Hot skirts
She did skirt the question, and made a very deliberate and thoughtful (and good, frankly) move to do so.
Here's the thing.
The Constitution is designed to be as non-explicit as possible. Everything that it outlines and provides for is supposed to be considered the absolute basic framework of government--the essentials for its formation, comprehension, and function. Nothing more.
Everything else that needs to be shaped or specified further than what the Constitution outlines is supposed to be handled by the states, and if not by the state government, then by counties and municipalities. Specificity grows as you go down the line. However, specifications at the state or local levels also cannot conflict with provisions established at higher levels.
Modifications to the Constitution have to be monumental, have to address a grave flaw in the very substructure of government or the provision of rights, and should not be used to restrict rights and freedoms. Indeed, the Constitution and federal government are in place to protect rights. That's the most basic definition of government.
The federal government has no business stating what genders or combinations thereof constitute a "marriage." That also means that it has no business saying that it's solely between a man and a woman. States should (and do) determine whether or not they want to define that, honor different configurations of it, or allow reciprocity between states' definitions thereof.
This debate was problematic on a couple of fronts. First off, Biden was correct--this is not a federal issue. However, he's incorrect that it's determined on faith and such. We're not talking about trying to get religions to marry same-sex couples--validation is only one front in the battle we're fighting. We're also talking about the legal ramifications that being married--or unmarried--conveys in the eyes of the law. There is an entire suite of de facto provisions for married couples--automatically accepted hospital visitation, different taxation scenarios, different assumptions about the creation of and handling of property after death, and so forth. These are matter-of-fact privileges that same-sex couples can only leverage with the help of a lawyer and a great deal of contract-drawing...and even so, the end result is not as "bulletproof." (For those who point out that there IS, at least, a way to secure these privileges legally--what with explicit wills and power of attorney--then I respond with, "All right, let's revoke those privileges from married folks, and make them do the legwork too.")
Just to say that you don't oppose (or that you tolerate) something does not mean that you empower it by default, and that applies to both parties in the debate. The important omission was that--while Palin (and presumably by extrapolation, McCain) would not interfere with same-sex couples per se, they also would not be doing anything to empower those privileges that married couples enjoy. Then again, neither would Biden/Obama, by Biden's description. So, honestly, I'm not sure either camp is supporting the "civil rights" of homosexuals or same-sex couples. In terms of the rights that the Constitution affords and does not explicitly deny, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equivalent.
So what you're getting here is not only a technically correct answer, but what we already have: The federal government has no business defining a marriage. It does, however, have to protect rights established by the Constitution, and it should not comment further on or focus those rights--that's the governing job of lower divisions of government.
She did skirt the question, and made a very deliberate and thoughtful (and good, frankly) move to do so.
Here's the thing.
The Constitution is designed to be as non-explicit as possible. Everything that it outlines and provides for is supposed to be considered the absolute basic framework of government--the essentials for its formation, comprehension, and function. Nothing more.
Everything else that needs to be shaped or specified further than what the Constitution outlines is supposed to be handled by the states, and if not by the state government, then by counties and municipalities. Specificity grows as you go down the line. However, specifications at the state or local levels also cannot conflict with provisions established at higher levels.
Modifications to the Constitution have to be monumental, have to address a grave flaw in the very substructure of government or the provision of rights, and should not be used to restrict rights and freedoms. Indeed, the Constitution and federal government are in place to protect rights. That's the most basic definition of government.
The federal government has no business stating what genders or combinations thereof constitute a "marriage." That also means that it has no business saying that it's solely between a man and a woman. States should (and do) determine whether or not they want to define that, honor different configurations of it, or allow reciprocity between states' definitions thereof.
This debate was problematic on a couple of fronts. First off, Biden was correct--this is not a federal issue. However, he's incorrect that it's determined on faith and such. We're not talking about trying to get religions to marry same-sex couples--validation is only one front in the battle we're fighting. We're also talking about the legal ramifications that being married--or unmarried--conveys in the eyes of the law. There is an entire suite of de facto provisions for married couples--automatically accepted hospital visitation, different taxation scenarios, different assumptions about the creation of and handling of property after death, and so forth. These are matter-of-fact privileges that same-sex couples can only leverage with the help of a lawyer and a great deal of contract-drawing...and even so, the end result is not as "bulletproof." (For those who point out that there IS, at least, a way to secure these privileges legally--what with explicit wills and power of attorney--then I respond with, "All right, let's revoke those privileges from married folks, and make them do the legwork too.")
Just to say that you don't oppose (or that you tolerate) something does not mean that you empower it by default, and that applies to both parties in the debate. The important omission was that--while Palin (and presumably by extrapolation, McCain) would not interfere with same-sex couples per se, they also would not be doing anything to empower those privileges that married couples enjoy. Then again, neither would Biden/Obama, by Biden's description. So, honestly, I'm not sure either camp is supporting the "civil rights" of homosexuals or same-sex couples. In terms of the rights that the Constitution affords and does not explicitly deny, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equivalent.
So what you're getting here is not only a technically correct answer, but what we already have: The federal government has no business defining a marriage. It does, however, have to protect rights established by the Constitution, and it should not comment further on or focus those rights--that's the governing job of lower divisions of government.
