after the Republication Convention closed. These people admitted that there was nothing in her actions as mayor or governor that gave any indication that she had ever sought to impose her religious views on anybody, or that she had in any way discriminated unfairly against anybody, or that she had any hidden agenda.

    This was all viewed with deep suspicion, because of the name of the church she attended.

    I think that any given person who is inclined to homosexuality, and who encounters Mrs. Palin in her official capacity or is affected by her official actions, is better off dealing with her than with those prejudiced people at NPR. She habitually makes her political decisions based on the pertinent facts, and not irrelevancies. The same cannot be said for the people at NPR.

    During the discussion it became abundantly clear that they were prejudiced against Mrs. Palin’s church, home state, and college. Who knows what else they might find useful as a prejudice?

    And, if they don’t like gays, but don’t feel free to admit it, what’s to keep them from substituting something else “objectionable” (school, church, home state, party affiliation?) about a gay person, as an excuse to do them harm?

    Prejudice is like dishonesty: it is a corrupt habit of mind that infuses a person’s character. I don’t want any of the people I heard that day making any decisions that affect me.

    Comment by Valerie — October 1, 2008 @ 9:36 am - October 1, 2008

  16. Many Christians believe that the Bible teaches faithfulness in marriage and celibacy outside of marriage. From this viewpoint, the individual does not choose to be gay or lesbian, but does choose whether or not to be celibate or enter into a gay or lesbian partnership.
    I don’t know if this is what Palin meant by “choice”, but she would certainly have heard this viewpoint in the church community.

    Comment by JeanE — October 1, 2008 @ 9:38 am - October 1, 2008

  17. Let’s be fair. Being homosexual and leading a gay lifestyle could be a legitimately argued as “a choice”.

    Obviously not what she means here but she would NOT be the first person to have said this including my mom who thinks at 50 yrs old I am going thru “a phase”. She was a hair dresser in the French Quarter! Obviously she knows their are degrees of gay lifestyles. I think deep down she is a bear cub!

    Also, Sarah makes the distinction that she in NOT her GAY FRIEND but her best friend that is gay. We are Gay Conservatives but I guarantee that some of us are NOT out a work or life in general.

    Is this a choice?

    Love you guys! That is a choice!

    Jeb n TEX!

    Comment by Jeb — October 1, 2008 @ 9:53 am - October 1, 2008

  18. “Choosing” to be gay obviously means different thing to different people, at different times and in different contexts. I’ll venture that the Left’s identification of “gay” with “queer,” “subversive,” etc. unfairly pushes people to conflate the “choice” of accepting an unalterable orientation with the “choice” of living it openly. A fair discussion of Palin’s opinions will take that into account.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — October 1, 2008 @ 9:55 am - October 1, 2008

  19. i just reread my post….sorry for the grammar issues. I had to squeeze post in quickly…..

    Comment by Jeb — October 1, 2008 @ 9:57 am - October 1, 2008

  20. I’m not gay, but here’s what I see in life. Please correct me if I’m wrong. It seems that there is a spectum of “gayness”, or “straigntness” some people have no attraction to the opposite sex, some no attraction the the same sex, and some varying degrees of both. Why else would “straight” men have lovers in prison? Perhaps Sarah knows her friend better than we do, and she had attractions to men and to women, and was more comfortable with women. Some of those in the middle make a choice, those on the ends of the spectrum are presdisposed only to favor gay or straight relationships.

    Comment by Gretchen — October 1, 2008 @ 10:05 am - October 1, 2008

  21. “She happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made.”

    Not to get too deep, but it sounds like Palin recognizes that she, herself, had a choice. Many women have, even if just in passing, made the choice to be straight. Less women, but I suspect a significant number, have given it more then passing consideration before chosing a traditional lifestyle.

    I would not be surprised if Palin actually did make a considered choice, at some point in her life.

    Comment by Sammer — October 1, 2008 @ 10:30 am - October 1, 2008

  22. No doubt the gay-lefties’ heads are spinning atop their necks and spewing gallons of bilious green sick. Good.

    Palin’s answer is not only the very definition of tolerance, but ventures well beyond tolerance and into the realm of acceptance. But lefty homos don’t want tolerance or acceptance, they want approval — which is preciseley what the whole gay marriage thing is about to begin with, government mandated approval.

    Consider my grandma. Back when she was alive and a widow, a gay couple moved next door (two guys). She once referred to them as “homos.”

    I’m gay, and I refer to them as homos. And as the self-appointed representative of the gay-community (if Jackson and Sharpton can appoint themselves, I can appoint myself) you have my permission to as well. It’s two syllables, homosexual is five, and I’m lazy.

    I do have strong feelings about marriage, though, but it’s not anti-gay so much as pro-rationality. IF marriage doesn’t mean a man and a woman, then 5000 years of human society is just wrong and the definition is up for grabs.

    Dave,
    I’m also of the “pro-rationality” approach to gay marriage, but I would suggest that “because its always been that way” is not a very convincing argument. My thinking is that government is not involved in the marriage institution for the heck of it. We dont cough over our hard-earned tax dollars to subsidze marriage because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy. There is a rational reason that government promotes marriage as it exists, and that is because men and women can provide two things to society that no other coupling can:
    1. They reproduce society, and
    2. They are the only coupling in which a child can be raised by both its biological parents.
    Two logical reasons to keep the institution as it is, and two reasons why there is no equal treatment issue involved.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 1, 2008 @ 10:44 am - October 1, 2008

  23. [...] Who happens to be gay.  Palin is on the record as saying that she doesn’t judge people for being gay, although she considers it a “choice.” [...]

    Pingback by Ignorantia Juris » Archive » Sarah Palin has a Best Friend . . . — October 1, 2008 @ 10:50 am - October 1, 2008

  24. McCain Picks Little-Known, Anti-Gay Governor as VP

    “America may not know much about Sarah Palin, but based on what our community has seen of her, we know enough,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

    WASHINGTON – Today, presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain announced he has chosen first term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his choice to be his Vice Presidential running mate. Although only holding an executive, state-wide office for less than two years, Gov. Palin has already shown that she is a fierce opponent of equality.

