One aspect of the Republican nominee's religious belief system I have not seen discussed is that of the proper role of women in marriage. Some fundamentalist sects cite biblical passages that seem to require wives to submit to and obey their husbands. An example is the faith statement of the Southern Baptist Convention which says, "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."
Sarah Palin attends an Assembly of God church, which subscribes to many of the same beliefs as other Christian fundamentalist churches. On the role of women in both the family and in the ministry, however, the Assemblies of God appear to have a more equitable interpretation, in that women are allowed and apparently even encouraged to assume leadership positions, such as pastorships. Their interpretation of the roles of husband and wife also appear to be somewhat less rigid than those of the Southern Baptists, as seen in the discussion here.
However, when push comes to shove, apparently women are expected to yield to their husbands' decision-making:
Yet there will come times when a couple will disagree, even while each spouse is unselfishly seeking what he or she feels is best. It is obvious that family life cannot come to a halt because of a marital stalemate. In such rare instances, the Bible’s directive allows the husband’s decision to take precedence, and the wife is to defer to his decision. This pattern of last-resort decision making should not become normative for a Christian marriage; however it is God’s design, one that allows a family to make decisions in hard places and keep moving forward with His blessing. If it becomes a regular method of operation, something is wrong in the basic relationship between husband and wife. A good marriage is one in which the relationship between the husband and the wife is characterized by mutual love, respect, submission, and servanthood.
This issue becomes a public concern when the wife acquires political power, and especially when she is willing to use that power for personal reasons, as, for example, using it to do things that she may see as protecting her family. There have been credible reports that Todd Palin was assertively in the middle of the attempts to fire their ex-brother-in-law. Many of the reported emails sought by the legislative investigation appear to have been to or from him, and there is even a report that Todd Palin used the governor's office for a meeting to pressure the public safety commissioner while Sarah Palin was away. In this instance at least, he seems to have been acting almost as an unelected co-governor.
Republicans might retort that the Clintons were essentially co-presidents, so why couldn't Sarah and Todd follow suit? The difference is that Bill Clinton made clear from the beginning of his first campaign that Hillary would be an influential actor in his administration. He sold this arrangement to the electorate as two for the price of one. Those who objected to it could vote against it.
Sarah Palin needs to answer the same questions that Bill Clinton answered as she campaigns for vice president: Will we be electing Todd if we elect Sarah? What role will he play in a McCain-Palin administration? Will he use the power of her office to further his/their personal interests? What role will he have in her decision-making? If Sarah and Todd disagree on a contentious issue will his decision prevail in accordance with her religious beliefs?
And the American people might also want to ask: If we feel uncomfortable about the qualifications of a half-term governor to be vice president, how do we feel about the qualifications of a secessionist snowmobiler for the job?