Biden: Gay Marriage 'Inevitable' (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON (AP)-- Vice President Joe Biden said Friday that the country is evolving on the issue of gay marriage and he thinks it's inevitable there will be national consensus.

He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" the same thing is happening with the issue of marriage that happened with gays' service in the military.

Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that will eventually allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Gay marriage is still not legal in most states. President Barack Obama recently said his feelings on the gay marriage issue are evolving, but he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have.

Obama said he is still wrestling with whether gay couples should have the right to marry, now that the change in the law will allow them to serve openly in combat.

The question came just hours after he signed landmark legislation Wednesday repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military. The law ends the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forced gays to hide their sexual orientation or face dismissal.

But in letters to the troops, the four military service chiefs warned that the ban is still in place, and will be for some time to come.

Recommendations to implement the repeal were outlined in a report last month, and now must be formed into concrete regulations. Defense officials say that they still don't know how long it will take before the Pentagon completes its implementation plan and certifies the change will not damage combat readiness. Once certified, the implementation would begin 60 days later.

WATCH:

Comments

[ianmcc]

06:27 PM on 01/24/2011

I really, REALLY wish that the gay community would stop stepping right into the right-wing talking memo of referring to Marriage Equality for Gay Americans as "gay" marriage or "same-sex" marriage. The right does this to make us SEPARATE in the use of language to better deny equal rights for us.

Would you ask the African-American couple down the street, "Hey, how's your BLACK marriage going?" Would you ask the heterosexual couple, "How's your STRAIGHT marriage doing?" Of course not, it's marriage PERIOD. It is about defusing the term the right uses to separate the gay community from everyone else by simply saying, "It is about MARRIAGE EQUALITY for Gay Americans, no more, no less."

[carnitine]

11:47 PM on 01/19/2011

If thats so then Incest and polygamy should be legal also.

[Ben Schroeder]

11:10 PM on 02/11/2011

I hope so. What happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is none of my business (nor is it the government's)!

[delta7777]

09:12 PM on 12/28/2010

.
Gay Marriage???

Why should a marriage consist only
of two persons in the first place??
Why not rationally rethink the entire paradigm??

A friend of mine once suggested that the best “marriage”
would be a marriage of five people:

Two men and three women.

This would have numerous advantages:

It would even out the demographic inequality of there being more women than men.

It could provide for a wide range of interesting and varied sexual experiences.

The greater number of persons would provide the household with great income security, particularly if the principal breadwinner would be laid off

Best if one man would be older (for age and experience); and one man younger (for youth and vitality).

An arrangement having three women would have the great advantage that one of them could remain at home and take care of the children while two could go shopping together. (another friend of mine once explained that even more than love, money, or sex, women prefer “shopping” in the company of another woman.)

Another advantage of there being three women in this marriage is that quite often it may be anticipated that one of the women would be sexually indisposed, either for cyclical reasons, due to pregnancy, or having a “headache”.
.

[PhilipB]

03:02 AM on 12/29/2010

With marriage now there is the presumtion of equality between two persons (and that applies to either orientation.
There is a rational basis for the state to not allow polygamous marriages as this changes the construct. On estate issues alone where polygamy is legal, apportionment is not equal, with the woman generally not of equal status. This becomes labyrinthian with issues of inheritance, child support, alimony and more.
With nations that have granted marriage equality to Gays and lesbian couples with similar legal frameworks as ours, there has been no move to exand into polygamous marriages.

[delta7777]

10:02 PM on 12/29/2010

.
["There is a rational basis for the state to not allow polygamous marriages"]

my comment discussed polyfidelity/polyamory,
which is distinctly different from polygamy.

I mentioned that the possibly that five persons seem to form a
pragmatically optimal number of persons for such relationship,
not particularly as a recommendation,but for the purpose
of pointing out that there is no inherent basis to presuppose
that a relationship of fidelity only involve two persons,
regardles of sex or sexual orientation of those two persons.

Not even item #7 on the Tablets of Moses (which most definitely
mandates fidelity) specifes that civil domestic partnerships
must be restricted to only two persons of the opposite sex.

There is one major problem with more complex relationships,
but not unique to them.... as another friend of mine
explained why his second marriage did not work out:
"two many egos under one roof"
(He is now third-time-lucky, and for many, many years has
been unbelievably happy with his present wife. or
as he puts it, "a marriage that is heaven on earth")

for general reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
http://www.polyamoryonline.org/
.

[PhilipB]

06:08 PM on 12/27/2010

"...Obama recently said his feelings on the gay marriage issue are evolving, but he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have."
"Certain" meaning selective legal rights?
Uh, hello? Ever heard of equal right for all?
Why just "certain" rights?
All of this comes down to is prejudice, and the belief that my relationship is not as good as his or straight relationships. That my family is not as good and our children and grandchildren are not as good, but all second class. That is what he is saying.
Why do straight couples get social security benefits when a spouse dies, when we get nothing like that, even though we have been together for decades?
There is no civil union out there that is equal to marriage. Not one.
As was stated in the Walker decision, there is no rational basis for the state to have the parallel and inferior institution of civil unions when marriage will do for couples of either orientation.
Obama said he is still wrestling with whether gay couples should have the right to marry.
Marriage is a secular legal contract between two persons of presumed equality with obligations and benefits.Marriage is changed in no way by allowing those of the same gender to marry.
Gays already have the right to marry in the constitution. That right is wrongfully denied.

[Ioan Lightoller]

06:14 PM on 12/27/2010

Beautifully-said. If Obama is not for all our rights, then he is not for our civil rights, period. My marriage is as good and beautiful as marriages of straight couples. I am sick and tired of people wanting me to accept second-class status so that the uncomfortable subject of "gay rights" can be kept on the back burner.

[PhilipB]

08:58 AM on 12/28/2010

Hi Ione!
I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I have faved your comments on various threads. I have found them inspiring.
There has not been any arguement that is against marriage equality this is consistant with the constitution or that has not devolved into legal idiocy. Part of the problem has been not just the Republican party with their hateful rhetoric and stance of exclusion, but also the Democratic party which has paid lip service to Gays and Lesbian families, without the real commitment when needed.
You have a voice that speaks directly to what Gay and Lesbian families are actually saying in conversations at their kitchen tables. I really see now that this is a grass roots effort, and that we cannot rely on some Gay rights groups who wish to preserve their access to power with "incremental" change, nor can we rely only on those we thought were allies to do the right thing. It really is up to you and me and other good people to stand up and speak out for justice.
Happy New Year to you!
Warm regards,

[WheelsOnFire]

04:52 PM on 12/28/2010

You're absolutely correct.

This is supposed to be a country of equal rights for all.

Too many, though, want this to be a two-class society, not unlike India's.

Some straights want to have special rights for themselves.

Some straights want to relegate gays to second class status, without many of the rights that straights enjoy.

One must wonder why their lives are so devoid of meaning that they have to meddle in the lives of others -- force others to be beneath them -- to make their lives whole.

[yozampj]

04:06 PM on 12/26/2010

The way we handle marriage is left over from when the church was the state. Today church and state are separate --- except when it comes to marriage. I don't see why today a minister, priest, or rabbi can grant tax benefits, contractual benefits and obligations, estate entitlement, social security survivor benefits, community property (in some states), and all those other things that come automatically now when someone says "I now pronounce you husband and wife." Removed the church from the legal contractual. Entering into a legal, contractual union with one other person would be done through legal channels. it can be 'short form' like the current application for marriage license. Each party gets a card similar to a driver's license that indicates who their partner is, which would gain them entry for hospital visits, etc. If you want your partner covered under your health insurance, you send a copy of your card to your health insurer.

