Palin's '06 action was gay-friendly? MM vetoes the idea
Ever since Sarah Palin was granted the number two slot on the GOP ticket, we've been troubled with the way her gay rights record has been presented by some in the media. Literally hours after her selection on 8/29, we took issue with Glenn Beck for going on CNN and making it sound as if she vetoed a certain domestic partnership-limiting measure out of the goodness of her heart rather than the advice of her legal counsel. And we took perhaps even greater issue with those Log Cabin Republicans who picked up on that same line in order to make the governor look "inclusive," since we had covered her handling of DP benefits back in 2006 and knew full well that the only reason she had vetoed the anti-gay measure was because she was advised that she constitutionally HAD to (with an attorney who's affiliated with the extremely anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund claiming in the press that he was the one who advised her to do so!).
Well now Media Matters is stepping up the calls for accuracy in this area, with the organization calling out both McClatchy News Service and the Las Vegas Sun for their recent impropriety on the matter:
We applaud. Because it's one thing to be pro-gay and support Gov. Palin DESPITE certain actions. But it's quite another to support a fallacy despite the certain ease with which it can be disproved.
And here comes a gay Republican spinning once again.
What I have consistently said is that she DID NOT VETO THE BILL BECAUSE SHE IS PRO-GAY -- she vetoed it because she was told she had to! And again, the person who claims to have advised her on this was not the AG -- it was an ADF-affiliated attorney by the name of Kevin Clarkson, who has used the situation to "prove" her worth to orgs like Focus on the Family. See link:
And this is not at all about Bill Clinton, whose DOMA signature you have NEVER heard me defend! So bringing that up as a way to discredit this point only makes you look ultra-partisan.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 18, 2008 1:13:23 PM
Harry, DOMA passed with a veto-proof majority. For Clinton, vetoing it would have been pointless, and probably even embarrassing when the veto was overridden. And public opinion at the time was overwhelmingly in favor of DOMA. DOMA does hang by a very flimsy thread, constitutionally speaking. And I would posit that the Supreme Court, even this court, would overturn it on a challenge.
In Palin's case, her veto wasn't overturned by the legislature, so I assume that it wasn't passed with a veto proof majority. And, in her case the Alaska Supreme Court had already ruled, and had mandated that the state must provide equal benefits. Her signature on that bill would have been the pointless action. As it would have been overturned by that same Supreme Court. And that would have been a 'slap in the face' for the infancy of her administration. Not to mention that anti-gay sentiment has been on the decline in public opinion since DOMA.
She wanted to sign that bill, but she couldn't, just like Clinton couldn't veto DOMA.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Sep 18, 2008 4:01:06 PMcomments powered by Disqus