Jump to content
Online Baptist

Hillary and the nomination


Recommended Posts

  • Tools for the Ministry


Does it matter to you that she didn't approve them; but vetoed a ban on them? Does it matter to you why?




Sure it matters to me. Remember I had over a week to review her history. I know it's easy to dismiss people who disagree with you, but I don't make statements lightly and without research.

She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[12] While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with an Alaskan state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[34] She disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling[35] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[36] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[37] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.[12]

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[35]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

Here is an article from Gay.com (bastion of conservative values)
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

In the first veto of her new administration, Palin said she rejected the bill as unconstitutional despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order that directed the state to offer the benefits.

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a written statement Thursday night.

The anti-gay bill was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature during a special November session.

The state Supreme Court last year ordered Alaska to extend the benefits, finding that denying them violated the state's guarantee of equal protection for all Alaskans. Justices set a deadline of Jan. 1, 2007, for having the benefits in place.

In September, a Superior Court judge assigned to oversee details of implementation found that the regulations proposed by the state were too restrictive; they required, for example, that same-sex couples attest to being in a committed relationship for at least 12 months and document each year they are still together.

The fight began in 1999, when the American Civil Liberties Union and nine couples sued challenging the lack of benefits for same-sex couples employed by the state and the city of Anchorage.


Finally, she should have signed the law and let it go to the Supreme Court for them to strike down. The law WAS the will of the people of Alaska and based on the word of her adviser she didn't let the law work like it should. Especially if she is against same-sex marriage.

In other words, she didn't allow the law to see if the new law that was written was sufficient and constitutional.


On an aside, your post seems angry. If I have accosted you in some way I apologize.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Tools for the Ministry
Looks like she made the decision not because she agreed with it but because she was told it would be unconstitutional to veto it.

With that reasoning we should not try to pass legislation on abortion because it's been declared that abortion is constitutional.

Kansas shouldn't have passed this legislation. http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/389.pdf

So do you agree with Sebilus vetoing it? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/103108.php

The Kansas Senate on Thursday voted 25-13 to pass a bill (House Substitute for SB 389) that includes a number of antiabortion-related provisions, the Wichita Eagle reports. The bill was sent to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), who is expected to veto the measure. According to the Eagle, the bill passed two votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be required to override a veto.

The bill, which adds additional abortion reporting requirements, would expand information physicians must provide to the state when they perform abortions, require that more information be made public, and that abortion clinic employees report suspected abuse of underage girls. During debate, the major point of contention was a provision that would allow siblings, parents, grandparents or the husband of a pregnant woman to go to court to stop her from having a post-21 week abortion if they can argue the procedure might violate state law (Lefler, Wichita Eagle, 4/4). The measure allows a woman who had an abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy and some members of her family to sue for monetary damages if a physician violates the law (Manning, Associated Press, 4/3). The measure also would allow a district or county attorney, as well as the attorney general, to prosecute violations (Wichita Eagle, 4/4).


This perfectly illustrates why we need to look deeper.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

youthguy, I'm not even remotely angry at you or anyone else, most of the time I have a laugh in my heart and a smile on my face when I interact with postings. Sometimes I agree with what you post, other times I don't. In reading your posts though, you seem very angry concerning politics and politicians. Your post was a very quick "quip" and I just wanted to make certain all the facts were out there, as I know you do (I've seen you say so in your posts and I do believe you do).

Peace! TRC

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Tools for the Ministry

Thanks for the post TRC. I am angry a bit about politics/religion marriage in this country (as I've stated before).

I think we need to stress, repeatedly, that we are strangers in a strange land and yet we seem to lean on the ultimate pleasers of men, politicians so heavily.

We WANT to believe in someone and invest in "hope". I can see why so many people are going to vote for Obama, he gives a great oratory and postulates and projects hope. But hope is only found in Jesus Christ. (I know that YOU know this, but I am speaking in general now).

I've admitted I like Palin as a political figure, but she IS a political figure. I am sure you are aware of the investigation into ethics of her firing in Alaska. I of course will reserve judgment until the findings are in... but men are wicked and evil (women too).

I get a kick every time I hear someone saying "I'm not voting a pastor in". It's a non-sequitur argument. We aren't talking about denominations or doctrines. We are talking about offering our support to men (or women) to be lifted to the highest post in America who sets the tone and moral direction for our country in many ways. I would love to vote for King Jesus, but I know that no one will measure up to that, but I do have to take into account the history of the people running and compare that to their words now.

