« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
09/02/2008
Sarah: The more we learn, the less we laugh
Want even more reason to scoff at the notion that Sarah Palin is in any way "pro-gay." Well consider the following, which was just sent our way by the Human Rights Campaign:
WASHINGTON – During her 2006 run for Governor, Sarah Palin filled out an Alaska Eagle Forum questionnaire that reveals even more about her stance and view on equality for LGBT equality.
One of the questions the conservative group asked her on the questionnaire was her views on expanding hate crimes laws. The question reads, “Will you support an effort to expand hate crimes laws?”
Palin answered, “No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate.”
Another question from the same survey asked, “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?”
Palin answered, “No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.”
And last, but not least, Palin was asked what her top three priorities, as regards to families, would be while Governor.
Palin answered, “#2 - Preserving the definition of ‘marriage’ as defined in our constitution.”
So not only have we received even more confirmation that Gov. Palin was against the DP benefits in her state, but now we also learn that she fails to see the distinction of crimes that are committed out of bias, and believes that keeping us out of marriage equality is a top priority. Geez, what's going to come out in her convention speech -- that the only way she got through Brokeback was by imagining all the good hunting potential on the screen?!
You know, Log Cabin Republicans, by backing the "inclusive" Palin, you have proven yourselves to be totally right. We just wish we were referring to your accurate assessments rather than your placement on the political spectrum.
(An archived version of) 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire [Eagle Forum Alaska]
Your thoughts
The response “No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate.” is not unusual for those who idealogically oppose enhanced sentencing based on motivation. Their position is that we punish crimes, not thoughts and that as much as we may disapprove of it, hatred and bigotry are rights and if we truly cherish freedom it must include the freedom to disagree with us.
While I don't necessarily fully agree with their arguments for a number of reasons, I do not find such a position to be an indication of animus or bigotry... PROVIDED that this opposition to enhanced sentencing is for all hate crimes and not just for those against gay folks.
If Palin opposes ALL hate crimes inhancements, I don't find that to be anti-gay. If, however, her objections only appear when gay people are under discussion (as is so very often the case with anti-hate-crimes folk) then this would be indicative of an anti-gay mindset.
Posted by: Timothy | Sep 2, 2008 5:26:55 PM
"I do not find such a position to be an indication of animus or bigotry... PROVIDED that this opposition to enhanced sentencing is for all hate crimes and not just for those against gay folks."
Thanks Timothy that is the way I feel about "all heinous crime is based on hate" statements - however it does seem that most people who do make that statement tend to be anti-gay mouthpieces.
Posted by: Alonzo | Sep 2, 2008 8:13:25 PM
Timothy, the problem is that the question is biased. If the question had been, "Do you favor elimination of all hate-crimes legislation?" then she would have never would have answered the way that she did. To have answered 'Yes' would have pissed off way too many potential supporters. The question was biased in her favor so that she could skate around the issue, and score a big fat plus from everyone else, and a 'well maybe' from us.
I don't give anyone a pass on that question for that response, period. If she truly believes that all heinous crime is based on hate, she could have been perfectly clear in her response by saying, "I favor eliminating all hate crimes legislation, because. . . " but she didn't. She chose to be vague and skate around the issue, so as not piss off her supporters.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Sep 2, 2008 8:33:00 PM
This is why we need to stop talking about these matters as hate crimes, and instead used "biased crimes" (or something similar). I'm SO TIRED of the "all crimes are hate" line. It's a sophomoric bit of rhetoric that weakens this discussion.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 2, 2008 8:59:14 PM
comments powered by Disqus
