search
top

Not Everyone’s Happy

From a commenter:

Are you retarded?

Palin’s first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska’s attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.

Well, if the gay bashing wing of the GOP is pissed that Palin supports same sex couples, I’m even more tickled pink about McCain’s choice.  The gay issue is going to kill the Republican party in a generation if they don’t mellow in the issue.  There’s a significant generational gap, and younger Republicans tend to be supportive of gay’s being equal members of society.  I think gay marriage is probably a bit too far out there for most people, even though I personally have no problem with the idea, but the GOP needs to jettison the gay cooties wing of the party before they kill it.

32 Responses to “Not Everyone’s Happy”

  1. Frankly, I think the government should have no say what-so-ever in something as sacred as marriage. It is, and always has been, between a man, a woman, their god, and their family. The legal construct that surrounds marriage, on the other hand has nothing to do with marriage and should be open to any two people regardless of gender. Neither the GOP nor the Dems get this one right.

    And Palin isn’t pro-gay-marriage. She just vetoed an unconstitutional law. Alaska’s constitution is set up to insure personal privacy and liberty… and they actually live by it, unlike a number of other states.

  2. Anthony says:

    So let me get a few things straight, this commenter has a problem with this women because she checked the Constitutionality of a law before she voted for something and then voted accordingly. Good Lord this woman is looking better and better to me! To think a politician being advised as to what the Constitution allows and than voting with the Constitution. Maybe if all politicians voted like this women we would not be in some of the trouble we are in.

    A Republican, Christian, Conservative I am glad she did that, because the Constitution and the rights and freedoms of people are more important than what I believe in my faith. The Church and the Government have different responsibilities and she seems to be able to keep them separate.

  3. Sebastian says:

    It would be difficult to remove the concept of marriage from the law, because so much law, both statutory law and common law, consider marriage. For instance, a couple that lives together for twenty years as if they were married, and then breaks apart, will in most states be considered married for the purposes of dividing up common properties and coming to a settlement for the dissolution of the relationship. I don’t see why gay couples shouldn’t have the same consideration.

  4. Lysander says:

    Sorry, Sebastian. Common Law marriages exist in a minority of states:
    http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm

    All states *recognize* a CL marriage – just outside of those 9 (or, depending, 11) states, the CL marriage needs to be formed elsewhere before they are “eligible” for recognition. Most people believe that a CL marriage can be formed anywhere at (almost) any time – which, considering I practice in estate planning, real estate, and family law (among other things), isn’t necessarily a *BAD* thing. ;)

    All that said, I agree with your sentiment.

  5. Noops says:

    My problem with her isn’t her policy that sort of thing, it’s that she was mayor of a town of 5000, and then Governor for 2 years. It loosens up the issue of experience WRT Obama, and makes a little shallow the level of experience with McCain. I guess I think they went for the image vote instead of someone with a little more substance.

    Otherwise, I agree with you on the other points.

  6. illspirit says:

    I still don’t understand why some Republicans want to expand the fedgov into marriage. If they won now and got a Federal ban on gay marriage, what would stop the enviro-nuts from using the power and precedent later to ban straight marriage later in order to control population growth (or, err, just population). The manbearpig followers make no secret of their hatred for humans. Why give them a new club to beat us down with later on?

  7. JR says:

    That’s kind of weak Noops, and there is another side to it also. I was a write-in for Fred Thompson until this morning. Sarah Palin is a top notch conservative by principle and practice.

    Electioneering is not the be all end all.

  8. JR says:

    That came off a little mean. I meant that it’s a weak argument just to clarify…

  9. Noops says:

    JR, I gotcha, but everyone’s been hammering Obama on the experience angle and the pick a VP who’s got considerably less experience. OK, how is that weak? She may be a top notch conservative, and I like her. But mayor of 5000 size city and short term governor of a rural state doesn’t, in my mind, make a good President-Second-in-line-of-succession. And thinking that they didn’t bring her on to get more women/minority votes seems naive. I’m not knocking it, but I think the dems are probably relieved at this point.

  10. Nomen Nescio says:

    tentative verdict: this is McCain bending even further over for the theocratic wing of his party. Palin’s anti-science, it seems.

  11. Anthony says:

    Palin is not anti-science, she just supports teaching both evolution and creationism in schools. Both are only theories after all, and both have had some credibility in the science field.

  12. Sebastian says:

    I’m not opposed to teaching ID in, say, philosophy or religion class. Not in biology class, because it’s not science.

  13. teqjack says:

    “There’s a significant generational gap, and younger Republicans tend to be supportive of gay’s being equal members of society.”

    At 63, only my sisters call me “younger.”

    Palin: mostly seems a good choice, with executive branch experience. Flaws, of course, but actively anti-corruption, pro-energy (ie, since it is going to take a decade to develop practical alternative what do we do in the meantime – drill/pump and perhaps nukes), seems pro-2nd A…

    And yeah, foreign policy. OK, some other states border on Canada or Mexico, but Russia (well, as closely as Chicago IL to Canada)?

