Former bad girl and rehab-frequent flyer Lindsay Lohan is settling down since starting a serious relationship with DJ Samantha Ronson. The couple has some thoughts about Sarah Palin which they shared in Ronson’s blog. Excerpts include:
Is it a sin to be gay? Should it be a sin to be straight? Or to use birth control? Or to have sex before marriage? Or even to have a child out of wedlock?…
Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?…
I feel it’s necessary for me to clarify that I am not against Sarah Palin as a mother or woman.
Women have come a long way in the fight to have the choice over what we do with our bodies… And its frightening to see that a woman in 2008 would negate all of that.
Lohan, who had blogged earlier in the month that the focus should be the issues, adds
I have faith that this country will be all that it can be with the proper guidance. I really hope that all of you make your decisions based on the facts and what feels right to you in your heart-vote for obama!"
Ronson also quotes an AP article from September 5 about Pain’s church "promoting promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.
" ‘You’ll be encouraged by the power of God’s love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,’ according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed since she was a child."
* * *
The AP article points out that while Palin has not worked actively against gay rights in Alaska, early in her administration she supported a bill that would have overruled a court decision to provide state benefits for gay partners of public employees. Less than one-half of 1 percent of state employees had applied for the benefits which were ordered by the 2005 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court.
When Alaska’s attorney general pointed out to Palin that the bill she supported was unconstitutional–something that as governor she should have known–she reversed her position and vetoed the bill.
But that case of appears to be personal views getting in the way of upholding the laws of the state–along with the utter naivety (one hopes it was naivety and not slavering, theocratic power madness) in misunderstanding what a Supreme Court rulling means–should raise a warning flag for voters of both parties.