So Palin wanted to force these two kids, who obviously weren't ready, into a marriage. And that's moral.
Well, I would consider Levi Johnston's refusal to take responsibility for his child as immoral.
It's only the right thing that he assumes responsibility for his actions, and being a father that is actively present in his child's life is in fact the most moral thing to do.
Sarah Palin did not make this decision for them, but I can understand why she wanted to prevent any fallout from Bristol and Levi's actions that could harm the child's future.
So who's the moralist now? The guy who won't own up to his responsibility as a father or the mother that decides that a father figure is necessary for the welfare of the child?
You tell me.