• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « Roger Ebert on Sarah Palin | Main | The week on GNW (Sept. 29 - Oct. 5) »

    October 03, 2008

    Bernstein on Biden and gay marriage

    Posted by: Chris

    Scarlbernsteinonclintonlarge We already know that public opinion is moving rapidly toward support of full marriage equality for same-sex couples, but sometimes it still catches me surprise. Take the discussion on CNN's "Situation Room" just a few minutes ago, when journalist lion Carl Bernstein offered his thoughts on the gay marriage discussion in last night's vice presidential debate.

    After pointing out that the impression left by Sarah Palin, supporting at least basic rights for same-sex couples, doesn't square with the McCain/GOP position or even her own view, Bernstein said he suspected Joe Biden didn't offer his actual view either.

    Over the years, I've grown accustomed to bracing myself when I hear one white-haired politico talk about what another white-haired politico thinks about gay issues, especially marriage. And so I was surprised when, instead, Carl Bernstein said what we gay folk having been saying (and hoping) for years -- that (paraphrasing here) even though Biden stated his opposition, "inside Joe Biden's head, he probably has no problem with gay marriage."

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e201053530895b970c

    Comments

    1. Shane Borgess on Oct 3, 2008 7:57:09 PM:

      There's a reason why Joe Biden (and Barack Obama as well) won't come out and tell America that they support gay marriage - because they want to win. Contrary to your belief, Americans are overwhelmingly against redefining marriage. As is common with the left, movements like these are usually forced on Americans through courts and bureaucrats. When Americans get to vote, marriage remains unmolested and then liberals call everyone that disagrees with them racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. Not everyone who opposes the redefinition of gay marriage hates homosexuals.

      And as for that quote at the top of your blog - it's ridiculous. No one is telling anyone who they can love - but Americans are insisting that they have a say when radicals attack our traditional institutions.

    1. Lucrece on Oct 3, 2008 10:54:13 PM:

      Oh, look what a precious little troll the wind blew in!

    1. Scott on Oct 3, 2008 11:53:48 PM:

      No Shane, heterosexuals want to lord over gay people and decide what gay people can and can't do. This issue is about whether same-sex couples can marry. There was no popular vote when no fault divorces were instituted. Instead the courts and legislators decided the matter. There was no popular vote when ever other changes to marriage happened either.

    1. Allan on Oct 4, 2008 2:30:49 AM:

      Wow, Shane, you are amazing. You make North Dallas Thirty look like a Communist.

    1. David on Oct 4, 2008 9:46:20 AM:

      Gay Marriage is gay marriage. It is not heterosexual marriage. Now will someone please tell me how on earth anyone can claim that gay marriage is a threat on heterosexual marriage when they are so radically different.

      Heterosexual marriage = man, woman, intention to reproduce naturally by both parties.

      Homosexual marriage, man, man (or woman, woman) and possible intention to raise children not reproduced naturally by both parties to the marriage.

      There ya go! :)

      If you can't love your neighbour don't call yourself a Christian! :)

    1. Strict Scrutiny on Oct 4, 2008 11:23:36 AM:

      Bernstein said he suspected Joe Biden didn't offer his actual view either.

      I think this is probably true, too. However, I'm just disappointed with the lack of leadership and political courage from the Democrats.

      Obama and Biden and need to stand up and say "Enough is enough," gay people get equal rights and we're done with this nonsense. Where is the leadership on this issue?

    1. Shane Borgess on Oct 5, 2008 7:16:08 PM:

      Well, I see nothing productive has occurred since I was here last - except maybe for Strict Scrutiny's reasonable query about the lack of leadership and political courage from the Democrats. Sir, no one gets to hear what the Dems really think because if that ever got out, they'd never win another election again.

      Same sex marriage isn't about equal rights. The law is the same for everyone - I can't marry a man, you can't marry a man. I can marry a woman, you can marry a woman. What you're demanding is that the state change the law, creating a new classification that has never existed in America. That's fine - this is a free country and the world doesn't end if same sex marriage is created, but it is a radical change that will have effects on our culture and society. You may think those effects will be good - I think they'll be traumatizing and ultimately destructive - but to think it will have no effect at all is to have a shallow understanding about the power of the institutions that serve as cultural, political and societal foundations.

