(no subject)

[stormdog]

Admittedly, I've only highlights of the debate. I wish I could have watched it live, but I needed to get up to Racine to buy a dehumidifier. But, as I said, I did see some highlights. Best part that I saw was in the discussion of views on gay marriage and partner benefits. Palin talked about how, though she was concerned about civil unions being used as a stepping stone toward marriage, she would have no problem at all with same-sex partners having visitiation rights, shared property, and all the other legal rights that Biden had just talked about being for.

In his response to that, Biden was very positive about her response, and said that it sounded like the two were in agreement, emphasizing her statement that seemed to indicate support for nation-wide domestic partner benefits (in response to which she had to point out for the second time that she was against same sex marriage, which was tangential to the question and a mischaracterization of what the moderator asked). I wish there were going to be more VP debates; I've never listed to Biden talk before and I'd like to hear more of him. I like what I've seen of him very much. I like the way he thought quickly and took advantage of opportunity in that exchange.

Also of interest may be some info on what are purported to be black-and-white, documentable falsehoods from the 'straight-talking, from-the-heart' GOP vice presidential nominee. From what I've seen of Palin, I am worried by the idea of her being a short step away from the presidency. She seems inexperienced and, frankly, not all that bright. Listening to her, I feel like she's using phrases that she has committed to memory but doesn't fully understand, and that she gets lost in nuanced discussions of complex ideas.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-twelve-odd.html

(And if you're interested, the portion of the debate I was talking about is below.)

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.

I also very much like that it sounds like the Obama-Biden campaign would move toward what I believe should be the governments role in marriages and civil-unions. Leave marriage as a religious institution to the churches and domestic partnerships (be they called, through force of tradition, marriage, or by any other name) to the government to be free of religious influence. I wish we could just abolish marriage as a governmental institution at all and see civil unions as the only legally regulated domestic partnerships. It just makes much more sense to me.