Is this proof that Sarah Palin isn't as anti-g*y as some people portray her to be?

Question

Shortly after taking office, Sarah Palin vetoed legislation that would have prevented the state from providing benefits to the same-s*x partners of state employees.

http://www.g*y.com/news/article.html?2006/12/29/6

Answer 1

No.  Just because a politician vetoes a piece of legislation such as that doesn't mean she personally has any problem with homosexuals as people.  It's just her job and she probably doesn't want any hassles with her party.  A lot of politicians vote and vetoes based on party principles and not personal principles, it happens all the time.  This was just reaching out to her supporters who she feared might drop their support if she didn't act as a politician is supposed to and listen to We the People.

Answer 2

She followed that vote up by stating that she had no choice but to veto it because it was not in the state constitution AND that she SUPPORTS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST providing benefits to same s*x partners. Yes, the woman is anti-g*y, regardless to what she might claim around certain groups. She will say whatever she has to in order to get elected. She's smart, she's ambitious, and she's dangerous.

Answer 3

There 1 problem with that.

She's not the one running for president, McCain is. He says he believes LGBT people should be treated equally, but he also said that no laws are required to enforce that equality.

That's a crock of s***. How else are you supposed to protect the rights of LGBT people without legislating laws to enforce the equality and protection? How? Simply telling people, "I am your president and I do not approve of discrimination." Is not enough to treat LGBT equally because there would be no consequences if someone didn't.

Obama specifically said that he will try to enact laws to protect LGBT people, and fight for the protection of LGBT equality. (He does not approve of same s*x marriage, but niether does McCain, but the difference is, he made it clear that he will not get in the way if a state wants to legalize it).

I'm voting for Obama, nothing can stop me, and I think he's getting in. I know REPUBLICANS who are voting for Obama because they don't want to see this country in the same mess it's been going through the last 8 years.

Answer 4

From the article:

"Palin said she rejected the bill as unconstitutional despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order that directed the state to offer the benefits."

In other words, she is not pro-g*y.   She is pro-upholding the Alaska State Constitution.

Answer 5

I don't think she is AGAINST g*y people but she is definitely not supportive of  g*y rights so if she ever gets elected vice president don't expect any progress to be made as far as LGBT issues

Answer 6

The only reason Palin vetoed the bill was because, as she put it, "Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office."

Palin has said that when voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman eight years ago, many believed they were also implying that a g*y partner shouldn't get state benefits. "I wouldn't oppose at all the voters going back to the ballot box to clarify that," she said during a 2006 debate.

Answer 7

One good thing does not a pro-g*y candidate make.  Her religious-right credentials are much more salient.  

Here's a quote from the article you cite:

'In the first veto of her new administration, Palin said she rejected the bill as unconstitutional despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order that directed the state to offer the benefits.

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a written statement Thursday night.'

So her veto was based on her belief that signing it would be a violation of the state constitution because the state Supreme Court ORDERED the state to offer the benefits, not because she supports g*y people.  She doesn't.  She's as anti-g*y as she is made out to be.  She also feels that the Iraq war and a natural gas pipeline she supported are God's will.  Scary stuff.

Answer 8

From everything I have read and studied about her, I conclude that she is not on our side.  I tend to doubt that most candidates care about g*y rights one way or the other.  Mostly, they are just pandering to the constituents, in this case evangelicals, whose views they want to appeal to.

Answer 9

hmmmmmmm that was quite interesting.

Answer 10

Obeying a court order, and recognizing that the necessary margin isn't present to amend a state constitution is NOT the same as being pro-g*y.

Sarah Palin is a member of a fundamentalist/Pentecostal church, and until recently was in the Assemblies of God.  I spent a number of years in the Assemblies of God (a Pentecostal church also) and was ordained in the Pentecostal movement just before it fell to the Right.  

While it is true that MANY churches support g*y rights, it is equally true that the A of G is among the most virulently opposed to such rights.  

I do not believe for a moment that Sarah Palin showed anything other than pure practicality in her decision to veto a bill which she knew could not stand a court test, but which, if she signed it, would be put to such a test, forcing the state to spend money defending it -- even though it was doomed to be overturned.

Regards,

Hermes