      Scott says heterosexuals want to lord over homosexuals. Scott, we do everything we can to ignore you, believe me. If we did everything we could to spite you there would be no civil ceremonies or same sex partnership rights, no gay clubs or gay media, no audacious gay parades or mainstream media embracing of gay celebrities. Look around you - libertine mores concerning sexuality is widespread and promoted. But you started this war. A decade ago the gay community demanded toleration for LGBT lifestyles, and society did so. Now they demand we celebrate it, and they're finally facing resistance. It's one thing to believe that people ought to be free to live how they want, but it's quite another when our media and our educational system work in tandem to normalize a lifestyle that many find repulsive and destructive. You can't be surprised to see many arise because they won't be bullied into redefining an important institution like marriage.

      There is also another troubling (and myopic) tendency from the radical left to believe that opposition to same sax marriage comes from a throng of puritanical Christians. It's much more than that, David. People like myself, non-religious and willing to be flexible with gay issues that draw the line at redefining marriage. Don't make caricatures out of your opponents, it will blind you to the concerns they're expressing that could better be worked out than inspired to oppose you.

      Lucrece and Allan - when faced with challenge, it is always the fool that speaks when he or she has nothing to say. I'll not expect anything more from you, other than to hope that before you comment again, you'll pull off the red nose and clown boots first.

    1. Doug on Oct 5, 2008 8:06:41 PM:

      Shane, you say that gay marriage will be traumatizing and destructive.

      Give me facts that prove gay marriage has been traumatizing and destructive in Massachusetts.

    1. Strict Scrutiny on Oct 5, 2008 11:17:15 PM:

      Sir, no one gets to hear what the Dems really think because if that ever got out, they'd never win another election again.

      I don't know where you're going with this, but I'd rather have Democrats runnin' the show than Republicans.

      Same sex marriage isn't about equal rights. The law is the same for everyone - I can't marry a man, you can't marry a man. I can marry a woman, you can marry a woman.

      Yes, actually, it is about equal rights. Regardless of the fact that the law is applied equally, individuals face discrimination on the basis of their sex. A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry woman. Therefore, men have a right that women do not, namely the right to marry a woman. This is unequal and violation of equal protection. Same thing for women.

      In addition, marriage laws discriminate against gay people. Gay men, by their nature, would not be sexually attracted to women or want to get married to one. However, as full and equal citizens, gay and lesbian people should not be deprived of the pleasures, comforts, and benefits of marriage. It is unjust and unequal to set up social institutions for the benefit of one class of people, to the exclusion of others. And yes it is exclusion when you make the terms and conditions of marriage such that one class of people would not choose to enter it.

      but it is a radical change that will have effects on our culture and society. You may think those effects will be good - I think they'll be traumatizing and ultimately destructive ...

      As Doug said above, you mention no facts. My guess is because you don't have any. MA has had same-sex marriage for a few years now and it hasn't turned into a pillar of salt. A handful of other countries have it too, and those countries are also doing well.

      You can't be surprised to see many arise because they won't be bullied into redefining an important institution like marriage.

      And we will not be bullied by the likes of you into accepting less than full equality.

      If we did everything we could to spite you there would be no civil ceremonies or same sex partnership rights, no gay clubs or gay media, no audacious gay parades or mainstream media embracing of gay celebrities.

      Hah! This is a joke, right. Yeah, why don't you stop the SF pride parade and get Ellen taken off the air. Yeah you do that. Whether you like it or not, there is a cultural shift occuring, and there isn't much you can do about it. Sorry to burst your bubble.

      Seems to me that you simply appear here for the purpose of antagonizing the gay folks that post here regularly. That makes you a bully. No here is interested in your nutty, anti-gay opinions, so why don't you take your dopey, comments elsewhere.

    1. Susan on Oct 6, 2008 4:40:35 PM:

      Having met Joe Biden several times in Iowa, listened to many of his speeches, and read his book, I would not be surprised if Bernstein was correct.

      Biden is not a hater, and he has spent much of his Senate career thinking about constitutional issues and civil rights. Although he is a devout Catholic, he does not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, because he does not believe that his religious values should be imposed on anyone who does not share them. By analogy, I would think that he would oppose requiring churches to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, but oppose letting the state deny the right to civil marriage.

