Same Sex Marriages and GLBT Rights

I was watching the VP Debate the other night and I was very excited when Gwen Ifill brought up the subject of granting rights to same-sex couples. I was thrilled when Senator Biden gave this answer.

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.

Even Governor Palin gave a fairly palatable answer, saying that while she did not support same-sex marriages she was tolerant of adults choosing whomever they want for a partner.

But then this happened:

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.

And I felt sick.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

What is the problem with an adult marrying another consenting adult? Who cares what gender they are?

I have hear argument after argument about how allowing gay couples civil unions that were exactly the same is fair but I disagree.

How is separate but equal fair? Wasn't this level of segregation covered in Brown v. Board of Education? Why shouldn't same-sex couple be allowed to have a marriage license?

Don't even get me started on the "straight people can have a religious ceremony and gay people can be joined by law and not in the church" because I have been to same-sex commitment ceremonies in churches, wedding that were witnessed by family and friends in the eyes of God, and I have male/female friends that had a civil ceremony performed by a judge in a courthouse witnessed by a notary public and somehow the former doesn't count in the eyes of the law and the latter is a marriage.

I feel like some straight people somehow feel their own marriage in marginalized by same-sex marriages but I can't understand it. How could two people who are committed to each other have any affect on you? If you want to know what gives nuptials that no-so-fresh scent I would point you to Britney Spears and Jason Alexander and their 55 hour wedlock. I've had dates that have lasted longer than that. Hell,  I've had hangovers that have lasted longer than 55 hours.

You can accuse me of being a bed-wetting abortion-promoting pothead (I'm not really a bed-wetter or a pothead, I just got that phrase from the random Liberal Insult Generator.) but I believe with all of my being that it doesn't matter who you want to marry as long as they are an adult that is capable of making decisions for themselves. Two consenting adults should be allowed to get married. Period.

If this country insists on separating the two into marriages and civil unions then I want to trade in my marriage for the civil union. I don't feel that my vows to my husband have anything to do with God.

Hopefully soon (and I'd like to believe that it is generational and in 10 years we won't even need to have this discussion) Americans will get their heads out of their asses and understand that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman. If it is the whole Bible thing that is bugging you, take a few minutes to research how many times that particular document has been re-translated to fit the views of the parties in power at the time and how much of the book you have on your shelf matches up with what Moses brought down from Mount Sinai. In the meantime I'll be over here drinking out of the colored water fountain.

Comments

[ndc]

Love seeing politics on mamapop to balance out the mind numbing stupidity of Hollywood! great post, thanks.

[kdiddy]

I was also very disappointed by Biden's answer. I have to believe that that is purely tactical, something to placate the accusations of being "too liberal" being hurled toward the Dems, because it just seems so silly in this day and age to honestly believe that two consenting adults marrying each other and having that union recognized by the federal government will somehow spell doom for the U.S. I just don't think they honestly believe that. But these are lives, not tactics, that we're talking about and I really wish civil rights weren't something to be batted about to further their careers.

[Amy H]

I think Biden spelled out what was in the constitution without saying flat out that it doesn't make sense to ban gay marriage. I think at this point in the campaign they have to walk right up to the line without crossing it or the far right will pounce. I believe with the potential for 3 seats to open up in the supreme court that we will see a very different result on gay marriage if we have an Obama white house compared to a McCain one.

[Sils]

I don't think that the law should be defining marriages at all, actually.

I think that legally we should all be entering into contracts with one another -- even heterosexual couples should consider "marriage" under law as a legal contract.

Let religious organizations keep the word "marriage" if it's so important to them. The government has no place in spiritual unions anyway.

[Karen]

Sils said exactly what I was going to say. So I don't have to expend the effort. Woot!

[kellyarnold]

Been reading for a while...first comment.

I use Brit's first marriage as an agrument too! Totally agree, but then I am just another "sanctimonious sushi-eating demoncrats." (That generator is fun!)

[kellyarnold]

PS...I was married in Massachusetts in a civil ceremony, and I applied for a "Marriage License". If that is what the government calls them, then everyone is entitled. Period.

[Kim S.]

Thanks for addressing this. I, too, was disappointed in him. Besides having to listen to her "Joe Sixpack" talk, it was the low point of the debate for me.

[Beth in IA]

In total agreement with SILS. Any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, should be able to apply for a "union" license, or basically a contract spelling out legal rights and ramifications. Period. And the same rights should extend to all common law "unions."

The current system must absolutely be modernized and consistent among states.

That's all my government needs to be concerned with when it comes to my love life.

[Amy]

My stomach also sank during this exchange in the debate, and I was also disappointed that it didn't garner more discussion. I did note the visible relief from Palin when the discussion was moved on to other topics. I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that the Democrats have note made a stronger stand on this issue. I am very fortunate to live in a "gay marriage state" (MA), but it would be nice to live in a "gay marriage country" so I could someday consider the possibility of *gasp!* moving my homo ass to another state and STILL BEING MARRIED when I get there. The issue is not about civil vs. religious definitions and all that other BS. I filled out the same paperwork as any other engaged couple, and I have a marriage certificate, and I was married by a minister, in a church, in a white wedding dress. I have a life, a history, a mortgage, a kid, several (now worthless) investments, insurance policies, etc... etc... with my wife. I'm so glad that regardless of who gets elected president, I'll be able to visit her in the hospital. What a relief!

