Subscribe to Breaking NewsWithers: The morning after the Palin and Biden debate
This morning I’m a little disappointed. Last night’s vice president debate was supposed to be filled with kooky moments. Like Joe Biden having a meal of shoe leather or Sarah Palin confusing the leaders of China and Iran (I do that all the time). However, both candidates can return to their camps proud.
Biden kept his answers short (for him that is) didn’t say or do anything sexist, and the moment he choked up about his kids was priceless. Palin showed why McCain picked her. She was bright, attacked with a smile, and even had some fun (didn’t she wink at the audience?).
The morning after, I’m not as joyous about Biden’s comment on same-sex couples. Hey I’m a cranky queen. Don’t get me wrong. I still think it proves a significant political paradigm shift, but like we all know: proof comes with actions and deeds.
But the idea of a shifting landscape remains. Heck even Palin’s response to the same-sex relationship question is much more than any Republican has said in the past. Here is Palin, a darling of the base (a darling of the base), saying this:
“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.”
Sure we can parse that and even find it silly, but remember: it is light years ahead of four years ago when a certain candidate for the GOP was trying to sell same-sex relationships down the river. That is worth remembering.
Amber,
Are you a lesbian or homosexual? Oh that’s right! They mean the same thing.
The only difference between “marriage” and the “civil union” Obama/Biden promise is that a marriage is peformed by and in a religious setting. A “civil union” is performed by a justice of the peace or other authorized person — a government agent — and has nothing to do with religion.
I’m am sorry you won’t be happy with any label but “marriage.” For me, a 62yo in a 33+ year relationship who has experienced discrimination at its worst, legal protections for me and my devoted and loving partner is overwhelmingly more important than fighting for a label.
I don’t feel that Sarah Palin was pressed enough about her true feelingss about gay relationships. She chose her words carefully to appear to be in both camps. Gwen Ifill set up the question about gay relationships with assuming that her signing of the partner benefits bill in Alaska meant she supported it. She didn’t. She signed it only because she had to uphold the law as interpreted by the court. She signed it under protest.
She didn’t want to alienate the base so she only conceeded that they wouldn’t do anything to stop hospital visitations or contracts between couples. Big deal! If she were pressed a bit more by Gwen Ifill, she may have been forced to spill her guts about her true feelings. It wouldn’t have been pretty.
While agreeing with Rich that an Obama-Biden election is the only path toward greater equality for gay men and lesbians, and appreciating that he and his partner have lived during periods when any societal recognition of their relationship, no matter how imperfect, seemed unimaginable, allow me to disagree wholeheartedly that it does not matter whether our relationships are afforded the same label as those of heterosexuals. Amber is completely correct that separate is never equal and we should all fight for the day when gay and lesbian youth, too many of whom take their lives each year because of doubts about their self-worth, know that society recognizes them and their relationships as every bit as valued as those of their heterosexual peers. Ultimately, it most certainly does matter whether we are afforded full equality by being allowed to participate in the very same institutions available to other members of society or we are relegated to a separate status. The fundies appreciate this and that is why they are fighting tooth and nail to make sure that we are not granted full equality by being allowed to participate in civil marriage. I must also say that I find the suggestion that there are many who would choose a civil union over marriage, if the rights associated with the two were in fact identical, laughable.
Having said that, Rich is absolutely correct that we need an Obama-Biden administration to advance our prospects for greater equality. Despite the superficial similarity in certain of the positions adopted by the two tickets (most specifically, their shared opposition to full marriage equality), those closely following our efforts to obtain marriage equality appreciate that the differences between an Obama-Biden administration and a McCain-Palin administration would be tremendous. This is most particularly true because of the very different sorts of federal judges likely to be appointed by each team. McCain has said that he would appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas, the Supreme Court justices who have been most hostile to our rights to equality. A President Obama would no doubt appoint judges more in the line of those appointed by President Clinton, judges who accept that the U.S. Constitution provides some protections for our rights. The federal courts are where many of the battles over our rights will be fought in the coming years (particularly for those who do not live in more socially liberal states, where rights are more likely to be gained through legislative action or through interpretation of State constitutions) and no one should have any doubts that McCain-Palin judges would be hostile to our rights to equality while Obama-Biden judges would no doubt generally be supportive of a more expansive view of the Constitution’s promise of “equal protection of the laws.” Add to that the candidates’ very differing positions on a federal non-discrimination act, ending discrimination based on sexual orientation in the military, adoption rights for gay people, anti-gay amendments to State constitutions and a host of other issues and the choice could not be more clear.
A final quibble: what last evening could possibly have led Mr. Withers to label Palin “bright”? Sure, she was able to recite her pre-packaged lines with reasonable coherence, and often in response to questions generally related to her responses, but have we lowered the bar that far that that performance is now deemed impressive or the performer “bright”? I would submit to you that, had it not been for the Katie Couric interviews, Palin’s heavily scripted, non-responsive answers, which demonstrated little depth of understanding of the significant issues facing our nation, would have been received by the voting public with horror. As it was, after the Couric interviews, people were just amazed that she could form complete sentences.
Trace, are you making an assumption based on my educational level and IQ that my judgments are not based on character? If you met me, you would know immediately that your assumption is incorrect. I do base my opinion on Palin based on character. “By golly” et cetera, is just an extra annoyance. I’m a lesbian who strongly believes that the GLBT community should stick together. Let’s not put each other down because we disagree with each others opinions.
Well, for all their “tolerance” pandering, whe it came to the issue of gay marriage, all four candidates are more than happy to throw us under that proverbial bus. Thanks, guys (and lady). Really appreciate it.
