For those of you reacting negatively to the Sarah Palin icon, you can relax because I voted for Obama. When it all came down to it, I am looking for the guy who is going to have the proper temperment, and McCain could run too "hot" for me at times. People say Obama is too cool and analytical -- shouldn't we want those qualities in the leader of the free world? That said, I think people are forgetting how much Obama stumbled out of the gate and struggled to find his footing in the debates against some very tough opponents early in the campaign. Newsweek
, to its credit, mentioned this in its special "44" issue that came out at the end of last week. I do not think Sarah Palin is a moron, I just think she was unprepared to be under the full glare of the media spotlight with no chance to ease into it like Obama did. I think she has done a fine job overall as governor in Alaska, even though no one's perfect, and I'd like to see her lead some truly genuine soul-searching for the GOP in the coming year. Does the Republican Party really give a hoot about kids with special needs or young girls who make a mistake, but choose life and carry a pregnancy to term? Palin's own family is a wonderful microcosm of what the GOP could
stand for, if they can put old ideologies and myths about Reagan aside. As Wayne and Garth would say, "Live in the Now!!!" By the by, I voted for the Republican governor of Indiana for re-election, so I wasn't "locked" into a particular party.
I hope the passage of Proposition 8 in California convinces people that we are giving the Democrats a chance to get things done, not go wild. In Connecticut, where the judiciary just forced the issue of "gay marriage" on another state, the vote was 4-3 -- not exactly overwhelming support. Even Obama and Biden both said they oppose it. My take on it is this: if two consenting adults want to make a legal contract, that's none of my business. You can designate who gets your life insurance, who you want to receive health benefits, visit you in the hospital, whatever. My problem is exemplified in an article I read earlier today
According to the state public health department, 2,032 civil union licenses were issued in Connecticut between October 2005 and July 2008.
But there was no comparison between civil unions and marriage for Robin Levine-Ritterman and Barbara Levine-Ritterman, who obtained a civil union in 2005 and were among eight same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry.
Note: there is no comparison. PRECISELY. And that is what gets people who are traditionally religious up in arms; marriage has always been about the partnership between a man and a woman, and they freely admit they want to turn that upside down. A legal contract, or "civil union" as it can be termed, is one thing and I can go along with it, even if I personally don't adhere to the philosophy that it's an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Marriage, however, is altogether different and it has distinctly religious connotations. Yes, yes -- we are flawed human beings who get divorced all the time, and I firmly believe the church should address that issue as strongly as this one, if not more so, but people's behavior is not an argument against the ideal or original intent. Personally, I'd like to see it a little more difficult to get divorced, if we're going to legislate at all.
If you want to believe the clear majority of California, a liberal state by any standard, has twice been "wrong," who's in denial now? Plenty of educated and thoughtful people, not radical parrots of the right wing, made an informed decision. And now, the gay lobbyists are trying to pull a legal stunt that will make the vote invalid!!! Can you imagine the outcry if the homosexual agenda had passed and some conservative Christians tried to pull this stuff? I also don't quite know whether to be amused or irritated when gays moan about how much discrimination they face when, as a subset of American culture, they are among the wealthiest and most educated. Yes, there are horrible instances like Matthew Shepherd from way back when that are simply wrong -- I don't condone violence or murder at any time, whether gay or straight. But, I think the gay interest groups have had so much success over the past 20 years that they became blinded to what people really think. A TV show like "Will & Grace" doesn't mean people are ready to adhere to a radical agenda, which is exactly what this is and you're fooling yourself if you think it's not. It's an attempt to overturn millennia of tradition, with a specific intent to attack conservative Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs and norms. You can see why I might be a little put off by that. If it was simply a legal matter regarding contracts, where they could get most or all the benefits they desire (i.e. "the lifestyle"), I could go along with it, but both sides know it's about more than that.