    “America may not know much about Sarah Palin, but based on what our community has seen of her, we know enough,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Sarah Palin not only supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment banning marriage equality but, in her less than two years as Governor, even expressed the extreme position of supporting stripping away domestic partner benefits for state workers. When you can’t even support giving our community the rights to health insurance and pension benefits, it’s a frightening window into where she stands on equality.”

    When asked about the right-wing’s reaction to the choice of Gov Palin, the New York Times quoted Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition as saying, “They’re beyond ecstatic”.

    Comment by srethng — October 1, 2008 @ 10:50 am - October 1, 2008

  25. AE: Hetetro-only marriage is not the only situation in which children will be raised, howver, as gay people, acting as heads of household, have and will continue to have children, through adoption and surrogates, so hetero-only marriage does nothing but force children to live and grow up in unmarried households. As marriage brings stabilizing benefits, this results in negatives for those children individually and society as a whole. Conservatives understand this when it’s unmarried heteros with kids (this is precisly why they encourage marriage for parents), yet some conservatives try to act like all those benefits and costs fly out the window when the heads of that unmarried household are gay. So legally enforcing a “no homos” policy at the county clerk’s office harms children individually and society as a whole.

    The good news is that more and more principled conservatives are realizing that children shouldn’t be forced to live in unmarried households just to satisfy the religious bigotry of part of society. We’ll win this one too, albeit not as quickly in all parts of the country as we would like. With the right lying in campaign ads with BS like “They’ll teach teh gay marriage to kindergarteners!” to stir up fear, our job gets harder, but we’ll win in the end.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 1, 2008 @ 11:00 am - October 1, 2008

  26. [...] From Gay Patriot: [...]

    Pingback by Snowflakes in Hell » More Republicans Like This Please — October 1, 2008 @ 11:05 am - October 1, 2008

  27. Now compare the tone of Palin’s comments and McCain’s regarding the same issue (most notably, on Ellen), with that of comments made in the recent past by lying, philandering, scumbag John Edwards. Does everyone remember the controversy about the political consultant who reported having dinner with John and Elizabeth during which John’s discomfort being around gays (or even discussing them, for that matter) came up? Now try to remember any occasion when Obama has talked about gays publicly.

    I don’t know about everyone else, but when Palin and McCain talk about gay people, I actually feel as though they are referring to ME and others in this country who live their lives like I do–as openly (and incidentally) gay individuals. When Obama talks about gay people, I find myself involuntarily spinning my head around and looking over my shoulder, saying, “I’m sorry, Sir. I don’t understand. Are you talking to me?” Obama talks about gay people like he’s talking about Darfurains–with great sincerity and concern, but nobody leaves the room convinced that he’s actually met anyone who lives in Darfur or ever will. The gay people Obama talks about sound very far away to me.

    Comment by Sean A — October 1, 2008 @ 11:25 am - October 1, 2008

  28. This is the other Kevin and this is difficult to word this right so bear with me a bit.I think that we tend to overvalue words in politic discourse (but its funny that “my muslim faith” crack got a pass.) Most people do not talk like lawyers where they pull ever little bit of meaning from a word or precisely define it.

    The comment “choose to be gay” is like the comment “choose to be Christian” in that it is a statement based on actions, not intent, feeling, or belief. Can you be gay or straight and chaste? One answer would be yes because of attractions but another would be it’s kinda moot if you don’t act on the attraction. It’s like if I am angry and don’t express it or allow it to bother me – that might be called choosing not to be angry. There is a long tradition in Christianity of choosing not to act or speak on an urge. (Christianity is really not a religion of right versus wrong but of good, better, best despite what some of the more odd groups have claimed. (Long different discussion)) In many of its branches there is an understanding that human urges run from some people would hump a rock pile on hopes a snake was in it to some with absolutely no interest in sex. The pastoral focus is often on the acting on those urges: that is the act of “choosing” as the urge is less important. Many of the early writers said there is no wrong in thoughts – its the dwelling on them or acting on them that’s the problem. I think that is usage here.

    Interestingly how Palin’s every sentence is being dissected while Biden’s “shot at” claim and Obama’s apparent relationship with terrorists and criminal aren’t. As it said on Glenn’s site, the fix is in.

    Comment by Kevin — October 1, 2008 @ 11:29 am - October 1, 2008

  29. Just wanted to say thanks for putting “regnant” in your article. I had to look it up (it’s not something you see every day). Glad to have a new vocab word!

    Oh, and Palin rocks.

    Comment by jasony — October 1, 2008 @ 11:29 am - October 1, 2008

  30. Doesn’t this conflict with her religious beliefs?

    Comment by WhatAboutPalinsReligion? — October 1, 2008 @ 11:30 am - October 1, 2008

  31. Actually, heliotrope, one might argue that B.O. “chose” to be “black” in the sense that he chose to identify with black culture in America. In terms of genetics, everything I’ve read says that his father was more Arab than African, and so by definition, Obama is more white than anything else, then Arab, then African, and so considering himself “black” in the American black culture sense of the term would necessarily be more of a stretch.

    With regard to the question of “choice” and gay identity, I’d say Victoria’s take on Palin’s comment makes a lot of sense to me. Also, though, a lot of Christian conservatives hold the view that one might not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex, but that one chooses whether or not to act on it. Even if that’s what she means, Palin makes it clear that she values her friend as a friend more than she concerns herself with judging her in any way.

    Comment by Kurt — October 1, 2008 @ 11:32 am - October 1, 2008

  32. The Gay Left already have their minds made up and there’s absolutely nothing Gov. Palin can say that will have them see her favorably. She can announce that she’s a lesbian today and that she aborted her recently discovered fetus and it still wouldn’t be enough. The fact that she is an independent, powerful and successful woman is ignored by the Left because the truth is they really don’t care about any of that. All of that is trumped by the what the Left considers her one unforgivable crime: she is a conservative. You need not look any further than the treatment liberals dish out to Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Bobby Jindal, Clarence Thomas, and members of Gaypatriot.

