Palin controversies: creationism and gays

I read quite a few bloggers (conservatives not leftists - who of course are frothing at the mouth about this) yesterday bemoaning Palin's supposed support for teaching creationism in school and the fact that she vetoed an anti-gay bill. Here are the facts.

Little Green Footballs on the creationism rumor:

LGF readers are probably aware that I am no creationist; in fact, I am strongly opposed to the teaching of “intelligent design” or “creation science,” or any other name the advocates for creationism concoct in their relentless quest to promote pseudo-science.

So I was disturbed to learn of Sarah Palin’s apparent support for creationism. However, as I posted in a comment earlier, she does not appear to be the fanatical type who wants to force or sneak the teaching of creationism into public school science classrooms.

But this is going to be a point of attack for the left, as Wired Magazine’s Brandon Keim demonstrates in this article: McCain’s VP Wants Creationism Taught in School.

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska trotted out the usual creationist education canard: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

Teaching evolution and creationism in a scientifically balanced way is simply impossible. Evolution is accepted by scientists as driving the development of life on Earth. Creationism, which puts a (Christian) God in the engine room of life, is unsupported by science. Its arguments have been roundly dismissed by scientists — many of whom, it should be noted, believe in God. They’re just sensible enough to understand where science ends and religion begins.

This is all true as far as it goes, but it’s a bit dishonest of Keim not to quote the rest of Palin’s statements in the article he linked: ‘Creation science’ enters the race.

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

Looks like Palin made an off-the-cuff statement during a debate on a hot topic, didn’t really expect the criticism she’d get, and then softened her position considerably in a follow-up interview. But to quote just the first part of her statements on creationism and ignore the second is misleading; because in the clarification she’s describing a position that doesn’t cause me (a staunch anti-creationist) any discomfort.

As for the gay stuff:

Same-sex benefits ban gets Palin veto

In the first veto of an administration that isn't yet a month old, Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

Advice from her new attorney general said the bill passed by the Legislature was unconstitutional, she said.

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a prepared statement released by her administration.

The very gay and increasingly demented Andrew Sullivan (to whom I do not link) opines:

[T]he details are here. Bottom line:

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.

Yes, she opposes equality in marriage. So does Obama. And, yes, she's much worse than Obama on civil unions:

Palin said she's not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay, but that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment [banning gay marriage.] Elected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples.

More detail that takes the shine off her apparent embrace of gay friends:

Some press reports following the McCain campaign announcement have repeated that right-wing rhetorical flourish that has Palin declaring that she has gay friends. That softer image is not what some Alaskans saw.

"That's just completely wrong," said Allison E. Mendel, the attorney who brought the 1999 case. "She spoke on radio programs all throughout the campaign saying, 'I want a constitutional amendment, I think these things are only for a man and a woman.' ... I don't think she's ever said a friendly word about gay people, that they ought to have health benefits like other people do or anything along those lines."

In other words, Palin is religious but she is neither a "religious rightwing extremist" nor someone who believes that "gays need special rights." She obeys the rule of law and does not like to discriminate against people but, like most Americans, she believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. There's nothing controversial about that at all.