Creep of the Week: Sarah Palin

Say what you want about Sarah Palin, but she held her own on Saturday Night Live over the weekend. She was doing what she does best, mind you: looking good while saying very little. But for a brief moment, live on Saturday night, Sarah Palin was likeable. Not leadership material by any stretch, but definitely human. Laughter is, after all, a powerful intoxicant.
It certainly didn't take long for the buzz to wear off. On Monday Palin had moved from a glitzy New York sound stage to a set that looked like it was designed for Wasilla Public Access for an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network.
David Brody of CBN's "The Brody File" nabbed Palin for a 20-minute interview in Lancaster, Penn. for "The 700 Club."
"On Constitutional marriage amendment," Brody asks her, "are you for (someone coughs off camera rendering Brody's words inaudible), I'm sorry, are you for something like that?"
"I am," Palin answers in a slow and deliberative way. This really shouldn't surprise anyone. Except maybe the Log Cabin Republicans who actually endorsed the McCain Palin ticket.
"In my own state," Palin continues, "I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman."
Again, not a shocker. Unless you still think that Palin's lip service about gay rights during the VP debate meant anything. Sure she vetoed a bill in 2006 that would have banned domestic partner benefits for Alaska state workers. But she only did so because her attorney general warned her it was unconstitutional. It wasn't because she wanted gays in Alaska to have benefits.
And now she wants to do unto the whole country what she and "the vast majority of Alaskans" did ten years ago in Alaska.
She tells Brody, "I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage. I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument, it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that."
I know it's a mouthful, but let's try to untangle Palin's answer here. In essence she's saying she wants to write discrimination against gays and lesbians into the United States Constitution and somehow that does not constitute "sitting in a seat of judgment."
After all, she's only expressing her own opinion by advocating that her opinion be written into this nation's founding document. She's just "speaking up for traditional marriage" because it's an instrument (albeit it different from a flute) that plays a special traditional tune meant only for righteous Christians and pregnant teenagers.
Not that I'm sitting in a seat of judgment or anything.