At about.com:Gov. Sarah Palin’s church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.
‘‘You’ll be encouraged by the power of God’s love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,’’ according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years.
In January 2007, Palin spoke out against a state supreme court ruling granting domestic partnership benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. She later vetoed a bill passed by the legislature to overturn the ruling; while she agreed with the bill's intent, she argued that it violated separation of powers (as it represented an attempt by the legislature to overturn a supreme court ruling by simple majority). She has stated firm opposition to same-sex marriage, and supported a 1998 constitutional amendment banning it in Alaska.But it's all OK, because she says she "has gay friends."
8 comments:
Hold on a second, David. Both you and I were both willing (along with lots of others) to see reason when the Reverend Wright story was making Obama look bad. Both you and I felt that -- even though the good Senator sat in those pews for all those years and listened to those sermons and even had Rev. Wright baptize his children -- the connection was tenuous at best. We both felt that Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama were two different people, and that -- despite the connection between them -- there was no guarantee that the beliefs of one reflected with any great certainty on the beliefs of the other.
In short, you and I were willing to overlook the Wright story. The beliefs of someone's minister were held to be less-than-relevant then.
But when it's a Republican with this kind of connection, you are -- once again -- willing to go against your earlier statements and claim it to be suddenly relevant. Palin's church is doing something. Palin is a member the church. Therefore, Palin must totally agree with that.
By that logic, Sen. Obama must be a card-carrying member of the "Kill Whitey" club. You simply can't have this one both ways. Either someone's membership in a certain congregation is a reflection of their true beliefs or it's not. But that applies to everyone equally. If congregational membership was irrelevant for Senator Obama, then it must be similarly irrelevant for Sarah Palin.
If you read the second selection, you'll see that Sarah Palin agrees with her church 100%. The same cannot be said for Obama.
John K: Actually Hussein Obama does agree with his church 100% of the time. He only abandoned Rev. Wright after he received political pressure.
John K: What no poll numbers to brag about? LOL LOL LMAO LOL What no Olbermouth commentary? Removed from political coverage because of biased views. LMAO LMAO One liberal at a time.
I agree with you, Joshua, but then why not just present the second section of the post, and leave it at that. Those things are relevant. Those things are actions that she took in her public capacity. They are what we should be focusing upon.
Instead, David leads with her religious beliefs and -- with the title -- puts the focus squarely on her church.
I guarantee that more voters out there have real problems with Obama's church than are in the least bit concerned about Palin's. If church membership is now back on the table for consideration, it will hurt him far more than it will hurt his opponents. So why don't we all agree to look at what the candidates themselves actually did, focus to a smaller degree on what they themselves actually believe, and drop this ever-widening examination for what people thought to be close to them are up to.
I'm now about 90% in the Obama camp on this election, but I would rather win it without throwing every last bit of logic out the window.
Fart-in-the-Wind-JohnK, are you gay?
RKT, I have to say this post is valuable if only (and maybe only) in forcing people to look at and think about Sarah Palin's positions. Apparently she has advocated both abtinence only and contraception education. I believe she has suggested that creationism and evolution be taught side by side. Even the about.com reference is mixed, the practical effect of what she did ended up extending benefits to same sex couples. I guess she is largely a pragmatist, trying to find positions that will offend the least number of people and sound the most reasonable.
I think the Obama campaign has tried to maintain a higher standard. The piece David quoted from is from the AP. Sarah Palin largely appeared out of nowhere. How much latitude should the media be given in reporting on various aspects of her life? Should blogger's be held to the standard of the campaign, or can they report on aspects of Sarah Palin's life?
I think, RKT, that dayvoe is pointing out the double standard. What is being said/done in Palin's church of choice will probably get no more MSM coverage than this lone AP article.
Also, I don't think Obama ever took any official actions or positions that were in sync with what Rev. Wright was saying. The same, from what I can tell, cannot be said for Palin with regard to the apparent beliefs and actions being taken by/in her church of choice.
Um, bob, what's up with the flag over the hooters? If that's your idea of intelligent or even satirical political speech, perhaps you should have to redo 3rd grade.
Post a Comment