    The Left will absolve the most reprehensible breaches of morality (see Ted Kennedy-Chapaquiddick, John Edwards & his pregnant mistress, Marion Barry and his crack and ‘hos, Spitzer and his ‘hos, McGreedy and his bitch, Clinton and his ‘hos, etc.) so long the perpetrators are liberal.

    Comment by Right Turn — October 1, 2008 @ 11:41 am - October 1, 2008

  33. Sean A: Perhaps you “feel” like Obama doesn’t get you. But McCain supports excluding gays from the military, excluding gays from marriage, and excluding gays from adoption. So what value does all that “McCain feels me” have to gays who just want to be part of society, when McCain fails that test which GayPatriot/GPW lay out? “Don’t judge me on my sexuality; just leave me alone”? (paraphrasing, of course) McCain openly favors legalized discrimination against gays on the basis of their sexuality: isn’t that contrary to what conservatives demand?

    Comment by torrentprime — October 1, 2008 @ 11:51 am - October 1, 2008

  34. About 2 years ago Tammy Bruce was on in Depth on CSpan, the three hour long interview. She very explicitly said that in her personal case – being gay was a choice. Her nature she felt was bi – but at some point, early on she decided – for emotional reasons more than anything else – that she is comfortable being gay.

    I know of others, men and women who are bi, but choose either the gay or the straight lifestyle.
    Just me
    makes the point, it doesn’t matter how someone came to the decision about their life – they still deserve their respect in society.

    I’m sure the libs will go crazy over Sarah’s use of ‘choice’, will completely ignore that this woman is a dear friend, regardless of how her personal life differs from Sarahs’.

    I am seeing this more and more, conservatives judging people on their merits and personalities – libs doing so only on superficial things like skin color or sexual orientation.

    Comment by Leah — October 1, 2008 @ 11:54 am - October 1, 2008

  35. Doesn’t this conflict with her religious beliefs?

    It would appear not.

    There is not, as far as I know, any major Christian denomination that requires homosexuals to be shunned or vilified. Among those that disapprove of homosexuality, “Love the sinner, Shun the sin” would be the prevailing policy.

    Comment by V the K — October 1, 2008 @ 11:59 am - October 1, 2008

  36. Sarah Palin’s homophobia…

    It doesn’t exist:While I disagree with the Alaska Governor’s contention that her friend “made a choice” to be gay, I’m pleased that we have yet another piece of video showing Palin saying that she doesn’t judge people because they are…

    Trackback by Brutally Honest — October 1, 2008 @ 12:11 pm - October 1, 2008

  37. Torrentprime,

    Thats the most rational argument Ive ever seen you make, and its a convincing one. Congratulations. Keep making it, and drop the “equal treatment” lie.

    I agree with your argument, but my only reservation is that I believe it IS better for children and therefore society if children are raised by their biological parents and if that is not possible, then by a man and a woman, and I dont think the law should pretend otherwise. So sure, promote stability in gay relationships, but dont pretend they offer the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriage. They dont.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 1, 2008 @ 12:16 pm - October 1, 2008

  38. With the right lying in campaign ads with BS like “They’ll teach teh gay marriage to kindergarteners!”

    I havent seen any ads saying Obama wants to teach gay marriage to kindergartenters, only that he voted to teach comprehensive sex ed to kindergarteners which is absolutely, irrefutably TRUE.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 1, 2008 @ 12:19 pm - October 1, 2008

  39. #13 Valiere:

    Did you listen to NPR the one morning where they had a story that the Republicans were pissed at the media for the over of the top leftist biased.. and they talked mockeningly throughout the story and acted as if the very idea they were biased was impossible?

    that was pretty funny

    Comment by Vince P — October 1, 2008 @ 12:33 pm - October 1, 2008

  40. I get tired of the born vs. made argument as well, as I think it is largely irrelevent. A person is a person and deserves to be treated with compassion and human understanding.

    From my perspective, though, the only way to differentiate between a random homosexual person and a random heterosexual person is solely by either their self-identification or by observing their behavior. To my knowledge, there is no method to physiologically tell if someone is homosexual or heterosexual. As such, I have hard time coming up with other examples of human behavior that are not clearly physiological in origin that are as commonly accepted as being inate.

    Is it commonly believed that a kleptomaniac was born with an impulse to abscond or, in a more benign vein, that someone’s preference for the color blue was imprinted at birth? The tendency for someone to exhibit particular behavior patterns may be influenced by genetic factors (e.g. addictive compulsion such as alchoholism seems to have a heriditary factor), but what actually makes one behave or feel a certain way often cannot be clearly discerned. I tend to believe that sexuality is more likely a learned behavior than a purely genetically driven one. Historical evidence of a wide array of sexual norms across diverse cultures seems to be evidence of this.

    The “don’t try and cure me because I was born this way” attitude some so militantly brandish, to my eyes, often screams insecurity. It seems that “this is my choice, so don’t try and change my mind” should be an equally valid position. I know I’m setting myself up for a shit-storm, but this pattern of seeking validation to avoid insecurity seems remarkably like many activists’ view of gay marriage as a “recognition of our love.” The thought of using “government” and “love” in the same concept should creep out any right-thinking person.

    Comment by submandave — October 1, 2008 @ 12:34 pm - October 1, 2008

  41. “only that he voted to teach comprehensive sex ed to kindergarteners which is absolutely, irrefutably TRUE.”

    No, it isn’t. He voted for legislation to teach age appropriate information about sex to students K-12. For kindergarteners, “age-appropriate” means “these are your private areas that no one should touch; if anyone tries, yell for help and run away; if you get hurt, don’t be afraid to tell someone you trust — the person can’t come back to hurt you or your family so long as you tell.”

    [PG, read the legislation, ok? It says "comprehensive sex education" for K-12. I link it here. --Dan]

    My parents were excellent parents, but they never talked to me about the possibility of child molesters. They assumed that since Mom or another family member always had us within her sight, we would be OK. Many other parents have the same idea but unfortunately end up in situations where their child is vulnerable.

