Posted on 10/27/2010 6:27:31 PM PDT by topher
Wednesday October 27, 2010Alaska Senate Candidate Joe Miller Endorses Federal Same-Sex 'Marriage' Ban
By Peter J. Smith FAIRBANKS, Alaska, October 27, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller stated recently that he would support a U.S. constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, although he would prefer the matter left to the states. Miller, a pro-life candidate running neck-and-neck with incumbent and write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski for U.S. Senator, told MSNBCs Rachel Maddow that he would support a constitutional amendment, if that were seen as the solution to the challenge of legal same-sex marriage. Maddow, who is a self-identified lesbian, asked Miller about his position on gay rights and then specifically asked about his thoughts on a campaign employee who thought homosexuality could be treated or changed. Addressing her first point, Miller emphasized that issues related to homosexuality are really a state issue and indicated they should be handled at a state, not federal level. Miller said Terry Moffitt had worked with his primary campaign, but he had not seen the website HopeforHomosexuals.com and was unable to comment on it. Maddow then asked if Miller agreed that homosexuality is a choice. I think that's up to the individual. The individual has to make that decision, Miller replied. When pressed by Madow as to whether he believed that a person has a choice whether or not to be gay, Miller brouhg the issue back to politics, saying that My perspective is that at core, it is a state issue, but there are federal issues intertwined. He emphasized that policy changes regarding marriage should be kept close to the people at the state level. Maddow then asked if he would vote for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. "That's up to the people," Miller said, stressing that it would have to be a constitutional amendment. "If you get a three-quarters vote ratifying I'd vote for it. I would." Miller also told Maddow in the course of the interview that social issues are very close to his campaign and stated he is the only unequivocal pro-life candidate in this race. The rest of the segment can be viewed here. |
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.
Why? The name of the site looks like a conservative site.
Why in god’s name would Miller go on the Rachel Maddow show? It’s not as if he’s going to reach a conservative audience there and the libs who watch that show would never vote for him anyway. I’d say his inexperience is hurting him, but I can’t see Lisa Murkowski winning a write in campaign, she’d have to be the 1st person in 50 years to do so for the Senate.
The Freerepublic thread:
Alaska Supreme Court issues stay on write-in list ban(Sen. Murkowski)
States that additionally information cannot be given out for write in candidates. This is major setback to Murkowski.
Murkowski is running neck-and-neck with Miller in the polls.
But then voters would have to fill in her name on ballots.
Laziness by voters might win the election.
The other thing is what if voters mispell her name on the ballot? Should it be thrown out?
Another hanging chad type question (Presidential Election 2000 was our hanging chad election...)
Why would Miller even agree to talk to the mad cow?
Well then, it might be simple case of poor writing skills.
Good for Joe. I only wish he were more outspoken about his opposition to the imposition of the homo agenda.
He was answering a direct question by a raving liberal dyke. What was he supposed to do? Lie?
From personal experience I can vouch that nearly all liberals are sexual deviants. Some conservatives may also be as well, but it seems that deviancy is a right of passage on the left.
As someone else pointed out on FR yesterday, "a liberal cannot name a single 'freedom' that they support that does not elevate sexual deviancy. They are all about perverted sex."
Right on!
LLS
What a queer way of putting it...
I was trying to convey how disgusting and psycho so many of them are, in one way or another.
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.