I didn’t get to watch the entire debate last night but I caught a little bit. It was mostly on tax cuts and the “he said, she said” stuff; which, when it comes to taxes, I find a bore. Although I see the importance of our economy my value system isn’t going to be readily tempeted by a bait of greed. Putting an extra $200 in my pocket at the end of the year isn’t nearly as import as whether or not my children will be taught in school to tolerate or practice homosexuality, overlook child murder, or have to use a gender neutral bathroom with those who are undecided.
Something else caught my attention in the next series of questions after the “Boston Tea Party” questions (from the transcripts at CNN.com).
IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding [the granting of same-sex benefits to couples] beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, 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 and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don’t agree with me on this issue.
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.
But I will tell Americans straight up that I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I’m being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
Palin’s answer brought up some difficult questions in my own heart. I was not surprised by her response, and frankly, I don’t know what I’d say with so much on the line. I’ve never had to carry the weight of a nation, I’ve never had to stand in front of millions of Americans and answer questions concerning my moral convictions. Simply, I began to re-think my convictions. What would I have said? Are those who are “tolerant” as guilty as the transgressor? Clearly Palin defined her ultimate conviction, “But I will tell Americans straight up that I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman.”
What do you think?
Isaac Bennett Ministries 
tolerate: to allow the existence, occurrence or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
allow: admit (an event or activity) as legal and acceptable.
She’s right on. My view on this is really quite simple. It’s not the government’s job to regulate morality.
What’s the alternative? Outlawing it? If we do that, then logically we should outlaw everything else that Bible forbids, such as other religions. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m not interested in a totalitarian state. I’ll just wait for Jesus to come back. He’s the only one I trust to run that kind of government.
When I was watching, she seemed hesitant. She lacked conviction on what she was saying. I wouldn’t be surprised if her debate “coaches” were telling her to say some things that were more friendly to the general American public. That’s mostly what I noticed.
What should we be tolerant of as long as it’s not legislated?
I mean, would we tell a mother who’s son is addicted to pornography, “I’m tolerant of pornography as long as it’s not legal”?
That may be true. You don’t want to come off as a bigot, and that’s definitely what your opponents will paint you as if you’re against homosexual marriage.
I think we should be “tolerant” – I put quotation marks because today that basically means tacit approval, even though that’s not what the word originally meant – of anything that doesn’t harm others. If you choose to sin, that’s your right as a Human with free will… As long as you’re only hurting yourself.
Your analogy doesn’t quite match up. She’s not saying she’s tolerant of homosexuality, but of homosexuals. So it would be better to say, “I’m tolerant of those who look at pornography.” Love the sinner, hate the sin, basically.
I see your point.
It defintely brings up some important questions concerning the government of man.