    It’s sad that Republicans, in their desire to bash Obama, now see schools’ stepping in to ensure children are aware of the dangers out there as somehow horrible and bad.

    [It's sad that Democrats don't check the legislation which their candidates support before spouting off against Republicans.]

    Comment by PG — October 1, 2008 @ 12:36 pm - October 1, 2008

  42. oh please dont respond to 21 torrentprime.

    We just had the Annual Comprehensive Debate of Every Possible Human Relationship and Orientation of 2008 a few weeks ago.

    Comment by Vince P — October 1, 2008 @ 12:36 pm - October 1, 2008

  43. I agree that basing a right to marriage on romantic love is silly. However, it is no more sensible to say that government recognition for a committed relationship should be restricted based on the genitalia of the parties involved.

    We have stripped the significance of sex from almost every part of the law, including family law. No longer can women sue men for failing to be “good providers” — the family’s economic stability is equally women’s responsibility. No longer does primary custody default to women — men who have devoted equal time to child care are equally eligible. I cannot think of a single aspect of family law that treats men and women differently, except the marriage laws that do.

    Not only do our marriage laws say that only men can marry men, and women marry women; they also set different minimum ages at which men and women can marry, and in some states women can take men’s last names without a court proceeding, but men cannot do the same for their wives’ last names.

    Let’s get rid of this last form of sex discrimination in our family law. I don’t care if sexuality is inborn, chosen, whatever — what matters is that sex/gender is not a characteristic that should determine your rights under the law.

    (Incidentally, I find those who say same-sex marriage is equivalent to polygamy and bestiality to be very silly. Again, same-sex marriage fits perfectly into our existing legal structure, which does not discriminate based on sex. Polygamy creates a huge mess. For a medical decision, which spouse would decide whether to pull the plug or keep on with life support? Is there going to be a “first wife, second wife, third wife” hierarchy in which the first wife is the most important and the rest are lesser? Bestiality is a ridiculous reference to bring in; animals can’t give consent to sex, much less to marriage, and of course are incapable of carrying out the legal duties associated with marriage.)

    Comment by PG — October 1, 2008 @ 12:45 pm - October 1, 2008

  44. @29:
    The issue I’m referring to is not Obama/McCain but Proposition 8 ads.
    The first widely televised “Yes on 8″ advertisement here in California claimed, as the Christianists have been lying about for months, is that legalized gay marriage somehow will force kindergarten children to be “taught gay marriage.” No one knows what this means of course, as it’s another lie used by those trying to demonize the left, but it made its way into the TV ad on the air.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 1, 2008 @ 12:51 pm - October 1, 2008

  45. Americsn Elephant: what makes you think that gay people can’t reproduce? Do you think we’re all infertile? We have all of the rights to straight marriage that everyone else has. We could marry your son or daughter and have children with them, all legally and traditional. That doesn’t mean we’re not gay, that we’re not having sex that is more appropriate for us. We’re just not letting you know we’re doing it. Ohhh, scary.

    Comment by frankregan — October 1, 2008 @ 1:09 pm - October 1, 2008

  46. To my knowledge, there is no method to physiologically tell if someone is homosexual or heterosexual.

    Don’t they say homos “sworls” go the wrong way and that they have longer ring fingers or something?

    Comment by American Elephant — October 1, 2008 @ 1:26 pm - October 1, 2008

  47. Does it really matter that much that she said “choice”? Either way, she’s promising not to judge people about it or try to force her view on other people. This is the exact kind of tolerance that needs to return to the Republican party, even if it costs us social conservative votes in the short term.

    Quite a few Republicans voted for the 64 civil rights act. I’m hoping that regardless of who is elected, we’ll get some right-thinking Republican to join the effort to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the DOMA, as soon as possible.

    Comment by Allen Garvin — October 1, 2008 @ 1:36 pm - October 1, 2008

  48. Let’s cut to the chase here about being gay…
      
    If John & John or Mary & Mary, the normal couple living next door that is pretty much exactly like their neighbors except their partner is of the same sex got the press there would be no problem.
      
    Unfortunately, the gay population allows the freaks to define being gay.
      
    Ever see a gay pride parade? You don’t see the normal couple from next door marching in their work clothes, you see people marching nude and engaging in sexual behavior that shouldn’t be for public consumption.
      
    Here is an example on public streets-
    http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/
      
    The gay population needs better PR, not more perverts wanting a chance to display their perversions.

    Comment by Steve — October 1, 2008 @ 1:44 pm - October 1, 2008

  49. I don’t see how you can laud Palin so enthusiastically for her stance on gay people, even though in the exact same interview she makes outwardly clear that she believes homosexuality was a choice. There’s just no way to spin that – she said “choice” at least 5 times. There’s no doubt what her intention was.

    And, in any case, she is absolutely virulently anti-gay in her policies. Palin opposes all rights for gay couples, opposes marriage equality, opposes allowing gays to serve openly in the military, opposes gay-inclusive hate crimes legislation, opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and opposes immigration rights for same-sex spouses of American citizens. McCain pretty much agrees with her on all of these things. He’d even prefer children to stay in orphanages than to even be considered for adoption by loving gay couples who want to raise a child.

    GayPatriot, you really need to start grounding your Palin/McCain posts in reality.

    Comment by DavieG — October 1, 2008 @ 2:10 pm - October 1, 2008

  50. AE: Hetetro-only marriage is not the only situation in which children will be raised, howver, as gay people, acting as heads of household, have and will continue to have children, through adoption and surrogates, so hetero-only marriage does nothing but force children to live and grow up in unmarried households.

