Palin Says McCain White House Will Be Tolerant of Gay Rights

As the pundits continue to weigh in on Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s performance in Thursday night’s vice presidential debate -- most agreeing that while she managed to repair a bit of the damage she’d done to her own reputation, nothing to come out of the debate proved to be a major game-changer -- one particular exchange between Palin and Sen. Joe Biden would seem to leave her backers flustered.

Does Sarah Palin support gay rights?

Though much attention has been paid to Palin’s veto of a bill that would have blocked benefits being provided to the same-sex partners of state employees in Alaska, Palin has since admitted she did so because it was deemed unconstitutional.

She followed the ruling with a clear statement of her personal viewpoint -- that she did not believe in the extension of benefits. Similar opinions on gay-related topics followed, and amid news reports Palin worshipped at a Wasilla, Alaska, church that sponsored a prayer event aimed at converting gay people to straight, one would assume she does not support gay rights.

But in Thursday’s debate, moderated by PBS’s Gwen Ifill, Palin's position on gay rights seemed to maneuver a bit closer to that of the Obama-Biden campaign.

Predictably, both vice presidential hopefuls agreed they do not support same-sex marriage. But while Biden said that in a Barack Obama administration gays and lesbians would be granted equal rights, Palin didn’t disagree, though her answer was vague.

“If there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant, and I have a very diverse family and group of friends...some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue," Palin said in Thursday’s debate, according to a transcript by The New York Times. "But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties."

Later, Biden attempted to nudge Palin’s support of gay rights a bit further.

“The bottom line, though, is...I take her at her word, obviously, that she thinks there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple," Biden said. "If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.”

Not taking the bait, Palin simply restated her position on gay marriage -- it’s not something she or McCain supports.

Video coverage of the candidates discussing the topic of gay rights, along with the rest of the vice presidential debate, can be viewed at CNN.com/Videos. (The Advocate)

Keywords: John McCain

Related stories from Advocate.com

2008-11-05: A Long, Lackluster Election Day for Republicans
2008-10-30: Europe Weighs In on the Upcoming Election
2008-10-29: The Advocate's Big Four Report: Ohio
2008-10-24: Palin Tells Dobson that McCain Will Skew More Conservative if Elected
2008-10-17: McCain Attacks Obama During Final Debate, Alienates Female Voters

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

Name: Tynkyr Belle
Date posted: 2008-10-06 6:08 PM
Hometown: San Francisco, CA

Comment:

Oh, Eillen, you must be either, stupid & naive, or really young and naive. Either way, if you can't tell the difference between the two candidates, or between the two political parties, you have no business voting. Republicans take a vow to uphold the party platform, which includes anti-Gay language. Democrats, on the other hand, won't give us a whole lot of verbal support, but when it actually comes time to vote for or against something, they're on our side. If you can't understand that Democrats can't be too vociferous in their support of gay rights - but have to be a bit soft-spoken about it, then really - you're pretty dense. Be a little pragmatic, why don't you?

Name: anthony newsome
Date posted: 2008-10-06 7:47 AM
Hometown: dublin

Comment:

Erm...cough, Palin and human rights, naw they just dont add up people, she just dont add up, McCain/Palin will enforce a countrywide ban on gay rights, cut funding to gay/lesbian/bi/transgender community services (health etc.), implement a ban of gays in the army, republican's are NOT friends of gays, can we get that straight people, I live in Dublin Ireland and can easily tell the difference between gay friendy political parties and hostile hating one's, a clue would be the hating one's implement policies denying us our human rights to legal recognition, use religion as a tool for drumming up fear, hate, violence against us, regardless of gender, this has nothing to do with it, Palin has extreme religious beliefs/no experience of national/world politics and poses a treat to the global econemy as she reckons everything which happens is based upon her (god's) wishes, do you really want someone with this kind of belief as your VP and very possibley commander in chief.... anto

Name: L.C.
Date posted: 2008-10-05 12:20 AM
Hometown: Bad Axe, MI

Comment:

When I heard Palin say she is "tolerant" of gays, I remembered what Jenny said in The L Word. Something like, "I don't like the idea of being tolerated because it implies there's something wrong with my being gay." Palin has also said that she has a "friend" of 30 years who CHOSE to be gay. Someone should ask her when she CHOSE to be straight. McCain voted YES on Prop 8 in Califorina, which would have banned same-sex marriage. Obama voted NO! Palin's church thinks they can "pray" people straight. Do you really think McCain or Palin will fight for our rights? Obama's not for same-sex marriage but he also said he won't make it illegal. He said he'll leave it up to the state - as he's shown us with Califorina. Obama will give us civial unions. It may not be the same as marriage, but it's a STEP, and it's a MUCH bigger step then you're going to get from McCain and Palin.

Name: Mark Thomas
Date posted: 2008-10-04 2:02 PM
Hometown: Wappingers Falls

Comment:

Why is this site campaigning for Palin? We know that Palin and McCain, as funded by the religious right, hate us and will ensure we remain second class citizens under the law. I'd like to read articles about Obama and Biden who unlike McBush, along with a Democratic Congress, have publically vowed to save our economy, protect us from terrorists in the US and abroad, lower the deficit, mend the healthcare system and educational system, appoint fair-minded federal judges, get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and DOMA, and sign inclusive hate crime and equal rights legislation. Enough about the ignorant, mentally unstable, liar, oil/Halliburton-serving, election-stealing, hatemonger Republicans. Let's read articles about our Democratic friends running for office all over this country who, IF ELECTED, will make us full citizens AND save our country!

