Speaking of the Palin/Biden debate

[dreamshark]

I haven't heard or read a single reaction (pro or con) to Palin's rather surprising comments on gay rights. Biden certainly seemed surprised. When he heard Ifill's question he was obviously primed to make a sharp distinction between the narrow-minded Republican position and the inclusive Democratic one. Palin's response was more than a little muddled, but if you parse it out, it appears that she agrees with the Democratic position:

"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."

Biden came back with "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." Palin looked a little startled ("I said THAT?"). She then tried to reword Ifill's original question so she could emphasize how very MUCH she supports a strict hetero definition of marriage. But Ifill just beamed at them both and said, "Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move on to..." *hee*

So... am I the only person in America that noticed that Sara Palin agrees with the Democratic ticket on gay rights? Is the right wing okay with that?

Comments

[jbru.livejournal.com]

I got out of that exchange that she was trying to be non-committal and non-controversial on the topic, but that she didn't really believe what she was saying.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

So you figure her right-wing fans just said to themselves, "Oh, she didn't really mean that, so no biggie?"

[jbru.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think her supporters were saying to themselves something more along the lines of, "See how she dodged that bullet by the liberal media elite! You go girl!"

[barondave.livejournal.com]

No, they're not okay with that. I think they simply don't believe it. Conservatives bear false witness all the time, but unless they are under oath it's with a wink and a nod (in this case literally) and when they get in power they just do something quite different than what they promised.

Also, "the right wing" is becoming increasingly desperate and the empty barrels are making the most noise, but it's not as monolithic as you're making out. The Sphincter Conservative right wing (who would object even to civil unions) is not the same as the Tax-Dodging Gun-Nut right wing (who don't care about this issue at all).

Did you notice how flat and unconvincing Palin was when saying this set-piece? She looked very uncomfortable.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, but I thought she looked shifty and uncomfortable throughout the debate. (Apparently that's not what her supporters saw at all.)

I just think it's odd that this exchange isn't even being discussed, by either party.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

The gay vote has already been counted and the conservatives have other fish to fry.

K.

Obama

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

You are saying that Obama hasn't inspired us like Obama has?

Nate

[barondave.livejournal.com]

To reply to your comment above, yeah, everyone knows she didn't mean it.

But you're right, this was a major shift in right-wing punditry, and it's hardly getting play. Maybe even the pundits don't believe it.

I find it fascinating that the Biden/Palin debate was a game changer... for Obama/Biden. Despite (or perhaps because of) the asinine discussion afterward, almost everyone came away from the debate with a greater admiration for Biden and utterly convinced that Palin was the wrong choice for McCain. McCain is trying to shake off his ties to the Washington establishment under the Bush administration, and all his did was pick Harriet Miers again.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

To be fair, Biden was also talking about the Federal government. That's the office they're running for. Still, the bully pulpit is important and when adults are in the White House the culture trickles down.

Gay rights

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

I heard what you heard from Palin. I did, though, note her as being so uncomfortable and "on edge" with what she herself was saying that I would expect her to go back on her so-called word if she were ever in a place where her opinions would make a difference. (I suspect somebody out there would have a clear picture of how gay rights were doing in Alaska, may still be doing, with Palin as governor. Did she have a chance to veto a gay rights bill at some point, but not do so? Or did the question simply never come up? Or what?)

Nate

Re: Gay rights

[pameladean]

The question did come up, but she was advised that discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation was unconstitional in Alaska, so she didn't. I forget if she vetoed or didn't veto a bill, or simply stopped pushing for one, but the question did come up and she ended up on the decent side of the issue, for practical reasons and possibly, it's unclear, for others too.

I'd look it up, but Sarah Palin gets up my nose and I don't want to read about her right now.

P.

Re: Gay rights

[pameladean]

Agh! UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Sorry.

P.

Re: Gay rights

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

I think the only problem with spelling was that you weren't wearing your tutu.

Nate

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Not sure if I count as right wing, but I'm in favor of a Constitutional amendment requiring that states -- and subordinate governments, but not other entities -- recognizing same sex and multi-party marriages.

I'm definitely not unique in this, among my rightish friends.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure that you are not Sarah Palin's target audience.

Are you thrilled to have her on the ticket because she represents your belief system? Are you secretly hoping that McCain really IS as old as he looks and will conveniently expire in office so she can ascend to the presidency? When she talks about "Joe Six Pack" does your heart thrill with the recognition that she is talking about YOU? Alternatively, do you think of yourself as a "hockey Mom?"

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[quadong.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I understand the whole idea here. Are there ever any other entities in this country that are required to recognize any marriage?