    LOL….so, by that logic, we should mandate that all people with children should be married, since children whose parents are not married are “disadvantaged” in society. Furthermore, since gay and lesbian liberals CHOOSE to put children in family situations that they then whine are inferior and damaging to children, they should be arrested for child endangerment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2008 @ 2:11 pm - October 1, 2008

  51. When ‘folk’ know ‘gay folk’ it is hard to say negative things. After acknowledging her ‘best friend’ Palin is showing her heart. Palin was brought in to stir the conservative voters, to rally support for the McCain campaign. With the past revelation of Mark Buse, it is coming closer to a reality to a time when the GOP will stop relying on the bigots and narrow-minded folk for support. Even the acknowledgement of the LCR at the GOP convention is a big step. When Dick and Lynne Cheney welcomed their grand child, and Mary and Heather. . . well it was a grand time to open up more conversations amongst conservatives to recognize close family members and friends. (mary is opposing the gay marriage ban in California).

    As a ‘recovering Catholic’ I value the Church and the people I call friends in the church and yet I am still conflicted with many of the ‘teachings of the church.’ Palin may like certain aspects of her church and its community, but she could also be someone who also has conflicts with some of the teachings.

    When gays, lesbians, and the other folk of the sexual minority community come out, their is less fear and rejection by friends and family. Most people who have someone come out to them are often times shocked by the reality that there seemed to be a lack of trust in the relationship, not the issue of sexual orientation. Hiding, lying and deception are not healthy in any relationship.

    Comment by rusty — October 1, 2008 @ 2:12 pm - October 1, 2008

  52. “McCain openly favors legalized discrimination against gays on the basis of their sexuality: isn’t that contrary to what conservatives demand?”

    Conservatives do not demand that anyone be allowed to get married, everyone be guaranteed a job, everyone be allowed to adopt a child, and that everyone should automatically serve in the armed forces. Conservatives support logical reasons and rational evaluation of the effects on others for people being allowed to do all of the above.

    For example, women are not required to share sleeping quarters with men in the armed forces except under extreme circumstances, the reason being that sexual attraction may exist and that its existence creates sexual tension and interferes with unit cohesion. That is “legalized discrimination”, and it makes perfect sense. Similarly, straight people should not be required to share sleeping quarters with people who may be sexually attracted to them, especially given gay and lesbian liberals’ insistence that holding gays and lesbians responsible for sexual harassment is “homophobia and sexism”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2008 @ 2:22 pm - October 1, 2008

  53. 33, of course there’s a method to tell who’s gay and who isn’t and you don’t need to be a psychiatrist or psychologist to figure it out. Here’s how you do it: Go up to the person suspect is gay and bark out “CLANK! CLANK! CLANK!” If they immediately respond with “WENT THE TROLLEY,” then they are irrefutably gay!

    Comment by Right Turn — October 1, 2008 @ 2:31 pm - October 1, 2008

  54. [...] tolerance of free speech! We’re going to demand for accountability from the Democrats and even be fair once in a [...]

    Pingback by GOP: Hail Mary Pass or Go Home | The Anchoress — October 1, 2008 @ 2:35 pm - October 1, 2008

  55. WhatAboutPalinsReligion, many conservative Christians (including myself and probably including SP) have a fairly nuanced view of homosexuality. We think there’s room in the middle between, say, James Dobson and Gene Robinson with regard to the religious or moral questions surrounding homosexuality. We don’t expect to make the majority of gay Americans happy with our beliefs regarding homosexuality, but there are many people to the right of us whom we don’t agree with, both in tone and substance, and even if we can’t condone homosexual acts and be honest about it, we don’t see it as our job to condemn either. After all, we have a lot of our own sin issues to deal with. And even if it would go against SP’s religion to condone homosexuality, it would probably also go against her beliefs to be anywhere near as hostile and judgmental as many Christians have been. One should not assume that the old guard of the religious right speak for the church in general, or even conservative churches in general. Presumably, SP doesn’t believe, as a vocal minority seem to believe, that homosexuality is the most dangerous threat to America’s culture. I would imagine she chooses not to dwell on the moral questions surrounding homosexuality. Basically, she sees the fruit of her friendship as more important than pressuring her friend to change or otherwise making her friend uncomfortable. As a conservative Christian myself with gay friends, I know exactly what she’s talking about when she talks about her friend.

    Comment by cme — October 1, 2008 @ 3:22 pm - October 1, 2008

  56. 35 -
      
    It’s clang clang clang
      
    Guess that proves you’re gay.

    Comment by Left Turn — October 1, 2008 @ 3:32 pm - October 1, 2008

  57. Palin said she believes being gay is a choice. I’m not sure why that’s confusing.

    She didn’t say coming out was a choice, she literally said being gay was her friend’s choice. And that language, in this day and age, is HILARIOUS!

    Listen, I know conservatives pretend they understand there’s supposed to be separation between church and State, but I also know a lot of them simply can’t do it. It’s impossible to bypass your faith. I know that. I respect that. But when you begin to rationalize Palin’s direct comments, you really need to look at what’s going on for you. Especially if you’re gay. That’s…well….sad.

    Also know folks, gay marriage will happen. Trust me. It will happen. America is founded on change and freedom, and that’s what we’re talking about. No one’s talking about marrying their Ford Escort or their pet turtle. Which by the way, is another HILARIOUS argument. Its’ about one person being in a monogamous relationship with another person. That’s all.

    I know it’s scary Folks, but really, you’re going to be okay. You really, really will. And truly know that the only choice thats going on here is yours. The choice to stop Americans from uniting with other Americans in a loving relationship, and that choice will go down in history as archaic and misguided.

    And just for some info….marriage hasn’t been between a man and a woman for the last 5,000 years. Women used to be traded as property to men, men also garnered several wives at one time…the list goes on. Marriage hasn’t always been about love and respect. Just a short history lesson.

    Keep smiling!

    Comment by Alexandra — October 1, 2008 @ 3:55 pm - October 1, 2008

  58. Dave (#6), I’ve driven some BMWs that I’ve wanted to marry. hehehehe If only it could cook and clean my apartment.

    Comment by OutliciousTV — October 1, 2008 @ 4:17 pm - October 1, 2008

  59. WhataboutPalinsReligion (#25), from first hand experience, I can tell you it doesn’t conflict with her religion. I, with my family, attended Assembly of God churches from the time I was 5 or 6 years old until I graduated college and left home. While they aren’t afraid to call you out on what they see as being a sin, the teaching is that you love the sinner and hate the sin. My coming out to my family wasn’t easy but at no time did they ever threaten to disown me. Since my coming out, my mom has become something of a fag hag…not that I ever plan on taking her to a gay bar (Lord knows I can barely stand them) but she has two friends where she works, one a young gay guy and the other a partnered lesbian who she hangs out without any problem. If you ask my mom or most of the rest of my family, my partner and I aren’t going to make it into Heaven but in the meantime, she’s going to enjoy our company.

