May 6, 2012

Joe Biden is "absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights."

"All the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that. [...] I think Will & Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far. People fear that is different and now they’re beginning to understand."

63 comments:

Matthew Sablan said...

So, it appears, that Joe Biden has finally come around to Dick Cheney's way of thinking. Glad that he's fully evolved!

ricpic said...

Everybody must not only be treated the same, they must be treated exactly exactly EXACTLY the same, cause otherwise there be bigotry lurking!

edutcher said...

I think he's right about "Will & Grace" - a nice, sanitized view to sell the agenda.

As for the rest, if he's that worried that he has to pander to a demographic that small, their poll numbers have to be ghastly.

PS Note it's the Crazy Uncle doing the endorsing, not the guy with the composite girlfriend.

pm317 said...

Biden talks like this so Obama does not have to and rub his AA base the wrong way?

jimbino said...

Fine. But now we need to work on the continuing discrimination against singles that cohabit, whether hetero or homo couples or simple combinations like brother-sister, brother-brother and grandmother-grandson. As it is, a great deal of wealth is stolen from them and passed on by the IRS to support breeding married couples.

ndspinelli said...

The great John Wooden poked the ultimate hole in "treating everyone the same" bullshit. Wooden would ask, "Can we agree that we're all different?" The answer is of course, "Yes." Then Wooden would ask, "Well then, wouldn't treating everyone the same be by definition unfair?"

Quaestor said...

After every quotable quote, after every incisive and insightful analysis I am more and more impressed with the power of Joe Biden's mind. Who knew that true arena of ideas in America is the sit-com? Not me, poor dumb yokel that I am.

Next we need a re-launch of Mister Ed so we can all grow accustomed to zoophilia.

Matthew Sablan said...

Full House was a powerful story of a widowed man learning how to be a single parent.

Family Matters shows us the power of perseverance in the face of bullying.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Joe Biden is "absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights."

I agree. In all three cases, they are entitled to the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and not entitled to marry someone of the same sex.

Yes, it's discriminatory. The word marriage discriminates between those relationships that meet its definition, and those that don't, just as the word blue discriminates between those colors that meet its definition, and those that don't. That's the purpose of words.

Roger J. said...

Given that Joe Biden is a raving idiot, he is, IMO, right on this issue. He is the clock that is right twice a day.

John M Auston said...

OK, we've heard from Joe. Who's next? Moe? Larry? Curly? Shemp?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

jimbino said...

As it is, a great deal of wealth is stolen from them [ singles that cohabit ] and passed on by the IRS to support breeding married couples.

A drop in the bucket compared to the amount that is being stolen from the offspring of those breeders, and their offspring, and so on, in the form of social security and medicare, and the deficit spending. I'd happily give up every penny of tax advantage and government spending if that burden could be lifted from my children.

Sue D'Nhym said...

I agree with Roger J.

Bender said...

Joe Biden is "absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights."

One big problem is the conflating of "rights" with "freedom."

People are and always have been free to call themselves whatever they want in their relationships with others.

But the "same-sex marriage" agenda has never really been about a man being able to "marry" another man.

Rather, it is and always has been about such men compelling other people to agree and publicly say that those two men are "married."

It is not about the freedom of "gay" people to do this or that, it is about restricting the freedoms of others, of imposing their will upon others.

AllieOop said...

Just because Uncle Joe saiid it doesn't make it untrue. What is significantly different in a marriage between gay men or gay women? Isn't a marriage based on commitment and love, no matter what one's sexual identity?

Does the way a couple performs a sexual act define marriage? What makes a marriage between gay adults less sanitary, as someone up thread said.

bagoh20 said...

What about single people? Are we invisible? I'm not an animal - I'm a human being!

Palladian said...

I was wondering when Bishop Bender was going to come along and deliver the homily.

As for Biden, just because he says something agreeable doesn't make him not an idiot.

The correct answer is that it doesn't matter what a government official thinks of marriage, because the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

Chef Mojo said...

And in case anyone is paying attention, Biden's handlers are furiously backpedaling, as is David Axelrod, who is none too pleased with Joe shooting off his lip on this.

Nope, this is just Joe going off about his personal views and is not a reflection of administration policy, which is that "marriage" is defined as a union between an man and a woman.

Everybody got that?

Fucking laughable. Joe Biden actually says something that makes sense and should be administration policy, and everyone freaks out!

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

AllieOop said...

Just because Uncle Joe saiid it doesn't make it untrue.

Yes, but that involves the Rule of Stopped Clocks.

If Joe said it, the odds are it was stupid.

What is significantly different in a marriage between gay men or gay women?

Children?

A scam to make sure everybody has insurance after a trip to the bathhouse?

Lyle said...

Support it politically sir. It's about time.

The Crack Emcee said...

I think Will & Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far.

Where the fuck is Jason? Can I nail 'em, or what? Will & Grace didn't "educate" anybody - it manipulated them - and these fools are proud of that accomplishment.

It's like blacks starring in and releasing Colors, and Boys In The Hood, but taking all the violence out so idiots can now proclaim they know what life in South Central, Los Angeles was like - all the while, the blacks behind those films know South Central was 10 times as bad as the fucking movies that were actually released! But - hey - somebody got "educated"! On how to be a fucking sap. Here, let me throw out a few real-life scenarios - which have played out repeatedly in my life - because, I'm sure, one of you gay marriage supporters can scour YouTube to prove to me how accurate Will & Grace was:

Find me Will & Grace's gay-guys-trying-to-suck-the-straight-guy's-dick-while-he-sleeps scene, because I can't find it.

Find me Will & Grace's gay-guys-trying-to-talk-a-straight-woman-OUT-of-her-marriage-because-THEY-don't-like-her-husband scene.

Find me Will & Grace's gay-guys-hitting-on-the-same-married-woman's-husband-but-getting-rebuffed-which-pisses-them-off-like-they're-Glenn-Close-in-Fatal Attraction scene.

Find me Will & Grace's gay-guys-take-the-marreid-woman-to-a-bar-and-secretly-attempt-to-set-her-up-with-a-handsome-bi-slut-to-prove-what-life-would-be-like-if-she-wasn't-married-to-the-guy-they-don't-like-who-wouldn't-approve-and-works-all-the-time.

Find me Will & Grace's gay-guys-spread-AIDS-but-when-told-they-must-curtail-their-behavior-they're-defiantly-spurred-on-to-fuck-more-while-throwing-a-hissy-fit-and-declaring-everybody-that-eventually-is-forced-to-go-to-their-innumerable-funerals-was-really-a-close-minded-homophobe.

I'll wait, because I'm sure this "educational" program has clear examples of them all,...

AllieOop said...

Edutcher, please tell me you realize gay couples have children, maybe not with each other, but they do have children and raise them as well as heterosexual couples.

ndspinelli said...

edutcher is pro gay on the fat women thread, just ask Palladian, or read it for yourself.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

jimbino,

Fine. But now we need to work on the continuing discrimination against singles that cohabit, whether hetero or homo couples or simple combinations like brother-sister, brother-brother and grandmother-grandson. As it is, a great deal of wealth is stolen from them and passed on by the IRS to support breeding married couples.

Hey look! You're on the same page as Cardinal Levada!

Back when he was Archbishop of San Francisco, the city required all organizations receiving City funds to provide domestic partner benefits. The idea was to either force the Catholic Church to recognize domestic partnerships as equivalent to marriage, or else to sever all financial connections between Catholic charitable organizations and the City.

Levada's solution was just what you've suggested. A worker for a Catholic organization could name any one person in the same domicile as a recipient of benefits. Spouse, parent, domestic partner, unrelated roommate, grandfather, sibling, whatever.

