by 
I can’t believe the news, and I’m not quite sure how it will play out. When I got home yesterday from being away and saw that Sarah Palin’s 17 year old daughter, Bristol Palin, is five months pregnant I admit to having mixed feelings on the issue.
On the one hand, I’m glad she’s keeping the baby. I’m glad that her parents are supportive, but on the other hand…
I need to back up.
Strategy
This was a brilliant move on McCain’s part strategically. When I told a college friend of mine that she was the nominee, he remarked that his pastor said that her nomination would actually make him take notice of the race again. This was part of what McCain hoped for. Dobson also got on board with this pick.
It added electricity to the election, and I believe that—for the first time—the Republicans actually were interested in what was going on with their guy instead of just thinking about the other guy.
I have to admit—the thought of Gov. Palin debating Sen. Biden has me interested. I’m hoping that she’s as articulate as they need, for she could be as hard to debate as Hillary was for Lazio if played correctly.
Sympathy
That’s why, to some extent, I think that there will be an outpouring of sympathy for this revelation about the baby inside her non-married 17 year old daughter. Those that have been in the situation before will want to reach out to Gov. Palin and the daughter and express their support. It’s impossible for it to remain a secret—which, to me, says they were ready for it when she got the nomination.
Babies
But here’s the rub. My wife’s initial reaction and mine were different to the story. To me, I saw the first two angles, and her reaction was, “Well, it’s over for the Republicans.”
It wasn’t until I thought about it later that I understood fully what she meant. You see, the problem of the baby is not the baby’s mom—whether Trig was actually born to Sarah or Bristol. The problem is the “working mom.”
It’s no secret that many women work—some because they’re the only source of income and some because they’re part of a two-family income. What is the secret is that usually the family suffers in some way. The fact that Gov. Palin is rising in her career, and looking for the #2 spot in the land and that her family (already “needy” because of five children, one of which having Down Syndrome) has evidenced the signs of not being aware of where Bristol’s relationship was going.
That begs the question—how is this race and (if they were elected) Presidency going to effect that family?
- Yes, it’s tangential to the question of can she govern1.
- Yes, it’s personal to some degree.
- Yes, she’ll probably have child care as the VP.
The point is that this pick was made because of her appeal to women and to evangelicals. I have no doubt that the women will rally around her, but what about the Evangelicals?
Bible
The sticky part is the Bible. In the qualifications for a Pastor and Deacon in I Timothy2, we see that we’re to look at how these men lead their home. Now, one could say that we should look to Gov. Palin’s husband, then, instead of her in looking at what has gone on under her roof.
The problem is that she is her kids mom. She’s part of the parental unit. And she’s off running the state.
Will this effect the Evangelical vote?
I’m not sure. Since so many of them work, and will feel sympathy, I doubt it. To me, this just illustrates where our culture is headed. We’re supposed to look to our own dreams, goals and aspirations, and in the mean time our kids—our true future—are treated with as accessories that are “nice to have.”
The thing is, evangelicals will glomb onto one thing and put blinders on the rest. They’ll see the glory in the baby and overlook the situation. They won’t see hypocrisy lurking. Think about this, what if the same story played out on the Democrats’ side? A woman who returns to work 3 days after giving birth and the mother of a pregnant teenager. She’s be slaughtered by the Roves of the world.
I am so glad you posted on this. I have had mixed feelings on this. I never even thought about this point of view (the working mom side). I just wondered what this would do as far as the abstinence debate. My aunt (a hard-left San Fran liberal) jumped all over me one day because I told her I didn’t believe in handing contraceptives out like candy. I just wonder what is going to happen about this.
I agree with you, this was a brilliant move strategically on McCain’s part. But it won’t reach everyone. As excited as I am to see a woman in the Veep position, I would never vote for her just because she’s a woman. If we place our votes simply because of gender or race, then we’re no better than the politicans who only work for their parties and not the people. It is issues that matter, not characteristics we have no control over. I am excited about Palin because she shares some of my values that John McCain has either been against or neutral. We wll just have to see how this all plays out.
