That's pretty much what I thought when I heard that exchange. I think it may start to resonate more after the initial wave of "ohmygod she didn't completely blow it" passes.

You cut off the transcript, didn't you? Doesn't she say My answer is the same as his and that is I do not believe marriage should be redefined.

Upon which Gwen goes GREAT SO YOU AGREE ON SOMETHING!

and I cringe a thousand cringes

Dan -

I don't think that is an accurate transcript of what Palin said. She prefaced the answer by saying something like, "Your question to Sen Biden was whether or not I support gay marriage..."

She basically only said she did not support gay marriage, not that she supported civil rights for gay couples.

It could be another proud moment in American political football playing for the Democratic Party to use LGBTs in media spots to attack Republicans.

Just like Clinton did with his proud late night signing of DOMA.

Don't pay too close attention to Biden talking about constitutional fairness at the start of his answer then backpeddling to make it clear that the constitution doesn't really matter to him/Obama...at least not in regard to homos.

I just can't wait to be able to visit my dying husband in the hospital just like every other American. How proud I will be.

I wonder if Biden also thinks it would be fair for us to visit our children in the hospital after our partner was killed in the auto accident - even if the dead partner was the biological parent.

Would either of these two morons dared speak in support of the children of LGBT families or would that make us sound too much like humans.

It's much easier to use our families and our citizenship as political leverage during election season than it is to actually defend our rights.

"[This question, like so many of Ifill’s questions, makes no sense...]"

Not seeing the sense of a question doesn't mean it has none. I saw it as a nice way to keep Palin boxed in rhetorically as governor of a state with same-sex protections.

My response when I heard this was: She doesn't have to seek prohibition of these things because they already are prohibited in most states.

I think it's a watershed moment.

I watched the debate with a very partisan GOP crowd. The crowd was noisy all through the debate. There were some "They already can" shouts when Biden was talking about hospital visitation. But Palin's comments didn't seem to elicit any reaction. There was no gasp when she said that she agreed with Biden.

I wonder if Maggie Gallagher is going to mention this on her blog. Just checked. Not a word from Maggie. I'm not surprised.

she definitely said she agreed with biden that marriage shouldn't be redefined. the language used and the fact at that the question was about rights, not wording, makes it confusing enough that both sides are claiming a bit of victory on it.

Just read what Good As You had to say. Important perspective that there are still significant disagreements. Of course, but in broad terms, what will be remembered from this night is that a GOP standard-bearer said that same-sex couples should be treated like hetero couples, and that she supported civil unions.

So after I saw this I got a slew of text messages from pro-McCain family members saying: See, Obama and Biden won't do anything for you either. Honestly, Biden wasn't super eloquent in driving his point home, but he made one gigantic distinction about gay rights that a no VP/Pres candidate ever has so close to an election. He said (and I DVR'd this and replayed it over and over until I got exact quotes here) that:

Absolutely, positively look... In an Obama-Biden administration there will be absolutely no difference from a constitutional standpoint and a legal standpoint between a same sex and a heterosexual couple. The fact of the matter is that under the constitution, same sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospital, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, etc. That's only fair. It's what the constitution calls for. And so we do support, we do support, making sure that committed couples in a same sex marriage are guaraunteed the same constitutional benefits... as heterosexual couples.

Biden pointed out what he and Obama have been promising for a year now. That under their administration, we will be given the same rights as any other citizen in this country. And I agree with Dan when he says same rights, "even if we're denied those two magic syllables."

It's also important to note Biden's next statement when discussing how he would not redefine marriage. The exact quote is this:

"Barak Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what defines marriage. We do not support that. That is basically a decision to be left up to the faiths and the people who practice their faiths in determination of what you call it. The bottom line though is, and I'm glad the Governer said this, I take her at her word obviously, that she thinks 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."

He is saying that marriage should not be defined by government. It instead should be defined by religious institutions and the government should just ensure that everyone has equal rights. My religious institution considers my partner and I married. As such, in an Obama-Biden administration, though we don't get that magical license providing 10,000 rights in one quick signature, we do get the rights and we can define our situations ourselves instead of expecting the government to do it for us. It's that important step we need toward getting a legal contract with 10,000 rights handed to us after a 20 minute ceremony.

Palin only said that she wouldn't regulate against our rights... but she never once said that she'd push for our rights. An Obama-Biden administration would give us the rights we should have had from the beginning.

Mrs Palin made it clear last night, as Mr McCain did talking to George Stephanpoulos in July, that she supports civil unions in the most basic sense of the term; hospital visitations and all the rest of it. A clear majorty of Americans feel the same way, and Mr Biden and Mr Obama do as well.

A majority of Americans also oppose taking civil unions and calling them "marriages." There is a fudge factor politically because many people believe that anyone who says they support civil unions also supports gay marriage. That's just a fact, as deplorable as it may be. That is what Mr McCain obviously was thinking of on Stephanopoulos when asked plainly "Do you support civil unions, then?" and he replied initially "No," and then in the same breath backtracked and explained his stance, which amounts to that. Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden may each phrase it slightly differently, but that's what it amounts to.

Don't look for a Federal amendment on gay marriage anytime soon. The fact that most Americans have an opinion on it, while hamstringing Congress from passing a law on it either way, should indicate what is the basic tacit consensus; that it's really an issue for the States. In that sense we *already* have a law that covers the issue. It's called the Tenth Amendment.

You'll also notice that when Biden rattled off all the gay rights he and Obama would support, the topic of adoption/parenting never came up. He avoided it like the plagues because politically it'd be suicide to do otherwise. So the real question is, if Obama/Biden get in, what's going to change for that...

I think you're being too charitable. All she was agreeing to is that there should be no same sex marriage. Given her previous answer ("tolerance" only), I don't think she was agreeing that gay couples should be equal under the law.

All this assumes the dreaded conservative base is paying close enough attention. All they heard was, "not if means re-defining the definition of marriage"...Everything after that was blahblahblah. They just want to hear that you wouldn't call a couple of faggots a "married couple". That would make it too hard to distinguish themselves.

the topic of adoption/parenting never came up. He avoided it like the plagues because politically it'd be suicide to do otherwise.

Or it could be because the federal government can't do a damn thing about it.

For a politician, admitting to be for gay marriage is like admitting you think pot should be legal or the war on drugs is a failure. You might beleive it in your heart, but you can't trust that the part of the public that actually votes will agree with you.

Unfortunately the percentage of the population that are intolerant are more likely voters than people like us that agree with 99% of "progressive" ideals.

The Religious Right coined the term "Gay-Marriage" to help Anti-Gay people appreciate that those nasty Homos were asking for something new, something special, something NO ONE ELSE could ever have. And you've all bought into their terminology.

It might seem petty, but we know words can convey deep passion that often is misleading: "Pro-Life" "Freedom Fighter" etc. Gay-Americans want Civil Marriage Equality. I'd think those that support equality would use that terminology with regard to marriage rights and Gay-Americans.

1. I think she has gay family or gay friends ... she hinted

2. The State of Alaska provide for its employees equal benefits for domestic partners ... a Palin directive.

3. I am a staunch Democrat, but thought it took some courage for her to be the darling of the right and articulate a decent place on gay rights on the biggest stage she has ever occupied.

4. Biden gave the nice standard Dem mantra so memorized for twenty plus years. If he had any real guts he would have supported gay marriage, except the Pope won't let him.

5. Mc Cain seems toast - but - Palin will emerge as the most vibrant and interesting new leader of the Republican party. She is it. She will be the candidate running against Obama in four years. Much smarter, much more informed and a very studied trail of experience to draw on. Won't take her 30 years .... Palin - Romney??

Her future is assured. For twenty years. She will only get better.

I enjoyed this debate far more than any so far, even the smiles and better less negative energy.

Uh, I hate to be a wet blanket here, but why exactly do any of you expect anything that comes out of that deranged woman's mouth to be truthful, consistent or make any sense?

Nothing else has. She could say civil unions today and extermination camps tomorrow for all the hell we know.

Jim @ 18,

2. The State of Alaska provide for its employees equal benefits for domestic partners ... a Palin directive.

Uh... I think you mean that the Alaska Supreme Court ordered the benefits and Palin had no legal choice but to comply. She even held a mean-spirited, legally meaningless, statewide advisory "vote" to get most citizens on record as opposing it.

She's an ignorant, hateful asshole, period. For a political party with absolutely no positive agenda, she fits in perfectly.

For those of you in cali fighting for gay marriage, I hope some of you counter-protest the anti-gay bullies at the polling stations. They're going to try to have 4 per station.

For those of you in cali fighting for gay marriage, I hope some of you counter-protest the anti-gay bullies at the polling stations. They're going to try to have 4 per station.

I wanted to take Biden's head in my left hand and Palin's in my right and slam them together when I watched the two of them grin at each other about how they just discovered they agree that my partner and I's relationship is less meaningful than theirs. Fuck them both.

Mr. Original Andrew...

The only thing your post has made painfully clear is that you, yes YOU are the "ignorant hateful asshole period."

I love your leap from her debate to concentration camps. Your apparent ignorance belittles all of the survivors and descendents of the people who actually lived through that hell.

Wake up.

Anyone who intrepreted Palin's comments as support for same sex civil unions simply wasn't listening closely or paying careful attention to her words.

First, note that when she says she has a very diverse family and group of friends, she isn't talking about having gay friends and family members. She is talking about having family members who are much less
tolerant than herself of homosexuals. Read the text again if you missed this.

Second, look at her words on hospital visitation: "No one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital." That, of course, is a strawman. The issue isn't whether the government should be prohibiting (!) same-sex partner visitations. (Althogh perhaps Palin's "less tolerant" friends would support that.) The issue is whether the government is going to afford recognition to a same-sex relationship, such that (a) same-sex partner A's visitation rights are not at the whim of same-sex partner B's blood relatives in the event that same-sex partner B is unconscious, incapacitated, etc, and (b) same-sex partner A doesn't have to first locate a blood relative to even get the hospital to provide any information about what is going on or consent to treatment if same-sex partner B is unconscious, etc. On that front, she provided ZERO reassurance.

Third, look at the nod to her base: She talks about people "choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves". Translation: She is messaging that she believes homosexuality is a choice.

There is a WORLD of difference between these two sets of candidates on gay rights issues. "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." That is amazing. That is unprecedented in a major party nominee. Sarah Palin in no way said that she agreed with that sentiment.

Any gay person (or straight person who cares about gay rights) who votes for John McCain after deciding that the candidates are "just the same" because they all "oppose same-sex marriage" will get exactly what s/he deserves if either John McCain or Sarah Palin appoints to the Court judges who overturn Lawrence v. Texas.

I'm with number 23. Fuck civil unions. I don't want a 'gay marriage', I just want a straight forward marriage with my boyfriend of so long. Sad how so many are threatened by that.

I don't think a leap from this to concentration camps is much of a leap sad to say.

I think it is interesting how many are picking apart Palin's comments, but not holding the same magnifying glass to Biden's comments. He does state that committed gay couples be afforded the same rights as hetero couples, but he did not say the same rights as married couples. A person in a hetero couple who is not married to their significant other cannot override family on medical decisions etc., so what is Biden promising? Nothing really.

you completely manipulated Palin's text. This is what she really said, in direct quotes. If you don't believe me, watch it for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfIKdRmWkBI

the question: "Governer, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?"

"Well not if it goes closer and closer toward redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman and unfortunately thats sometimes where those steps lead. But I also want to clarify if theres any kind of suggestion at all for 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 could go round and round and round about what that actually means, but Im being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non-support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage."

and then the lady asked Biden, "lets try to avoid nuance, senator, do you support gay marriage?"
to which Biden answers, "No."