For some strange reason, this policy (much more generous than the law required) seemed to piss a lot of gay activists off.

edutcher said...

AllieOop said...

Edutcher, please tell me you realize gay couples have children, maybe not with each other, but they do have children and raise them as well as heterosexual couples.

They do?

"Raise them as well as heterosexual couples"?

I would have thought the jury would be out on that for another 20 years or so.

As for having them, that only flies because the Lefties run the courts.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

jimbino,

And I should've added: Be grateful for the "breeders." If they didn't exist, neither would you. And unless you intend to 100% self-finance your retirement, medical care included, you damn well better hope there are people out there less contemptuous of children than you are.

Bill said...

There is no logical argument against gay marriage. Two people who love each other should be allowed to get married--and they should have all the rights that come with it.

Edutcher, we get it--you're a homophobic bigot. Fine. But there's no reason to deny gays the right to marry.

The 9th Circuit's ruling on Prop 8 was the latest nail in the coffin for the homophobic nuts. In the event the case, Perry v. Brown, goes to the SCOTUS (unlikely)--gay marriage will be legalized. Kennedy is the swing vote, and if Romer and Lawrence have shown us anything, he'll side with equal rights.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

So edutcher, you don't think Ann's son would make a good parent? I have no idea if he wants children, but the fact that he is gay would not reflect on his capability to be as responsible and loving a parent as a heterosexual man.

I know of plenty of heterosexuals who are piss poor parents.

Hunter said...

edutcher:

"Raise them as well as heterosexual couples"?

I would have thought the jury would be out on that for another 20 years or so.


Probably nobody will mind if you just change that to "have children and raise them, just as heterosexual couples do." As a legal matter, a person is entitled to raise their own offspring, barring some proof of un-fitness.

As for having them, that only flies because the Lefties run the courts.

Yes, those same lefty courts that will shred legal arrangements between gay partners if one of them dies and the next of kin decides to challenge it in oourt.

You have discovered their sinister pro-homo conspiracy.

edutcher said...

Someone tell Bill, who sounds as if Hatman has opened a new account, the 9th Circus is overturned more than any appellate court in the country..

AllieOop said...

So edutcher, you don't think Ann's son would make a good parent? I have no idea if he wants children, but the fact that he is gay would not reflect on his capability to be as responsible and loving a parent as a heterosexual man.

I know of plenty of heterosexuals who are piss poor parents.


If Oop knows them, I don't doubt it.

She wants us to believe that it guarantees homosexuals will make good parents. We'll see soon enough if homosexual parents produce well-adjusted children, especially heterosexual ones.

My own guess is that this will turn out like all the Lefties who refused to believe that a woman having an abortion (or more than one) would have no affect on her emotionally.

Mel said...

almost as stellar a Catholic as Sibelius.

The Crack Emcee said...

AllieOop,

I know of plenty of heterosexuals who are piss poor parents.

Just as finding a bad doctor is not an endorsement for the efficacy of "alternative" medicine, knowing "heterosexuals who are piss poor parents" is also not an argument in favor of "gay" marriage.

But seeing you advance such a lame position does allow us a great view of how the liberal mind "works" - thanks!

Hunter said...

Amazing how many bad arguments there are on both sides of the gay marriage issue.

It's enough to keep you from realizing that only one side of the debate has any good arguments.

For a while anyway.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

Edutcher, I didn't say I knew them, I said I know of them. I said being gay would be a guarantee one would be a good parent? Gawd, that pathetic edutcher, you have no good argument so now you make shit up? Typical.

edutcher said...

The implication was there.

Own it, sweetie.

PS Oop accused me of apple polishing last week (actually, he/she/it used a far more vulgar expression).

I wonder does this thread also qualify.

edutcher said...

PS Looks like Ann will have to re-post (or something).

Axelrod has Joe walking back his support.

traditionalguy said...