If you also want a spiritual element to your commitment -- a ceremony in which your union is given God's blessings -- you can have it done in a church, temple, synagogue that approves of it. If you only have the religious ceremony, and do not enter into the legal, contractual agreement there are no rights and obligations bestowed. Let's replace the word "marriage" with two terms: Personal Partnership and Blessed Union. You can have one or the other or both (depending on your church). Just a thought.

[Acert]

10:47 PM on 12/26/2010

What's wrong with just having civil marriage and allowing people wanting religious ceremonies to have them separate from the civil ceremony?

[yozampj]

02:24 AM on 12/27/2010

I think you and I are in agreement -- enter into the legal contract via a civil 'transaction' in which the priest, minister, rabbi has no role or authority; and have a religious ceremony, too if you want it. Unfortunately the use of the word "marriage" for either of these events is what is causing a problem. As soon as we say "marriage" then there is an argument that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, so let's dump the word 'marriage.'

[yliza]

05:55 AM on 12/27/2010

I see your point, and in fact my marriage could be considered a "civil union" because my husband and I were married by a Justice of the Peace. There are just two concerns:

1) I had the option of being married in the Church. Many of my gay friends are religious and attend church regularly. They would like to have that option as well.

2) My "civil union" has equal status with a church "marriage" under the law. All civil unions, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the same rights.

With separation of church and state you'd think it would be a no-brainer, but half the Republican party doesn't understand the Constitution, or even the Federalist papers they so love (which argues against using the filibuster the way they have this past session).

[yozampj]

07:03 AM on 12/27/2010

yliza --- It sounds like you are mostly in agreement. Regarding #1: your option, and mine, to be married in the Church: I don't think we can legislate that churches must perform marriage ceremonies for anyone even if the individuals have a legal right to marry. Regarding #2: All civil unions should have the same rights. I absolutely agree! The big question is how do we get around this sticking point of "marriage is between a man and a woman" faster? Maybe by changing getting the word 'marriage' out of it. I might be over simplifying.

[WheelsOnFire]

06:46 PM on 12/27/2010

Yliza,

There are increasing numbers of Christian denominations that perform gay marriages, and I suspect that following full legalization of gay marriage, many more will. We cannot and should not legislate that churches be required to perform such ceremonies, however.

Civil unions currently are vastly inferior to marriage. For example, civil unions:
1. Are not recognized from state to state. If the couple moves, the civil union dies.
2. Are not recognized at the federal level.
3. Because of #2 above, they do not allow a gay couple to file as a married couple nor can they take advantage of the marriage penalty loophole -- so a gay couple, with adjusted gross income identical to that of a straight married couple, will pay more in taxes (the gay couple has to file as "single" and cannot access the marriage penalty provision).
4. Because of #2 above, a gay couple cannot access the same Social Security benefits provided to straight married couples.
5. Because of #2 above, the value of any benefits provided by an employer to the partner of a gay employee becomes imputed income and the the gay employee will have to pay taxes on that amount. No such taxation occurs for benefits provided to the spouse of a straight employee.

We gays suffer so many indignities and inequities -- made that much worse because they occur in a country that tries to present itself to the world as the model for freedom and equality for all. It's an

[lynettema]

02:16 PM on 12/26/2010

"But in letters to the troops, the four military service chiefs warned that the ban is still in place, and will be for some time to come."

I heard from a pretty reliable source that the Marines implemented repeal of DADT back sometime in Oct. Does anyone else know anything about this?

That said, about gay marriage and it being inevitable:
I agree. But for it to happen, many Dems will be sacrificial lambs in getting this legislation passed and implemented. JMO.

[StevenWells]

02:41 PM on 12/26/2010

My guess is it will be just that kind of pitfall - not to mention all the others involved in getting something like that passed - which will result in the matter ultimately being decided buy SCOTUS.

That has its own pitfalls, of course, but with Kennedy on board - a distinct possibility - it's doable.