[jodifur]

The democrats need to grow some balls and come out in favor of gay marriage. The fact that homosexuals can not get married is one of the greatest injustices of our society today. I'm sick to death of the nuances of "civil unions." It's one thing if a clergy won't marry someone, some catholic priests won't marry a catholic and a non catholic and some rabbis won't marry a jew and a non jew. But, it is not the Government's business who marries who. I find it odd that Republicans are all about small government until it comes to your body and marriage. Then they are all over it.

[lolismum]

" I find it odd that Republicans are all about small government until it comes to your body and marriage. Then they are all over it."
Couldn't agree more Jodifur. I also find it odd that Palin says, "People want the government out of the way so they can prosper". Ummm, you are a governor, your salary is paid by taxes, you are running for a higher office with more power to intervene in people's lives? You know Palin, some of us would actually like it if you, personally, did move over.

[Gettingmarriedsoon]

I am pregnant AND getting ready to get married ...we were just going to do a quicky thing at the town hall (because these huge weddings kind of freak me out) with the justice of the peace (we live in PA) but if I can, I would rather have a civil union than a marriage...can a man and a woman do that? If so how would I go about doing that in PA, anyone know?

[Diane]

I look at it how Sils does (I think! Correct me if I'm wrong.) The government has no business getting involved in religious matters. If marriage, as far as government is concerned, is a "civil union", for ALL couples, that takes the religion out of the equation. The religious folks who oppose gay marriage simply cannot complain to the government about who can have a civil union in that case, because it involves them NOT at all. I think, then, that every church should be allowed to decide who it will marry. They already do that anyway, and it is their right. The church can deal with marriages and the government can deal with the paperwork/insurance/legality of it all.

I don't support anything that would say the government recognizes heterosexual couples as "married" and homosexual couples as "unioned" or whatever it would be called. What Biden was saying was that it will be applied to everyone, no matter what sexes make up the couple in question. Is it semantics? Absolutely. But I don't think it's discriminatory. I think it's actually quite the opposite.

[dktm]

Biden's response was in line with his stance that religion and government should be completely separate (and I love him for it). The government should not have any part in marriage - straight, gay, or otherwise. I would be in support of all government marriage licenses being redefined as civil unions. Let the two entities co-exist, each serving their purpose in their own way. Civil unions for all, and if your church supports gay marriage, you can do that too, . It should not be up to the government to grant or deny such a union. Civil union is not an ugly word, it's a bureaucratic word, and the proper one if you ask me.

[Sue @ My Party of 6]

Sigh. Would YOU run for President, please? (Very well said.) Now I'm off to check out that Random Liberal Insult Generator! Is there one for conservatives?

[Papa Bradstein]

Amen.

[The Queen of Hyperbole]

Right on, Jodifur. I don't get Republican logic, either, given their mixed messages about small government. I can only assume that they want small government for themselves and big-ass government for everyone else. It's perplexing.

And also: Why does anyone give a shit about how others define their interpersonal relationships? Do married homosexuals somehow threaten married heterosexuals? And if so, how?

[ivymae]

Love this discussion. What do you think would happen if all of us straights walked into our state offices and demanded Civil Unions? Are they available in all states? Is there a "I'm Gay!!!!" box to check? If the assertion that something is not fair comes from the opposite side of the argument (I want a civil union but can't get it because I'm straight!) do you think it would further the cause?

[BaltimoreGal]

ALL marriages should be redefined as civil unions. And religious marriages should be considered just that. Legal for the law, religion for religion. Let's move on.
As far as the Biden thing, I was not surprised. Saddened, but not surprised. Unfortunately, they cannot afford that strike against them.

[Marti]

Well said!
*standing up and applauding*

[veronica]

So happy to hear I'm not the only one who had their heart sink at that moment. I fully agree - let the church deal with their issues and let anyone who wants to be "joined" do so as long as they are two consenting adults. Heck, I could even care less if it was 3 or 4 people involved as long as they were all consenting adults.

But what do I know - I'm just one of those "politically correct Code Pink-worshipping tree huggers " (love the insult generator!)

[James Hipps]

I knew there would be a lot of criticism from a select few in the GLBT community, and those who support it because they are upset that Biden said he is not “for” gay marriage. What I want to know, what do you really expect. If you look back, this “issue” is not near as prominent at is was in the last election, and that my friends, is called progress.

For any candidate to openly endorse gay marriage would be political suicide at this point. We do not need a martyr, we need change. The fact is, McCain and Palin want to take away any rights we may have. Obama and Biden will strengthen our community. If you believe for one second the republicans will stand up for our community, you are sadly mistaken. We need to keep in mind that Rome wasn’t built in a day, and unfortunately, as race and sexism is playing a large roll in this election, we need to support the candidate who will move us forward, and not backwards. That candidate is Barack Obama. Don’t let your idealistic views of an American gay utopia cloud your vision. Bottom line, for the GLBT community, McCain bad, Obama good!

I would also like to say our rights are OUR responsibility. We can’t just sit back and expect they will be handed to us on a silver platter. For those of you who want to complain, what have you done to help our cause? How many letters have you written to your state legislators? How many pride events have you attended? How many elections have you voted in? How much time and effort have you spent trying to help our community gain equal rights? Do you get what I’m saying? Again, our rights, our responsibility. If we can’t gain acceptance through our own efforts at the state and local levels, then why should we place unfair expectations upon one or two people? Get off your butts and work for what you want.

[Stimey]

Sing it, sister. I had the exact same response to those questions at the debate. It makes absolutely no sense.

[Jenn]

A-fucking-MEN!