No, the whole point of Ms. is that it is the female equivalent of Mr. - no indication of marital status. Why should women’s marital status be included in their title when men’s isn’t? Its almost as if their value depends on it. Perhaps at one time but certainly no more.
Because this ticket is promoting FAMILY VALUES; ie MARRIED with children.
So, following that logic, should she go by Sarah Heath? Or Sarah Heath-Palin?
spoken like a true liberal or feminist. Mrs and Miss were terms used to indicate marital status of a female, this is true, but it was for the benefit of both male and female in order to keep men away from other men's wives. The men were the ones doing the chasing when these terms were invented and almost every language has the equivalent of Mrs and Miss incorporated in it.
The reasons should be obvious to anyone who knows what life was like back in the day,and I mean way back.
Women were protected from other men when they were married and they wanted people to know it.
It had nothing to do with women depending on a married title defining their value. In fact young women had more "value" as it were when single, they brought a good price to their fathers in some countries, in others they made the man they were marrying richer by bringing a big dowry into the marriage.
The whole idea that women should be ashamed of being called Mrs. is ludicrous and just one more liberal piece of PC garbage shoved at us by the left.
BTW, the original poster said she should have been called by her correct title which is Governor, not Ms. and you seemed to miss that point entirely . The MSM did the same thing to Bush, always calling him Mr. Bush and never President Bush.
Actually Mister (Mr.) does imply marital status for a male.
A single male is called Master, a married man is called Mister.
Now Master is no longer PC, so folks will say Mister when referring to a single male, but in reality that is improper. Single males honorary is Master, married are Mister.