The sexual morality issue is still right there in the Scripture. But whether you are an adulterer, a fornicator or a same sex lover, or an idol worshipper it is all still a sin issue.

And for Christians the point is not whether same sex lovers can be as forgiven sins and e accepted as all sinners can be, but whether they should also be qualified to be pastors or Bishops. Same sex marriage may be next.


It is amusing that the Evangelical Christians who still strongly say no to gay ordination and same sex marriage also say no female christians being qualified, whether single or married, to be pastors and bishops because...well not because of a sin issue, but because the men say they like it that way.

That ordaining gays issues is still dividing churches as we speak.

The SCOTUS has a Petition for Cert. now pending on the Timberridge Presbyterian Church v. The Presbytery of Greater Atlanta on the issue of whether the By-laws of the Presbytery amended unilaterally without consent of the local church can impress a trust on the 120 year old local church's title to its land, cemetary and buildings.

The case law since Jones v. Wolf (1979) says no church property must be determined by the neutral principles under rules of real property and trust law as a private person's property rights are determined. Or if not the First Amendment issue comes up because the Court would be picking a side in a religious denomination's disputes instead of remaining neutral.

The Supreme Court of Georgia turned that case law on its head and used the same argument to say that the Court not enforcing a trial judges ruling made in error would make it non-neutral.


So the property rights of old churches leaving a recent denomination is where the rubber meets the road on the gay ordination issues. Many PCUSA Churches are holding their breath to see the outcome.


Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin has entered the case pro bono, and laymen atsome of the more conservative PCUSA Churches are donating to the appeal costs (because their PCUSA Churches cannot donate directly to fight against their own Presbytery).

This case is seen as an ideal vehicle to get the property goes or stays issue resolved. Stay tuned.

paul a'barge said...

Let's just cut to the chase ... we need to amend the US Constitution so that marriage is defined as a legal union of one man and one woman.

End of story.

MadisonMan said...

If you want to defend marriage, make divorce illegal.

jimbino said...

No, let's cut to the chase and support a Constitutional amendment to remove all references to marriage, whether civil or religious, from the words of the laws and regulations of this nation, and, while we're at it, all references to the sex of anybody.

That would have the unexpected benefit of bringing an end to sexual mutilation of over half our boys born atheist and intact.

Michael said...

Allie. Are you friends with our hostess? Your posts have a lot of Ann this and Ann that. Quite a lot. No other person posting has such familiarity. Curious. So of an if not why not, if so why so thing.

Cloying.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

Michael, I trust Althouse to jump in the thread when she sees fit, as she has done on occasion to correct me or any other poster who misrepresents what they believe she has said in her past blog posts, which do indicate her stance on issues clearly at times.

I know her only as well as any other poster here, who reads her on a daily basis and pays attention to what she says.

Michael, I find you arrogant and rude and I tolerate you, so my if my "cloying" behavior bothers you, too bad, move on.

traditionalguy said...

@ Allie... I like your style.

If we all agreed on the hot issues of the day that the Professor sets up for us, then there would be no growth.

Intelligent people always help me see more. Thanks.

AllieOop said...

Thanks Tradguy, I'm glad to be of service!

Robin said...

So why did the Obama/Biden '08 ticket campaign on the contrary assertion, that there was no right for same sex marriage?

AllieOop said...

Perhaps their positions evolved. Good for them. Good for America. (watching CNN, interesting conversation regarding this very issue).

Now let's see how Romney responds.

Palladian said...

"Let's just cut to the chase ... we need to amend the US Constitution so that marriage is defined as a legal union of one man and one woman."

Breitbart would be embarrassed that you're using his picture as your icon.

Phil 3:14 said...

Boy the Democratic Party is in such disarray with the socially conservative gagging the more open minded.

So extreme!

wyo sis said...