[Indigo1941]

08:02 AM on 12/26/2010

Yes, full rights is likely to be the outcome, but why does Biden make it sound like it's "inevitable" the way a bad cold is inevtiable?

[Golemaximus]

07:01 AM on 12/26/2010

This is all real nice. I'm happy for gays now that DADT is being repealed. My question is when will this administration start working on the issues that really need attention? Like jobs and the economy!

[WheelsOnFire]

07:11 AM on 12/26/2010

I think this Administration can do more than one thing at a time. Besides, these issues are separate functions headed by completely different people with completely different staffs.

It is a shame, though, that this country had to spend so much time to overcome discrimination and bigotry (causes championed by the right). How ironic for a country that prides itself on being a leader in human rights. How embarrassing, actually.

[Golemaximus]

07:59 AM on 12/26/2010

Agreed totally! F&F

[PhilipB]

10:19 AM on 12/27/2010

Nice to meet you, WheelsOnFire.
Fanned.

[Ioan Lightoller]

05:56 PM on 12/27/2010

And when would you like us to get back with you on our civil rights..rights which will affect US not you? Is there ever a time when our issues were NOT supposed to take a back seat? I've certainly never seen that time.

[Golemaximus]

07:52 PM on 12/27/2010

loan lightoller - Hey! I'm not trying to take away from the significance of your civil rights issue and it may seem to you that is the only issue in the world that matters but there are families starving out there. This should never have been an issue to begin with! I apologize! No offence intended.

[emperance]

01:37 AM on 12/26/2010

I had a friend who had a gay marriage looong before anyone was discussing this issue.
One guy was black, the other white.
He was very much in love & spoke about his spouse in the same manner as everyone else spoke of theirs.

I can actually see both sides of the DADT, but the marriage thing should be a no-brainer.
The 2 people are in their own house with themselves & children, just like everyone else.

Marriage usually ends in pain, emtional drain, loss of $$ & divorce.

Let EVERYBODY have at it.

[monstermash9]

02:44 AM on 12/26/2010

The arguments against repealing DADT are the same arguments against allowing Women and African Americans to serve in the military. I think that turned out okay.

[emperance]

04:55 PM on 12/26/2010

monstermash9

People change & evolve. Change is slow; it always has been.

And, just so you know, I don't think SHOWERING ever came up in the dialogue about WOMEN & AF-AMS.

Slavery used to be supported & slaves were considered PROPERTY.

I don't think that statement can be made about WOMEN.

[WheelsOnFire]

05:32 AM on 12/26/2010

An interracial gay marriage? Great for them. And it's a wonderful example of irony, as I'll explain.

In 1967, the US Supreme Court, in its landmark Loving v Virginia decision, struck down laws banning interracial marriage. The Court held that marriage is a fundamental right, as is the right to choose one's spouse.

So, because your friends are an interracial couple, they would be protected by Loving v Virginia.

But, simply because your friends are gay, they have no protections at all.

[emperance]

04:58 PM on 12/26/2010

Stange that you should cite that case ....as this WAS IN VIRGINIA (looooong time ago).

Don't wanna say when, don't wanna date myself.

[Ioan Lightoller]

06:01 PM on 12/27/2010

And that is why so many of us fight for legal CIVIL marriage. Until we have that, we will not have all the rights straight couples take for granted when they marry.

[RoseMarie812]

10:18 PM on 12/25/2010

`I am so disappointed in Obama's change in attitude about this subject. I totally agree with his former position that they should have strong civil unions with all the rights and protections therein. He will be accused of "bending with the wind".

[delta7777]

01:04 AM on 12/26/2010

.
Get government out of the "marriage" business
as well as out of peoples bedrooms altogether.
Government should provide for only a equal-rights civil domestic partnership union;
initially for couples of any orientation, although there is no rational inherent
basis to restrict such a domestic partnership civil union to only two persons.
Such government chartered domestic partnership should relate only to matters
that fit within the proper scope of government, such as taxes, inheritance/estate
provisions, survivor benefits, health care responsibility/authority for partners, etc.

Leave the designation and issues of "marriage" entirely to religion and the church.

[WheelsOnFire]

05:37 AM on 12/26/2010

In Canada, it was one of the largest Christian churches that pressed the government to legalize gay marriage.

In the US -- the supposed land of equality and separation of church and state -- it is the opposite.

How odd.

[Cacey]

06:06 AM on 12/26/2010

Fanned.  You are so much on target.  But the debate has gone on too long for the semantics of the debate to change.  Anyway, Americans are horrible at thinking out of the box and in any way other than in black and white, this and that.

[monstermash9]

02:48 AM on 12/26/2010

Thanks, Rose. Maybe next you can say that you think that it's okay for African Americans to ride on the bus, but only if they sit in the back. Or better yet, how about women can enter the workforce, but only if it is in the kitchen and it doesn't take the place of a more competent male worker. Of course the female will work for a fraction of the price too. Great logic, Rose.

[bluntobject]

03:32 AM on 12/26/2010

f/fv for exquisite sarcasm.

[ChiGuy]

07:08 PM on 12/25/2010

It will be quite a few years from now (unfortunately), but he's right.
And 25 years after that happens, people will look back and wonder what all the resistance was about in the first place.

[seanshawn]

12:33 AM on 12/26/2010

Namely homosexuals themselves, wondering why the hell they ever bothered.

[ChiGuy]

09:21 AM on 12/26/2010

Yeah, like women and blacks wonder why they ever bothered to fight for the right to vote? Like gun rights advocates ever wonder about their continuing efforts to fight for the right to own guns?

[WheelsOnFire]

05:45 AM on 12/26/2010

The Netherlands legalized gay marriage almost a decade ago.

Massachusetts legalized gay marriage more than 6 years ago.

Canada legalized gay marriage more than 5 years ago.

Gay marriage is now a basic fact of life in each of those 3 settings -- so basic that it attracts no attention and all the heated opposition has long been forgotten. And none of the disastrous claims made by the opponents have occurred.

[Clint Abear]

05:33 PM on 12/25/2010

gay weddings will bring the economy out of the slump

and may create 15 mil jobs

[silverlincoln]

04:37 PM on 12/25/2010

If gay marriage is inevitable then so is gay divorce.....a new speciality for the lawyers and much mo money.......YES WE ARE SMITH AND ASSOCIATES AND WE SPECIALIZE IN GAY DIVORCE. GET WHAT YOU DESERVE, CALL THIS NUMBER NOW....

[Clint Abear]

05:42 PM on 12/25/2010

prob not the 50% plus divorces like str8 marriages...

[lynettema]

02:24 PM on 12/26/2010

Divorce rates among "str8 marriages" should go down as gays will no longer have to pretend to be str8. Hopefully those gay people who marry str8s will no longer feel as if they have to prove anything to others or themselves.

[newtom]

09:53 PM on 12/25/2010

And what difference does that make? Straight people who claim the "sanctity of marriage" get divorced at the same rate as everyone else. That's certainly no reason to deny marriage equality.

The fact is -- current divorce law would cover (equally) all divorce whether between a straight couple or a gay couple.

[seanshawn]

12:38 AM on 12/26/2010

Agreed, but there is an irony to it. Although I think Gay couples divorce rates might be slightly lower than straight couples. At least for the first generation or so.

[Cacey]

05:43 AM on 12/26/2010

Re an earlier debate in which I could not respond to you, Tom and I are both right in some ways.  Athiests can get "attached" in the same way religious people can get attached by the State without a religious ceremony.  At the same time in many churches "marriage" is deemed a Sacrement equal to baptism or last rights.  At issue is the fact that the State never got into the  "marriage" business until after the English Reformation and American law followed that tradition.  At the same time, homosexuality's being non-criminal and non-psychiciatric is recent as is the concept of gays being equal because of that.  As an athiest, Secular Humanist really, I have no desire to be married to my partner of 30 years but do want to have equal treatment of our relationship by the State but not the use of the word associated with religion primarily.

[tnkeating]

03:25 PM on 12/25/2010

Ya know Joe, the last thing on a soldiers mind when they are in field fighting a war is the guy next to me gay, they don't care they are to busy stayin alive and trying to keep their comrads alive. Here in the states however most people that do care are gay, the rest of us want all of us to live and let live, we don't care what people do in private, thats why DADT passed to begin with. I have always supported civil unions with All the rights of a marraige, but call it what it is a civil union. That way we All have our civil rights in tact. Really Joe the only things enevitable is Death, Taxes, and maybe a one term Obama Aministration.

[WheelsOnFire]

08:35 PM on 12/25/2010

If a civil union is identical to a marriage in every possible way, why do we need two names for the same thing? Do you really believe that six of one thing is different from half a dozen? How could anyone be that delusional?

[colamonkey]

08:51 PM on 12/25/2010

Homophobes are that delusional.

Fanned and faved.

[newtom]

09:55 PM on 12/25/2010

Exactly!

[Cacey]

05:44 AM on 12/26/2010

Ben Franklin had the last point right.  Sorry, the President's in for two. 

[Kelly L White]

03:22 PM on 12/25/2010

He made a nice speech- I'm thrilled it passed, everyone is entitled to equality in America. It's an unalienable right, freedom, freedom of choice. Everyone except those who choose marijuana over alcohol or tobacco. We aren't free.

It feels- oh- hypocritical.

[Justice Goodyear]

05:06 PM on 12/25/2010

Alcohol kills people, destroys families and hurts thousands of children a year.  Tobacco costs taxpayers billions in dollars in healthcare costs.  Let's end the inequality - let's end alcohol and tobacco.  Why legalize marijuana when the first two that are legal are so bad for society?

[seanshawn]

02:02 AM on 12/26/2010

Because as long as we're talking about humans, those are human problems. They're problems because it's in our nature to abuse. Everything, lack of exercise, exercise in the long run it makes sense, live longer, healthier, save on health care costs, but right this instant it's hard. Fatty foods, in moderation fine, but fatty foods often come made for you, some one else did the work, why have it once and a while when you can enjoy it all the the time? Obesity, heart disease, that's later right now you're enjoying yourself. Smoking, similar deal. we don't just smoke, we smoke two packs a day.
Or what about Alcohol? fine, even good for your health. But drinkers kill thousands a year because they'd rather drink and drive. Even though every single one convinces him/herself of the same thing before getting behind the wheel, that they are fine, those accidents happen to other people.
Along with the plethora of other abuses, indulgences, present biases.. etc etc.

However none of those things need to occur that way. It's not the substance, it's the individual. take away what you will, but we will always find something new and with it a way to abuse it.

[Kelly L White]

11:03 AM on 12/26/2010

"let's end alcohol and tobacco."
We tried the first part of your solution, using draconian laws and criminal sanctions, the Black Market this spawned fueled a never before seen mafia which is still around today. Tobacco use is declining, which is good, but it isn't declining through forbidding it, no- it's the steady stream of information that is convincing people to leave it alone. Why not legalize marijuana, unlike "The first two" you speak of, any harms to people or society were lies made up to further an agenda, so we can't use those as a basisi for anything. And while we are duscussing this, let us not forget the freedom portion of it. I'm amazed that people who would go red at the thought of the government prying the weapons out of their or their neighbors hands through legislation will applaud the government doing the same thing with tobacco, alcohol or drugs. Get a little constancy in your life, and don't forget we are a free people. If you don't wish to smoke or drink, don't- if you have an opinion on those who do, keep it to yourself. Like civil people are supposed to.