    Comment by BrentinMSP — October 1, 2008 @ 4:53 pm - October 1, 2008

  60. a must see. . .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q2R7O-0WRo%20%20

    when folk start getting to know ‘gay folk’ things start changing. Palin is hsowing her heart. Even though she might have not have expressed herself as well as she could have, she is at least talking about her ‘best friend.’ Palin was introduced to rally the conservative folk in the GOP. She was brought in to bring in some new energy.
    Seems like things are a changing, with the revelation of Mark Buse, as a trusted friend and confidant of McCain, the ever changing attitudes that came with the announcement of Lynne and Dick Cheney’s grandson and the openness of Mary and Heather. ( Mary is on record in opposing Prop 8).

    People welcome friends and family when they ‘come out.’ Often times it is the feeling of not being trusted enough that causes stress to loved ones when someone comes out. Distrust, lies, deception and dishonesty do not make for healthy relationships.

    Strides are being made in the GOP with the acceptance of the LCR endorsement at the convention, Republicans voices their opposition to Prop 8 and the other anti-gay ammendments and with conversations happening in conversative families regarding their gay/lesbian families and friends.

    Coming out is not a one time event. . .it happens over and over and over. and it becomes easier.

    Comment by rusty — October 1, 2008 @ 5:04 pm - October 1, 2008

  61. I saw the clip as well and just felt as though she {Palin} acknowledged that we all have “choices” that we make…I “chose” to take the path that resonated the best for me which was to date women…I could have “chosen” a very different path however having already been down that particular path it really did not suit me…so IMHO what SArah said is correct and her friend did “chose” to be gay {happy} and to has chosen to honor that which resonates the best for her….

    So anyone know where i can my LGBT for McCain/Palin bumper sticker?

    Comment by left leaning lesbian friend — October 1, 2008 @ 5:05 pm - October 1, 2008

  62. I notice in your linking of the bill you left out the part where it says,
    “(2) All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”
    My God. RTFM, my friend.
    I saw a GOP apologist on TV trying desperately to defend McCain’s ad, and the best he could do was to say that, “schools could interpret the bill to mean 5 year olds get sex-ed.” (emphasis mine) Even he wouldn’t go so far to as to claim it was mandated.
    More lies from the right, trying to raise fears about sex and kids to smear the left. The sad part is seeing a gay man be part of this, considering how often this smear is used on us.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 1, 2008 @ 6:58 pm - October 1, 2008

  63. Ever see a gay pride parade? You don’t see the normal couple from next door marching in their work clothes, you see people marching nude and engaging in sexual behavior that shouldn’t be for public consumption.
    Are you lying on purpose? Or is this just a “I’m making this up as I go along?”
    The last few SF pride parades contained more family and church floats than porn stars. Church after church, family and cultural groups following kids and strollers. You explicitly see people marching in their casual clothes, right along with the silliness and the funny and the sexy. What kind of crap are you peddling? I’m not claiming there is no sex on display (what you label as perversions and perverts, you open-minded wild-at-heart, you), but to claim that it look like Mardi Gras (strange how no one cares when thousands of straight kids go naked for a week) and nothing else is simply wrong.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 1, 2008 @ 7:17 pm - October 1, 2008

  64. ’m not claiming there is no sex on display (what you label as perversions and perverts, you open-minded wild-at-heart, you), but to claim that it look like Mardi Gras (strange how no one cares when thousands of straight kids go naked for a week) and nothing else is simply wrong.

    Nice try, but Mardi Gras is not held out by straights as an example of a cultural norm. And straight kids do not run around naked all week. People at Mardi Gras can be and are arrested for public indecency… and straight people do not defend it as “part of our culture.”

    And if you do not consider public sex depraved and perverted, you are very much at odds with the mainstream of society.

    Comment by V the K — October 1, 2008 @ 7:23 pm - October 1, 2008

  65. I would never in a million years take my kids to a Mardi Gras celebration. Shoot I don’t even think I want to attend one without them.

    American Elephant-I am not sure I agree with you on the issue of gays, children and adoption. I think two gay men or women can provide a very stable home life. I would agree that the ideal is a mom and a dad-I do think having both genders as parents brings something to the family that can’t be met in a single parent home or a same sex home, but not to the point that I think prohibiting the ability of gays to be parents is a good idea.

    We are friends with a gay couple in our community. One of the men was formerly married and he and his wife had three children. Two of his children live with him by choice, because the home life provided by the gay couple is far more stable and secure than living with their mother. One of his sons still lives with his mother, who doesn’t make him go to school, doesn’t demand he do any kind of chores, and is fine with him playing video games all day. He missed over 25 days or partial days of school last year, because his mother let him stay home or made him stay home to take care of his younger half sister.

    The bio dad is trying to get custody of this son, but they still haven’t had the actual hearing yet-her attorney keeps getting it continued.

    But given a choice between the gay couple who has rules and expectations and values education and the mother who doesn’t-the gay couple should win hands down.

    I really don’t think being a heterosexual couple and capable of reproducing automatically makes them better parents.

    Comment by just me — October 1, 2008 @ 7:59 pm - October 1, 2008

  66. “All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”

    And let’s show an example of what liberals consider to be “age-appropriate” for Level 1, or ages 5 – 8.

    Masturbation
    • Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
    • Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
    • Masturbation should be done in a private place.

    So Obama’s law mandates teaching kindergartners how to masturbate.

    Not that it surprises anyone that gay liberals and Democrats support that, given what they do as an “educational experience” for their own children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2008 @ 8:29 pm - October 1, 2008

  67. First of all, it’s inane for the state to assume that all young children are at the same level and that any curriculum covering a large number of children can be age-appropriate for all of them. That is a parental judgment.