Whatever your personal issues with homosexuality are, there is clear historic evidence that societies that embrace homosexuality are very near the end of their existence. Noticing this does not make me a hater, it makes me a realist. I don't feel any hatred toward LGBT, I feel sorrow for their pain.
There's a lot of pain associated with a declining society. Not all of it is chosen by the people in that society. It's not very productive to pretend it isn't happening or to just give up. Things can turn around, but recognizing the problem is an important first step.
Pressure groups can persuade people to change their minds, but they can't make wrong actions right. Wrong actions are those actions that ultimately result in pain and destruction. I don't make the rules, but It'd be worse to ignore them or stamp my feet and hold my breath just because I don't like them.

Palladian said...

"Whatever your personal issues with homosexuality are, there is clear historic evidence that societies that embrace homosexuality are very near the end of their existence."

LOL. Correlation is not causation, honey.

"Noticing this does not make me a hater, it makes me a realist."

No, it doesn't. It makes you an idiot.

"I don't feel any hatred toward LGBT, I feel sorrow for their pain."

Keep your crocodile tears, sister. I'm not in pain, I'm in irritation, that the State (and those who control it) can't keep its stumble-fingers out of a religious/personal institution that it has no business defining, regulating, licensing or even discussing.

Marriage, between men & women, men & men, women & women, multiples, &c, should be the business of private individuals and/or churches, not the government.

The US Constitution doesn't mention marriage, nor should it. The Framers knew the answer to this, as they knew the answer to a lot of problems.

Palladian said...

And, HINT, that answer was not "Let the Federal government decide!"

wyo sis said...

You might not be in pain, but many are.
Correlation that spans the civilizations of history is getting pretty close to definitive. It's a better reason to move toward morality and away from immorality than any I've heard promoting going the other way.

AllieOop said...

Preach it sister! The end is nigh, repent oh ye sinners! Feel like I'm back in my Fundamentalist Evangelical, Assemblies of God church I grew up in, ugh.

wyo sis said...

Doesn't mean it's wrong.

AllieOop said...

And why is it right? Do you know that fundamentalists don't think Lutherans and especially Catholics will see Heaven? Much less gays.

Well that's what they preached when I was a kid, who knows what they preach now that they got political.

Palladian said...

It's a better reason to move toward morality and away from immorality than any I've heard promoting going the other way.

What's "morality" and "immorality"? Who defines "morality" and "immorality"?

Do you want the government to make those definitions?

Why?

wyo sis said...

I want God to make moral definitions and government to stay out of it.
The only business government has with marriage is recording it. Marriage already has a definition. What two consenting adults do is their business. I don't think gay unions should be called marriage. It isn't marriage.

ocs123 said...

Welcome to our louis vuiton bags shop and designer burberry store. Buy cheap lv and burberry in www.louisvuitonbagsshop.com and www.designerburberrystore.com.

Athanasius Kircher said...

Whatever the parsing of George's ethnic identity, we are in the middle of a race war that is going to explode.

There is no evidence to support a charge of second degree murder. If by some chance he is found guilty of something it will not be enough for the lynch mob, and will we have a race war.

I highly recommend reading the many updates at http:// theconservativetreehouse . com to understand the enormous efforts of the race-baiting machinery.

Another dimension is that George is a Hispanic Catholic and registered Democrat. Congress Democrats are silent on the lynching of one of their own in obeisance to the Afro-American Democrat establishment party line.

Obama and Holder have also carried out the bloody Fast and Furious Operation whose victims are largely Hispanic Catholics in Mexico and the US, foremost Special Agent Jaime Zapata and Irish-American Catholic Brian Terry.

Congressional Hispanic Democrats are also silent on this assault on Hispanic Catholics.

Read Katie Pavlich's new book Fast and Furious: Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-Up.

There is need for a lot of conservative activism to prevent the Duke Lacrosse Team race baiting to occur all over again to George.

We also need more activism to inist that the House cite Eric Holder for contempt in his scandalous stone-walling for over a year.