Biden: “I’m absolutely comfortable” with gay marriage

posted at 12:38 pm on May 7, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

While Team Obama eagerly engages in various campaigns of misdirection to get people talking about anything other than the president’s terrible economic performance, it looks like last week’s flap concerning the resignation of the Romney camp’s openly gay staffer presented Team Obama an opportunity to work on their own gay-marriage messaging. Sending out their top scout to determine the lay of the land, Vice President Biden elucidated his own views on gay marriage on Sunday’s Meet the Press:

“Look, I am vice president of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”

It would be way too controversial of an election-year flip-flop for President Obama himself to directly endorse gay marriage, so the White House is instead crafting a careful image of a reserved-yet-receptive president with “evolving” views who surrounds himself with sympathetic high-ranking personnel. Obama’s campaign is always quick to tout the repeal of DADT as a signature achievement, and Biden also pointed to some of his boss’s executive orders in support of gay rights, but Biden’s office insisted that the vice president’s words were not an endorsement in favor of gay marriage:

The seeming endorsement of gay marriage by the vice president quickly made news across the Twittersphere. Chuck Todd, reporter and political analyst for NBC News, tweeted that Biden had gone further than Obama on gay marriage. A spokesperson for Biden contacted Todd to clarify that Biden was not speaking for Obama. But, a top Obama campaign official seemed to suggest, via Twitter, that Obama held the same view.

“What VP said – that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights – is precisely POTUS’s position,” David Axelrod responded to Todd via Twitter.

A spokesperson in Biden’s office sent an email to reporters saying that Biden’s position on gay marriage had not changed, but, like Obama, his position is “evolving.”

“The vice president was saying what the president has said previously – that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights. That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it. Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country,” the spokesperson wrote.

Gay-rights advocates lauded Biden’s outspokenness and encouraged President Obama to say as much, too — but, like many hot-button issues that excite separate groups within his base, actual hard-hitting decisions (or even just real-talk) will likely have to wait until 2013, if at all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

But, back on topic. Why should 5% of the American population be allowed to redefine the term “marriage”?

kingsjester on May 7, 2012 at 5:23 PM

To address that, I think would run into the same issue as my post above regarding the Flood.

You would argue that it is a redefinition of the entire institution of marriage. I think the pro-gay marriage crowd would argue that it doesn’t at all redefine the institution, since they would argue that it is still two people making a presumably life-long commitment to each other.

The problem seems to me to be that without agreement on that most basic point… whether gay marriage redefines the institution or not… then it becomes nearly impossible to really debate the issue any further.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Who’s demanding government action? Same-sex marriage advocates. Who wants to leave the whole issue alone? Conservatives.

Clearly not all of them since I’ve twice said government should be out of it altogether.

The government does not define marriage now. Same-sex marriage would unquestionably redefine marriage, and it would be imposed by the government, therefore the government would be redefining marriage.

That is ridiculously convoluted.

Do you really want to admit you can’t follow that little bit of reasoning?

The whole talking point of “get the government out of the marriage business” has no basis in fact. Marriage has and will continue to happen. Marriage status has and will continue to change the financial and other behavior of people, and such changes will certainly include the reproduction of children, who introduce new citizens to the state. Laws will have to be made.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 4:32 PM

No one said marriage wouldn’t continue to happen, just that government shouldn’t be a part of it.. “Laws will have to be made” … sounds like you are advocating government action, not me.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Governments recognize marriage because it exists, it changes behavior, and it leads to families. Government will never act like marriage doesn’t exist. Yet you want to equate the basic recognition of marriage that currently exists with government “being in the marriage business.”

You’re not advocating for the government to “get out of the marriage business,” but to get into it in a bigger way by telling everyone what kind of marriages they must accept and recognize.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Let me redo that to make the quoting clear:

The government does not define marriage now. Same-sex marriage would unquestionably redefine marriage, and it would be imposed by the government, therefore the government would be redefining marriage.

That is ridiculously convoluted.

Do you really want to admit you can’t follow that little bit of reasoning?

The whole talking point of “get the government out of the marriage business” has no basis in fact. Marriage has and will continue to happen. Marriage status has and will continue to change the financial and other behavior of people, and such changes will certainly include the reproduction of children, who introduce new citizens to the state. Laws will have to be made.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 4:32 PM

No one said marriage wouldn’t continue to happen, just that government shouldn’t be a part of it.. “Laws will have to be made” … sounds like you are advocating government action, not me.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Governments recognize marriage because it exists, it changes behavior, and it leads to families. Government will never act like marriage doesn’t exist. Yet you want to equate the basic recognition of marriage that currently exists with government “being in the marriage business.”

You’re not advocating for the government to “get out of the marriage business,” but to get into it in a bigger way by telling everyone what kind of marriages they must accept and recognize.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM

tom on May 7, 2012 at 5:59 PM

If liberals that tv shows are great ways to educate the public, why don’t they support shows that put Americans in a positive light for the rest of the world to see?

Gays get “Will and Grace”. Christians get “Good Christian Bitches”. This is just more proof that liberals know exactly what they’re doing when they use tv to promote hate against conservatives, Christians, and Southerners.

JohnJ on May 7, 2012 at 12:57 PM

LOL! But this is too disturbing to believe. So people think “it just can’t be true.”

yhxqqsn on May 7, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Not to break the rhythm, but I have to say:

I said this here, years ago. Biden is Obama’s insurance policy. The O puts up with the dodo’s statements, is not threatened by him in any way, is able to keep him in the same general direction as his policies, but, above all, Biden is the big reason whistletooth is surviving any serious threats because no one with any sense wants ding-bat-biden in charge.

PaCadle on May 7, 2012 at 6:46 PM

why don’t they support shows that put Americans in a positive light for the rest of the world to see?
JohnJ on May 7, 2012 at 12:57 PM

ALAS, can you find me one ??
I’d watch !!

pambi on May 7, 2012 at 6:46 PM

After the election Obama will have more flexibility. Convey this information to the Gay-TM … quietly.

David Blue on May 7, 2012 at 8:01 PM

No, only those unwilling to recognize GOD.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM

.
I don’t recognize your god. Ergo, your arguments on the basis of sin mean not a thing to me.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM

.
The Founding Fathers based all of the founding documents (Declaration Of Independence, The Constitution) on the Bible and a recognition of the God of the Bible.
Your rejection of the “recognition of God” only affects your own relationship (or lack thereof) with Him.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Let’s see now. Joe Biden endorses homosexual marriage shortly after ensuring us that Obama indeed has a “big stick”.

Is this guy trying to tell us something?

OlympicLeprechaun on May 7, 2012 at 9:01 PM

OlympicLeprechaun on May 7, 2012 at 9:01 PM

.
YEEAAAAAARRHHGGG . . . . . .

. . . . . . that mental picture is going to linger . . . . . .

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 10:25 PM

The Founding Fathers based all of the founding documents (Declaration Of Independence, The Constitution) on the Bible and a recognition of the God of the Bible.
Your rejection of the “recognition of God” only affects your own relationship (or lack thereof) with Him.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 8:50 PM

I’m not even going to start a debate on the founding documents with you, since we could debate that until the cows come home and never find any common ground on it.

You second point again, for the same reason, is completely meaningless to me. I know you believe that with every fiber of your being, and I have no issue with that at all. And I’m sorry you don’t like the idea that I reject the notion just as fervently as you believe it. I would make no attempt to dissuade you from your belief. I only wish those of you who are religious would offer me the same courtesy, but I know to “spread the word” is a key principle of Christianity (the aim of every religion is to grow it’s members afterall, so it makes sense).

gravityman on May 8, 2012 at 12:22 PM

It’s shows much courage of Joe Bidden to come out of the closet after all this time. Who is his same sex partner, Barney Frank?

jpcpt03 on May 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM

way past time to excommunicate this zero

scboy on May 8, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4