    Second, it’s awful that the first thing Obama wants a young child to learn about sex is that it’s a form of violence.

    It occurs to me that the way for conservatives to engage the topic is to say, “Parents, not the government, should be deciding what ‘age appropriate’ means. We think the role of government should be limited to providing information to parents to help them discuss this sensitive topic to their children.”

    Comment by V the K — October 1, 2008 @ 9:55 pm - October 1, 2008

  68. To follow on BrentinMSP’s last line in his response to WhatAboutPalinsReligion, there are many straight conservative Christians like myself who don’t necessarily condone homosexual acts as a matter of morality but who by no means assume that being in a gay relationship prevents one from going to Heaven. Many Christians, including some pretty dang conservative Christians, adamantly disagree with people like Jim Dobson and Pat Robertson on this issue. It’s not that we agree with Gene Robinson on the issue, but we don’t see how either their tone or substance is helpful to anyone. Most Christians I know are much more concerned about heterosexual sin. My friends and I wrestle with this issue frequently, trying to figure out how open and hospitable we can be on this issue without compromising our belief about scripture. I imagine the vast majority of gay Americans wish churches would just dismiss our understanding of scripture, and my friends and I would definitely like to do that, but we can’t just dismiss scriptures we don’t like. (Yes, I realize Christians do pick and choose scripture all the time, but my friends and I try not to do that, but that’s a huge can of worms for another discussion.) Even so, hopefully we (straight conservative Christians) can be honest about our own sin, refute other Christians who make homosexuality out to be a bigger deal than it is, be hospitable, and keep the conversation going. The bottom line is that most Christians have a very nuanced view of this issue and personally prefer to be hospitable rather than judgmental. Many Christians have a friend like Sarah Palin’s friend, and I don’t know of many churches that think that’s a bad thing.

    Comment by cme — October 1, 2008 @ 10:08 pm - October 1, 2008

  69. I choose to identify as misanthrope.

    Comment by Don Meaker — October 1, 2008 @ 10:39 pm - October 1, 2008

  70. [...] regarding current politics, Sarah Palin and John McCain both pretty much have a live-and-let-live attitude regarding gay people. They both [...]

    Pingback by Republicans And Homosexuality « Tai-Chi Policy — October 2, 2008 @ 3:12 am - October 2, 2008

  71. 67: me too!

    Comment by Vince P — October 2, 2008 @ 5:05 am - October 2, 2008

  72. Alexandra,
    You seem to have some trouble with the English language, so allow me to help:

    Palin said she believes being gay is a choice. I’m not sure why that’s confusing.

    She didn’t say coming out was a choice, she literally said being gay was her friend’s choice.

    Actually, her exact words were, “She is one of my best friends who happens to have made a choice…”

    You are putting words in her mouth when you claim to know exactly what choice she was referring to. But regardless, there are MANY prominent people, and millions more like them for whom being gay IS a choice. What was Ellen Degeneres previous girlfriend’s name? She said it was a choice. Tammy Bruce has said it was her choice. So, no, there is nothing “HILARIOUS” about using such language “in this day and age. Its accurate language for millions of people.

    Listen, I know conservatives pretend they understand there’s supposed to be separation between church and State

    Actually, Alexandra, neither the Constitution, nor any other founding document says anything about a “separation of church and state”. What they do say, explicitly, however, is that there shall be NO religious tests to hold office. In other words the bigotry you espouse, suggesting that religious believers should be ineligible for office because of “separation of church and state”, is patently unconstitutional.

    Also know folks, gay marriage will happen. Trust me. It will happen. America is founded on change and freedom

    Really? I know America is founded on personal freedom, or more specifically, liberty, because the founding documents make it very clear. But I’m wondering if you could point me to the part of the Constitution or Declaration where it says our nation is founded on change — cus its not in my copies. Indeed, the founding fathers made it very difficult to change the Constitution — which is of course why liberals believe in a “living, breathing” (read: meaningless) Constitution, so that it can mean whatever they want it to mean that day.

    …and [freedom is] what we’re talking about….Its’ about one person being in a monogamous relationship with another person. That’s all

    Wrong. Sorry. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with freedom. You are already free to have a monogomous relationship with whomever you choose (provided theyre of legal age) No one is preventing you. Marriage as far as society is concerned is a bag of goodies we hand out to encourage people to do something we deem beneficial to society. You are just as free to enter into the institution as anyone else is, you just choose not to, instead you are demanding that the institution change, and that everyone else in society not only approve of, but reward you for doing something entirely different.

    No one’s talking about marrying their Ford Escort or their pet turtle. Which by the way, is another HILARIOUS argument.

    No, but people are talking about marrying multiple people or relatives. And there is nothing “HILARIOUS” about it to anyone who can follow a train of logic. There are logical reasons for excluding same-sex couples from the institution that would be negated by including gay marriage. Once gay marriage becomes law and “love” is the reason government gives out marriage licenses, there can be no logical reason to exclude groups or relatives from entering into the institution together, only arbitrary ones. And arbitrary doesnt stand up to legal scrutiny well.

    The choice to stop Americans from uniting with other Americans in a loving relationship, and that choice will go down in history as archaic and misguided.

    Nobody is stopping you from uniting with anyone in a loving relationship, Alexandra. Go! Be free! Unite in whatever relationship you wish. It is YOU that is demanding that everyone else approve of you, and hold your same-sex relationship in the same regard as the ONLY relationship that is capable of reproducing society and the ONLY relationship in which children can be raised by both their biological parents.

    All because you have a HILARIOUS perception that you are being victimized.