  14. Anthony says:

    Sebastian,

    Actually scientists have been looking at the theory of creationism in conjunction with evolution. Scientific American and another journal to which the name alludes me have both had articles as of late regarding dark matter and the big bang theory.

    But I understand what you mean about creationism not being taught in Science classes. But just wanted to let you know that it is out there in the science community at this point.

  15. gattsuru says:

    I’m not opposed to teaching ID in, say, philosophy or religion class. Not in biology class, because it’s not science.

    It is a science (ie, it’s based on physical analysis rather than religious or mental, and proposes data rather than mandates), just one with relatively little physical analysis on its side and a pretty significant amount against it.

    I wouldn’t call it anti-science, but I wouldn’t consider it a particularly good or useful policy. Hell, even if I were religious and could teach specific religions in schools, I’d rather they not — we’re talking a facility that tends tor release people that attribute “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” to the Constitution of the United States, I don’t want kids coming out of High School thinking that Moses died on the burning bush for their sins — but this seems counterproductive.

  16. Anthony says:

    “I don’t want kids coming out of High School thinking that Moses died on the burning bush for their sins”

    LOL at that.

  17. Sebastian says:

    The reason that intelligent design is not science is because I can’t test the hypothesis through experimentation, nor is the theory falsifiable. I mean, it’s interesting to ponder, but it’s not science. By the same token, there are good arguments that things like string theory aren’t science either, but are a kind of mathematical philosophy. Of course, if string theory allows you to make predictions about the universe, then it comes out of that realm. But until then, it also is just philosophy.

  18. Mark E says:

    The reason that EVOLUTION is not science is because I can’t test the hypothesis through experimentation, nor is the theory falsifiable. I mean, it’s interesting to ponder, but it’s not science.

    Fixed that for you Sebastian

    If you disagree, please cite repeatable experiment proving species change (not variations with a species such dog hair patterns, pea textures, butterfly wing colors, etc.). Examples cannot be things like bird beaks whose existance is said to be due to evolution but cannot be scientifically demonstrated.

  19. Sebastian says:

    It is absolutely falsifiable, and aspects of it certainly have been falsified through the inclusion of new evidence. For instance, if we find human remains in, say, below the cretaceous boundary, that would certainly blow a giant hole in the current state of evolutionary science. But no such evidence has been found. Plus, even as a predictive science, evolutionary theory has some merit. In genetic science, it’s been possible to activate traits from animals that are evolutionary holdovers, such as teeth in birds. But one of the main ways you can confirm evolution is because you can watch it happen, with insects that become resistant to pesticides, or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics.

    On the other hand, I have no way of proving or disproving that the evolutionary process is driven by some hidden intelligence. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But I can never prove or disprove it either way, and it’s not useful for making scientific predictions, so it is philosophy and religion, not science.

  20. Nomen Nescio says:

    i’d point mark e. at talkorigins.org and the “observed instances of speciation” FAQ, or perhaps ask him a question or two about ring species, but i’m getting the feeling that that would be interrupting my political opponent while he’s making a mistake.

    now where’s that bag of popcorn…

  21. Sebastian says:

    If you disagree, please cite repeatable experiment proving species change (not variations with a species such dog hair patterns, pea textures, butterfly wing colors, etc.). Examples cannot be things like bird beaks whose existance is said to be due to evolution but cannot be scientifically demonstrated.

    All you have to do is look at the fossil record to see that species change over time. You can change them significantly in a short period of time just through selective breeding. How different is, say, a Wolf from a Pomeranian, even though the DNA is compatible enough that they can still breed with each other. But you have cases in nature, especially when species have been separated by distance, where each species evolves enough from a common ancestor that reproduction is no longer possible, and you have different species.

  22. RAH says:

    Actually it seems that species carry all sorts of genes that are turned off. They did that with a chick and turned on the teeth which chickens do not have and go it to develope with alligator type teeth. and tali just smaller.

    So a lot of evolution theory seems to be wrong. After all that is why it is a theory that has to constantly tested against new evidence.

    Evolution does not invalidate intelligence design and there is some evidence. However I would like it discussed in philosophy or religion class.

    Be Careful about thinking science is always fact. We constantly test assumption and then have to re evaluate and redo a theory. A lot of believes science has been changed . Science is meant to be skeptical, test the evidence .

  23. RAH says:

    Sorry If that seems disjointed, I posted fast. and did not spell check.

    Bad typist Bad.

  24. Jym says:

    RAH: Have you read much on the subject of controller genes? That is somewhat what you’re referring to. I’ve read a few books on the subject, and, if anything, it’s one of the strongest examples of the factual nature of evolution. Due to the way controller genes work, and because of the large amount of “junk” DNA in an organism, all it takes is one extremely minor mutation to a controller to produce radically altered organisms. It’s kind of a nail in the coffin of the idea of macro-evolution being unreasonable. It’s a concept that has been lab tested, as in the example of changing the type of teeth of the chicken. I’m not sure how much more of an in your face example you can get than that for the veracity of evolution.

