Quote:
Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel
Being against same sex partnerships is part of her religious belief system, and she vetoed those benefits for state employees within a month of taking office in December 2006. Thankfully the Alaskan Supreme Court ruled that denying these benefits was unconstitutional. 1998 was when people voted for an amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman, so she claims she was upholding the AK constitution by vetoing it, but the bill predated her taking office as governor. It passed through the Legislature, and was only applicable to state employees.
Like many people, I have yet to see any reason against same sex partnerships and benefits that isn't backed by religion.
http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-16645.html
There are also much smaller things from her Wasilla days, but those are harder to dig out with official government documents.
ETA: I also found this http://gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1500&type=6 and I searched through that site and found no mentions of anything comparable for other faiths, though I did find a Proclamation about the 50th anniversary of the Beth Sholom Congregation in Anchorage. Not mentioning other faiths in two and a half years, but proclaiming Tai Chi and Qigong Day is poor judgment and not inclusive. May is Jewish Heritage Month (Jewish Heritage Week falls in May), October is Islamic History Month, but they cannot be found in her proclamations, and I think that won't help her, or anyone, not look Christian centered. |
You actually have the top part exactly backwards. She vetoed a bill that
prohibited giving benefits. She had been advised that the ban was unconstitutional so she vetoed it. It's there in the link you gave if you read it. To me that demonstrates a desire to govern well, rather than with religious bias.
Unless you can find stuff from here Wasilla days, it seems kind of strange to suggest it was important. Even if you can't or don't want to invest the time, list the accusations and I'll look them up. Some people were worried about her banning books, but she never did. She merely asked what the procedure was but never attempted to do it. Personally, that strikes me as okay. If you or your constituents are upset about certain books, having the librarian outline the methods to challenge a book seems fine, especially if you never use it.
As far as religious proclamations, that kind of strikes me as not really being a big deal. I doubt any governor is going to make one unless someone has asked him or her to do so. If we had evidence that she was requested to and then she didn't, there'd be something to talk about, but to say, well she made these meaningless proclamations for these faiths but not these others that she was never requested to make? Not a big deal to me.