Rachels last blog post..Going Home!!!
@ilinap: I’ve seen a lot of what you say, but I don’t think it’s something that’s inherently evangelical. Just look at the Democrat party, for example– a conglomeration of people that believe that animals are more important than people, that a woman should have the right to kill a baby, and that we should force everyone to accept homosexual marriage.
Any of these people look at their candidate the same way that Evangelicals look at theirs.
@Rachel: I have a hard time trying to figure out what I think about a female Vice President (or President for that matter), to tell you the truth. Obviously the Constitution supports it, but I’m having a hard time figuring out how that really works out in the dynamics of the God-ordained family. It’s not enough for me to vote against her because I believe she’s wrong, but enough to make me think through it.
And you’re right, we’re tasked with voting for the best person for the job– regardless of sex or race, etc..
I’m glad that I can trust that God is totally in control of everything.
When I heard the news about Palin’s daughter, the only thing that crossed my mind was that they chose to keep the baby.
I also believe that McCain made a very wise decision. Let us see what happens next.
Leticias last blog post..Pakistan Opens Investigation Into ‘Honor Killings’ of Five Women
I have absolutely nothing to add to this conversation, but did want to say I enjoyed reading your viewpoint and the comments over here. Sean & I decided who we were voting for last year (a write in vote if you couldn’t guess) and he actually cast his absentee ballot from Kuwait before this news hit last week, but even still all the conversation is very interesting, especially after the big baby bombshell was dropped. That was one twisted I wasn’t expecting…wowza.
For someone who had nothing to say, I sure talk a lot. Sorry about that. ;o)
Amy Brighams last blog post..Yes You "Can" #2
Hiya MIn! On your open question about whether the evangelicals will rally around the VP nominee– if they already have not, I believe they will.
Judging from the reaction of the RNC crowd last night when references to the unborn were included in the speeches, the pro-life/evangelicals will be there for her. I’d agree that this was a brilliant strategic move in bringing evangelicals back into the fold, and the recent headlines questioning motherhood, responsibility, and experience coming about from the left is an interesting (albeit not effective- due to backlash) tactic the left have used to try and sever that electrical charge this candidate had infused the RNC base with.
As Palin had already been raising children throughout her career (as a business owner and elected official), it seems interesting that this question of juggling office and family responsiblities isn’t foreign to her family, but is suddenly being questioned by many in the press. I find it even more ironic that the mainstream media, who love to challenge the definition of a traditional ‘family’, is now appealing to that notion with this candidate. Are we to expect that after years of re-defining what a family consists of, the media has come full circle because of this one nominee? Certainly not.
The only reason such a (I would say desperate) tactic, by the left would be used, would be to gamble disuading the traditionalists who would support this woman by making the case she somehow isn’t traditional. As the fair number of said traditionalists are evangelical, then I’d say that the left already are cognizant of the fact that evangelicals will support and be behind this nominee.
At any rate, it should be very interesting tonight when she makes her speech. Hopefully, I’ll get to watch some of it after church.
@Leticia: True enough.
@Amy: Thanks for the encouragement. It’s a lot to process. I’m sure I’ll be writing out my thoughts as I try to digest this and figure out what I think about this whole thing.
@Frenzy: Always a pleasure to hear from you, my friend. You’re right, of course, she’s been doing the juggle all along. It is kinda a weird question coming from the left that actually encourage the “you can have it all” attitude for women.
The part I’m trying to digest is the Prov. 31 woman. Yes, there were a lot of things that she was doing– had her own business, real-estate investment and the like. But it was her husband that was respected in the gates. I always took that this meant that he was one of the leaders. I mean, culturally that wouldn’t have happened. Should it today?
