Palin and "tolerating" gays

Maybride2

What exactly did she mean by that?  When asked if she supported civil rights for gay couples, she said that while she tolerated gays, she did not support civil rights for gay couples.

Huh?  So, does this mean that as President she'd let gays continue living in the US, rather than round them all up and ship them off to some deserted island like lepers or something?

I guess I just don't quite understand how the word "tolerate" works in reference to the question asked of her.

august06mom

Unfortunately, there's a portion of Palin's base that would like to round them up and ship them off.

Uwish

Link please.  I need a transcript or something with this exact quote.  While I watched the debate, I don't recall this exact quote. 

kjlrs

actually Palin said that she supported basically everything other than gay marriage. she tolerates gays and supports rights like being able to sign contracts together, visitation in hospitals, etc, etc, etc. i don't recall anything about her not supporting civil rights?

eclaires

I don't know, but I'm infinitely more bitter about the fact that Biden said he and Obama are against gay marriage.  I expect that sort of crappy sentiment from the Republicans, but I hate that the Democrats pander to the crazies on that issue too.

Honestly, Obama/Biden maybe could get my vote if they were more socially liberal on that issue because I've come to the point where I think it doesn't matter who wins, I'll probably hate them all equally.  At least if I felt like I wholeheartedly supported a candidate on something, I'd feel less bitter.

momma2alex

I cringed when she said "tolerate" people who are gay, I don't understand why she would have to "tolerate" a group of people.  I don't think they prepped her on that term, I think that was all-Palin's doing

kjlrs

PS. i will agree that it's sad that she uses the word "tolerate". i tolerate mosquitos and other annoying things.

sparky88

This is the one thing that Palin and Biden agreed upon in the debate.  They worded it differently, but both agreed that the definition of marriage as 'one man and one woman' should not be changed.  Rights, and other provisions could be granted in different ways, perhaps.  That's the way I understood it, anyways. 

august06mom

Ditto eclaires. After what happened to John Kerry, I'm not surprised Obama won't directly support gay marriage, but it makes me unhappy still. I expected better of him.

Uwish

eclaires:  Biden is afraid to lose that Catholic vote.  He CAN'T be for gay marriage.

eclaires

You're probably right; it still makes me groan though.

mattslady

Eclaires, happy to see that we agree on this one political stance!  I'm also dissapointed that Obama/Biden won't man up about this. 

Maybride2

I agree eclaires, I did groan when Biden answered that and Obama he did not support gay marriage. 

Yes, Palin did backpeddle and say that she supported visitation and property contracts for gay couples, but only after she first answered "no" to the question and went on to say that she "tolerated" gays.

Dazz~

https://www.debates.org/pages/trans2008b.html


Transcript of the debate from last night.

belle204

Uwish--https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/index.html

 

IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Sen. Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?

BIDEN: 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.

IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?

PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead.

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.

But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.

But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

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.

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.

IFILL: Is that what your said?

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.

IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.

belle204

Sorry Dazz. I was taking too long. But I did c&p for those not wanting to scroll through everything.

eclaires

Going into every election, I know I'm going to have to make a choice that I don't love, because the Republicans INSIST on pandering to the religious right.

I just wish someone would stand up for it without saying marriage is between a man and a woman.  Marriage is a contract, and that's all it should be at the government level.  If your religion is anti-gay marriage, that's fine, whatever, I don't care.  But why are we adding a religious element to a contract that provides rights under the government?  WHY WHY WHY.

And I'm totally serious... if Obama/Biden actually supported gay marriage, I'd consider voting for them.  They'd probably do jackshit about it, but I could hold out hope.

Maybride2

Ok, I took her first paragraph to mean that she does not support civil rights for gay couples.  Am I the only one?

isabella22

If 'marriage' is based on faith and religion, then there should be no government marriage license.  The government should only regulate civil unions and churches issue 'marriages'.

sweet*18

I believe what she meant was the civil union she agrees with but as far as changing the definition of a marriage as one man and one woman thru the constitution she doesnt. basically saying if you change one thing in the constitution you may have to continue to change other things that were basis of our nation.. tolerant was absolutely a horrible word, she shouldve used some other word i cringed when i heard her say that and i knew someone would flame her...

eclaires

The problem is too many people put emphasis on the word marriage and treat it like it is a religious word, which is not necessarily the case.

If you've been married, you know you are "married" in the government's eyes when you get your license.  Anything else after that is your choice, whether it be Elvis in Vegas, a priest in a church or whatever.  I think the government should make that distinction more clear so that everyone can get married in the government's eyes, and anything you do after that is a personal choice.

In Europe, most countries require a civil ceremony and then there is another wedding celebration (whether religious or whatever).  I wish the U.S. would do this b/c it draws a much clearer distinction between the civil benefits of marriage and the religious portion of marriage (if you so choose).

clintsbabe

In some interview Palin said that one of her best friends is gay.  I'm not sure how you could have such a good gay friend and not be more than just tolerant, but whatever.