Difference between personal opinion and public policy
... is that we need to follow the strict rule of the law in regards to public policy, while there should be great allowances for vast differences of personal opinion, even those bordering on bigotry (or beyond).
Do you think Sarahcuda, goddess of True Conservatism, is closer to the McCain or Wurzelbacher position on this one? I’d guess the former. Tell me why I’m wrong.
At first, I thought, sure, Gov. Palin wouldn't interfere with how gay people choose to live. After all, as a governor, she vetoed an anti-gay bill because she thought it was unconstitutional.
But, if you look at the full answer in context, I think then Gov. Palin's response might not be too dissimilar from Joe the Plumber's:
In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.
Three points he makes:
- states have the power to decide this sort of thing, not the federal government (in which sense the defense of marriage act is a good thing, since it unyokes states from each other in these sensitive issues)
- gay people are people too—and "they're going to do their thing"
- personally, he finds homosexual acts repulsive
Well, I think, Gov. Palin, like any, er, modern-day conservative, is going to agree with all these three points. I suppose there are some religious nuts (or just plain bigots) out there who won't agree with the second point and want to ban gay people from adopting children or what-not (the issue of adoption, I think, should lie with each adoption agency, with absolutely no pressure from either federal or state government), but that's not Gov. Palin.
But, however, she does belong in a church which views homosexuality as an abnormality which can and should be cured, so she would be receptive of a gay person as a person but not as a gay.
And really, what's wrong with this viewpoint? We are not forcing our views on anybody. We are not forcing anyone not to be gay (although some of us offer help to anyone who wants to stop being gay). We are not infringing on anyone's rights. Is it somehow required that we like every person on earth regardless of our disagreements on their lifestyle? Are we required to love every chain smoker, love every alcoholic, love every sexual deviants ... when they continue in that life? Even God doesn't force that on us: "Love the sinner but hate the sin."
But, well, while the liberals continue to oppress smokers in every state and every country with immunity, conservatives are punished for merely disagreeing with a ... state of being that is clearly unnatural—imagine a society full of gays ... in a closed system; that society will be lucky to last one generation (because we know it won't last through the nonexistence second). Note the wording Joe the Plumber uses. He didn't say he wouldn't let gays near any children (like one ought to with pedophiles, straight or gay). He said that he wouldn't let gays near his children.
And why should he? If he should, should he also be required to let chain smokers and alcoholics be near his children as well?