The Proverbs 31 woman certainly juggled a lot– and each person is called by God to do certain things. I just don’t know how the husband/wife relationship plays out. You couldn’t have the leader of the free world (or #2) submissive to a husband who is her constituent… or can you?
I sure am glad to have read your thoughts on this. It’s nice to see another Christian’s perspective on this issue.
From my POV, I know I couldn’t handle the job of VP with only one small child. Yet I don’t know the dynamics of the Palin household and how everything is assigned. I am hoping that Gov. Palin consulted with her husband and family prior to accepting the nomination. If she did (which would seem most likely) there must have been some sort of plan devised on how the whole childcare issue would work out.
When I see Gov. Palin though, I see strength. I see a woman of courage and conviction that is brighter than most people take her to be for her 44 years. I see a woman who walks her talk, evidenced by choosing to bring a Down Syndrome baby into the world (where approximately 90% are aborted).
I’ve heard alot of comparisons of Gov. Palin and Deborah (from Judges). So I think a woman ruler is not neccessarily Biblically condemned. We do not know if Deborah had children, but we do know she was married and that she was the “Mother of Israel”. She was a leader of strength. I think Palin could be a leader of strength too. Maybe I’m just hoping or maybe I’m just inspired, but she’s really exciting and I’m glad to see her on the ticket.
militarywifeys last blog post..No less a gift
@militarywifey: I’ve said on another blog, I’d like to know what she feels called of God to do, and what her husband really thinks. Both of that could make quite the difference to me.
I like how Leticia said she “…chose to keep the baby.” A choice that will likely disappear if McCain and Palin are elected. Instead of having the opportunity to make a choice, whatever that may be, the government will have already made it for you. So much for a smaller, less intrusive government.
Min, you said democrats are forcing people to accept gay marriage. Hardly the case. You and your church can continue to threaten GLBT people with fire and brimstone until the 2nd coming. You can refuse to marry a gay couple in your church. You can continue to preach that homosexuality is an abomination. Similarly, racists can continue to teach their children that inter-racial marriages are wrong and African Americans are inferior. You can still do and say whatever you like. That’s the great thing about this country, any country that is NOT a theocracy.
However, if gay marriage were to be legalized, I’d have the same CIVIL rights and privileges you take for granted as a married citizen of this country. No one is asking for the churches and religious folk to accept, condone, or sanction these marriages. The fact of the matter is that many (but thankfully not all of you) will remain steadfast in your beliefs until death. We will to, and won’t stop the fight for civil equality.
Musicguys last blog post..Cindy McCain: Out of touch with America
@Musicguy: She could have chose to keep the baby vs. giving it up for adoption, but oh, that’s right, there’s only really one choice: brutally kill it or let it live.
And you mistake the power of the office of President. First, it’s not in their purview to outlaw abortion.
– The Supreme Court would have to overturn its ruling (only something that could happen with the selection of a new Supreme Court judge, and even then it would have to be a liberal retiring and you’d have to get a pro-lifer on the bench, and there’d have to be court case that would come up, etc.) which is not something the office of the Presidency could do alone.
– And even then, overturning Roe v. Wade would only mean that the states would get to choose on abortion, which again is out of the hands of the Presidency.
– And then you’d have to get a law passed that would outlaw it for all states (which would go against the common Republican thought of States Rights on the issue), which would require the legislature to pass such a bill (which in a Democrat run or even divided legislature that’s not happening) for McCain to sign.
– Or you’d have to go the Constitutional Amendment approach– which would require that all the states and the Federal Gov’t approve it.
This whole line that “if McCain and Palin are elected” women will lose the right to vacuum up and dismember their children while in the uterus is just a scare tactic. It’s absurd. It’s hyperbole. It shows just how much you guys use scare tactics or how ignorant you are about how government works– whichever the case may be.
I understand your passion on the homosexual issue, Musicguy, but when will what you say catch up with reality? Seriously.
What major political party is forcing the issue of gay marriage on its citizens? Which party is voting to have it?
