Reporters are rushing to fill in biographical and political details after Sen. John McCain surprised just about everyone by picking a political unknown as his running mate, first-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, but most stories call her a both a "maverick" and a "social conservative."
"It obviously makes a statement to conservatives, which a good one," Santorum is quoted as saying. "From every indication I've seen she has good conservative record and checks the boxes on the real important issues that conservative cares about."
Related in Qnews: GOP quiet on gay marriage and social issues, but Palin's name on ticket speaks volumes (9-Sep-08)
In a statement from Human Rights Campaign, the group's president agreed that McCain's choice of running mate is a deeply conservative one.
"America may not know much about Sarah Palin, but based on what our community has seen of her, we know enough," said Joe Solmonese. "Sarah Palin not only supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment banning marriage equality but, in her less than two years as Governor, even expressed the extreme position of supporting stripping away domestic partner benefits for state workers. When you can't even support giving our community the rights to health insurance and pension benefits, it's a frightening window into where she stands on equality."
Solmonese points to one of the confusing bits of Palin's political biography -- an early executive decision that seems, at first glance (but only at first glance) to tarnish her social conservative sheen.
In one of her first acts as governor last year, Palin reluctantly vetoed a bill that aimed to deny court-ordered benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees.
But the veto doesn't in any way indicate friendliness to LGBT issues or to the few dozen same-sex partners of state and Anchorage government employees who would have been eligible for the benefits. Instead, it indicates a reluctant acquiescence to the law.
She vetoed the bill only because the state's attorney general assured her that it was unconstitutional, and signing it would force the state into more expensive litigation that it had no hope of winning.
For Sarah Palin, anti-gay 'social conservative' trumps 'fiscal conservative' [contd.]
The veto did, indeed, finally allow state workers to obtain insurance benefits for their same-sex partners -- benefits that had been mandated by a court years before -- but Palin later supported an expensive and widely criticized crusade by a right-wing legislator to remove the benefits through a constitutional amendment.
In fact, the veto and the bizarre and complicated political story surrounding it suggest that, for Palin, social conservatism will trump fiscal conservatism.
The benefits issued had riled Alaska politics since long before Palin became governor. ACLU filed a suit seeking benefits equality in 1999. The suit was filed on behalf of nine state and Anchorage employees.
Because of multiple appeals, the case took several jogs through the judicial system. Even after the state Supreme Court ruled in October, 2005 that denying the benefits to same-sex domestic partners violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection, the state resisted.
After more legal and political wrangling, an exasperated court panel finally issued a January 1, 2007 deadline for the state and the municipality of Anchorage begin offering the benefits.
Anchorage complied, but right-wing legislators pushed through a law in an expensive special session (held just before Palin became governor) aimed at blocking the benefits to state workers.
That's the law that Palin vetoed, even though she assured reporters that she did not agree with the multiple court rulings.
The Alaska gay blog Queer Frontier, (which is no longer online) explained at the time of the veto:
Of course there will be more discussion as conservative legislators are not going to swallow this pill easily. Although they have said they would abide by the courts decision, I for one don't expect them to do so. They are a nasty bunch that believe they have "God" on their side.
As for our new Governor? Forget it! Although she is abiding by the court decision, she is not helping us out. She has signed a bill allowing the legislators to call a "special election" which will consider a constitutional amendment banning what the court has just upheld.
Despite criticism that the special election supported by Palin was a gross waste of money, the state went ahead with an "advisory vote" on the issue.
As the House debated a bill authorizing the expensive vote, one exasperated Democrat in the Republican-controlled House commented, "If our purpose is to find out what Alaskans think about same-sex benefits, we should pay 12,000 bucks and get a scientific statewide opinion poll, not pay $1.2 million for an unscientific opinion poll."
Despite the intense criticism, the advisory vote supported by Palin was held, asking Alaskans if they favored holding another vote to amend the constitution. Although 53% of those who showed up at the low-turnout election said they favored the vote, the results were considered a wash.
An activist who campaigned for a no vote concluded that the results had been a defeat for opponents of benefits equality. "The other side is looking for an overwhelming vote," said Jesse Cross-Call of Alaskans Together, "and I really don't think we're seeing an overwhelming vote tonight."
Partly because of the underwhelming vote in the special election, an attempt in the legislature to push through a constitutional amendment failed in 2007.
The whole affair suggests that Palin's "social conservative" credentials will override her "fiscal conservative" credentials, because the advisory vote alone cost Alaskans about $775,000, according to the Associated Press. Granting benefits to the 67 state workers who had applied for them at the time would have cost about $350,000 per year.