No AR, I’m making the assumptions based upon your statements. Biden has shown us that he is a career politician, gives only pennies to charity and makes racially tinged jokes. (Been to any 7/11’s lately?) Obama has shown that he associates with known terrorist, shady real estate moguls and ministers that spew venom from the pew. – Now he has taken up to having one campaign for him in various states)
Amber and Sean seem to be able to see through all the smoke and mirrors. It’s fine with me if you support either the Democrats or the Republicans. It’s everyone’s personal choice as to who they support. But know this, the Democrats see you as second class citizens every bit as much as the Republicans. The difference is that they are a bit more discrete as they want your money.
Well, James, I can see why I wasn’t chosen as your lesbian blogger counterpart. She was bright? How? She “attacked” with a smile? Um, no, she grinned like an idiot. Her voice quivered, she refused to answer several questions, overused the word “maverick”, and seemed to have zero regard for the working class of this country.
Biden did not do poorly, but he didn’t exactly sink the Republican Titanic, either. His cordiality relayed no sense of urgency — even while our country is in dire straights.
I was disgusted by the debate, and left angrier than I was before. You can read my rant on my blog if you want — but it’s considerably longer than yours. Jennifer probably guessed a 400 word limit wouldn’t work for me.
Actually, who is elected with an eye towards “making same-sex marriage” laws probably does not matter nearly as much as who gets elected for appointing U.S. Supreme Court justices.
You see, all this must play out in the courts. The California Supreme Court has already ruled justly and correctly on the topic, and they will strike down Prop 8 in California if it is approved by the California electorate. They already did that once; why not again?
You see, the CSC already expected this to possibly happen, and they reserved the right in the May 2008 ruling to strike down a discriminatory amendment from the people, precisely because it is a case of a “tyranny of the majority” against a “suspect minority”. It is exactly the same situation as in 1948 with interracial couples. In our system of government, the “electorate” are not permitted to create discriminatory laws or amendments to a constitution.
Once the CSC strikes down the Prop 8 amendment, assuming it is approved, and that is highly unlikely, the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S Constitution will kick in, and all states will be required to accept same-sex marriage, like it or not.
Actually, it probably can be in effect now, due to the Massachusetts court ruling. It is just that California will have an even more profound effect once it fails or is overturned.
So, vote for the candidate who will appoint Supreme Court Justices that are more liberal than conservative, simply to make it easier for these type of rulings to stand.
And BTW, I believe that the term “liberal” is a sure sight better and more worthy than the term “conservative”. Conservatives do not generally want more freedoms for the people, and liberals do. I am tired of conservative speaking negative of liberals. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on patriotism, decency or goodness, any more than a religious person does. One does not have to be religious or conservative to be a good person with high ideals. They are just different, and such difference is perfectly satisfactory, or even preferred, in this country.
Jane,
Are you reading any conservative blogs? Conservative pundits, for the most part, were happy with Palin’s performance. That is what I meant when I said she was bright. Should have made that clearer. Whether or not we liked what she said, she did pass the low bar of expectation she had to.
As for Biden, I think you do him a disservice. Yes in the beginning he was a bit slow but when the debate turned to foreign policy it was no contest. Even folk who think Palin won will admit that.
Some folk wanted him to go for more blood. All fair, but remember last week Biden was trying to convince folk on the fence why they should pull an Obama/McCain lever. Being aggressive in going after Palin would have lost those folk.
No doubt Palin’s constituency found her fully satisfactory–”What would Sarah say?”–as she stick-handled issues she couldn’t or wouldn’t answer. This is a constituency that warms to the comfort food expressions of “hockey mom,” “Joe Six-pack” and “family values.” Dog-yawn it, she is cute and perky and perfectly exemplifies the style over substance of the Bush eight-year fiasco.
I suspect many of the anti-gay marriage/rights polits, both demo and repub, don’t care whether we get married or not. To get elected they have to reflect what they assume their voting public wants. Same for the death penalty. Sad that’s the way they must “lead” on the other hand they are representatives. I don’t think we could have gotten a more clear and supportive response from Biden. I thought he had just the right tone. And when the slope on our support gay rights graph slides more in our direction I’m sure the pols will change their tune.
Conservative pundits have to like Palin, James. It’s what they’re paid to do. She could have sucked-gollied-and-gee’d all night and met their approval barring and major misinformation or disasters.
This is the 11th hour of the election, and the number of voters who have not made up their mind (allegedly around 18%) are in the minority. Biden had an opportunity, instead, to inject some passion into those feeling left out and apathetic, as well as to rally the working and middle classes he & Obama wish to represent. In my opinion, he failed to do this and presented us with nothing exciting and only very little to look forward to in a Obama-Biden administration.
Like I said, it wasn’t a poor performance, and it was surely superior to Palin’s, but it was passionless.
I got a little Freudian there for a minute. I meant “shucked”-gollied-and gee’d.
Jane,
Conservative pundits don’t have to like Palin (George Will doesn’t). In fact they were nervous about her, especially after the Couric interview. The debate calmed those fears. But I would argue the bar was set so low for Palin that she had to succeed.
Passion is not the only thing that wins elections. And the polls show that even with the lack of passion from your vantage point, the Obama/Biden message is connecting with voters.
Now it remains to be seen if an Obama/Biden administration will be any good, but right now it looks like voters are willing to give them a shot.
Sincerely,
James
Did anyone else see the CNN video of Palin in church where they were praying (or performing an exorcism) to remove the “witchcraft” from her.
When I first saw her, I saw her immediately for the WITCH she is. Now it is confirmed by the national news media.
She had to bewitch McCain for him to pick her in the first place.
God (or your deity of choice) forbid she ever gets elected to Congress, and much less this time with McMummy.
(Sorry if this is a duplicate post. The system is running very very slow tonight.)