This fallacy that churches are saying, “You’re gay, so you’re going to Hell” is yet another distortion. Of the churches that say homosexuality is a sin, only a minority are of the opinion that you state, and even they will not say that Hellfire is reserved only for homosexuals.
Most churches preach that sin is the reason that people end up in Hell. Sin: pride, lying, theft, cheating, and sure, homosexuality. So, it’s not like “man, if you were perfect, but just a homosexual…”– that’s junk. And that was also a part of my post on homosexuality. We’re all sinners having lots of sin, and we all need salvation.
And that’s the difference between a church that preaches out against an action, an activity, and racists who preach against a color. The church says, “don’t sleep with a person of the same sex.” A racist says, “This person is inferior”. (Incidentally, notice how evolution supports the latter position while Creation enforces equality?)
And lastly (I mean, you have so many distortions here it’s hard to make sure I get them all), in most places homosexual (and even cohabitating couples) have many if not all of the same rights that I have as a married man. Joint bank accounts, rights to visit people in hospitals, joint health care.
Why you must insist on polluting the term marriage and will not accept “civil unions” or whatever is just pride on your part– pride and acceptance. It isn’t enough for you to be in your relationship or have rights– that’s just a line. You won’t be happy until those churches that say your activity is a sin are silenced. You won’t be happy until you have an equality that’s more than civil equality– you really want moral equality.
That’s why you want the term marriage. That’s why you have to say churches are filled with hate and compare them to racists. It’s because you want a moral stamp of approval from the culture.
And to me, that shows that there’s also some degree of questioning and guilt there. For a person that is truly content with who they are and what they believe doesn’t have to go around attempting to have government or people validate their beliefs.
Hence why I don’t see the need for government to recognize Christianity at Christmas time, or whatever. Christianity existed long before America, and will exist long after it.
First, please don’t put words in my mouth. I previously stated that you are free to preach your hate and intolerance from now until the nuclear holocaust. I have no intention of silencing your beliefs, your Bible, your right to religious expression. Again, this is a civil issue, not a religious one. Those who eat meat and dairy at the same meal aren’t trying to get the Jews to do the same. Likewise, I realize that you are not going to change the way you interpret your Bible (other Christians have, and I certainly applaud them!). Your religious beliefs are yours, and in your church, knock yourself out in regards to what you think is sinful and immoral. When it comes to government though, you have no standing.
I am not at all guilty about who I am. It took me a long time to get there, thanks to my hateful catholic upbringing and the lack of visible GLBT people when I was growing up. Now kids have GSAs and other support groups to help them realize there is nothing evil or wrong with who they are. I don’t give a damn about what the religious folk think. As I said above, preach whatever you want as loud as you want. My issue is that I want fair and equal treatment under the law. Civil unions haven’t cut it for me:
Since I work in Jersey, I can have my partner added to my benefits. We were civil unioned in Jersey, so it’s an easy process. However, because of the federal DOMA, I know have a huge tax liability with the federal government equal to the amount the district pays for my partner’s benefits. Show me the married couple that has the same situation! That is NOT fair and equal treatment under the law. If the government chooses to tax married couple’s benefits in the same way, then I’d have no case.
You can call gay marriage “fdhriefdhuefu” for all I care. The word isn’t as important to me as fair and equal treatment under the law. Civil unions don’t work- Jersey has proven that, which is why they’ll soon be the third state in the union to legalize gay marriage.
As for hospital visitations– I suggest you do a simple Google search. There are frequent cases where a same sex partner is barred from his/her partner’s hospital room. Look for the recent Florida case where a lesbian died as her partner and their three children were forced to wait in a room down the hall without any unpdates because their CIVIL UNION wasn’t recognized by the hospital staff. G and I spent well over $600 drawing up all the legal documents so that would never happen to us. How much did you pay when you did that? Oh, right, you didn’t have to.
