Sen. John McCain has said the matter belongs with the states, as in California which votes on a ban Nov. 4.
Palin's position is indicative of an elected official who believes her personal morals and values -- (remember the Pilgrims fled such wrong in England) -- should govern in how she conducts public business in public office. She would have this nation's scared tradition of separating church from state be ignored, along with our founding documents guaranteering life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to all. Just don't infringe on anyone else's.
And no one has proved that gay marriage based on personal rights to have hospital and inheritance rights affects any of us negatively. The governor -- acclaimed for her outward beauty most recently on Saturday Night Live -- is showing a terrible ugliness within.
She, however, is not the only person with a title making the same mistake in this campaign. Several Catholic bishops have tried to make abortion a single issue decider at the ballot box for believers -- and thus oppose Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy. The bishops mistaken being pro-life with only protecting the vulnerable in the womb. They are anti-abortion.
Pro-life(if it must be used), according to Matthew 25, is in championing the poor, the naked, the hungry, the sick, the stranger and the imprisoned. It is in these people that we see and find Christ.
Abortion is a matter of choice -- between a doctor and patient. That personal relationship must not be violated by government. I have found no person who champions that relationship to be in support of abortion as an act. The issue -- including with some women whose husbands strongly identify themselves as conservatives and "pro-life" -- is giving a woman all the options available in the doctor's office. And remember, the doctor did not go into his or her profession to do harm.
My close relationship with my doctor in fighting and almost dying from leukemia the past three years has proved this truth to me.
Sen. McCain has made it clear in the presidential debates that he would not put a litmus test on justices nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court based on overturning Roe v. Wade. He's right. A constructionist view of the Constitution will resolve this issue. That's the only thing that should be asked of people nominated to the court.
The states remain the final battleground. And it there that the case can be made by people such as me, stating that the protection of the doctor/patient relationship which is almost always geared to valuing life.
Morally, it is right to add the unborn to the list of Matthew 25. But too often in American politics, it is used as a priority over the other people Christ tells us to look for himself in. All matter. Yet too often, the most arch anti-abortionists love only the unborn and dismiss the rest of the people of Matthew 25. Until that changes, Roe v. Wade as the law of the land should not change either.
I believe this strain of thought to be logical and prayerful. Palin's is not, for example in regards to a federal Constitutional ban on gay marriage. And that makes many Americans worried about such a thought process being employed on a variety of issues in the White House.