In response to question from me, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin offered this exclusive response to President Obama’s Defense of Marriage Act decision:
I have always believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. Like the majority of Americans, I support the Defense of Marriage Act and find it appalling that the Obama administration decided not to defend this federal law which was enacted with broad bipartisan support and signed into law by a Democrat president. It’s appalling, but not surprising that the President has flip-flopped on yet another issue from his stated position as a candidate to a seemingly opposite position once he was elected.
– Maggie Gallagher is chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage.
There is no "flip-flop;" BO's "stated position" was a lie from the beginning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedoes anyone seriously believe that Obama supported DOMA or opposed homosexual "marriage"? Gov. Palin is being charitable -- it is not a flip-flop now, it was a lie then.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm very glad to see that Palin is not waffling on this issue. Now she needs to clarify her position on DADT, given some ambiguous information that was disseminated around the time of repeal. In addition, she needs to tell us what she thinks about civil unions as well as anti-discrimination laws that cover transgenders, LGBTQRSTUVs, etc.
This news is good, and perhaps my misgivings are entirely unfounded, but I have lately begin to wonder about Palin's steadfastness in the face of homosexualist causes. She could clear all this up in a moment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere she goes again interjecting herself into every miniscule issue and her grammar is terrible and she misspelled something and she probably put this on that awful facebook thing and she's stooooopid and she probably quit having someone else write this for her right in the middle so she'll never be president so why even try... And Trig is really Sarah and the Yeti's love child cause I read it in the Weekly World News.
(Trying to head off the trolls at the pass. How'd I do?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGay marriage is coming. Everyday, more Americans are realizing that love conquers all and that people should be allowed to marry whomever they want. This is America after all. Discrimination always has a finite shelf-life and conservatives/evangelicals will eventually have to make their peace with gay marriage. It is unavoidable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, hardcastle, we need to make sure that Sarah Palin really comes out and says that gay people aren't really people, and that the greater society can abuse them at will and deny them the right to contract with one another. We also need to make sure that gay people can get fired or evicted simply for being gay.
What would be best is if she would stop pussyfooting around and make a strong statement that the government should jail anyone who has sex that the government doesn't approve of.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama does whatever,speaks whatever will help his popularity or agenda; especially his far left supporters
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuselike HOLLYWOOD!. (Got a "bit" at the Oscars). Never has been a Pres. for all the people!
To the parsers and nitpickers: she has taken a stand to defend the constitution. Where is Romney on this? Daniels? (Is this part of "the truce"?) Christie? Boehner? The GOP establishment is silent as the constitution is being gutted. When the President (and a President who, as former editor of the Harvard Law Journal, certainly understands) can declare a law unconstitutional on his own accord, the constitution has more or less been thrown in the garbage. If he gets away with this, he will just keep doing it to enact any policy he sees fit. Thank God for Sarah Palin, now watch the rest of the little boys club announce their positions...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHi, Riot. I was just wondering when such a response would come and who would post it.
No, the thing is, I *do* think homosexuals are just people like the rest of us, not special in any way. Homosexual acts are things they do and are not essential to their personhood. There should be no legal category whatsoever defining people in terms of those acts.
I tend to doubt that Sarah Palin agrees with all that, but we'll see.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDOMA is anti-states' rights. It's one thing if Texas doesn't want to allow gays to marry. It's another thing if Texas doesn't want the Federal government to allow Iowa to allow gays to marry. The Federal Government should defer to the states' laws on marriage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Hardcastle: I'd say who I marry is pretty essential to my "personhood." Gay people just want what everyone else has. No big thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't decide whether turfmann's or RiotLibrarian's is the better parody.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot to pick nits, but isn't "flip-flopping" when you first hold position A, then switch to position B (the flip) and then back to A (the flop)? I thought that is what it used to mean, but I never see it that way anymore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Jeremy:
You can disagree on the merits, but DOMA basically does two things:
-Defines, for federal purposes, "marriage" and "spouse"
-Says that, per your example, Iowa can't make Texas recognize gay marriage.
DOMA, which was passed by the house and senate and signed by the president, protects states from having "marriage" defined for them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusean excerpt from a piece NRO linked to today: External Link
"By confounding the latter with the former, the administration announces in effect that its political judgment, that barring same-sex marriage is wrong, will suffice as a constitutional judgment, that no one can legitimately consider it right. But on any meaning of “reasonable,” it is the Obama administration that has so far given no substantial grounds for rejecting the view taken by overwhelming congressional majorities, and a Democratic president, in DOMA’s enactment."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"DOMA is anti-states' rights. It's one thing if Texas doesn't want to allow gays to marry. It's another thing if Texas doesn't want the Federal government to allow Iowa to allow gays to marry. The Federal Government should defer to the states' laws on marriage."
This comment indicates a complete ignorance of what DOMA does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@SmithersJones: "Gay people just want what everyone else has."
What everyone else has is marriage, defined as "one man, one woman". Have at it, no big thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@WT Facts:
Well, that definition is headed for the ash heap of history as Mr. Trotsky once said. To recycle another lyric/cliche: The times, they are a' changin'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@SmithersJones:
Discrimination is a problem when we treat similar situations as different. Treating different situations differently when there is a good reason to do so happens all the time. 12-year olds can't drive, rich people have higher tax rates, big fat guys don't become green berets.
The issue is whether there is a substantive difference between marriage and gay marriage. I think so and that it has to do with procreative capabilities and child-rearing ideals. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm right but the potential child-rearing benefits for gay couples still suggests legal recognition.
Simply claiming that it is beyond the pale to suggest that marriage and gay marriage are in any meaningful way not identical is not useful.
Just answer a simple question - What is it about gay marriage that is a benefit to the state or society that suggests it should be recognized as such?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSays the half-term governor who signed same-sex benefits into law and vetoed a measure that would have barred them...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse