Palin supports federal ban on gay marriage

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Oct 22, 2008.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    Just in case anyone had some doubt where she stood.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008290752_campdig21.html

     
  2. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #2
    Yep...so much for that "state's rights" mantra that conservatives always seem to spout.

    Someone needs to start a Contrarian Party and run on the exact opposite platform from the far-right. They could support things like a mandatory moment of education in churches and a federal ban on heterosexual marriage.
     
  3. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #3
    Wow... like I didn't need more reasons to not like Palin.
     
  4. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    She's an extremist nut job. She has been from day one. I bet whoever let the muzzle off her this time is getting fired.
     
  5. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #5
    I can't link to it due to the iPhones lack of copy/paste, but there's an article on CNN's Political Ticker blog where Palin said that "God will do the right thing on election day"

    This woman scares the **** out of me, but fortunately, looking at the latest poll numbers, god appears to be voting for Obama too :D
     
  6. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Oh- please do find it! The more the public hears this idiot ramble, the better.
     
  7. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #7
  8. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #8
    Go to http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com and scoll down a bit, the story is on the front page right now. Damn iPhone and it's lack of copy and paste
     
  9. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
  10. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #10
    Too bad god doesn't exist. Therefore, if she relies on god to win her the election, she's definitely going to lose.
     
  11. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    And thus illustrates the difference between Obama -- who may not fully support marriage equality, but isn't actively working to undermine it -- and the Palin / McCain campaign which will.

    Lesser of two weevils, folks. You betcha.
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #13
    We are supporting discriminating policies in 2008? What a world.

    Obama sure as hell isnt helping gays, but at least hes not trying to take away from them.
     
  14. costabunny macrumors 68020

    costabunny

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Location:
    ~/bunny/
    #14
    I really dont get all the hoo-haa about this. I mean who cares? Cant the politicians see that it is a moo point (cows opinion- doesnt matter (joey))....

    If two people want to get married; let them and stop wasting tax payers money on legislation for the sake of it.

    OMG if they set the law to all the items forbidden in the bible, we would be totally screwed....

    <bah>
     
  15. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #15
    Okay.. Question of the day, as far as gay marriage and bans are concerned.

    Couldn't/Wouldn't the SCOTUS slap any thought of a gay marriage ban upside the head with the 14th Amendment? From Section I:

    Emphasis mine. It was the 14th Amendment that was the basis for the California State Supreme Court's decision to strike down the gay marriage ban that was passed by law here. If Prop. 8 fails here, wouldn't that set a precedent for SCOTUS to do the same?

    BL.
     
  16. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Ron Paul doesn't think it can.
     
  17. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #17
    I bet that would get a surprising amount of support.



    But you have to admit, if Dick Cheney doesn't support this kind of amendment, it's probably not right by the Constitution. ;)
     
  18. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #18
    Yes, given the 14th, past precedent, and bringing the proper case before the bench; but only if the judges held a strict constitutionalist view and didn't try to "legislate from the bench" (i.e. if the right leaning judges actually practiced what they preach).
     
  19. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Exactly- but they won't.
     
  20. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #20
    A state supreme court decides cases based on the state's constitution, not the U.S. constitution. So the case was decided based on California's equal protection under its constitution (and same with Connecticut). The only official precedent is to other California cases, although obviously other courts will look at the decision and the reasoning applied.
     
  21. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    Did you miss the part of the 14th amendment that said "NO STATE SHALL..."? That means what it says. There are certain protections that are federally guaranteed (supposedly). States cannot deny people rights granted in the US Constitution.
     
  22. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #22
    Well, I support a federal ban on Sarah Palin.
     
  23. Mac-Addict macrumors 65816

    Mac-Addict

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #23
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    Thus the attempts to change the constitution...
     
  25. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #25
    Only way to do that would be to repeal or alter the 14th amendment, because if SCOTUS upholds any case that comes to them using 14th, and Congress caves in to Palin and passes an amendment, 14th should trump it..

    Unless I'm totally missing something. I'm using the fact that it took the 21st to repeal the 18th Amendment.

    BL.
     

Share This Page