The Observation Deck

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_ ... moKDCs0NUE

So she disagrees with McCain about leaving the decision up to the individual states. So much for the tolerant right.

This is a surprise to who, exactly?

she has also lost the polygamy vote.

Brian Pedaci wrote:This is a surprise to who, exactly?

I guess no one. She wasn't as strong on this in her one and only debate, where she sided with Biden on protection of gay couple's rights. They also agreed that this isn't "Marriage" as defined by folks like him and her but that was about it. Her own state supports same-sex couples benefits, too.

She wasn't going to go on about that on the Christian Broadcasting Network ("Side stream Media??" "Tributary Media?" What should she call this network?), of course. That network would no doubt want her to be stronger on that and would likely not support rights for same-sex couples that would put them in line with the benefits of different-sex couples. So no, not surprising was her stance for that audience.

More surprising was this quote from here:

"Faith in God in general has been mocked through this campaign, and that breaks my heart and that is unfair for others who share a faith in God and choose to worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit," she said.

The article goes on to note she hadn't provided any evidence or examples of this which also isn't surprising, I suppose. If she feels comfortable with the "palling around with terroristS" (emphasis mine on the "S" since it implies he has more than one terrorist friend) line that she continues to use, why stop there? I think she would be just as founded to say, "Barack Obama eats babies." I have no doubt she could say that with just as straight a face and respond, if asked if she would say that again, with her usual, "You betcha."

She is already clearly looking past this loss to her next gig as finishing up her Governorship and preparing as the next candidate for the party in 2012. She has split more and more with McCain in the few candid moments she is allowed. Watching her star rise should be an interesting thing over the next few years...especially when she is sans handlers in 2009.

ryan costa wrote:she has also lost the polygamy vote.

man i bet she was counting on the polygamy vote

Just like Ciny Lauper states "I see your true colors shining through".

Why is it so hard for people to see that this issue is blatant discrimination against an entire segment of taxpaying American citizens?

Straight Americans can get married multiple times, convicted felons can get married in prison, but law-abiding, taxpaying, hardworking gay Americans are denied that same right?

It's not about the word marriage. It's about the benefits and protections that come with the legal union of two consenting adults. Inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, Social Security survivor benefits, property rights...these are just a few of the basic protections that ANY straight couple get as soon as they get married...even if it's at a drive thru chapel in Vegas with the flavor of the week. But gay couples can't protect their partners and their children because of a bunch of religious zealots and homophobic lawmakers cramming their version of morality down our throats?

...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? Not so much.

Something is terribly amiss here....

I'm with you my sister. But I knew they'd do this. I'm disappointed on all the candidates stance on it.

In France, everyone has a civil union. If they want a marriage people do that in the church they choose.

Marriage is a religious procedure, civil union is the legal procedure. I think that's fine. After all we can already get married in many churches.