August 29, 2008

Something I just plain don’t understand

Posted in Civil rights, GLBT issues, News, Politics at 11:25 am by The Lizard Queen

So, John McCain has picked his running mate: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.  Victor Maldonado, formerly of SLDN, posted at Pam’s House Blend a handy link to an Anchorage Daily News article from 2006 that details the positions of the various gubernatorial candidates on three key issues.  In short, Palin “doesn’t support legalizing marijuana, worrying about the message it would send to her four kids. But when it comes to cracking down on drugs, she says methamphetamines are the greater threat and should have a higher priority;” “is pro-contraception and said she’s a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life,” but also believes she is “as ‘pro-life as any candidate can be’ and has ‘adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion;'” and “supported the 1998 constitutional amendment” to ban same-sex marriage.

It’s on that last point that she provides a quotation that I just can’t wrap my brain around:

Elected officials can’t defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples.

“I believe that honoring the family structure is that important,” Palin said.

How the hell does denying benefits to homosexual couples honor the family structure?  And does that come off as punitive to anyone besides me?  I mean, how dare those homosexuals try to create their own families and ask to share health insurance and visit one another in the hospital in times of crisis!  Just a few lines prior to the above passage, the author of the article states that “Palin said she’s not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay,” and yet for all intents and purposes she wants to punish people who decide not to spend their lives in the closet by saying that not only should the not be allowed to legally wed the person they love, but they shouldn’t even be allowed to enjoy the benefits (literally and figuratively) of being in a committed relationship.

All in the name of “honoring the family structure.”

I just plain don’t get it, and I doubt I ever will — and you know, come to that, I don’t think I even want to get it.



  1. Gye Nyame said,

    I’m with you on this one. (unusual, eh? 😉

    “Elected officials can’t defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied”

    “but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples.”

    to paraphrase, “What!?, the law isn’t in line with my opinion about society? It must.should be changed!”

  2. Evil Bender said,

    I don’t think there’s anything to “get” here. What she said isn’t a position, it’s a calculated string of Right Wing buzzwords designed to conceal the plain meaning of her position behind superficially appealing rhetoric.

    There’s no substance to her words, only carefully crafted obfuscation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: