• Gay BlogAds

  • Gay News Watch

  • Chris Tweets

  • « Palin and Biden on gay marriage | Main | Roger Ebert on Sarah Palin »

    October 03, 2008

    Evan Wolfson on Biden-Palin

    Posted by: Chris

    As a follow-up to my post last night about the debate exchange between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin on legal recognition for same-sex couples,Evan_wolfson Freedom to Marry founder Evan Wolfson, the most respected voice among gay marriage activists, had this reaction:

    The good news is that Senator Biden expressed his belief that gay and non-gay couples should be treated equally under the law, and committed to support for the incidents of marriage, the legal protections and responsibilities that come with marriage.  The bad news is that he stopped short of supporting actual equality through the freedom to marry itself, the only way to provide the full security, clarity, and protections that marriage alone brings, and failed (as did the moderator) to point out the inconsistencies and falsehoods in Governor Palin's answer.  His comments garbled the distinction between religious rites of marriage, properly left to religions to decide, and the legal right to marry, regulated by the government, which should not discriminate.  Supporters of gay equality should not be using the anti-gay forces' false talking-point (introduced by Governor Palin) that ending gay couples' exclusion from marriage is "redefining" marriage; marriage is not "defined" by who is denied it.

    The good news in Governor Palin's answer was that she felt obliged to go out of her way to proclaim herself "tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves," a position that, if true, raises the question of why the law should then discriminate against those Americans, whether in marriage or other legal mechanisms such as domestic partnership (which she opposed in Alaska and tried to overturn by constitutional amendment).   

    Her assertion of non-judgmental "tolerance" is inconsistent with her chuch's hosting an anti-gay "change through prayer" program that she has refused to repudiate.  And her claim that "not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties" is at odds with Senator McCain's support for anti-gay constitutional amendments such as the one in Arizona that would have impeded legal acknowledgment of gay couples and denied the range of protections, from marriage down to specific legal measures such as partnership recognition, to unmarried couples, gay and non-gay.  McCain's and Palin's actions -- nearly always rejecting pro-gay steps and measures, nearly always supporting anti-gay positions -- is the worst news.

    Overall, then, the bad news is that while one party's positions are immensely better than the others, both candidates failed to support full equality for America's gay families (despite Governor Palin's invocation of "equal rights" as an American value in her closing); the worse news is that the real and immense difference between their actual positions -- one supporting actual movement toward equality and fairness, the other offering bland assurances belied by actual policy positions deepening discrimination -- may have gotten lost. 

    And, to end on a positive, it is good news that yet again we see that the discussion around marriage equality is moving politicians, sincerely or otherwise, to greater acknowledgment of gay families and the wrongness of discrimination against them.  That one presidential ticket is indeed committed to specific legal measures to reduce discrimination and, indeed, tacit support for marriage equality, even if they won't yet embrace or explain it, is perhaps best of all.

    Evan makes a good point about how the draconian Arizona constitutional amendment that McCain supported (and voters rejected) back in 2006 would have blocked the state as well as local governments from adopting even minimal domestic partner protections that would ensure things like hospital visitation.

    Same-sex couples would not have been prohibited from designating each other the authority to make medical decisions and visit each other in hospitals, but most couples either aren't informed or don't expend the time and money necessary to prepare such private legal documents. Even those who do can face resistance from poorly trained medical staff, especially outside major metropolitan areas with large gay populations.

    Basic D.P. protections like these cannot be said to "approach marriage" in the way that Palin says she opposes, although the good governor also indicated no willingness to go "round and round" about what level of second-class citizenship gay couples are actually entitled to.



    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    1. Gee on Oct 3, 2008 3:24:40 PM:

      Not only does Palin fail to support gay marriage - she is very much against it - and is for "supporting" traditional marriage.

      She believes that traditional marriage needs defending. From what? An expansion of those rights?

      How do you defend something by restricting it?

    1. Gee on Oct 3, 2008 3:26:19 PM:

      Nice to know that Palin "tolerates" people born with a different sexual orientation. Very big of her.

      Is this conservatism? You can have it.

    1. Gee on Oct 3, 2008 3:37:24 PM:

      Palin has made it clear - including last night - that she thinks a person's sexual orientation is a choice.

      Why does she think that? Most likely b/c the idea of being homosexual conflicts with her religious beliefs.

      This level of ignorance and denial is unacceptable.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

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