    Just saying that because we occasionally discover new information that overrides old information that evolution is wrong is like saying that subatomic particles are just a theory because we’re discovering new information about them all the time.

    My wife grew up in an anti-evolution household, raised by a pastor with a PhD, and went to all Christian schools. She was taught a lot of things about evolution that she came to later discover were fabrications, either willful ignorance at best or outright lies at worst. Having educated herself on the subject from the other perspective by reading many books on evolutionary theory, she was blown away by how much she was told that was just plain wrong.

  25. Ian Argent says:

    Honestly, the things I don’t care for her politics on are the ones that the president has damn little to do with. Education should be left to the states, IMNSHO. Abortion is currently beyond the direct influence of the POTUS (save by SCOTUS appointments, and even then I think we’ve hammered out most of that line).

    As for inexperience, that dog won’t hunt – she has more executive experience than either of the Wonder Twins, and will be apprenticing to a man with a fair amount of experience…

    For the more machiavellian among y’all – the chance of her running top-ticket in 2012 (if McCain is a 1-term president for whatever reason) massively increases Hillary’s chances to be the Dem candidate in 2012; and consequently increases her desire to drag the Wonder Twins down…

  26. JR says:

    Palin’s private beliefs are her own. The other side of the coin is that she also indicated that she would not push the education people in her state to include ID. And didn’t.

    As for the experience issue, although I don’t insist on the comparison, I suspect Palin might well take a page from Margaret Thatcher’s book. When Thatcher was first elected Prime Minister, her foreign policy experience was deficient also. She solved that by setting up a committee of people who she respected to advise her and by study. I’d say that worked out pretty well for her. And it’s to be expected Palin will have the advantage of serving under McCain, who is very good on foreign policy, for some time.

    BTW, some experiments in the Galapagos have strongly supported the theory of evolution. I refer to some experiments where the beaks of a species of bird not only adapted to the food source on a particular island, but adapted again when the food sources changed measured over a period of years. (Sorry, I don’t have a source– going by memory here)

    Of course, this could also be attributed to God changing his design…

  27. I’m not happy that she had to veto the law, but she did so because the Alaska Supreme Court had already gotten power-mad about the issue, and made the proposed law unconstitutional.

  28. I think you are incorrect about this being a generational thing. In spite of enormous media propaganda about homosexuality going back for most a generation, there’s enormous disapproval of it still. Remember: many of us have actually lived in gay-dominated parts of the U.S. We know what we’re up against. If you have the stomach for it, Zombietime.com has a truly astonishing collection of pictures of the “Up Our Alley” street festival in San Francisco at http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/.

    Warning: not only is this not worksafe–it wouldn’t be worksafe at Hustler magazine. I’m not sure it would be worksafe in hell. I thought that after living in the Bay Area that there was nothing left that could shock or disgust me. I was wrong.

  29. Jym says:

    Clayton: I’m not sure you’re exactly in a great position to speak for the average member of my generation in the Republican party. I personally cannot think of a single person that I know in my age that honestly gives a shit about homosexuality, no matter what their political affiliation.

    As for your photos, that’s absolutely absurd. You trying to scare everyone with those pictures is the equivalent of me trying to say all Christians are dangerous psychopaths because a few of them shot up some abortion clinics. It’s extremely hypocritical of you to attempt to paint an entire subsection of humanity with a broad brush based on the actions of an extremist few. I’m pretty sure you’d be unhappy with someone trying to get Christianity criminalized because of the extreme actions of a few.

  30. “I’m not sure you’re exactly in a great position to speak for the average member of my generation in the Republican party.”

    I’m not speaking on behalf of your generation. But I know more than a few Republicans in their 20s. A lot of them aren’t thrilled about homosexuality.

    “You trying to scare everyone with those pictures is the equivalent of me trying to say all Christians are dangerous psychopaths because a few of them shot up some abortion clinics.”

    Tell me: does the fact that the police were ordered not to arrest anyone for public indecency tell you anything? Imagine if police were ordered not to arrest abortion clinic bombers. Would that tell you something about what the dominant values were of the community?

  31. “Of course, if string theory allows you to make predictions about the universe, then it comes out of that realm. But until then, it also is just philosophy.”

    The difference is that string theory is perfectly respectable in the academy, and if a physics teacher taught it in high school, the ACLU wouldn’t file suit.

    There’s an awful lot about cosmology and origin of life (which is, strictly speaking, not part of evolutionary theory) that is hard to distinguish from Intelligent Design with respect to experimental verification. Unlike the True Believers of Evolution, I’m prepared to allow non-testable claims to be discussed in public schools. It strengthens the student’s understanding of science to see how these questions of “What constitutes science?” get handled.

  32. Sebastian says:

    I was more thinking of polling data that shows a generation gap on the gay marriage issue. I have no problem with ID being taught in public schools, I just don’t think it belong in science class. Then again, I wouldn’t say string theory does either :)

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Right Wing Nation » Smacking Down Stupid - [...] are always going to be idiots, like this one: Are you [...]
top