Commenting on Sunday's post, Pete asks:

No, it's not unreasonable. It's hard to guess how someone might change upon becoming president, particularly if she makes the trip so suddenly and without the lengthy campaign and career path we see from most national candidates. And I'm glad that it's unlikely we'll ever find out.

Pete notes that social issues are less likely to come up at the state level, but on one prominent occasion such an issue did come up, and Palin's response to it is curiously mixed. In 2005, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that if the state extends benefits to the spouses of married state employees it cannot deny the same benefits to same-sex partners. In response to that was a campaign by conservatives to pass a constitutional amendment specifically allowing for such denial. In 1998, Alaska had passed an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This attempt at a follow-up amendment, however, failed for lack of votes, whereupon lame-duck Gov Murkowski called a special session of the Republican-controlled state legislature which proceeded to pass legislation forbidding the state to extend benefits to same-sex couples.

In the midst of this, Palin took office as governor. She had already stated her opposition to same-sex marriage and had even endorsed the proposed constitutional amendment. Presented with this legislation, however, she vetoed it, saying "Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office".

A week earlier, there was another bill calling for a ballot proposition to put the question to the electorate. Unlike California, Alaska does not legislate by ballot initiative, so this would simply be a beauty contest, with no legal effect. Presumably supporters of the bill thought it politically worthwhile to have the voters express their will directly. (Such meaningless elections are nothing new. I remember, from when I was a kid, an election in which Alaskans voted to move the state capital away from Juneau, and another one in which we chose the site of the new state capital. The winner was Willow, a small town about 30 miles up the road from Wasilla, after whom the Palins' daughter was named. (Not the tree, not the Buffy character; the town.) But in spite of these elections, the capital was never moved, and it remains in Juneau to this day.)

Gov Palin did sign this bill, and her statement on that occasion is a little more expansive: "We may disagree with the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and follow the Constitution.... I disagree with the recent court decision because I feel as though Alaskans spoke on this issue with its overwhelming support for a Constitutional Amendment in 1998 which defined marriage as between a man and woman. But the Supreme Court has spoken and the state will abide." (The non-binding proposition went on the ballot in 2007 and the result was narrowly against same-sex benefits.)

It's intriguing to speculate on why Palin drew the line where she did. She favored the measure which would give activists (on both sides) the chance to promote their arguments, but when given an opportunity to actually push the agenda of her own side, she demurred. She could have signed the bill. Even if it were struck down, she'd have taken a stand. But she didn't. Why? Was she cautious? Her actions this year certainly don't suggest a cautious nature. Maybe it was a political calculation and she preferred the image of the conscientious public servant to that of the activist. Maybe she knew she couldn't prevail and didn't want to record a loss. Maybe she really does take her oath of office seriously. Maybe ultimately she is a populist small-D democrat who wants to throw the choice to the electorate.

Whatever the reason, I find it interesting that she was presented with a prime opportunity to be the sort of activist that both her supporters and detractors are now presuming that she would be, and she declined to seize it.

7:29:44 PM  [permalink]  comment []