Name: Merle
Date posted: 2008-10-03 10:23 PM
Hometown: Birmingham

Comment:

I am not inclined to "tolerate" Palin's obvious lack of talent, ability, intellect, grasp of national issues, experience, educational background, world view, lack of vocabulary, use of terms like "Joe-sixpack", belief that women who have been raped must carry a child resulting from that rape to full term, her use of the term "choice" when referring to gays and lesbians - the list is quite endless. She is unqualified to serve as Vice President on many levels. That is a clear fact and one shared by a majority of Americans. McSame had so many excellent choices and picked this female? "Maverick" can mean that one is a trail blazer, with good ideas and vision, or it can mean one is a loose cannon, erratic, without clear objective, leadership, or determined skills.

Name: Dave Marsh
Date posted: 2008-10-03 4:27 PM
Hometown: Sacramento

Comment:

Signing contracts between adults is not in question. Her saying it's OK with her for gays to enter into legal contracts with one another to protect one another's property is standard Republican-speak for their "inclusiveness," which of course, it's not. Any adults can do this. We need marriage for two reasons: (1) to assure us legal standing to access to ALL the legal benefits couples get in both state and federal statutes, and (2) to assure our relationships have the full accreditation that the title "married" brings to couples in our society. Marriage is much more than a legal arrangement. With the legal marriage, and the abolishment of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that permitted the federal government and individual states to ignore legal state gay marriages, we'd be equal under the law. Until then, we're not. I don't know if Obama/Biden will actually move forward and abolish the DOMA, but I have NO doubt that McCain/Palin would not.

Name: Bill Prickett
Date posted: 2008-10-03 2:29 PM
Hometown: Dallas

Comment:

In my opinion, we can't just listen to the words they say, but we must examine the frame-of-reference from which those words come. For Palin, our orientation is a CHOICE. Never forget that. She can be tolerant, but would she actually give equal rights to those who "choose" a behavior which her religious convictions believe to be wrong? Why would she? We chose to be "this way" and we can choose to change to "normal." (Remember, she belongs to a church that recently hosted an ex-gay "healing/wholeness" conference!) I cannot see her and the McCain party moving at all on this issue. She may be tolerant, but she's also convinced we are wrong and she's right. Personally, while I appreciate tolerance from acquaintences, from my elected officials, I demand equality! When push comes to shove on gay rights, who do you think she will go with? (Answer: the same ones who control her party---the religious right!) Bottom line: She scares me!!!

Name: Joseph
Date posted: 2008-10-03 2:10 PM
Hometown: Montgomery, AL

Comment:

Also, regarding the nomination process to the Supreme Court, the SENATE has final power in the matter. A STRONG Majority-Democratic Senate can prevent ANY uber-conservative nominee (not that I see McCain putting forth such a nominee) but, of course, we haven't really seen much spine from Senate Democrats in the last fifteen years. There have always been enough Democrats to block ANY nominee that Bush might put before the Senate, yet with both of Bush's eventual Court appointees, enough Democrats voted WITH the Republicans. (In Roberts' case, there were as many Dems supporting Roberts as opposing; in Alito's case, I counted less than a half dozen Dems supporting Alito.)

Name: Joseph
Date posted: 2008-10-03 1:56 PM
Hometown: Montgomery, AL

Comment:

Hey Prof. Dennis, go investigate Obama's FIRST reaction to John Roberts' nomination to the Court, and then read his ultimate statement after he voted against the nomination. Obama's initial reaction to Roberts was quite positive and he made more than a few public comments regarding Roberts. After finally casting his "nay" vote (which came only after some proverbial arm-twisting), his press statement made it quite clear that he didn't oppose Roberts on the basis of his LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS. The statement also appeared to suggest that Obama COULD support a nominee that didn't completely agree with him on all issues. Oh, you might also want to look back at the history of several previous Court nominations and how they "disappointed" the President who nominated them. Look at O'Connor, for instance. Appointed by Reagan, she turned into a strong centrist member of the Court.

Name: Daniel
Date posted: 2008-10-03 9:32 AM
Hometown: New Hope, PA

Comment:

I wouldn't be inclined to trust Palin or McCain to actually support gay rights or sign any bills advancing gay rights. Historical precedent suggests that neither of them would actually support us and both of them are likely to oppose any expansion of our rights beyond what we already have. They're also both likely to support taking away any rights to same-sex marriage that have been won. I also think that they would both ultimately support efforts to remove or block domestic partnership rights and/or civil unions. Neither of their actions suggests that they would be allies, or even friendly, to us on the national stage.

Name: Prof. Dennis
Date posted: 2008-10-03 6:27 AM
Hometown: Minneapolis

Comment:

Maybe the fluster, if there is indeed one, is due to her AMBIGUITY. She and Joe wrapped up question with Joe summarizing: "So, we are in agreement in our positions." This was AFTER they both said "no" to gay marriage, but YES to supporting same-sex couples' civil rights -- hospital visitation, etc. Did the agreement refer to ALL of the above or to just gay marriage?? I interpreted it as ALL. Perhaps Sarah Palin needs to be asked pointblank. The DEVIL of course is in the details.... and, as I said to myself, any appointees to the COURT! Nevertheless, on this one issue, Sarah seemed to open the door just a teeny bit... Could it be they're getting "desperate"...

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.

Error:Server capacity reached.

Error:Server capacity reached.