Palin Differs With McCain on Federal Marriage Amendment

ABC ^ | 10/20/08 | staff

[pissant]

ABC News' Imtiyaz Delawala Reports: Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin has signaled support for a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman – a position inconsistent with Sen. John McCain, who has opposed such a measure, as well as with her own previously stated position of letting states decide on such issues.

In an interview to air tomorrow on The 700 Club, Christian Broadcasting News senior correspondent David Brody asked Palin, "On constitutional marriage amendment, are, are you for something like that?"

"I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman," Palin said, citing the 1998 initiative that banned gay marriage in her home state.

"I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage," Palin added, taking a position at odds with McCain, who voted against efforts for a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006. Earlier this month, McCain told the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper, that he continues to oppose such an amendment today because he thinks the definition of marriage should be a state matter and not one for the federal government "as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state's standard."

[supercat]

Not to disuade her from speaking her opinion, but a VP better learn to support and stay on the same message as the President, otherwise they’ll find themselves attending a lot of state funerals rather than power-brokering.

So a VP will be allowed to power-broker, provided she doesn't want to actually wield any power of her own? What's the point of that?

McCain is right on some things and dead wrong on others. Sarah Palin lacks experience on some matters, but is right on many of the ones where McCain is wrong. A team of two strong-willed but somewhat flexible people would be far better than one strong-willed (but often wrong) person and a yes-woman.

[NinoFan]

McCain is right on this in theory, but the federal courts will get in the way. I think one compromise option that might get support from reasonable people in both parties is an amendment that simply says gay marriage isn’t required by the Constitution. That way, each state can decide the issue on its own and the federal courts will stay away. I have no problem with Massachusetts having gay marriage, but I don’t like the idea of federal courts of forcing the issue on, say, Alaska.