Musicguys last blog post..Cindy McCain: Out of touch with America
You’ve hit several things on the head, MIn. I can’t help but be excited at this new shot of adrenaline McCain’s campaign sorely needed…but at the same time, it is a huge job and she has got to have the support of her man and God to pull it off and keep her family intact. Not many of us could do that…
I still think it was a brilliant move on McCain’s part…but now I’m curious as to how the evangelicals will lean. I found it very astute of you to put two and two together on her daughter’s pregnancy possibly being because of her mom’s consuming career. But…on the other hand, I know other Christians who have done their best raising their children have a child stray off and get into trouble.
It is interesting though, to say the least! Most everyone I know (here in the Midwestern US) is pretty happy about it. And we’re thought of as pretty conservative…
I’ll vote McCain, unless God convicts me otherwise before then. I’d have to feel pretty sure I wasn’t throwing a vote away (toward Obama!) if I decided to write someone’s name in…
Marys last blog post..Very Encouraged at McCain’s Choice of VP
@Musicguy: I’ll attempt to refrain from reading your mind when you refrain from reading mine. Does that sound fair?
I mean, right after you make this plea, you again presume to state what I believe, when I just wrote a post that says the opposite. Clearly put, it’s not homosexuality that sends a person to Hell– but any sin. The first couple sinned by disobedience. I sin every day. But for the grace of God– available to anyone!– I would be destined for Hell as well.
The problem with your “this is a civil issue” argument is that it fails to take into account that I am involved in the civil sphere as well. As far as I know, there’s nothing telling me that I’m not allowed to have my opinion and vote according to my opinion. There’s nothing in the civil sphere that says that your opinion is the correct one, and mine is not.
The value system in the civil sphere is determined by law– and the law currently says that you cannot force states to believe like you believe. You cannot tell people that they have to accept your relationship. This is the rub. It’s an acceptance thing.
I mean, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, we have no right judging the fundamentalist mormons for marrying multiple women. We shouldn’t have a problem with people marrying someone underage. We shouldn’t have a problem with people marrying animals.
Somewhere there has to be a line– and you just happen to be standing on the other side of the traditional line in this nation.
In order for you to justify why the government should accept and promote your lifestyle, you need to prove why it’s beneficial to the country and why they should change from the status quo. And “because I think I’m treated unfairly” won’t cut it.
Because life’s not fair.
As far as visitations, etc., there should be something done to make sure that loved ones can be in the hospital. There should be ways to make sure that you can leave things to whomever you want.
But don’t ask me to stamp my approval on your relationship or activity because of some false civil/religious dichotomy. I don’t have to leave my religion at the door of the church simply because you think I should.
You’re entitled to your wrong view of government– that’s fine with me. I just find it odd that here I am, defending the concept that moral law should come from within and bubble up through before becoming law, and you’re looking to usurp the power of the government to force your viewpoint on me.
Interesting twist.
“In order for you to justify why the government should accept and promote your lifestyle, you need to prove why it’s beneficial to the country and why they should change from the status quo. And “because I think I’m treated unfairly” won’t cut it.”
Pretty sure that was the basic argument of the civil rights movement. All people have rights, regardless of skin color, sex, sexual orientation, or religion. In the land of the free, me treated unfairly most certainly cuts it, expect with the fundamental religious folk (I say only fundamental, because many Christian denominations have reversed their teachings and feelings regarding homosexuality, and more will continue to do so).
“I mean, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, we have no right judging the fundamentalist Mormons for marrying multiple women. We shouldn’t have a problem with people marrying someone underage. We shouldn’t have a problem with people marrying animals.”
Straw man and you know it: I have nothing against polygamy. It’s not my marriage and not my business. Didn’t your Old Testament guys all have a harem of wives? A marriage is a contract- children can’t enter into a contract since they don’t have the faculties to do so at a young age. Some states allow marriage as young as 14. Why not 13? I have no idea. Some societies arrange marriages long before children are even born, and they’re married off around age 11 (check stats from Yemen). Animals can’t give consent. Don’t be so transparently ridiculous. I expect more from you.
