It’s “Wonderful” - Biden and Palin “Agree”
(UPDATING MY HEADLINE — I will likely tweak it a few more times)
I normally watch each debate (as I did with each convention speech, for that matter) about 3 - 4 times before the night is over when I am working the late shift for C-SPAN.
But, while watching/working the Vice Presidential Debates on Thursday night, something that both candidates — and even the moderator — said caused me to really take pause.
I spun around in my chair.
I dropped what I was doing.
And I sat and listened to this (this whole segment is upsetting on many levels, but it is especially the last line that is most disappointing and I will tell you why):
Catalyzed by the question posed by the moderator
(PBS’ Gwen Ifill): “Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?”
Sen. Joe Biden answers: “Absolutely….”
Ms. Ifill then tweaks the question for Gov Sarah Palin:
“Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?”
To which Gov. Palin answers: “Well, not if it gets closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition between one man and one woman; and unfortunately, that’s sometimes where those steps lead.”
PAUSE.
I want to establish these five points before moving on:
Ifill takes the cautious and yet bold steps to get at the heart of the matter: should gay marriage be allowed.
Biden avoids the issue by focusing on the Obama/Biden support of benefits.
Palin knows where Ifill is going with the question and takes it head on (got to give her credit). I couldn’t disagree with her answer more, but credit for taking on the real issue.
Benefits = not the issue.
Equality, i.e., being seen as equal in the eyes of the law and our entire society = the issue.
UNPAUSE.
So, we have Biden ‘getting out of’ taking on the issue in the first round and Palin using moral language to equate the expansion of same-sex benefits to a “slippery slope” of “vice” (her tone and use of the word “unfortunately” are at once patronizing and revealing). Listen closely to what Palin says. She, in just a few lines, makes it clear that (1) she is “you know, tolerant” and that it is ‘ok’ for gay people to “chose relationships” — not going to problematize the choice/nature argument here, but note that I do take issue with her trivialization here AND (2) is ‘not ok’ to define marriage as anything but that which is “between one man and one woman.”
I ask you Gov. Palin: How is this tolerant? How do your words teach the next generation acceptance when you stop so obviously short of full personhood? It is unacceptable. (FWIW: I have written at length what is at stake in previous posts and unpublished writings.)
And don’t think I am letting you, Sen. Biden, get away so fast. In another previous post, I related that I had not done my homework yet on your stance here. Well, tonight, you sort of made my job easy. You said it all. In fact, you, Sen. Biden, and your running mate, Sen. Barak Obama, are shying away from the opportunity to give real Hope and enact real Change. Those are your monikers and mantras, are they not?
You avoid the real issue of equality in exchange for more moderate political stripes and, ergo, more votes. I get the sense that you might actually support gay marriage on the federal level if you were not under such political pressures (or at least, it is my hope that the supposedly liberal, tolerant and progressive party that is the Democratic Party stands for such equality). Then again, maybe not.
And while Gov. Palin’s morally-charged sentiments that hearken back to the vice-police days bounce around the emptiness that is Sen. Biden’s half-stance, stance I learned all I needed to know about both in these final sentences from all three folks on the stage and many in the audience:
Ms. Ifill: “Do you support gay marriage?”
Sen. Biden: “No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. […]”
What about what the “civil side of things” said about the rights of African Americans prior to Brown v. Board of Education?
What about what the “civil side of things” said about a woman’s right to vote before the 19th Amendment?
What about what the “civil side of things” said about a woman’s right to chose before Roe v. Wade?
To Sen. Biden, I say this: The “civil side of things” has been wrong in our legal system and in our cultural landscape before and it is wrong here again. That you do not (1) see that, (2) agree with that and (3) do anything to see that this is righted has me question your intentions, principles and definition of equality.
Ms. Ifill then turns to Gov. Palin: “Is that what you said?”
Gov. 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.”
Ms. Ifill: “Wonderful, you agree. On that note, let’s move on to foreign policy.” (Laughter.)
To the candidates: You already know what I think of how you both approach this issue, but to review…
Palin: You are thinking in a single-minded view of marriage and dangerously evoke a very morally righteous “vice” tone when you allude to what [sounds to me like you are saying] ‘evils’ may ‘lurk’ around the bend of equality.
Biden: You fall short of a true progressive. You pander to the middle.
To Ms. Ifill I say this: There is nothing “wonderful” about their agreement. That they both agree about something that keeps a population of people in a second-class rank-and-file in this country is so far from wonderful, I would venture to pull out words like ‘despicable.’
To the audience I say this: You laugh uncomfortably. You laugh like you did in middle school. You laugh becuase you want to get on to the more ‘important’ issues like foreign policy and the economy. And while I do not for a second think these are unimportant, I do want to make a distinction of my use important here: the economy and foreign policy are not important in the way that impacts the very being, the mental/emotional health of an entire population of people.
While it can be argued that financial crises and violence abroad rock the very core/health of millions, it is an external set of issues that come to bear on these individuals.
Who you are, who you love, how you live… those are fundamental, internal and psychological issues. To not address the systemic, systematic, perpetuated and pervasive discrimination in this country on these internal levels as we do in the cases where there are external issues, while instead uncomfortably laugh it off because, as Ms. Ifill noted, it was a “wonderful” thing that both candidates “agree” — well thank God, we can [superficially] move on — is truly sad.
But we can’t move on.
And we shouldn’t.
Separate has not and will never be equal when it comes to legal, civil, moral and cultural laws and/or norms.
I have more thinking to do on this, but had to make sure to post about this before I went to bed. Thank you. -L.
Comments:
15 Responses for "It’s “Wonderful” - Biden and Palin “Agree”"
ArunOctober 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 am
Brava, Leslie. Brava.
If I weren’t so tired and softened by my friend Johnnie Walker I’d write more.
Brava.
Good night.
SiskitaOctober 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I thought this moment in the debate was strange. I knew that Palin gave her answer because she doesn’t believe in homosexuality (she thinks someone “chooses” to be gay), and I thought Biden hedged his comments to be in favor of conservative Democrats - he pussied out in order not to scare him away.
Your comment about this being a “separate but equal” issue is extremely important and telling. So, a gay couple can call themselves, well, “Benefit Partners” but not “Marriage Partners”? But an atheist heterosexual couple who has nothing of faith to define themselves can be “Married”? This is not an issue of faith or tradition, but a direct avoidance to accept the choice of two same-sex adults to live, love, and benefit together.
ScoopgirlOctober 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Nicely parsed, Leslie!
PunditMomOctober 3rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Excellent post and analysis. I don’t need Palin’s brand of “tolerance.”
Sandra FoytOctober 3rd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Yes, I was struck by the way Palin argued that she is tolerant because she has a diverse set of friends.
Thanks for putting more thought into exactly what was missing from both candidates’ response to this human rights question.
Frankly, during the debate, I was one of those viewers focusing on foreign policy issues.
Bush MackelOctober 3rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I’m glad someone out there cares enough to say something. Frankly I believe that gay marriage is one of the biggest issues facing us today and for the reasons you plainly outlined here, I think it is UNBELIEVABLE that the group has been so disrespected like we’ve done to lots of other groups in our country’s past, and no one seems to care at all.
JillOctober 3rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Wow. I do not ever want to be on the wrong side of an issue we’re discussing. Great post.
BryanOctober 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Great writing, Leslie.
You’re right about Palin: there was venom in her voice when she made that unfortunate “unfortunately” comment– her disgust was apparent and that was in itself disgusting.
I’m not entirely sure what to make of Ifill’s words– but my impression was that she was being sardonic. As in, “you both agree that it’s best to use euphemisms when addressing a hot-button issue in such a public forum– gee, isn’t that peachy.”
Euphemisms notwithstanding: it’s pretty clear to me that the Obama/Biden ticket is on one side of this issue and the McCain/Palin ticket is on the other.
And I agree with you that it’s disappointing that the campaign on the side we deem correct still elects to play wordgames. I don’t know who coined the term that “politics is the art of the possible.”
My thought is that A-list politicians have always played wordgames with hot-button issues, and always will– so the challenge is to impact the culture to a critical point, whereafter the internal pollsters can assure their candidates that the majority is ready to hear them say what is true.
Art Llindsey IIIOctober 6th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I have to be honest here.
Unless I’m misinterpreting something, You use a phase in or concept in regard to gay marriage which I have seen more than once if I am not mistaken, and it’s a phrase I find disturbing:
Your contention that that somehow being against gay marriage denies someone the right to “full personhood”, whatever that means.
Last time I looked, we aren’t counting them as 3/5 of a person or anything of the sort. We also do not use them for forced labor.
One must be able to differentiate societal and systematic norms as opposed to personhood. Social norms are granted by a consensus of the people, and “personhood” as you so call it, is granted by God:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Now, again, unless I completely misunderstand your position, I’m imagining you would say that not allowing gay marriage is denying the happiness of some. Well, happiness is what you make it, and we only have the right to pursue. It is not a guarantee.
Furthermore, on the issue of personhood:
Being disabled, I have dealt with discrimination from time to time. however, I am aware there are certain things I cannot do because of my condition. For instance, as much as I would like to, I cannot join the military. I do not have the physical capability to pass basic training and serve. It does pain me to a degree, but I completely understand why. There is a norm and a standard that must be maintained for the common good. With that in mind, just because I cannot enter into a service contract with the federal government, It does not diminish my “personhood” in any way. Please remember that. It is a fundamental point that you must grasp.
As I am sure you have gathered by now, I am against gay marriage. It has nothing to do with intolerance. It has everything to do with our social fabric. and to a degree, our economic efficiency. I’m sure some people will see me as a hatemonger as I outline this, but, there is nothing I can do about that.
While I do not have any issues with the sexual activities of a given individual, I do not believe that same sex couples should be granted the beneficiary-driven privileges of the traditional family structure, with the one exception of hospital visitation rights. When you care about someone, you should be able to visit he or she when they are ill. I get that, and I fully agree.
For instance, if we are discussing a same sex couple in which both parties are able bodied, there is absolutely no reason why both parties cannot obtain their own insurance policies via direct purchase or through employment. There is no legitimate reason why two able bodied adult partners cannot provide their own means. Failure to adhere to such a policy could easily result in fraud. Do not dismiss this argument. In doing so, you would dismiss the demons of our nature. While some or more honorable than others, it still remains a definite possibility. I’m moving in with a friend in a week. He has better insurance than I. Since I doubt the regulators will pop in to see if we are having sex, should I enter into a bogus social contract to sponge off him?
Also, in the case of one person becoming incapacitated and requiring another to make decisions, That’s what a power of attorney is for, which can be entered into by any two parties, sexual preference not withstanding.
In my view the reason the same beneficiary privileges are not offered to same sex couples is very simple:
No possibility of procreation.
No one will be making babies, so again, there is no reason for both parties not to obtain their own benefits. One may argue the possibility of adoption, which I personally would also address in the following way, and it leans more toward our social fabric.
I am a strong opponent of gay adoption for a very simple reason, and forgive me for being crass, but this is a point I really want to drive home:
The Male-female mother/father dynamic is of the utmost importance. A “butch/bitch” dynamic should in no way be considered an acceptable substitute. Despite many “progressive” views promoting the contrary, men and women are fundamentally different in a multitude of ways. These differences should be embraced, not glossed over as mere incidental occurrence. I firmly believe the genuine mother-father dynamic is paramount to the proper development of the fragile adolescent mind.
We have already begun to unravel with reports of “Parent A” and “Parent B” in some textbooks. This is the fork of a very scary road. By our nature, we humans have a tendency to lose control of our desires and take a mile when we are given an inch. We must pay attention to this. It will start with the discard of “mom” and “dad” and will snowball from there. Eventually, if we allow same sex marriage, it really is only a matter of time before people start demanding multiple spouses, be the relationships homosexual or otherwise. “I love man(en)/woman(en)/animal(s)/object(s). Why cant we marry? So and so over there did.” This is not fear-mongering on my part. Laugh if you want, but this is what people do. I wouldn’t be immediate by any means, but it would happen, and it’s an unraveling of society we cannot afford. A society without rules is not a society at all, and failure to recognize that would infer that America is nothing more than a happenstance accident. I refuse to believe that.
I ask you, if anyone would have brought up the concept of same sex marriage 50 years ago, how long would it take for that person to be dismissed out of hand as crazy? Well, it’s a legitimate issue now, isn’t it?
Trust me. It’s a bad idea. The politicians also know this. That’s why they dodge it. Not only for the moral and social implications, but because it is a no-win. It is an issue that can never truly be solved to the satisfaction of an overwhelming majority, and there is nothing to be truly gained from it, especially in the long term. While I admire your passion, it is a passionate battle which leads to nowhere.
Robert S.October 7th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Well said, Leslie. I don’t need Palin’s velvet-gloved bigotry parading as “tolerance,” but I was also disappointed with Biden’s mealy-mouthed response. He and Obama may both agree privately that marriage should be a non-issue and a human right, but neither of them has the guts to say it out loud.
Not a Full PersonOctober 7th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I guess I’m being denied “full personhood” since I’m a single woman.
Sally KuhlmanOctober 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Thanks for this post Leslie. I have to say while watching the debates at that moment my heart sank. I expected Palin’s answer and yes the word “tolerate” is hurtful but I was prepared for those kind of words coming from her but I was not prepared for what Biden said. Like you, I have to think on it awhile.
This cartoon by Tom Tomorrow sums up my thoughts right now: http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/tomo/2004/03/01/tomo/index.html
LeslieOctober 7th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
@Arun, @Siskita, @Scoopgirl, @PunditMom, @Sandra Foyt, @Bush Mackel, @Bryan, @Art, @Robert, @Terry and @Sally:
Thank you all for stopping by and for the support. I would love to continue this dialog through the election, so please feel free to email me (leslieann44@gmail.com), blog on the topic, tweet using #gaymarriage and/or comment further below or on subsequent posts.
A few of you raise some points I want to make sure to address.
@Art — I am glad you stopped by to post your thoughts. I have always enjoyed our interactions. I also respect your vantage point as someone who has lived with a disability, however, I completely reject the idea that being gay is a disability that justifies systematic and systemic legal and social discrimination. As I shared with you, I would love to get on the phone and discuss some of this further, perhaps when things slow down with the debates. Until then, a few things that I cannot let stand as accurate. First and foremost, marriage is not a procreation-only union. Now and in the past, marriage has been a union as cold as the economic (kinship and dependency), and as warm, poetic and beautiful as love (passionate/”agape” and familial/”phileo”). What’s more, there are many heterosexual couples who have either (1) chosen not to have kids or (2) cannot have kids due to biological complications. And, taking it a step further, there are plenty of ways that same sex couples can seek to have surrogate donations of either sperm or womb carriage. I won’t even go into the problems that heterosexual couples currently face in terms of the divorce rate (and adultery rate), but let it be said: on the whole, this population of people is by no means and should be by no means the “ideal paradigm” for how to manage a committed partnership and family.
But that in fact muddles the point, so let me bring it back to substance, not sex. The “ideal paradigm” of marriage should be based on values of things like commitment, respect, support and family (you will find this concept and/or these words in virtually every wedding ceremony, religious and otherwise) – marriage should NOT be based on the concept of same sex/opposite sex distinctions (this is neither a primary nor secondary point made in a ceremony; the use of the nouns man and woman should not be seen as anything more than that: it is a use of nouns. The basic premise of marriage and the commitment that it takes, however, should be front-and-center).
Lastly, the judgment is not yours to make whether two people who are committed wants to adopt, sorry. I completely rebut any statement that says someone is “disqualified” from being married or having children because of any of your arguments that point to the “they are not procreating” and/or “they are disabled.” They just don’t hold up.
Final thought: It is less about securing the “marriage” or “adoption” thing in and of themselves, it is securing the rights and respect of full personhood. Why I am advocating for marriage is because it is the highest form of legal and social rights and respect a couple can receive. Anything short of it is still less than 1. So yes, my 3/5 argument absolutely makes sense.
@Terry (aka: “Not A Full Person”)
Hi there, good to meet you and thanks for stopping by. My use of “Full Personhood” is meant to reflect having the full rights and respect from the society and legal system under which one lives. If you feel you do not have that as a single woman, I would like to hear more about your experiences. As a single female, I would say you absolutely posses them; however, I would conjecture that you — like me, as I am neither married nor with child — might even receive discrimination as a single woman the older you get for not being “married” (and not having a child, if that is the case).
You can begin to see the interplay of legal and social norms and how they impact the kind of rights and respect you receive.
JohnOctober 9th, 2008 at 5:34 am14
I like Mrs. Palin because she seems to relate with a lot of people who come from rural areas. She seems to be our candidate, our voice.
I was reading your post and then remembered what I had heard on an Oregon broadcast of Lars Larson (not his national show). he said and this is some what paraphrasing, the state should stay out of the issue of marriage because in many religions that is a sacred thing between a man and a woman (some religions now say it can be between the same sex), but the state should stay out of the marriage business but should issue civil unions to everyone (man and woman couples and same sex couples). This will give the legal rights to all couples but will keep religion the way their patrons practice it… in theory it sounds good but would it actually make both sides of the issue happy?
Just thought I would give you a rural view of this situation…
C-SPAN Debate Hubs: Blog Heaven (Still!)October 15th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
[…] A: Yes and yes! We are also on YouTube, should you prefer that platform (though, you can’t do your own editing, which I have personally found useful) […]
Author’s notes:
Originally posted on my WordPress blog, It’s “Wonderful” - Biden and Palin “Agree” [October 3, 2008]
This post was my most commented-on post in the history of my WordPress blog.