    It is you, Alexandra, who are misguided. Grow up.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 2, 2008 @ 5:54 am - October 2, 2008

  73. And just to make it crystal clear Alexandra, when you use the force of law to coerce people into approving of you who do not, it is YOU and ONLY you, who are robbing others of their freedom.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 2, 2008 @ 5:57 am - October 2, 2008

  74. My test for politicians is, “Overall, how good are they for indivdidual libertty?” In other words, on the statist meter (with 0 being Murray Rothbard-style libertarian anarchism being 0 and Mao, for example, being 100), are they more in the direction of 0, or more in the direction of 100? If Palin secretly loathes homosexuals (which I doubt), but doesn’t want to institute laws to persecute them (which she’s given no evidence of desiring), she’s certainly way lower on the statist meter than the Neo-Marxist doofus and career State-shtupper running for president and vice-president against her and McCain.

    Comment by Bilwick1 — October 2, 2008 @ 8:57 am - October 2, 2008

  75. Look at her record in government – not that she has “gay” friends – she is anti-gay, wants legislation to ban same sex unions

    She vetoed that bill, numbnuts.

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 2, 2008 @ 12:51 pm - October 2, 2008

  76. Actually Sarah Palin’s gay friend does exist. I know this for a fact because Sarah’s friend is my sister’s partner and has been for many years!!! She is very much alive and doing well. She is a great person and a valuable family member. I can attest that their friendship is alive, well and very current.

    Comment by A girl who knows — October 2, 2008 @ 10:46 pm - October 2, 2008

  77. American Elephant stated “There is a rational reason that government promotes marriage as it exists, and that is because men and women can provide two things to society that no other coupling can:
    1. They reproduce society, and
    2. They are the only coupling in which a child can be raised by both its biological parents.
    Two logical reasons to keep the institution as it is, and two reasons why there is no equal treatment issue involved.”

    So does that mean straight couples who ADOPT non biologically related children should not get all the rights under marriage??

    I have two children with my partner. Anyone who is anti-same sex marriage is hurting not only the same sex couple (and definitely not promoting tolerance), but also hurting innocent children.

    Comment by Karen in Santa Cruz — October 2, 2008 @ 11:15 pm - October 2, 2008

  78. Did you happen to hear Palin’s comments about her feelings towards homosexuals in the debate? She kept repeating the word “tolerate”. She would be willing to “tolerate” gays…Come to a level of “tolerance”. Most of us want and deserve acceptance – not tolerance. Those are two very different things and its clear that she is a homophobic idiot who doesnt know her ass from her elbow.

    Comment by antho — October 3, 2008 @ 12:12 am - October 3, 2008

  79. I say no thanks to the Thought Police thug in comment 76

    Comment by Vince P — October 3, 2008 @ 12:40 am - October 3, 2008

  80. Anyone who is anti-same sex marriage is hurting not only the same sex couple (and definitely not promoting tolerance), but also hurting innocent children.

    Interesting, Karen…..so despite your insistence that the lack of marriage hurts children, you and your partner chose to bring children into your relationship anyway, knowing that your lack of marriage would hurt them — which means you deliberately put children into what you consider to be a harmful situation. Furthermore, since you insist children are harmed by having unmarried parents, logically, you should support forcing people who have children to get married to avoid harming the children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2008 @ 2:56 am - October 3, 2008

  81. To Karen in Santa Cruz et. al. re AE’s reproductin comment.

    There are two undeniable biological facts at work:

    1. Unless they take active measures to prevent it, most heterosexual couples that regularly engage in sex will produce children.

    2. Unless they take exceptional measures to cause, no homosexual couple that regularly engages in sex will produce children (and even then it will not be the natural chiold of both members of the couple).

    From these facts, I think is reasonable for the law to assume that a long-term committed heterosexual union will contribute to the continuation of society while a long-term committed homosexual union will not. Yes, there are exceptions to both, but trying to act like the societal benefit from the latter is equivalent to the former seems like an exercise in self deception.

    Re marrying family members, if my state offered gay marriage I can see no good reason I shouldn’t be able to marry my brother or father. If my wife and my mother died and I wanted to raise my children in a loving stable home with my father, why shouldn’t we be able to marry and have the same benefits of other married couples raising children? Or is consumation required to validate a gay marriage? Why?

    Comment by submandave — October 3, 2008 @ 5:25 pm - October 3, 2008

  82. What a great vid–touching. Thanks for posting. This makes me think about a straight guy I sat next to in class for a whole semester, who didn’t reject me when I told him I was gay. Makes me think of all those super people who are accepting, but him especially. Kudos to Sarah.

    Comment by Keegan — October 9, 2008 @ 2:02 am - October 9, 2008

  83. I do believe she meant that it was her friend’s “choice” to be openly gay. I think she is fairly accepting, she doesn’t understand it of course, because she’s not gay herself. If her friend had decided to not live open as a lesbian, she could have married a guy she wasn’t attracted to and tried to live a normal life, but that would be living a lie. She could have chosen to give up on love and just remain lonely, but that wouldn’t be ideal and she wouldn’t be happy. Sarah’s friend chose to be honest about her sexuality and found happiness. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

    Comment by Christie — October 16, 2008 @ 2:31 am - October 16, 2008

  84. [...] vice presidential nominee did indicate her support of a federal marriage amendment, on at least four occasions in this campaign, she has said we should treat gay and lesbian citizens fairly, not [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Worst Vitriol against Gay Conservatives in 15 years — November 3, 2008 @ 1:15 pm - November 3, 2008

  85. Love is Love

    Our love is no different than your love

    We are not effecting how YOU live

    Comment by Bobby — January 9, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - January 9, 2009

  86. Never seen such stupidity and lying in a public figure. This gay this gay that debate is starting to make me angry. LEAVE PEOPLES SEXUAL TASTES TO THEMSELVES YOU COW.
    And who cares if one likes to sleep with his own sex. Keeping up with building useless nuclear instruments of death and making war is ok, but peoples sexual preferences are discussed by politicians, while theseacts or preferences are private.
    “Gay People” don’t even exist, these are just people having sex with another person. It’s not a defining character of a human, it’s just taste for some sexual behaviour. We should re-educate people. Gay people don’t exist, so lets call them “people” once again and leave their sexual preferences to themselves.

    Comment by Angrier than yesterday — June 18, 2009 @ 9:37 am - June 18, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.