Perhaps one of the more surreal moments of Thursday night's Vice Presidential debate was the nervous, jittery agreement between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin on the issue of gay marriage.
The question, posed first to Biden by moderator Gwen Ifill, was this, "Do you support, as they do in Alaska, giving same-sex benefits to couples?"
Biden's rambling response was careful but enthusiastic. He affirmed that the Obama/Biden ticket supports the rights of homosexual couples to share ownership of property, secure life insurance, and share visitation rights, while using the Constitution to support his claims. The floor then turned to Governor Palin, who also affirmed that she would not prohibit visitation or ownership rights for same-sex couples, before launching a defense against "redefining the definition of marriage." Biden countered that he and Obama are also against redefining marriage, saying that the definition of marriage should be left to individual faiths to decide.
This moment in the debate was one of the only points where the two candidates came to an agreement, though it is worthy to discuss the differences in their rhetoric.
Some in the"gay community": , including some of my dearest friends, have been quick to paint both candidates as fundamentally homophobic. To them, the candidates' refusal to support gay marriage is a sign of how far we still have to go before gaining mainstream acceptance. I beg to differ.
Four years ago we saw an unpopular incumbent president defeat a respectable fourth-term senator and Vietnam War hero by electrifying the conservative Republican base with controversial wedge issues. "Guns, God, and Gays," pundits screamed at the time.
Now, only four short years after that divisive election, Governor Palin and Senator Biden seem to agree on gay rights. Whether the gay community likes the terms of the agreement or not, it's hard to deny that this consensus is a sign of progress.
My husband and I were married in San Diego, California in August, 2007. There was no ceremony, priest, or family present. In lieu of these formal traditions, we simply stood on the side of the Pacific Ocean, exchanged vows and rings, kissed, and ran into the water. Our marriage is not "legal," though we behave more like an "old married couple" than most of our heterosexual friends. I would, or course, welcome the recognition of our marriage on a national level. But I am also a pragmatic realist, and I recognize that the gay marriage issue is still deeply divisive in many parts of the country.
I stand firmly with Joe Biden on this issue, and I see Governor Palin's tepid response as a sign of progress. Marriage is a religious institution, and because there is a separation of church and state in this country, the government does not have the right to force religious institutions to wed gay couples. if those institutions do not believe homosexuality is right with God.
The progressive community needs to steer away from the religious institution of marriage and focus instead on the issue of civil rights. Marriage allots heterosexual couples an enormous number of rights and benefits that gay couples are currently denied. The government has a responsibility to ensure equal civil rights for all of its citizens. Civil unions would give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, and that is the only battle we can constitutionally wage in the government.
Marriage needs to be left to individual religious institutions to decide, and I firmly believe that Joe Biden is on the correct side of this issue. More progressive congregations already offer gay marriage, and with government-backed support of civil union, these marriages would be indistinguishable from heterosexual marriages.
What is important to my partner and I are equal rights. We want the ability to legally consolidate our finances and to receive the tax breaks that heterosexual couples take for granted. We want hospital-visitation rights, family leave, shared pensions, social-security benefits, nursing-home visitation, and joint retirement savings. The issue is about rights, and personally I could care less if those rights are secured under a banner of "civil unions" or "gay marriage."
It's hard not to believe that many in the gay community, though their intentions may be noble, are leading us down a dead-end road by insisting on this war for "gay marriage." Even my conservative, fundamentalist mother in Eastern Kentucky can agree that my partner should have the right to carry out my end-of-life wishes, but she will never tolerate the government forcing her church to legitimize gay marriage.
With a progressive Democrat in the Oval Office and an ideological balance restored to the Supreme Court, the very real possibility of national civil unions can become a reality in the next four years. But if the gay community stubbornly continues to push the marriage issue without allowing room for compromise, then we will find ourselves in a battle we will not win. For the sake of my own union, I certainly hope that doesn't happen.
