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.
Rich,
“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.”
This is incorrect. You are referring to civil marriages that are performed by JPs, ship captains, marriage commissioners, etc. Heterosexuals may opt for EITHER a religious/church marriage OR a civil marriage. BOTH are legal. The institution of ‘civil unions’ is not in any way a legal marriage. It is a false institution that gives you nothing at all.
“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.”
Sorry, but you are wrong again. Civil unions do NOT give you ANY ‘legal protections’. For that matter, even though I am legally married (for 4.5 years out of our 23.5 years together), because I was married in Canada, even I do not get any of those legal protections when I cross the border – they are doled out based on your marital status, and most of America does not recognize my legal status.
Trace, MORE lies: “the Democrats see you as second class citizens every bit as much as the Republicans”
Why do you type stuff that is so easily disprovable?
Read these words: “Biden replied, “Absolutely. . . . 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.”
He added: “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,” he added.”
You have never and you WILL never hear those words coming out of the mouth of ANY Republican – certainly none currently running for the White House. In fact, Mrs. Palin’s response to the question, “Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?” was: “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”.
When she addd, “you know, I am tolerant”, it was just another bald-faced, pandering, PROVABLE lie.
“It’s very dangerous for Obama supporters to discuss issues with one’s church.”
And it’s very advantageous of Obama’s detractors to keep that hoary myth alive at all costs. What, wasn’t 6 weeks of it enough for you back then?
“If you look at the video’s of Obama’s radical mentor, I’ve not seen much scarrier.”
I have. That pastor said his mind – that God should probably be damning America for betraying and renegging on its ‘promise’ that all people were to be considered equal before the law – and for blacks that has demonstrably NOT been the case for so long, just as it is the case now for gays. Now, as for why witchcraft and its presence & immportance within the Pentecostal Assemblies is not an issue, THAT is scary – because it is going unexmined.
Selective much?
I am not willing to be just “tolerated.” all couples are entitled to the type of union that they choose but the only way that civil unions will be equal to “marriage” is if every state, every local jurisdiction, every employer, etc. changes the rules, policies and regulations that grant entitlements based on the word marriage. why quibble- yes the road is long but we should be complacent because we have made some headway.
How nice that both VP candidates oppose marriage for gay people and can agree and wink on it like pals. How nice that Mrs. Palin is imbued with enough “tolerance” to allow us live in her country, a familiar dodge to how she really feels about gay men and women. Well, as one tv character put it so well, “Frankly, I resent the notion that I need to be “tolerated.”
It’s our country too and our taxes are paid with the same green cash and it isn’t “gay marriage” we expect, it’s “marriage” not a cheap, second-class, dumbed-down version of straight marriage. I will vote as a Democrat this year, but it is just as disheartening to know that neither presidential candidate sees us as worthy of the rights or rites they take for granted.
James, political pundits may criticize, because analysis is also part of their job, but ultimately they find reason to embrace their party’s choice.
And you missed my point about passion and substance. It’s not about folks like you and me and the majority of people who read here — we’ve got our candidate, we’re registered to vote, we’re THERE(even if some of us feel like we’re voting against McCain rather than for Obama).
There’s a whole lot of other people though who aren’t registered, and who feel left out of the political equation. Were the poor even mentioned in the debate? No. What we got instead were mythical soccer moms and the denigrating “Joe Six Pack” — the beer drinker whom politicians use to represent the working class. I find terms like this, as well as “the Bubba factor” elitist and degrading, but then again it goes to how out of touch both parties are with the working and struggling middle classes — who are less worried about sending their kids to college than paying next month’s mortgage pymt. or rent.
Our country is just not very energized right now, James. I think bringing some passion back to politics would help spark the apathetic, give hope to the disenfranchised, and raise the voices of those kept silent during the oppressive Bush-Cheney years.
Then again, we can presume Obama will win, cross our fingers, and hope for the best.
Quasi, I saw the snipit of the visiting ministers giving a prayer. He was from Africa and in a region where many in the area practice witchcraft. Thus, he mentioned the witchcraft. It’s very dangerous for Obama supporters to discuss issues with one’s church. If you look at the video’s of Obama’s radical mentor, I’ve not seen much scarrier. Hense, why the “exorcisim” video did not have legs.