I've not seen any of them when addressing a situation say... You know, I was wrong on that... all I see is political spin. Politicians playing the political game. If Sarah Palin came out and said... You know I should not have vetoed that bill. I could respect that. But we can NEVER let the constitution take place of the God and the bible and our convictions. If something over rules our conviction, then what we have is a preference and not a conviction.

It's a dangerous precedent to set, that our interpretation (or our adviser's interpretations) over rule our convictions... And yes this is why it's HARD for a Christan to serve in the government, because we hold God and his word higher than the constitution... What if Daniel had said, "Well it's the law and I agreed to serve the King." ??? What if the Hebrew Children had chosen law over conviction?

God is best served, not by the constitution, but by the conviction of his servants. And it's unfortunate (because most Christians can't even see it) but we allow our churches and pastors and members to be used for political expediency and then we look the other way and wash our hands instead of holding them to task.

So to be clear, I am not angry at anyone individual (especially here on OB) but I am angry. If you (general not YOU trc) decide to vote for McCain/Palin and you feel peace at God with what you are supporting... I can't say anything. But if you vote to "keep out Obama" and vote FOR the things that McCain/Palin have done and what they hope to do... I can say that this is nothing more than compromise.

So, as I said. Vote Righteously. Just remember, God doesn't work through the majority, in fact he goes out of his way to make it clear that it's really HIM working and not the populace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Hey, I hear you and I totally understand that God sets up kings and those in national authority. I do my part to be a good citizen and I do exercise my right to cast a ballot for the better candidate in light of God's Word........I didn't volunteer and serve for 10 1/2 years in our nations military to insure our freedom to cast a ballot to not do so.

With that said, I will say that we in America have caused a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have put forth that "all politicians" are corrupt or ungodly; then removed ourselves from those offices and left things up to the corrupt and ungodly. Not everyone is called to be a preacher, pastor or evangelism; there are those who are gifted and stand on the Word of God that could and should run for office to be a servant to do the right things for their neighbor and to be a testimony for God.

While God holds the king's heart in his hands; I've noticed many times throughout the Scriptures that God has also used people of God in those "king's" nations in very prominent ways. Some were men and others women. I believe that God does allow us to be involved in running our government and there is nothing wrong with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Tools for the Ministry
Hey, I hear you and I totally understand that God sets up kings and those in national authority. I do my part to be a good citizen and I do exercise my right to cast a ballot for the better candidate in light of God's Word........I didn't volunteer and serve for 10 1/2 years in our nations military to insure our freedom to cast a ballot to not do so.

With that said, I will say that we in America have caused a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have put forth that "all politicians" are corrupt or ungodly; then removed ourselves from those offices and left things up to the corrupt and ungodly. Not everyone is called to be a preacher, pastor or evangelism; there are those who are gifted and stand on the Word of God that could and should run for office to be a servant to do the right things for their neighbor and to be a testimony for God.

While God holds the king's heart in his hands; I've noticed many times throughout the Scriptures that God has also used people of God in those "king's" nations in very prominent ways. Some were men and others women. I believe that God does allow us to be involved in running our government and there is nothing wrong with that.

But see that just furthers my examples for calls by Christians to NOT excuse our servants because... "well it's politics". Many of our politicians started off as good Godly people, but because we've compromised with the idea of "our party" we don't hold them responsible with our votes, if they fail morally because we are worried about things like "upsetting the balance of congress" etc. We vote for the "lesser of two evils".

I am all for Christians running for office, especially locally, but that starts by Christians NOT compromising and by them saying... We WILL NOT vote for this corruption because it's "viable". We will vote for the most godly individual running. Even if they "don't have a chance".

We aren't willing to do that because we don't have the faith.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member


But see that just furthers my examples for calls by Christians to NOT excuse our servants because... "well it's politics". Many of our politicians started off as good Godly people, but because we've compromised with the idea of "our party" we don't hold them responsible with our votes, if they fail morally because we are worried about things like "upsetting the balance of congress" etc. We vote for the "lesser of two evils".

I am all for Christians running for office, especially locally, but that starts by Christians NOT compromising and by them saying... We WILL NOT vote for this corruption because it's "viable". We will vote for the most godly individual running. Even if they "don't have a chance".

We aren't willing to do that because we don't have the faith.


I'm not arguing to excuse anyone. I believe they should be held accountable; in our form of government there legally established ways to hold them accountable. I don't see a contradiction in participating in the process while praying and depending on the Lord God for the outcome and for the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. While anticipating that, we are to carry on the way God has prescribed in his Word and to spread the Gospel.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...