In an interview with Christianity Today prior to leading the benediction on the opening night of the Democratic Convention in Denver, emergent leader and author Donald Miller said,

In terms of gay marriage, I see it as a constitutional issue. Until we become a theocracy, I think that judges should look at it from a constitutional issue. Whether I think homosexuality’s wrong, personally? America is not God’s country. It’s not considered a Christian nation anymore. You have to look at everybody, not just Christians and say, what are the rights of these people based on this constitution.

Turns out that as governor, Sarah Palin laid aside her personal convictions against state funded health benefits for the homosexual partners of state employees and vetoed legislation that would have denied them because she was convinced the constitution of the State of Alaska, as presently written, allows for them. She supports an admendment to the state constitution that would not require taxpayers to support health benefits for the homosexual partners of state employees.

In a somewhat hostile article on Palin’s campaign for governor, The Anchorage Daily News wrote on November 5, 2006:

A significant part of Palin’s base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives. Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them).

Palin and her staff complained that efforts to raise these issues in public were divisive and hypothetical. The normally unflappable candidate seemed put-upon when she faced a string of such questions in the last debate, on public television and radio Thursday night….

Palin said her reading of the Bible would not “bleed over into policy.” But she has based much of her campaign around a close fundamentalist reading of another text – the state constitution – which she cited in nearly every debate as the source of her guiding principles.

Howard Friedman at the Religion Clause blog gives this perspective on Palin’s commitment to the constiution over Scripture when it comes to governing:

Her respect for the state constitution was illustrated by her first veto as governor. Alaska’s Supreme Court had ordered the state to provide health benefits to same-sex partners of public employees, finding that this was mandated by the state constitution’s equal protection clause. Palin vetoed a subsequent attempt by the legislature to enact legislation to take away the same-sex benefits. After being advised by the state attorney general that the legislation was unconstitutional, she said that signing the bill would be in direct violation of her oath of office. (Anchorage Daily News, Dec. 29, 2006 article.)

Sarah Palin’s story should assuage the fears on the left that politicians who are also committed Christians are conspiring to replace the constitution with a Christian Theocracy based soley on the Bible. Palin illustrates how a Christian can live by the principles of their faith without using their faith to infringe the rights of citizens in contradiction to the laws and standards of the people of the state.

Sounds like Palin is a candidate the emergents can support.

(HT: Howard Friedman)