Posted on 10/20/2008 2:50:11 PM PDT by TexasNative2000
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
It’s now considered to be a socially conservative position to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman?
“Many of us are only voting for McCain because of her views....”
Exactly. Why alienate independents when conservatives are already stoked by her presence?
I’m just being honest. I don’t disagree with her view, I’m just saying that her message discipline is a little off, but then again so has the entire McCain campaign.
Excuse me, but do you have any data to show independents are fiscally conservative but socially liberal?
I’m tired of Republicans telling social conservatives to ‘get to the back of the bus and let the fiscal conservative adults do the driving’ (Safire, 1996). Has it occurred to you that many independents don’t pay taxes, and don’t give a hoot in hell about lowering what they don’t pay?
I would be willing to pay higher taxes to cut the deficit, but I have no desire to see my guns taken, gay marriage forced down my throat or abortions made legal (and taxpayer funded, per Obama).
The woman is honest about her views. She’ll never amount to anything!
LMBO
Thank you Sarah, for being yourself. With you, I know where I stand. Wish I could say that about three other people I could name.
Marriage is a religious issue...
Religious faggots need to leave the secular marriage laws alone.
Fiscally conservative is no tax breaks for perversion.
I am tired of the over-subsidized sex lives of other people.
Palin/Jidal ‘12, saving the Union from socialism.
I think the bigger mistake is mentioning a constitutional amendment. People like the Constitution just the way it is, any talk of amending it is bound to have consequences among purists.
If some states recognized homosexual marriage because the legislature enacted such a law, and if other states had the right not to recognize such marriages, I might not favor a federal amendment banning gay marriage. Unfortunately, the homosexual lobby is happy to use dishonest judges who *invent* a right to gay marriage, pretending that laws against sex discrimination require recognition of homosexual marriage. I support a federal amendment as a way of slapping down the lying judges and their allies.
I feel the same way about abortion. I’m pro-choice in the sense that I would not favor a state law banning all abortions, but I recognize that Roe vs. Wade was a big lie that ought to be overturned.
NONSENSE!
CONSERVATIVE MEANS VICTORY.
DINO TRUMPS RINO.
McCain is too timid on this issue.
This is the way to victory.
At the VP debate, Joe Biden stated he also opposes gay marriage, and that this is one issue he and Sarah Palin are in agreement.
It goes deeper than that.
Obama is on the record as promising to repeal the 1996 DMA signed by clinton keeping homosexual marriages out of federal law.
In addition he will rescind don’t ask don’t tell.
ALSO consider the administration’s control of immigration rules regarding spousal visas.
We are LONG overdue for a federal marriage amendment.
They’re BOTH wrong. There is no requirement for an Amendment to address this matter.
The problem I have with a Constitutional Amendment to ‘create’ a definition of marriage is Rove v. Wade. Wait for it ...
Elevating abortion to be a Federal-level constitutional ‘rights’ issue is why we have such a hopeless situation, nationally, with respect to abortion. Except for rules governing the licensing and conduct of medical practioners, even the States wouldn’t even vaguely be concerned with the sanctioning of a ‘right’ to an abortion.
The issue ( and choices ) should properly be relegated to the parties — parents and the doctor — and the State could not assert an interest in the practice or the outcome.
That is as it should be. The Framers were content to leave out countless specific cases while defining the role, functions and scope of action of the Federal Government, which IS the subject of the Constitution. All powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government were reserved to the States ( Amendment #10 ). Certain ‘rights’ were explicitly reserved to the citizens ( Amendments #1 .. #10, the so-called Bill of Rights ) and each State — AND the Federal Government — were required to respect these rights.
All this ignores, quite properly, my own personal beliefs about the matter of abortion which, quite properly, have no place in the this discussion. Similarly, the ‘personal beliefs’ of ANYONE else — judges, politicians, ‘activists’, any private citizen — are outside the scope of the Constitution AND the purview of ANY court.
Similarly, there is NO assertion whatsover in the Constitution which addresses the definition of marriage, just as there is no definition of countless other ‘topics’ that someone may want to assert as being in need of ‘creation’ or protection.
For example, the Constitution is utterly silent on the notion of privacy, except as noted in the Amendment #4: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
In so far as the State ( including the Federal government ) has any proper ‘interest’ in the institution of marriage, it is limited to a ‘civil’ interest in the effect of the union or the disposition of property or custody of minor children upon dissolution or divorce. As a matter of law, a marriage creates certain property rights between the parties and certain responsibilities for the care of each party may required judicial ruling to protect the rights of each party.
There does not appear to be any benefit to society to create a template — IN the Constitution — defining ANY of these issues, including who may or may not properly marry.
Well, that is, until you tumble on Article 4 which defines the concept of ‘reciprocity’ between the States.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
Essentially, ANY State can impose a definition of marriage on ALL the others states simply by doing it. For example, Massechusetts allows same-sex couples to marry. These marriages are more or less automagically ‘created’ in ALL the other States — see Article 4.
Well, the Framers weren’t THAT stupid. Article 4 ALSO addresses that concern in the very next sentence.
“And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
And THAT, you might notice, simply demolishes the apparent ‘need’ for a Constitutional Amendment defining Marriage. The Congress may simply pass a ‘general law prescribing the manner in which’ the specific action of a single state may not be imposed on ANY other State.
Then, each individual state may merrily ( and properly ) define what is a marriage to suit it own citizens and no other citizens of any other state need be helplessly affected. AND we don’t create another Roe v. Wade-ish nightmare to bother us all as the current one does.
So. THAT’s why I think both McCain and Palin are wrong on this’n ...
So she’s a maverick!!!! McCain is gonna love that.
2012, it is...
Fiscal conservatives don’t care much one way or the other. It’s hardly a make-or-break social issue, as issues go, for this demographic.
Congress has the authority to dictate to what extent, if any, various judicial actions in one state are enforceable upon another. I see no reason this wouldn't give Congress the authority to declare that no state shall be required to honor any marriage which does not involve precisely one male and one female.
God Bless Her.
Hi NEWBIE!!
Correct. That would also reinforce State’s Right for Idaho to say “No we do not recognize California gay marriages”. I do not think that Congress can require the opposite though (forcing States to recognize other States on this).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.