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

I'd take a look at what's in the Republican platform regarding marriage. Not sure if I can explain this well, but I really don't care what candidates say, but what their party says they ought to do.

Please encourage me to make more sense.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

I'm certainly not encouraging you to vote Republican just because Sarah Palin didn't give a shout out to Reverend GodHatesFags. The Republican Party is not your friend.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Oh no, I wouldn't vote Republican in this election, and I'd agree with you that the party isn't my friend--however that could have been said about the Democrats not too long ago.

Also, what I meant to be saying was that what the candidates say isn't all that important, it's the platform that they're running under that's important. I've taken a look at their platform re: marriage, and I say the hell with 'em. (Remember that posting I had during the convention where I told 'em all to get the fuck out of my town?)

I will say that I've voted for a Republican gubernatorial candidate.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

I don't think there is anything binding about a party platform.

[jiawen]

Did you hear how she said "tolerate", and then more or less used the "But I have friends who are gay!" defense? Tina Fey nailed it in the SNL version of the debate. "I tolerate them with all my heart."

And as for appointing decent judges, ones who would help GLBT rights rather than hurt them, I have little doubt who'd be better. (Gay marriage ain't the biggest GLBT issue, really.)

Why Palin didn't use the opportunity to reach out to her conservative Christian "base", I don't know. Maybe the tide has finally turned.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

"And as for appointing decent judges, ones who would help GLBT rights rather than hurt them, I have little doubt who'd be better."

Well, yeah, of course.

"Why Palin didn't use the opportunity to reach out to her conservative Christian "base", I don't know. Maybe the tide has finally turned."

That was my point. I'm not sure "the tide has turned" exactly, but maybe, just maybe, all those people who have been convinced for years that the biggest threat facing our country today is Gay Marriage (gasp) have started to realize that there might actually be some real problems to worry about.

Richard and I watched the Tina Fey version of the debate last night and just about died laughing.

[jiawen]

Possibly they're realized there are bigger problems, but then, as davidwilford posted, Palin's not worrying too much about scapegoating the media or about allowing her supporters to use racial epithets.

Part of it may have been how Biden phrased it: clearly, and in a way that's hard to argue with. He stole her thunder, leaving only blunder.

I think she's also using a fair amount of code language to appeal to neocons and Christian fascists without being upfront about it. "Tolerate" being the big example here.

[hunnythistle.livejournal.com]

My parents, who are firmly in the religious right camp, have absolutely no problem with what Palin said about tolerance -- they would agree with the statements she made. My parents are decent, Christian, charitable folk. Heck if their neighbors were a gay couple, and one was in the hospital, my Mom would bake a casserole for them, and my Dad would give them rides back and forth to the hospital and cut their lawn for them. Because that's what good neighbors do.

My parents wouldn't have a problem if the couple owned the house together, or had insurance together, or any number of other legal contracts.

BUT -- my parents absolutely oppose gay marriage, even civil unions. They oppose gay couples having children, teaching in public schools. Homosexuals, like alcoholics, are in need of help -- medical and pyschological. They don't want alcoholics or drug addicts teaching in schools, either. Or adopting children.

It's this whole grey area; sins that shouldn't result in jail time, but shouldn't be condoned by society either. And yes, they feel this way about pre-marital and extra marital sex, gambling, drugs, alcohol etc.

So TOLERATE = love the sinner, hate the sin. They object to gay marriage sulling the "sanctity of marriage". Marriage is this ideal, this superior relationship. To them it has all of these spiritual qualities; it's about their relationship to each other, and to God. Thus it is absolutely incompatible with homosexuality, which by Biblical definition is a SIN, an abomination and perversion of God's will. "Civil Unions" are suspect-- as they're really marriage by another name... Nevermind that civil unions are supposed to represent the marriage part stripped of the spiritual component; doesn't compute in their worldview.

But all the perks that married couples enjoy -- inheritance rights, power of attorney, joint insurance, property ownership, all of that -- my parents don't have a problem with gay couples having those kind of contracts.

They also have absolutely no idea how hard it is to get all those perks w/o the blanket coverage of marriage, and how easy it is for those who are married.

The spiritual dimension to marriage baffles the secularly minded, since this component doesn't even exist in marriages amongst those not religious. To Biden, and most liberals, what Palin said about gays and legal contracts contradicts the party platform against gay civil unions and gay rights. But not to the religious conservatives -- they get the distinction, and Palin's comments about supporting a hetero definition of marriage reassure them if they ever had doubt.

And yes, my parents love Palin... .