Jonathan Rowe over at Positive Liberty has an interesting post on social conservatives who would rather scapegoat gay people than deal with the far greater impact of heterosexual misbehavior, which leads to real social ills including young unwed mothers unable to emotionally and financially care for their children (who, in turn, grow up with the dysfunctions of being abandoned by their fathers). Case in point: William F. Buckley's disinheriting his illegitimate grandson by declaring in his will, "I intentionally make no provision herein for said Jonathan, who for all purposes...shall be deemed to have predeceased me." Ouch.
In comparison, the Palins look like models of tolerance.
8 Comments for “Planks in Their Eyes”
posted by ETJB on
In comparison?! Boy, someone sure get a good batch of Mary Jane Today.
We know little about the Palin family, as a whole, when it comes to these type of cultural issues.
Sarah Palin herself believes that abortion should pretty much always be illegal, that gay couples should not have any legal rights and that maybe public libraries should not have books about gay parents.
posted by Dave on
For pity’s sake, ETJB!
Stephen isn’t congratulating Palin; he’s condemning Buckley’s behavior.
In fact his sarcastic comment about the Palins seems out of line to me. Sarah Palin has been the object of a great deal of projection by people on the political left. Stephen’s writing usually tries to fight the overreaching of ideologues.
Regarding your specific comments on Palin, ETJB:
1) “Sarah Palin herself believes that abortion should pretty much always be illegal”
This could be more eloquently expressed by stating that Palin believes in the rights of unborn children.
2) “that gay couples should not have any legal rights”
Are you sure? Palin’s belief in distinguishing marriage — as a heterosexual institution — from any homosexual union doesn’t logically imply no rights for gay couples.
3) “maybe public libraries should not have books about gay parents.”
This is simply false.
posted by Rob on
Are you sure? Palin’s belief in distinguishing marriage — as a heterosexual institution — from any homosexual union doesn’t logically imply no rights for gay couples.
Since she did state that she would support a constitutional amendment just to prevent Alaskan state employees from receiving same-sex couple benefits, it doesn’t leave much to the imagination.
This is simply false.
Nope it isn’t:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZII0GjcJMus
posted by Pat on
Sarah Palin herself believes that abortion should pretty much always be illegal
I’m not so sure about that. I’m assuming that Palin has stated that she is pro-life (but I’m not even sure about that). But when asked specifically what she would do regarding a person who is considering abortion, she said she would counsel the person and not advocate this person be jailed for having an abortion. Pretty much the same answer a pro-choice candidate gives.
posted by ETJB on
Pat;
Might you actually care to look at what Palin has said about when abortion shouuld and should not be legal.
Not what you want to hear or what sound byte is offered to avoid offending the socially conservative or more moderate voters.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Dave writes: “For pity’s sake, ETJB! Stephen isn’t congratulating Palin; he’s condemning Buckley’s behavior.”
Absolutely correct, Dave.
ET doesn’t let truth, the facts, or the thread’s topic get in the way of his relentless bashing of Palin or McCain… even though he, like his former alter ego RichardII, is an unaligned, political “independent”. Yeah, right.
posted by Pat on
Okay, ETJB. I looked at some more things she said regarding abortion rights. From what I saw, she never personally advocated changing the laws making it a criminal offense for someone to have an abortion. She said that she believes she would only support abortion in the case the life of the mother is at stake, but never offered her personal opinion what the penalty should be for abortion. She would leave the issue up to the states, which would mean that abortion could become illegal in a couple of states. She also stated that she was pro-life.
It’s not a question of what I want to hear, as there is plenty about Palin that I don’t like. If your point is that she is trying to make her position more palatable to as many people as possible, I agree. I did like the way she winked at me during the debate though. 😉
posted by ETJB on
Pat;
In most situations when a politican is offering a “personal opionion” it is also their political opinion and or peference as well. You could also check out her comments made to non-partisan groups like Project Vote Smart.
Yes, their are situations where a politican believes in someting personally, but not really politically or believes in something politically, but not really personally. This is not one of them.