A questionaire she filled out in 2006 reveals just how very “maverick” she is.
she is against expanding hate crime laws because she believes “all heinous crime is based on hate.”
she is against same-sex spousal benefits because she believes “spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.”
her second priority in relation to families is “Preserving the definition of ‘marriage’ as defined in our constitution.”
You can find the questionnaire she filled out here.
Though it is nice to see a woman in such a position, it strikes me as hollow when I hear comments (as I did this morning on the news) that she’s the “first woman ever to be in such a position as to have a real chance at being vice president.” Hello? Ferraro? First female VP candidate ever, and over twenty years ago, before Palin was old enough to vote?
I never cease to be amazed at how deplorable, selective, and blank America’s long-term-memory is. Nor do I find comfort in a woman candidate who seems to have been nominated either simply because she’s female (as in, “she’s a woman, so we’ll get the disgruntled Clinton women in our camp!”), intimating we women are voting on gender or emotions only, not on issues (the main complaint men had about suffrage!) or because she’s extremely conservative (to keep the base happy).
But Clinton voters won’t be happy. And, if religiously conservative voters are going to be consistent (which, somehow I doubt they will be), they must take the position they took on both Clinton and Ferraro, namely, that “a woman’s place is always under the headship of a man.” If McCain were to die, then no more submissive woman. That was the huge worry about Ferraro. But I hear nothing from the evangelicals about this regarding Palin.
Ah, how fickle our adherence to the fundamentals. Where is Pat Robertson on this? James Dobson? Funny how the standards change when it suits them.