I'm wondering: do you then offer kudos to Gov. Palin for vetoing a bill that would have denied benefits to same sex couple because it was the legally correct thing to do (the will of the people as reflected in in state Constitution) even though she herself does not support the position? Just curious.

Not actually. She never supported same sex benefits, but she consuted her AG and when he told her the law was against Alaska's Constituion, she vetoed it despite her personal beliefs. That showd a lot of integrity IMO, and impresed me a lot. I don't necessarily have to agree with a politician's positions, but if they have the integrity to follow the LAW in spite of them, that counts for a lot.

And oh by the way, Dear Elected Representative Young, your job is to represent your CONSTITUENTS, not your own philosophy. Do your damn job idiot.

Politics is a tough game, and I don't envy people who go into it even while I recognize it's a necessary evil. In this guy's frankness, I value his ability to do the right thing (override the veto) even as he forthrightly claims it's not in his personal interest to do so.

Although by being TOO honest, he may have inadvertently alienated his colleagues, though their mileage may vary.

Elective government is a tricky thing. If (and if I ever were in this situation, reality would be seriously warped) I found myself in a position to represent a majority of people with very different view from mine, I would seriously see the dilemma between functioning as a true representative of your constituents vs. making an ethical statement. One can resign "on principle," (or sour grapes, take your pick) but if you're otherwise serving the people effectively and feel that you can really make a difference by staying, who's to say staying and trying to convince your constituents to see your point of view isn't a better approach?

As an example -- if the majority of people in my district are senior citizens who don't want to properly fund public education, do I take what I think is a principled stand to convince them that better public education actually benefits everyone (and possibly incur their wrath in the voting booth and be voted out of office, and thereby losing the ability to create real change) -- or to serve your constituents on the most basic level, i.e. accede to their wishes and retain the power to possibly make real change that way?

I don't think there's a clear cut answer for every single issue and to be honest, with regards to the marriage issue I think the government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether; regardless of orientation, everyone should be classified as having a civil union, period. "Marriage" is just too loaded a word at this point and it really needs to be expunged from governmental definition.

People should be allowed to consider themselves married as they like informally, but for governmental, tax and legal purposes, I say civil unions for everybody. It achieves the level of fairness we're looking for plus has the added benefit of shutting up irrational religious-based arguments.

you forgot Washington DC. evidently they are ok with the gay now too.

but yeah reality. it sometimes sucks the ass. i hate people.

This is how the Liberal Party in Canada play every single vote. They tend to look at people funny if urged to vote on principle.

I winced every time Stéphane Dion in our last election warned against Harper's socially conservative agenda. He voted against same-sex marriage back in 1999 because that's how the political winds were blowing. He never explained, apologized, or alluded to it during the last election.