"I have," she said, "one of my absolute best friends for the last 30
years who happens to be gay and I love her dearly. And she is not my
gay friend. She is one of my best friends who happens to have made a
choice that isn't a choice that I would have made."
There may be pundits who will consider this to be a "moderate" or "libertarian" position. Palin remained friends with a person who is gay. Great! But she clearly states that she considers her friend's orientation to be a "choice."
That's not moderate or libertarian. It's simply incorrect. I would even go so far as to say it is ignorant. I do not take this lightly. I remember having a friend who retained a 1983-era understanding of AIDS until about 1989. She had a fear of being in any kind of contact with a person who might be infected. She hadn't heard, I guess, the things that had been learned about the transmission of the disease. Thank goodness, she heard me when I said, "Oh, no, haven't you heard?" and explained what had been learned and publicized, news that she simply did not know, common knowledge she had not absorbed.
Palin is a person for whom "common knowledge" about homosexuality puts it in the choice category. That's not the kind of person I want leading the country, even riding shotgun.
(And on a further editorial note, is it possible that the ENTIRE panel on MSNBC's Morning Joe, including Andrea Mitchell, really agrees with her? They never said they did, but they let the comment lie there and said words to the effect that people should be okay with her thoughts.)
(Pure Luck wants to know why I watch that show. I tell him it's to see what the other side is thinking. Sometimes that can be upsetting.)