“But don’t ask me to stamp my approval on your relationship or activity because of some false civil/religious dichotomy. I don’t have to leave my religion at the door of the church simply because you think I should.”
I don’t want nor do I need the stamp of approval from a fundamentalist Christian. My dog will start speaking before that happens. Conversely, I don’t have to leave my sexuality at the door simply because you think I should. Civil unions seem to be the middle ground with most rational people willing to compromise.
“As far as visitations, etc., there should be something done to make sure that loved ones can be in the hospital. There should be ways to make sure that you can leave things to whomever you want.”
Wow, Min. We agree on something. Legalizing gay marriage across the board would fix this problem. Your solution would be????
Musicguys last blog post..Quote Monday
@Musicguy: The civil rights movement did not originally have anything in it regarding sexual orientation. Whether or not it has grown to include that is up for debate (it’s one thing to argue that a person is a person regardless of skin type, and another to argue that a person’s actions or activity– a choice of behavior– should be protected).
Up until recently, even the AMA believed homosexuality to be a mental illness, so attaching it to the original civil rights movement is flawed at best, deception at worst.
I do not treat you unfairly. You can marry a woman just like I can. You can have a job, get permits, drive a car… You are not subjected to slavery. I do not mock or ridicule you. Where we differ (in this conversation) is whether the government should recognize your chosen sex partner and give its blessing on your union as equivalent to a heterosexual union.
Very consistent of you to accept polygamy. So, why not rally to have that fixed as well? Do you know why this country does not support polygamy, and why Utah had to reject it before becoming part of the union?
As for the Old Testament– you’ll see that every time a man was polygamous it was nothing but trouble. That it happened is not the same as approving of it.
What’s my solution? I think that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. I personally believe that marriage should revert back to the church in order to cleanse it. I think that we should have contracts that are made to recognize unions on the state level (contracts that could be more tailored to the couple– i.e. a couple that believed in being married “until death do us part” could actually make sure that it would be next to impossible to part ways).
There could be some kind of streamlined process (Legalzoom?) where you could get these things, and you could officiate it wherever you wanted. And it would take away some of the wacky things that have been done in the name of marriage (Britney Spears, anyone?).
At least, that’s what’s going on in my head at the moment.
These changes would reflect the fact that the nation is no longer Christian and has moved toward secular humanism. It would allow for the freedom to continue to be Christian as well as take away the binding from the federal government.
Only if/when America became Christian again would I see it going back.
I’m not necessarily marrying the sexual orientation equality movement to the civil rights movement. I simply stated that the idea behind each is the same, namely each person should be treated equally under the law.
You saying I can marry a woman is akin to me saying you can change your religion in order to make your life easier. I somehow doubt you’d give up who you are and all you believe in order to have equal treatment under the law.
So if we take marriage out of the hands of the government, are you ok with losing all your rights and priviledges that you currently have as a married person? the tax benefits, visitation benefits, all 2000 benefits? Would you be ok with having to draw up your own legal documentation?
Musicguys last blog post..Quote Monday
@Musicguy: I did not mean to imply you should give up “who you are”, but there are always sacrifices made when you differ from the average person. Each action we have has consequences. We can either whine and complain about the consequences, try to change the mean (which is the current strategy I believe that you are employing) or we can live above the problem.
I’m not sure that taking marriage out of the government’s hands needs to result in the removal of my rights and privileges. To the contrary, I believe that government could be changed to recognize a contract as a special arrangement, and choose to award those contracts much the same way they manage the current marriage situation– and do it for the benefit of the government.
And of course, I would prefer this to be handled on a local, not federal level. (Don’t even get me going about taxes).
As for drawing up a legal document– if everyone had to do it, they would streamline the process much like they do with the current marriage application. I mean, we’re not talking rocket science here.