The Alaskan supporters were shouting about ‘the will of the people’ when they expected a landslide victory against the partner benefits. But they didn’t get their landslide – the vote was very close. The ‘will of the people’ was almost evenly divided = no ‘mandate’ to stop the benefits.

We tend to focus here on issues of sexuality and leave issues of race to those better equipped. And some would argue with you about the support of United Trinity.

We did comment when Obama had an ex-gay singer entertaining at one of his rallies. And we were among the first to comment on an article written by McCain’s pastor.

Also, if you review the site more carefully I think you will find that we do, in fact, discuss all of the candidates when gay issues arise. As it turns out, this presidential season has had few instances in which gay issues have been debated or were part of the campaign of either candidate.

Obama has already denounced the racist posturing of his former pastor long ago. As for his church being “not supportive of gays”, what evidence do you have of that? His church is part of the United Churches of Christ, one of the most gay-affirming denominations in the U.S.

In fact, people have taken Obama and McCain both to task over their pastoral associations, quite heavily. Nothing has come up on Biden. For all we know, there may be nothing there. But to suggest that Palin is being singled out for scrutiny that neither McCain nor Obama have endured tells me that you haven’t been paying attention.

What’s the reasoning?

None. Critical thinking has died in this country.

I’m not a Palin supporter. But this constant barage of her ex gay link is so far past it’s life and if it is going to budge the lesbians over to Obama – then it should have – or it won’t. This reliving of her church affiliation is nauseating. No one is taking Obama, Biden, or McCain to task on these issues – and they all do not support gays.

I’ve not yet been able to locate whether it was introduced or whether Palin or anyone else raised the issue again at any time. If it were California, the wingnuts would have been screaming about “the will of the people”.

I hope more comes out on this. I’d like to know why there seems to be no mention of these benefits after April 4, 2007 (or if there was, why it isn’t being reported).

For lawmakers to send the constitutional amendment to next year’s ballot, it would need two-thirds approval in both the 40-seat House and the 20-seat Senate. [Emphasis mine]

That’s a pretty steep hill to climb for most legislatures. If that had been the requirement here in Arizona, we wouldn’t have Prop 102 on the ballot.

You are mistaken. The library director is not now saying that Palin tried to ban a pro-gay book.

A former reporter referenced a conversation from 12 years ago in which he recalled being told that three books were discussed by Palin and the librarian. One of them may have been “Pastor, I’m Gay”, though he got the name of the book wrong.

As for Palin’s anti-gay positions, you are correct. Palin appears not to have supported the court’s determination on spousal benefits.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/from_the_horses_mouth.php#comments

“10. Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?Why or why not?

SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.”.

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/09/did-pro-gay-tom.html#more