October 25, 2008

But! But! But!

I wondered when GP would respond to Palin’s ‘I support emending the constitution to stop gay marriage’ stance. Here it is and, as probably expected, its intellectually dishonest and seems to ignore all the ‘Palin isn’t anti-gay’ protesting GP has done since her pick but before she came out with her stance.

Much as I’m concerned about Palin’s support for a federal constitutional amendment, I’m not as troubled by it as I was with President Bush’s support in 2004 for a similar proposal. Then, he initiated the public statement. She only responded when asked. She’s not using it as a wedge issue as, some said, Bush did in 2004.

I’ll grant it that Bush used the gay thing as a wedge issue (though GP comes up short of actually recognizing that), but to suggest that the stance is ‘less troublesome’ because it was in response to a question is silly. Her stance is she supports amending the constitution to prevent gay marriage. Now, this is not a surprising stance to those of us who weren’t blinded by her smile. Still, it seems squarely at odds with her ‘abortion should be left to the states’ take. Especially when, according to Palin, she likes gays and hates abortion. Yet, for the former she’s fine with states deciding, and the latter she feels is so bad a thing, as it needs to be enshrined in the constitution.

Not just that. We know from previous congressional consideration on the matter that neither house could muster the necessary two-thirds majority to send the proposed amendment to the states. It doesn’t stand a chance of passage–as appeared possible four years ago.

Her stance is less worrisome, because there’s little chance that it will pass. Why is there little chance? Because the Dems are going to hold the majority – and the gay things is a GOP issue – not that GP would recognize that.

Then, because the post was arguable close to a criticism of Palin, GP felt the need to pounce on Biden:

Sorry, Joe, Article I (which defines the legislative not executive branch as you said in the debate), Section 3 includes this “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” In other words, he presides over the Senate and not just when there’s a tie vote

He was chiding Biden for saying the constitution is explicit, that the VP only presides over the Senate when there is a tie. GP is of course being skittish. The question Biden was answering, and the one GP failed to address, satisfied with pointing out Biden didn’t quote the constitution directly, is what the article means. Historically, it means what Biden says – the VP is president of the senate, but has no actual power unless there is a tie.

Does GP agree with Cheney that the constitution grants the VP control over the senate and that the VP is really a creature of both branches? Biden was saying the constitution is clear that Cheney’s stance is wrong. But, GP couldn’t bring himself to actually address that issue.

He also takes another swipe, an expected one, because neither Biden or Obama support gay marriage. But, as has been pointed out, their stance is still better than McCains or Palin’s.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 03:37 PM || Link to me || More Thoughts (0) || Track this post (0) || Category:: Gay Patriot Watch