by Michael dEstries
Tags: , , , .

With so many celebrities stepping up to say no to Proposition 8 in California — which seeks to overturn an earlier state Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage — I thought it only proper to mention this news of Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s stance on the issue.

During an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Palin said that she supported a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex unions. “I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman,” she said.”I wish on a federal level that’s where we would go. I don’t support gay marriage.”

This view is contrary to the positions of her running mate, Senator John McCain — who believes states should be left to decide such matters.

It should be noted that Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden appeared on Ellen yesterday and publicly decried the Prop 8 amendment; calling it “regressive” and “unfair” and added that he and running mate Barack Obama opposed a similar initiative nationally.

Let’s hope America puts intolerance behind it this coming November and makes the right choice. It won’t put this matter to rest completely, but having two progressive, compassionate leaders in office would certainly be a step in the right direction.

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →
  • Emily

    I don’t understand her. And every time she opens her mouth I understand her less.

  • kyleSF

    I don’t want to put down any deeply religious people here but is Sarah Palin living in the dark ages? It’s freaking 2008! And why would anyone wish to deny two consenting adults the rights everyone else has? If anything including more diversity would only strengthen the term “family.” I live in California just 45 minutes away from San Francisco and I see so many Yes on Prop 8 stickers it’s disgusting. The proponents of the measure are getting by persuading unintelligent citizens by using fraudulent claims like “churchs will not be allowed to retain their tax status” and “they will teach about gays in schools.” Sorry but I highly doubt that, and even if they did, would that be such a big problem? Perhaps teaching about diversity to the young will help stop bigotry in the future.

    Unfortunately, I have the feeling that the proposition is going to pass. But that’s okay, next year we’ll have another go at giving equal rights to EVERYONE.

  • fbr

    Why should the state have any say in marriage at all?

    The religious, spiritual and ritualistic aspects should be left to whatever religious organization the parties happen to belong to – if they happen to belong to one. Faiths may accept a union between whatever combination of consenting adults they wish.

    The legal aspects of marriage, sharing of rights and responsibilities between the parties, can be arranged by a private contract between the parties. Any rights and responsibilities that stem from laws that the states enact should be between the state and an individual, not between the state and a married couple.

  • VeggieTart

    fbr, no one is saying a church would have to preside over one of these ceremonies–after all, a clergyperson would be well within his/her rights to refuse to officiate for someone who didn’t belong to that church or who didn’t share his/her beliefs. And there are churches that will perform commitment ceremonies of same-sex couples; sadly, they don’t have the legal standing they deserve.

    The problem with a contract is it would involve all sorts of legal hoops to jump through. When a man and woman get married, there is a sort of contract between the government and the couple with regard to rights; same-sex couples should be able to get these same rights conferred upon them far more easily than drawing up a private contract.

  • fbr

    VeggieTart, yes. And my point was that any ceremonies by any Church should have no legal standing. Further my point was that the government should not be entering into any contracts with couples, only individuals. How couples (or triples, or whatever) decide to share their lives is a private matter, not a matter for a state. Sure it might be more complicated legally, but also more flexible and would stop politicians like Palin imposing their religious views on people.