« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Sarah vs. the Dems: Her gay rights commitment will 'Palin' comparison

by Jeremy Hooper

Picture 2-176We were getting really annoyed on Friday when, in the aftermath of the Palin announcement, some folks tried to spin the Alaska governor's handling of domestic partnerships in her state as a "pro-gay" move. Some were convinced that since she once vetoed legislation that targeted DP benefits, this meant that she was on our side on the matter. However, we had covered the situation when it first caught our attention back in 2006, and we clearly remembered Gov. Palin being quite honest about how she was allowing the gay-inclusive benefits to go forward only because she HAD to, not because she WANTED to. So we saw it imperative to correct the record before even more gays decided to throw their arms around the political figure/ would-be campy queer icon.

Well, our pal Michelangelo Signorile is here to help us out. He is actually on site at the Republican convention, where he has obtained even more proof that the "pro-gay Palin" notion is just wishful thinking. This from Mike's blog:

I went to the Alaska delegation and spoke with a woman who is in Palin's cabinet. She assured me that Palin is not in favor of giving any rights to gays and didn't want to give domestic partnership rights to government employees but that she had to veto the bill that would have rescinded such rights because of the Alaska Supreme Court ruling. So can we please cut this crap Log Cabin and the McCain campaign have been trying to put out: Palin only vetoed an antigay bill because she had to, by law. This woman, Annette Kreitzer, who serves in Sarah Palin's cabinet in the Department of Administration, said, oh, well, it was the law -- drat! -- or something like that. I'll play it tomorrow.

So yea, look -- We're not being cynical just for the sake of cynicism. We'd love for Gov. Palin to be pro-gay, even if we weren't planning on voting for her ticket. We really do want to see her as a friend. But the simple fact is that she has given us absolutely no reason to assume that she would back even the most marginal gay rights provisions, and has in fact given us considerable reason to believe the opposite. And no amount of beauty, charm, historic achievement, or high camp value can, in our eyes, trump a commitment to equality.

Be sure to check out Mike's Sirius radio show today (2-6 p.m on OutQ, channel 109) for more on this and other RNC goings on.

A Kid in a Candy Store
(h/t: Pam)

**AFTER THE JUMP: Be sure to check out the way narrative played oout on Morning Joe, in the hours right before the Palin announcement:

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

As soon as she became announced, I basically wrote off the McCain ticket even though I am not voting for Obama. If I was living in Ohio, Colorado or Nevada then its okay to lecture me about why Obama is a life or death choice for the community, but I live in solid Obama country (California). But I wanted to siphon my vote away from McCain and have it for a 3rd party candidate instead.

The Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family and they do not want my vote, so I am happy to give it to someone else. This is the first year that I am not voting for any Republican, just Libertarians and my Democratic party congress critter.

Posted by: matt from california | Sep 2, 2008 11:17:46 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails