Biden on Same-Sex Equality

There was, in last night's Biden / Palin debate, a brief exchange on the topic of same-sex equality. As it has been ritualized and hones in several year's worth of national elections, most of it passed in coded language that most normal people will find totally inscrutable but mostly innocuous.

Palin's responses I found unsurprising and mostly without interest, although she wasn't able to make any sort of statement to appeal strongly to her right-wing fundamentalist fans. Oddly, she wanted us to know how very, very tolerant she is. Unfortunately, "tolerance" is so 80s.

Biden, on the other hand, moved into his emotional-rhetorical tone and managed to put together this statement, that came in two parts:

[I]n 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…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.
[…]
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.

[quoted by Pam Spaulding, "Biden, Palin and that pesky marriage thing", Pam's House Blend, 3 October 2008.]

Absolute equality on constitutional rights, which are thought not to include marriage rights at the moment–federally. It may be progress, but it's hard to tell yet.

Posted on October 3, 2008 at 12.27 by jns · Permalink
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by S.W. Anderson
    on Saturday, 4 October 2008 at 00.37
    Permalink

    I think that last part, about "Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage . . ." seems odd and self-contradictory. It strikes me that from the civil side you can create "marriage" in everything but that precise name and, of course, the term holy matrimony, without causing those opposed on religious grounds to come unglued.

    Still, Biden, like Obama, obviously isn't prepared to trigger a culture-war rallying point for McCain and Palin to exploit in this election. That's a political necessity, unfortunately.

    Progress is being made, but I understand your feeling that it's too slow.

  2. Written by S.W. Anderson
    on Saturday, 4 October 2008 at 00.39
    Permalink

    Forgive an off-topic comment, Jeff, but I've long wondered and finally will ask: Why the long blank area between the end of a post and the comments?

  3. Written by jns
    on Monday, 6 October 2008 at 13.07
    Permalink

    I believe it's nothing more sinister than that the comments section gets drawn in a table that doesn't start until the right-hand column of the table above it is complete. I'll have a look in the template sometime and see whether there's an easy way to fix it

    You're forgiven, at least this one time.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply

To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.

I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.