|
|
DOOL Discussion Group
I already knew that Obama and Biden did not support full gay marriage, but civil unions and domestic rights as far as hospitals go. It is disappointing that they are giving into the separate but equal stance. However, I understand that the term gay marriage is very loaded, and I understand the churches concerns of being forced to perform a ceremony they don't believe in.
But, and this is a big but, Sarah Palin seems to have that case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, and I also do not think that politicians should not use their religious convictions to make decisions for the entire country. This is the main reason she, along with McCain, will not get my vote. Yes, McCain has tons more experience, but we need someone who will not pander to radical conservative religious citizens who are stuck in Neanderthal times when it comes to issues plaguing our nation. The President may swear on a Bible when he or she takes office, but that's the only time the Bible should come into play. God does have a place in our society---but not in the White House.
Replies: (list all replies)
Biden would not have brought up the actual marriage part, in my opinion. He started talking about civil unions. Palin brought up the word ''marriage'' and gave her opinion in no uncertain terms. It was up to him to then agree or disagree. What interested me is that on three cable-news and two network-news shows, they edited it to make it sound like Palin simply was agreeing with Biden, since Ifill asked her AGAIN if that's what she thought. I thought that was a little strange, because she made herself quite clear. From the transcript...
IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Sen. Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?
BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. 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.
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.
IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
PALIN: 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.
But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.
But in that tolerance also, 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, negotiated between parties.
But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. 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.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.
So she had to repeat herself...but that last three statements was what was on the news. Disingenous, to say the least...
Replies: (list all replies)
I was not sure how to take the comments made last night in regard to same sex marriage. This is a hot topic for me. I feel very passionately about this. I went to the websites of both Obama and McCain and here is what I found.
BARACK OBAMA's said (taken from an open letter)
As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same]sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples ]whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Donft Ask, Donft Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same]sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.
JOHN McCAIN's said, (this is the only thing I could find on the whole website about marriage)
Protecting Marriage
As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question.
The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.
As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society. They did so to ensure that the voices of America's families could not be ignored by an indifferent national government or suffocated through filibusters and clever legislative maneuvering in Congress.
Sorry if the font is not all the same size. I copied and pasted these from the sites.
They're trying to play both sides, as politicians do. It's wrong, but that's what they're doing.
Replies: (list all replies)