Subscribe to ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected News Feed Subscribe to ETC: Everyday Thoughts CollectedComments

Browse > Home / Activism, Christianity, Culture War, Current Affairs, blogging / On Marriage Palin = Straight Talk, Biden = Double Speak?

On Marriage Palin = Straight Talk, Biden = Double Speak?

October 3, 2008 by Randy  
Filed under Activism, Christianity, Culture War, Current Affairs, blogging

Comments

After the jump I will have some excerpts of tonight’s Vice Presidential debate that centered around the issue of marriage and recent efforts to redefine it. I think it shows really clearly how Democrat leadership are using those who identify with or promote the gay community and still trying to placate blue dog (morally conservative) Democrats. Sarah kept it simple and expressed her tolerance (which is not the same thing as acceptance.) Biden says that homosexual couples should be treated with “no distinction” from heterosexual couples and yet he says he and Obama are against “gay” marriage.

hmmm …

From the transcript … (emphasis mine)

IFILL: The next round of — pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples? BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

…

IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that (same sex benefits) beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?

PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead.

But I also want to clarify, if there’s any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don’t agree with me on this issue.

But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.

But I will tell Americans straight up that I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.

…

IFILL: Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.

IFILL: Is that what you said?

PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let’s move to foreign policy.

[From Vice-Presidential Debate - Biden and Palin - Transcript - Election Guide 2008 - The New York Times]

The ONLY way that Biden could make those statements and be consistent is if he views marriage like Palin and I do … as a benefit and not a civil right. Marriage is a civilly (legally) defined benefit and not a civil right in our view.

Because if Biden sees marriage as a “civil right” then he does believe that it is ok to draw a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples and just negated the first half of his response.

Obama/Biden saying that they are for gay civil rights and against gay marriage is totally against everything I hear from people who have embraced a gay identity and the gay activists I hear from every day. They are convinced redefining marriage to include same sex couples is a “rights” issue. Apparently Obama/Biden agree with McCain/Palin that it is not a rights issue but a “benefits” issue.

So, is Joe talking out of both sides of his mouth OR is he and Palin truly in agreement as Gwen Ifill stated? If so, how does this affect those who identify as gay and support Obama/Biden?

Sidenote: Some friends and I “Live Blogged” The debate. Click here to read the transcript.

    Related posts (automatically generated)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Viewing 12 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    "Obama/Biden saying that they are for gay civil rights and against gay marriage is totally against everything I hear from people who have embraced a gay identity and the gay activists I hear from every day."

    Here's one gay man who supports gay civil rights but is against same-sex marriage. I'll be happy to explain why I feel this way, if you let me post of course.
    • ^
    • v
    Alex, because of the way you manipulate people into futile arguments and you obviously hate me and this blog, I have not been approving your comments for two weeks (three maybe?) now. Most people would get the hint but you have had the direct luxury of "no." Assume that I am not going to approve your comments and I do not have to make any deals with you as your statement of "I'll be happy to explain why I feel this way, if you let me post of course" implies.

    You want to explain why you are against gay marriage ... fine but I don't have to assure you a soapbox here.
    • ^
    • v
    Randy- It is ironic that you posted this, because I had planned to post the exact opposite post on my blog. I thought Biden was forthcoming about his views and Palin was the one that lef it unclear.

    Biden's answer, to me, was clear--he supported all of the rights and priveleges that straight couples get in marriage for gay couples. However, he said marriage itself was a religious institution, and he does not want the state to alter that. He said the state should not mess with the "definitiion of marriage" but should allow civil unions of sorts to give all the benefits that come with marriage to gay couples.

    Palin on the other hand never fully answered the question. When asked if she supported giving couples rights to gays, she said, "well not if..." That's not an answer. She didn't say a full yes or no, nor did she explain why if she is so against it (in the "not if" statement), then why she allowed it in her state (I know the answer, but she should have addressed it imo). Then, when Biden said that he is glad that he and Palin agreed that gay couples should get all of the rights, benefits, and priveleges that straight couples do, and the moderator said, "Governor, do you agree..." she completely dodged the question and went back to say that she does not believe in gay marriage.

