The only thing Joe did that disappointed me.

[ccharles000]

Now I know that he and Obama don't believe in marriage equality but it still stings every time he has to say it. I think he did great but that was the only thing that upsets me. I can't be surprised because as I said I already know the position they hold but it is still sad.

[tblue]

1. Did he say that? I'm not clear.

[justiceischeap]

2. Don't be disheartened

Q: In November 2003, you were asked, "Do you believe gay marriage is inevitable?" And you responded, "I'm not sure. I think probably it is."

A: Well, I think it probably is because social mores change. But I don't think the government can dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions. But government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination. And there's a distinction. I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct.

So New Hampshire coming out in favor of civil unions is OK by you?

A: Yes. Yes, it is.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/joe_biden_civil_rights.htm

[Fenris]

8. Biden is all about terminology

To him, "marriage" is a religious contract that is immune from state control. Marriage as we might define it - a legal contract between two people - is more in-line with his use of the "civil unions" terminology.

What, after all, is a heterosexual marriage without a cleric? It's a civil union.

[ColbertWatcher]

36. What we need to do is strip out all the religion from marriage.

It's bad enough religions want to invade everyone's bedrooms.

Don't they already get tax-free property?

I guess religists are never satisfied.

[Fenris]

3. The thing is, the both of them do believe in marriage equality.

They just can't find the courage to say it. There's no good legal argument against marriage equality, but the fear of what might happen if they say that.

Sucks.

[jberryhill]

12. He actually made the constitutional argument for the federal government to recognize it

It was sort of interesting seeing a 14th amendment argument reduced to the terms he used without specific reference to the 14th amendment.

Only states can determine who is married.

[ccharles000]

23. I agree

[Heather MC]

35. I think Biden was saying he is not going to DEFINE Marriage as between a man and a Woman ONLY

I think he did a great Job of Trapping poor dumb lil palin in to agreeing with that

[Johonny]

26. I disagree

He pretty much said it's a church state issue and the government shouldn't tell churches who they should marry. Basically the only conclusion is that Obama and Biden want the government out of the marriage industry. Sounds like we're headed for civil unions for all in the eyes of the federal government and marriage between you and your church as a party platform level. I agree they don't appear to be able to clearly state a party platform on this.

[RoadRage]

4. They have to stay in the middle on this.. it's IMPARATIVE..

I know it sucks.. frankly, I think THEY know it sucks. But, if they don't walk down the middle on this.. it becomes a huge wedge issue (ala 2004) and sends the freepers running to the polls to protect their bibles.

By giving gay couples all of the legal rights that married couples have, but by not CALLING IT marriage, you keep a lot of people from caring about the issue.. and not voting against the ticket because of the issue.

Do I agree with this? NO.. but I think it's what has to happen if we're going to get a democrat in the white house.. and they're going to be the only ones who try to help this issue. Palin stammered about it.. and that's great that she "thinks gay couples should be allowed to visit each other in the hospital".. but she totally dodged that question and never said she'd give rights to these couples.

[Newsjock]

7. So, let me be clear on this

I am supposed to give up my equality as a gay American in order to get the Democrats elected, and then, just maybe then, I'll be allowed to move up perhaps a row or two from the back of the bus.

[RoadRage]

15. Where on that bus are you currently sitting?

I don't mean to say that as a barb.. i'm serious. I think you should be driving the bus if you want to be.. but I alone don't get to make those decisions.

The truth is that Bush has done NOTHING to bring you from the back of the bus to any seat closer to the front. Palin/McCain have basically said that they intend to do nothing to help you out in that regard either.. Palin's bible says that what you do is a "choice" and since it's your choice you should live with the consequences that they deem fit - which means you & your partner still don't get to make any decisions for each other, adopt a child, etc.

Biden/Obama want to see you have all of the same RIGHTS as me & my husband. The one thing they're willing to concede to the conservative base is what to call it. They want to avoid the word marriage because it invokes something in the Fundies that makes them go nuts. But, what McCain & Obama are offering you is a seat in the middle of the bus. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it closer to the front then the GLBT community has been before? Yes.

We get this issue moved to the middle of the bus and make it a non-issue.. then we get you to the front of the bus.

Again.. i'm not saying this is Right.. but it's basically the best option, because the only other option is what we currently have, and that's total bullshit.

[Newsjock]

19. Thank you for the logical, well-considered reply

It, of course, makes plenty of sense.

Alas, I'm still in visceral-anger mode after tonight. But yes, it's good to see a plan for the future. (Although I'm also of the school of thought that we should make the fundies go nuts a whole lot more often.)

[RoadRage]

22. No Problem..

I get so pissed when Bible Thumpers act like they're doing Gods work while throwing everyone else UNDER the damn bus.

I hope you & your partner can legally get MARRIED in any state in the country sometime in the near future if that is your wish.. and i'll always vote with that as a goal!

[LynneSin]

5. He had to go the safest route but I know Joe, he would never stand in the way of the inevitable

Unfortunately marriage rights for gays is still a wedge issue. He played it safe but she probably pissed off a few fundies by seeming to accommodate

[firedupdem]

6. Unfortunately they have to say that...but I hated the way she

kept saying she would be "tolerant" like it pained her to do so.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

11. OH... right!

I forgot about those effin' "I'm tolerant" pronouncements. Those REALLY ticked me off.

[firedupdem]

20. like wow...don't do me any favors! she is horrible. n/t

[renate]

28. oh, I know! "Tolerant" is so superior

I always think "well who the hell are YOU to 'tolerate' other people's choices?"

[WorseBeforeBetter]

9. My gut tells me they both believe in marriage equality...

but they're playing it safe. A majority of Americans believe in civil unions and equal rights under the Constitution so for now, I say go with that. I wholeheartedly support 'gay marriage' and wish things were different, but for now I say play it safe, get into office with a Dem majority, and then try to effect real change.

[vaberella]

17. I don't know about Biden, but Obama yes. That was the thing about Rev. Wrights Church.

It was the first Church to really actively support homosexuals and provided a haven to them as well as well as publicly advocated for their rights. This was why I was surprised to hear Obama against marriage equality. I do agree in regards to Obama he may be in agreement to marriage equality but is playing it safe.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

21. The Washington Blade on Biden.

Biden called a 'proven advocate' for gay rights
http://www.washblade.com/2008/8-29/news/national/13169.cfm

Biden’s only significant vote against the interests of gay rights came in 1996, when he joined many of his Democratic colleagues in voting for the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage under federal law as a union only between one man and one woman.

This is just my gut speaking, but somehow I can see ol' Joe kicking back in Rehoboth and happily toasting a newly-wedded gay couple. Hopefully that will be a reality for many someday--beyond civil unions. I wish he called Yukon Barbie on her use of 'tolerant'. WTF is ANYONE to be 'tolerant' of someone else based on orientation?

I wasn't aware of that about Reverend Wright's church... interesting.

[vaberella]

27. Rev. Wrights Church and why I feel Obama is very supportive of same-sex marriage.

I did remember tolerant. It reminded me directly of segregation and the whole "separate but equal" We'll tolerate them, so give them this and this and this...but they're not really one of us.

Yeah, I read that a while back about Rev. Wrights Church...he has activated a lot for homosexual rights. Here's a link:


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s controversial ex-pastor in Chicago has largely supported gay rights and has welcomed gays into his 8,000-member congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ, according to activists who know him.

“Trinity has been among the strongest supporters of LGBT rights,” Garcia said. “I have the highest regard and admiration for Rev. Wright.”

Gay Chicago resident Ronald Wadley, a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, said Wright enthusiastically backed suggestions by gay church members to create a gay and lesbian singles ministry as part of the church’s existing ministry to heterosexual singles.


“We call it the same-gender loving family ministry,” Wadley said. “It’s a ministry that was formed to allow people to have an outlet to reconcile their sexuality with their spirituality,” he said.


http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=17266

[WorseBeforeBetter]

32. Encouraging... I had no idea.

I must confess to tuning out during the Reverend Wright debacle--I must have been on overload at that point. Or just considered it nonsense.

[vaberella]

33. Yeah you should read up on them. It's a great Church and he's a great pastor.

I'm living in NYC and a Catholic but I read up on the church when shit was hitting the fan and I was impressed. They did amazing and I mean truly amazing and impressive work. So did Father Phleger. The crap that was thrown at them was uncalled for, really and truly it was. When you read up on them, you'd be amazed and probably want to join the church; I know that thought crossed my mind.

It's unfortunate the race thing was an issue. I actually didn't disagree with what Rev. Wright said, a lot of it was true and touching on US's past indiscretions and I should say the permanent bleeding and festering wound in it's glory. That's really his direction the mistreatment of the under privilege and oppressed, Blacks, homosexuals, women, the poor. He stood up for them. Secondly his contention was mainly towards Whites with money and power, which doesn't include 95% of the Whites in this nation. People like Sen. Bachmann who said Blacks and Clinton were the cause of the economic downturn. It's to those people he was commenting and describing. She fulfilled his statement.

However, when race is discussed so candidly it's better NOT to try and defend it (which is what Obama did) and move yourself away from it. I understand it, however I do regret it to a certain extent because it forced two amazing and great activists and preachers into seclusion. Hopefully people will recognize the difference in future. Don't get me wrong Wright did say some stuff that some may call crazy, like Whites gave Blacks Aids and such...he's kind of touching on the accursed past in regards to the Tuskegee experiment. A lot of Blacks sustain the idea the reason AIDS is so prevalent in their culture is based on a similar situation to the Tuskegee experiment and past actions like secret eugenics through planned parenthood against minority people (in paticular Blacks) in the US. I mean I can give you court case after court case in which sterialization of minority women was upheld disregarding the fact that there was racist agendas that were clearly the cause.

So it's all of that in the history of Black oppression which is rarely talked about was what Rev. Wright was talking about his in sermons. Some outrageous, some seeming accusatory of a race in general when in reality it was quite specific.

[karynnj]

37. The country has shifted on that issue since 1996

In 1996, Biden was up for re-election. The only Senator up for re-election who voted for it was Kerry, but he was running in Massachusetts, where it likely would have been far less an issue. Although he was running for his fifth term then, a vote for it could have hurt - though the Delaware people would know.

In addition, as someone about a decade younger than Biden, you need to consider the change in where we are on gay rights versus where we were when he was growing up. Social change is rarely as fast as this has been, although I wish it were faster. I agree with you about the likelihood of Biden being able to happily toast a gay couple's marriage. I would not be surprised if he already has - even if it was not sanctioned by law.

As to Palin, you knew the only thing she meant was that she was against gay marriage. Her phrasing of the word tolerant didn't sound it.

[jberryhill]

10. Actually, he contradicted himself to some extent

First off - it's not a federal issue. States determine whom can marry whom.

When he approached the issue he said something like "people in gay marriages should have equal rights".

I took that to mean, and he continued on a 14th Amendment equal protection theme, the federal government should recognize state-sanctioned gay marriages.

Then, he said he did not support gay marriage. But again picked up on the 14th Amendment theme.

The point being - and I took Joe's con law class in law school - that his argument adds up to recognition of state-sanctioned gay marriage at the federal level in those areas where marriage has a bearing on a federal law.

[primavera]

14. That he used the term "gay marriage" is what struck me

He could very easily have played it safe and kept talking about civil unions - no one ever asked him about gay marriage, only about his views on benefits for same sex partners. Yet he chose to invoke the term gay marriage, which cheerleader Barbie then had to jump on and denounce any perversion of the sacred covenant of marriage and all of the standard right-wing gibberish. Okay, so it wasn't an open expression of support for gay marriage, but it was about as close as any politician will come to it, and I think Joe deserves some points for that much.

[Marsala]

24. I think he used "gay marriage" in order to distance himself from it

Unfortunately, the topic is still loaded.

[SwampG8r]

29. i thought he said gay marriage to

evoke the exact response she gave
she showed her real feelings in her answer

[jberryhill]

31. From the transcript:

"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."

I don't see distance there.

[jillan]

13. Me too - but I think that was all political.

Being someone who supported Biden in the primaries, I've seen Joe address the glbt community.
What he said at that time, is first we have to get to society to accept civil unions, once we get there, people will be more accepting of gay marriage. Then he said - look how far we've come and we will soon get there.

I totally agree. His words sounded very harsh.

[vaberella]

16. Yeah I realize that. But he is Catholic...his beliefs are strong.

And he's strong Irish Catholic. As a Catholic, the older ones don't sway on it unless they're gay.

[iamthebandfanman]

18. im more frightened by the fact palin

thinks homosexuality is a choice!

guess shes pro-choice after all.

i wish biden would have pointed out that was her stance on it really...
instead of letting her get away with suggesting shed be for all the civil union stuff... i highly doubt thats her position on the issue...

[bitchkitty]

25. They don't?

I wouldn't be too sure of that. I wouldn't be surprised if we see stronger support for same sex couples from their Administration as time goes on.

Just because they haven't come out for it, doesn't mean they're against it.

It's the future. It's going to happen. Believe!

[chiefofclarinet]

30. Here's how I want the marriage situation to resolve to.

You and someone else (same or opposite gender) go to the courthouse with a couple of witnesses. You two sign forms and you walk out of the courthouse with a civil union. Later, you two can walk down the aisle in whatever church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or congregation of any sort, or not all. There, you would get "married."

I think this is what Joe Biden and Barack Obama have in mind. The government has no place to tell a religion to grant people marriage, just like a religion has no right to break federal or state laws. However, for all other purposes, like taxes, inheritance, adoption of children, hospital visits, same-sex couples must have the same rights as male-female couples do.

Joe Biden is Catholic. Catholics do not believe in same-sex marriages. They take some of Leviticus too literally, and ignore Jesus' own words about compassion, but I won't go on a rant. However, Biden knows that his GLBT constituents must have the same rights. That is what he wants, equality.

[endthewar]

34. It's as close as they can come without turning out the bible vote against them.