Clip of Biden in tonight's debate re: benefits for same-sex couples

[jtrockville]

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/includes/templates/library/flash_popup.php?pID=281518-2&clipStart=2124&clipStop=2183

[Zuiderelle]

1. Everything was GREAT up until he said emphatically that he was "against Gay Marriage"

Everything was perfect, so why did he have to cop out at the end of it. This clip didn't show that part. That part actually made me cry last night. I'm getting REALLY tired of getting thrown away.

[terrya]

2. Yes. Completely agree.

And seeing him and that phony bullshit artist Sarah Palin (who was just spouting bullshit lies about her being in favor of civil unions) nodding and agreeing with each other about that shameful "marriage is between one man and one woman" bigoted bullshit was nothing short of shameful.

You know, I've been enthusiastic about Obama/Biden. I've wanted them to win. So badly. And I'll still vote for them. But then, last night...it IS "thrown under the bus" time again. I winced when I heard it last night and it just pisses me off...and goddammit, yes, it hurts, also.

When I have some more money available, I don't think I'll be donating to Obama/Biden. I'll send it instead to Equality California to defeat Prop 8. The gay and lesbian couples in California can use it more, I think.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Have to pander to the neocon bigots, after all

Nothing says "Democrat" more clearly than taking a strong stand in favor of equal rights and then qualifying that stand with a strident "Except...." :eyes:

[Ms. Toad]

4. Prior to that point,

Prior to that point, he even referred to our marriages using the "M" word. Then, using a dramatic flair for mixed messages, he not only took back that reference, but confused the civil marriage law with whatever faith communities call the unions they create.

Hey - does anyone know of any Catholic church that has ever been forced to marry a couple which includes previously married a member of its congregation whose intended spouse does not want to convert to Catholicism, or a member who was previously married in the church (with a still living spouse) that has not gotten an annulment? Doesn't happen. Just because the civil law allows a marriage between two people does not mean any individual church is obligated to marry those to individuals.

[Zuiderelle]

5. Yes, exactly. I think he was floundering and got very mixed up with that.

It seemed to be the opposite of what he meant to say.

I just watched that part again... here's what he says at the end:

Ifill to Biden: "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 a decision to be left to the faiths and the people that practice their faiths to determination (sic) 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 thinks 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 to Palin: "Is that what you said?"

Palin: "Uh... 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."

Biden: SILENCE


P.S. Fuck you Sarah Palin and your "tolerance" for us. Ass.

[Athelwulf]

6. Another thing Biden completely fails to realize...

That is basically a decision to be left to the faiths and the people that practice their faiths. . .

Civil marriage and religious marriage are completely different concepts. Some churches define proper marriages more restrictively than others, and this has no effect on the law until the matter turns to civil marriage between two men or two women, and the restrictive churches act like spoiled brats and whine that their way of thinking, and only theirs, should be the law. Churches that find same-sex marriage to be completely compatible with their faith don't get the same treatment under the law as those that don't find it compatible. What would Sen. Biden say to the United Church of Christ, which has officially decided to perform same-sex marriages?

There is no reason to treat the restrictive churches' view on the matter with more respect than that of accepting churches. In fact, agreeing with the accepting churches' view is a win-win: Gay couples who marry in those churches can get legal recognition as well, and the restrictive churches will still have the religious freedom of refusing to marry whoever they refuse to marry. That's how it works in Canada, and I assume in every other jurisdiction whose marriage laws are gender-neutral.

[goodgd_yall]

8. Right

It was a poorly thought out response. But then, I don't think he's stupid, so he probably chose his words to try to appease both sides.

[goodgd_yall]

7. Agree

The adamant "no" to gay marriage is what stung. I know Obama and Biden don't personally believe in marriage for gays and lesbians, but Biden's response showed me how expendable we are considered.

It's interesting, though, that he used the word "marriage" in describing same sex unions. I didn't catch that when I was watching the debate. I don't know what to make of that. But, bottom line, as a voting block, GLBT people are used and we're put into a stinking position. When thinking of the "greater good," we feel the necessity to prevent another Republican administration in office, so we vote in people who, yes, throw us under the bus.

At the same time, even though neither McCain or Obama support gay marriage. A McCain presidency would embolden those who want a constitutional amendment to forbid gay marriage. An Obama presidency, at the least, will not worsen our situation; it will just stay the course (but maybe we'll get a good hate crimes bill passed).

I'm not wavering in my vote for Obama, but these incidences just get me thinking about how to use my vote to advance our rights.