    Biden was upfront about what he said. Yes to the rights and benefits, no to the term marriage because he viewed it as a religious institution.

    Palin was evasive...she might not agree with the rights and priveleges if it means a slippery slope, but she never gave a full no. So it's a "maybe, probably not" to the rights and benefits and it's a no to marriage. Doesn't seem like straight talk to me.
    • ^
    • v
    Brady, I am really shocked with you.... you reduce all of the above transcript to Palin saying three words? ... that actually are part of an answer?

    She said no to gay marriage but she was for discussing the other benefits. It's obvious and direct and then she finished with an obvious no on redefining marriage. Biden said " no distinction " and yet he makes a pretty dog gone BIG distinction and you turn a blind eye? You go to great lengths to say that marriage should be the same for opposite and same sex couples ... and you don't see Biden's distinction on marriage as hypocritical?

    Just because he got loud doesn't mean he was clear.
    • ^
    • v
    Randy-- I'll admit that my response was more about who answered the question fully and who did not, not whose stance I see as hypocritical. I expanded below on Palin and why she didn't answer the question.

    As for Biden's stance--I don't agree, and yes, I find it hypocritical. But I certainly disagree with Palin's more and see it simply as a more nuanced version of Biden's. We can't say he is a hypocrite because he wants all the benefits/rights of marriage and then say she is not because she only wants some of the rights.

    Anyway, sorry I didn't clearly respond to the question posed in your post--guess I went off on a tangent as to what I had planned to post on my blog rather than following your thought process. I hope that clears up my views.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks Brady. It does clear up your views but I still don't agree. She directly states that she is against gay marriage but willing to talk about certain benefits. He says "no distinction" and then makes distinction. She is not being hypocritical because not all of those benefits have to be tied to marriage.

    But ... I think we have both already said those things so... there it is :).
    • ^
    • v
    ... and ::: laugh ::: you would have *never* heard stuff like what she was saying coming out of the mouth of any high profile evangelical Christian 40 years ago.
    • ^
    • v
    Randy...I will certainly give you that, and that thought came in my head too, and I was glad about it.

    And, I do not agree with Biden's stance, but I honestly thought he was more forthcoming than her.

    As for Palin (shocked, really?)- let me not break it down to her 3 words:
    She said she is against gay marriage--check, fully forthright

    She said she is in favor of hospital visits and signing contracts between two people--not as forthright. Come on, that "signing contracts" line is REALLY vague.

    Then when asked by the moderator if she is in favor of all of the rights for gay couples that straight couples get (that was the question to her, not whether she agreed with same sex marriage--can we at least admit that?) she did not answer the question. So, she was given the opportunity to answer fully forthright about what she meant by signing contracts, and she chose not to answer--vague, very vague, and not forthcoming at all.

    So, she answered the marriage question, but the "benefits of marriage" question she did not.
    • ^
    • v
    Ok... yes she did fly past the contracts part ... should have said private contracts between two adults. But, I think it is assuming the negative that she was purposefully being vague and not forthcoming. I think if you look at all that she did say though, it is obvious she is not afraid of and even willing to talk about and through the myriad of different benefits being generalized by Biden and the moderator. I think it is almost a tragedy to dismiss her response without seeing the possibility for civil dialog with McCain/Palin. Just my opinion.
    • ^
    • v
    I thought you that too. I was scratching my head a bit.
    • ^
    • v
    I think you have to look at the next two paragraphs of Biden's comment to see why his answer was somewhat confusing.

    "The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.

    It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do."

    Does the last sentence even make sense?
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for posting those Ellie. I shortened the original post thinking I hit it enough ... those certainly add to the point I was making and no... I don't think that sentence makes any sense on a policy OR talking point level.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus