RSS
Home
Veeps Agree on Same-Sex Couples - Or Do They?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
One undercurrent that has crept across the media spectrum from Thursday night’s Vice Presidential debate is the observation that the Biden and Palin actually agree on civil rights for same-sex couples. Kudos to both of them! It’s about time we removed the discussion from the government’s table. After all, What business is it of theirs? The government needs to back away from attempts to define what relationship “is” or “is not” the right kind, right? Glad to see the candidates agree that it’s up to us!
But wait - maybe we need to look a little more closely. In light of the decision we’ll all be making in a few weeks, I think it makes sense that those of us who have a vested interest in allowing people to find, as Sarah Palin put it, “ . . .relationships that they deem best for themselves” make sure that the messages the candidates are sending out are as clear as they can be. This way, we can be sure we’re makeing the most informed decision in November.
Let’s look closely at the candidates’ views on the issue:
The question put forth in the debate was “Do you support granting benefits to same-sex couples?”
Senator Joe Biden, actually addressed the question directly, and replied directly with this answer: “ . . . 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. . . . We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to property rights, rights of visitation, rights of insurance, the rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.”
Governor Palin’s answer, however, was not quite so direct.
When asked if she would be willing to see Alaska’s current regulations (which require granting equal benefits for same sex partners - a result of a ruling in the state’s Supreme Court in 2006) spread out across the U.S., Palin responded: “Not if it goes closer and closer towards the redefining the traditional definition of marriage” as a union between one man and one woman.
She then spent some time explaining that her answer in no way should be taken to mean that she “would not be tolerant” of same sex couples, and that a McCain/Palin administration would never oppose “ . . . visitations in a hospital, or contracts being signed, negotiated.” She finally rested on the statement that she was being “as straight up as I can in my non-support of anything but a traditional definition of marriage.” Very noble statements, to be sure.
But it’s not agreement. Governor Palin, as she is now known to do quite often (and quite well), avoided ever answering the original question, and instead re-stated her and Senator McCain’s intent to continue haggling over the definition of marriage. This only proves that the important questions in their administration would not include civil rights for same sex couples, but would include more discussions towards coming up with the definition of marriage, their definition, for all of us.
I’ll say it again: the government has no place in attempting to define relationships for all of us, no place at all.
When asked directly, since Palin changed the course of the original question to the candidates’ views on gay marriage, Biden replied: “ . . . Neither Barack Obama nor I support redefining, from a civil side, what constitutes marriage. That is basically a decision to be left to faith . . . .” What Biden is saying here is that it should not be up to the government to define what is, or is not, considered marriage. And he is correct.
Biden even attempted to help Palin clarify her position on the original question by stating that if Palin “ . . . thinks there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple, and a committed heterosexual couple,” then they basically agree.
And Palin again avoided answering directly - at all, really - by pointing out that the question debate moderator Gwen Ifill asked Biden was whether he supported gay marriage, and that no, she did not.
As noble as Governor Palin’s views may have seemed to come across, it’s obvious that her and John McCain will continue to encourage and argue that the government must define what constitutes marriage in our country, once and for all. In a McCain/Palin administration, it seems there will be little intent, if any, to allow same sex couples the same civil rights and benefits as heterosexual couples.
The government, therefore, should be able to potentially prohibit people from being able to find (again, as Sarah Palin put it) “ . . .relationships that they deem best for themselves.”
This is not an agreement on civil rights for gay couples - it’s just another example of “spin”, from a campaign that obviously has an agenda, not a viewpoint, on this issue.
As universal as they may seem, relationships are deeply personal quests that many of us spend the majority of our lives trying to find, grow, enjoy, and perfect. They influence, and are influenced by, nearly every level of our beings - spiritual, physical, psychological - and each and every one of them is unique. There can be no single definition of which one is “the right one,” or follows “the right path.” And our government has no place in attempting to define it for us.
