12 comments

• 

  Alex

  9 months ago

  "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.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  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.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  9 months ago

  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.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  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.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  9 months ago

  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.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  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 :).
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  ... 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.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  9 months ago

  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.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  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.
  reply
• 

  Oceanskater

  9 months ago

  I thought you that too. I was scratching my head a bit.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  9 months ago

  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?
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  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.
  reply