      Having said that, he would be foolish to be making this an issue before this election. It just energizes the fundie base, and they are not going to vote for Obama/Biden.

      Somewhere this morning I read a reference to FDR's comment about "make me do it," meaning, develop the political support to force me to do what I want to do anyway. In current terms, this mean: reach out and help in down-ballot races. In Iowa, the GOP is trying to flip the state house back to their control. If they get it, or if Steve King wins the right to keep his 5th CD seat and run for governor in two years, gains for civil rights in Iowa may be lost. With 29 days to go, you can make a difference by contributing to races like these in any state, or helping to get out the vote if you live near one.

    1. Scott on Oct 6, 2008 9:22:39 PM:

      Strict Scrutiny, Shane wants to tell gay people what they do, how they do it, why they do it and what it's like because he seen gay people on TV.

      A certain segment of the population wants an UNEVEN playing field because it benefits them. They want to vote on anything to do with gay people because they have the numbers and know they will win. They call it the "people's will" but it's really tyranny.

    1. SeaMex on Oct 7, 2008 7:59:02 PM:

      Shane, The quote at the top of this blog is spot on. My Uncle 15 years ago married my Aunt who was from a foreign country. They have been happily married living in California ever since. I met the love of my life 5 years ago also in a foreign country. Because immigration is a federal law and the United States does not recegnize same sex marriage or partnerships for the purpose for immigration we are forced to live in two separate countries. My CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED. I should be able to love whom ever I want no mater what sex they are or what country they are from. “Marriage is not defined by who is denied it”. I will not sit in the back of the bus!

    1. Bradley on Oct 10, 2008 10:08:27 AM:

      "Marriage" is an emotionally loaded word. In the beginning...marriage was a social/civil pact between families. Religion didn't get involved for quite a while. Now though marriage is all about religion, at least to the ignorant and fanatic religious right. Bullshit...marriage is still just a contract between two people. If any two people can enter into marriage...any two people should be allowed to enter into marriage. If "marriage" is a religious state the state has no business promoting marriage (no civil marriage). I

    1. Umar Saeed Shah on Dec 2, 2008 1:01:09 PM:

      My name is Umar Saeed Shah I am a beautifil Male of 20 year old from Pakistan. I am looking to meet the rigkt match for me,some one who is very similar to me,some one who understand me and love me.I don,t need time waster. I would like an Girl who is Trustworthy,Caring,Loving,Hardworking, Responsible and Faithful. I would like some one who is between the Age of 17 To 22 Email me with Pictures My Email Adress:umarshah777@yahoo.com My Cell Number:+923086981690

    1. charleston defense lawyer on Dec 14, 2010 10:46:31 PM:

      When I first set up my practice to help people learn how to turn their marriage around and create a happy relationship, I was astounded by the number of people who had already been to marriage counselors and had failed.

    1. Coach Bags Outlet on Jun 2, 2011 4:29:11 AM:

      My CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED. I should be able to love whom ever I want no mater what sex they are or what country they are from.

    1. Outlook 2010 on Jul 15, 2011 3:57:15 AM:

      An excellent blog!I like it.but The meaning of the last paragraph a bit puzzled.It’s always good to have passions in life to keep yourself from going down the negative path and work towards staying positive.

    1. Burberry Outlet on Aug 9, 2011 3:02:45 AM:

      i love it very much.shop the Burberry Bags online is wonderful.
      Burberry Bags

      Burberry Outlet

      Shop Burberry Handbags Online

    1. coach outlet online on Aug 10, 2011 5:31:21 AM:

      Every people should choice coach jewelery fit handbag

    1. Canada Goose Jacket on Sep 10, 2011 3:34:11 AM:

      The discussion an on going discussion and analysis of the moral the fact that this is so ought to be an embarrassment to white liberals who are die. Thanks for sharing informative post. beautiful !!!

    1. wholesale new era hats on Nov 7, 2011 1:15:52 AM:

      thanks for this interesting information I will publish a link on our blog so my personal readers can benefit from it too.

    1. new era hats on Nov 7, 2011 3:49:08 AM:

      I’ve been reading about this topic for one week now for my papers in school and thank God

      I found it here in your blog. I had a great time reading this.

    1. Moncler Canada on Nov 17, 2011 3:06:54 AM:

      the horse dropped dead.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad