ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Real Debate – Marriage Rights For Gays

Updated on October 3, 2008

I can't help myself, after listening to the Vice Presidential debate last night I just can't contain myself. That's right, the Some Like It Scott soapbox is officially out, I'm standing on it (and I'm thanking God for it because it makes me look a little taller). The real debate - Marriage Rights for Gays - Don't Get Me Started!

I raced home from work last night (yes, I'm one of the seven of us in this country who still have a job - geez) only to find the debate had started without me. I turned on the debate, fed and kissed the cats, threw off the work clothes and started to listen as I made myself a turkey burger (no bread, please I just started back at the gym and a salad). Well, before I could get my turkey in the pan, I started to hear the real turkeys answering one of the questions I wanted to hear them answer. Here's the actual transcript of what was said:

IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator 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.

What cowards. Come on say what you really want to say. Palin and McCain don't support "gay marriage" because they're religious zealots who oppose anything different from what they interpret from their bibles. Biden and Obama can't support "gay marriage" because in a country that is run by the religious right it would be political suicide. So tell me then, what exactly are these "constitutional" and "legal" rights they want to give us? Do we get the tax break? How about health benefits? I think not.

That's right they'll allow us to be "partners" like in a business deal but for God sakes, don't expect the government to enforce you getting tax breaks and health benefits. We're just going to continue to legislate the way we hate you but talk about tolerance. Bullshit.

As I've said before, I don't care about the word marriage. I don't need that word but I demand the respect and rights that married citizens get in this country where every man is supposedly created equal. I received some emailed photos this week of my cousin who married his partner in England this week. Just the two of them signing some papers but I must confess I got a little teary looking at the photos. Tears of joy at seeing my cousin and his mate so happy and some tears of disgust that they can't get married here (except in a few states) and that we as a nation who are supposedly the leaders of the free world aren't leading this charge.

And honestly, why not let the gays have marriage? Just like everything else the homosexual community has done from making your hair and living room look better, going into rundown neighborhoods and revitalizing the houses and business by creating a gayborhood, we'll do the same thing for marriage. ‘Cause we're used to being told we'll fail and proving everyone wrong. The real debate - Marriage Rights for Gays - Don't Get Me Started!

Read More Scott @


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • somelikeitscott profile image

      somelikeitscott 6 years ago from Las Vegas

      Mr. Bukhari - Your entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. Mine is that you're an unenlightened asshole who spouts opinions as if they are facts. You're the real pervert sir.

    • Shahid Bukhari profile image

      Shahid Bukhari 6 years ago from My Awareness in Being.

      Logics ... or Votes, do not Govern Existential Reality ... The Natural, does ...

      Freedom, is Not, the Unnatural ... Nor Alcohol ... True Happiness ... or human Fulfillment.

      Marriage, is a Covenant Betwixt the Marriageable ... not the embrace of same sexed ... the facing of the same, or facing away from the same.

      Human ... Is, much Greater Purpose ... than Unnatural Sex. If Gays Perverts had it their way ... they would self-obliterate not only themselves ... but the Human Species as a whole.

    • fireball34 profile image

      fireball34 8 years ago

      Scott- When a person uses the old-testment to attack gays, then they need to be reminded that people who eat seafood should be stone, having sex with your wife when she is on the rag should be stone, wearing two different types of fabric at the same time should be stone, talking back to your parents should be stone, etc...... When they use the New Test. in Romans to attack gays they need to know that homosexual was never the word use in the greek and that male prosuites is what the passage is refering too Don't even get me started!~

    • MrLondounSkye profile image

      MrLondounSkye 8 years ago from Smallville, VA

      Ohhh Mr. Scott u are now my new best friend and I've also started a hub on this topic u have to check it out!!! I'm here and i'm queer!!! LMAO

    • Janies World profile image

      Janies World 8 years ago from Brooklyn, New York

      i'm with you my friend.. it astounds me that in 2009 we're still fighting for equality and against discrimination.. keep fighting the good fight! i'll be right beside you!

    • profile image

      Zyra 8 years ago it ok if i use this for our debate on SAME SEX MARRIAGE? tnx

    • Melissa G profile image

      Melissa G 9 years ago from Tempe, AZ

      Great job responding to Susan, somelikeitscott. To add to your argument that the Big G did not in fact write the bible, the content has been heavily edited over the years in a quest to gain greater power over people through fear--were those who changed the meaning of the bible also acting under the guidance of the holy spirit? And I wonder why the "holy spirit" invested so much time and energy into that one book--why doesn't that very spirit inspire us all to just be better people instead of working through a select few? These are questions that bible beaters everywhere may be hard pressed to answer... and while I'm on it, didn't Jesus preach love and acceptance for all? How can hate-filled, fundamental Christians justify how far they've strayed from that basic precept? Just because they can point to an arbitrary passage in a book that claims it's okay? Absolute absurdity!

      And I like the idea of civil unions for all.

    • somelikeitscott profile image

      somelikeitscott 9 years ago from Las Vegas

      And it's worth forty million Jimmy! Thanks for the thoughts (and support) ever think of moving to America and running for office? Oh wait, you can't...stay where you are, be a great husband and father and continue the support for all!

    • jimmythejock profile image

      James Paterson 9 years ago from Scotland

      As a Brit who for some strange reason watched the debate on TV oh and as a straight man who is married to a straight woman, and I suppose that I could also be called a Christian, although the last time I was in church was around 7 years ago, I was also dissapointed by both of the candidates stance on the issue of same sex marriage, I personally believe that if 2 consenting adults whether they be male and female, male and male, or female and female, want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, then nobody has the right to stand in their way. Equality for all is part of the Great American constitution why cant they live up to that promise?

      just my 2 cents Scott.....jimmy

    • somelikeitscott profile image

      somelikeitscott 9 years ago from Las Vegas

      Susan, The view from your ivory pulpit must be delightful. The men who wrote the bible under "Holy Spirits" inspiration as you put it...hmmm...some people call alcohol "spirirts" too we just men so how do you know absolutely that they didn't slip some stuff in there that they wanted to that God didn't tell them? Can you trust them like the Catholic priests who are pedophiles? Are they under the Holy Spirits too? Oh right, they're just men and we must hate their sin but not the sinners, right?

      I'm glad we live in America and not Bibleon as you seem to want us all to live in. Please don't worry about me, I can handle whatever life throws my way and when it comes time for the afterlife, I can only hope that my "judge" (as you put it) is like Judge Judy - direct, to the point, has a sense of humor...oh yeah, and Jewish.

      You're no doubt not a "regular" when it comes to reading my hubs but allow me to give you the link to my video blog which I think you'll appreciate hating too - - and please, don't tell me it's the sin you hate because I don't believe you.

    • profile image

      Susan 9 years ago

      "somelikeitscott"isit? The Bible wasn't written hundreds of thousands of years ago my friend. Where DO you get your info? And the men who wrote it,wrote it under the Holy Spirits inspiration. Now, you will sit back and mock that becasue YOU want to do what you WANT when YOU WANT--with NO accountability. But guess what? You will have and you do have.Before a HOlY and Righteous God who sent His Son to save us all. The Bible also tells this greatest of all Truths. Whether you BELIEVE it or not. Whether you CHOOSE to believe in the Bible or not? Whether you have even read it by your choice? Whether you BELIEVE in the Author of it, Jehovah God or not. Whether you CHOOSE to BELIEVE on the Name of His Son of God, Jesus Christ or NOT? You will nonetheless be JUDGED by HIM on that soon coming Day.NowI am here again just to tell you that He loves you. He loves every single one of us, wretched sinners that we are. That's why He came--to save us and set us free. He did me--it's your CHOICE what you will allow Him to do in your heart-- your life--your choice alone. All sin is wrong--but He came to wash us clean from each and every one of them..

    • profile image

      Sean 9 years ago


      I applaud your answer to Susan; it always irks me when folks trot out Leviticus, and forget that it was written by a human being, not by the hand of g-d. Many, many people believe the b-i-b-l-e was divinely inspired, and while I personally do not hold this truth to be self-evident, I respect this belief.

      I want to also commend Chef Jeff for his thoughtful comments as well. Traditionally, marriage is undertaken in a religious institution, though doing so does not guarantee it's insolvency, or longevity. Furthermore, when folks decide the marriage isn't working, they traditionally don't approach the religious institution to dissolve said marriage, they approach the courts. Straight away, we encounter a contradiction. Thus, it's my opinion, humble that may be, that marriages should be a civil union regardless gender.

      That's really all it is folks, a civil union. It's about laws, and taxes, and whether one is allowed to visit his or her dying loved one in the hospital, g-d forbid. Marriage in a Catholic church, a protestant church, a jewish temple, in your Aunt Tilly's backyard, or in the office of the justice of the peace, is the same, and bound by the same laws and regulations of this great land of ours.

      Gender isn't the issue. G-d is the issue. G-d is genderless.

    • somelikeitscott profile image

      somelikeitscott 9 years ago from Las Vegas

      And Susan, it's always astonishing to me when those who profess their devotion to God fail to understand that the bible (both Old and New Testaments) were written by man and not God at all.

      I also believe that God IS God alone but I don't believe everything I read, whether it was written ten minutes ago or hundreds of thousands of years ago and also understand that the written word is based on the writer's understanding and perspective.

      Why when we evolve as people and our understanding of ourselves and the world around us shouldn't we also become more enlightened about the "absolutes" from this book being spoken by people from a time of such little enlightenment?

      Pardon me while I don't fall off the flat earth.

    • profile image

      Susan 9 years ago

      I reckon it's an issue becuase it is an issue with God. Like it or not there is a scripyure which supports this truth. Leviticus 18:22 " Thou shalt not lie with amnkind as with woamnkind,it is an abomination" Now-- why would God say that and then turn around and support that thing He, who is Holy and Righteous and cannot and will NOT ever change. God is eternal and everlasting. it is not an issue of hate-- It is an issue of Holiness before Him. It is neither right for heterosexuals to commit fornication outside of marrigae either. Just as He condems abortion as well. In the Holy Bible He gives commandment to kill such a one as causes the death of an unborn child. It matters not whether these things are in the Old or New Testaments--God IS God alone. We are not. Nor will we ever be.

    • Chef Jeff profile image

      Chef Jeff 9 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

      I may be the spoiler in this but I believe that the act of marriage is something best handled by the church, not the state.

      Because I believe very strongly in separation between church and state, I would come down on the side of churches being able to say one way or the other. The state's only role should be to confirm the marriage and that only for purposes of the state, such as taxation, etc. The state should be completely neutral in this matter.

      I know of many Gay and Lesbian couples who have committed for life, and many of them have kept their marriage or civil union longer than some of my heterosexual friends have!

      But I fear the state and church mingling on this issue mainly because of my deep desire to keep the pulpit out of the matters of state, and vice versa.  There are too many lunatic fringe people who want to interject their religious beliefs into business that religion has no legal part in.

      So while I don't care if it is called marriage, civil union or anything else, I cringe when the Federal Government has to take a stand on this issue. 

      If it can truly be said to be a matter of civil rights, I might change my mind, but I do not think that getting married or not is a matter of civil rights.  The resulting benefits of marriage to my mind would be covered under civil rights, but not necessarily the ability to get married.

      Can you change my mind?  I'd love to see a hub about that issue.

    • DonnaCSmith profile image

      Donna Campbell Smith 9 years ago from Central North Carolina

      I also thought they did the run-around-dance on answering that question with both of them saying yes, then no. Stick up for what you really beleive, no matter which side of the issue.

    • dineane profile image

      dineane 9 years ago from North Carolina

      I have to agree that this was probably one of my most disappointed moments in the debate as well.

    • Melissa G profile image

      Melissa G 9 years ago from Tempe, AZ

      I'm right there with you on this! It surprises me that there is still a debate about gay marriage--why on earth should gay people not have the right to marry??? I've heard the argument many times about the Christian definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but isn't language a continually evolving thing? And who would it hurt if we expanded the concept of marriage to encompass any loving union? This just doesn't make any sense to me and I was disappointed to see both candidates agree wholeheartedly on this position.