Biden and Palin on same-sex couples' rights (含中譯)

標籤:

Transcript of Palin, Biden debate

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

(中譯)

IFILL (主持): 下一條問題 -- 噢不好意思, 下一輪問題由你開始, 拜登參議員。請問你支持給予同性伴侶應有的權利, 就如他們在阿拉斯加施行般嗎?

BIDEN (拜登): 絕對支持。我支持給予同性伴侶應有的權利嗎? 我的回應是絕對正面的。嗱, 於奧巴馬-拜登陣營, 不論在憲法或是在法律的角度, 同性伴侶或異性伴侶絕無不同。

事實是, 在憲法下, 我們所享的權利應是一樣 -- 同性伴侶應享有到醫院探訪伴侶的權利, 產業共享權, 成為伴侶的人壽保險受益人, 以及其他權利。這才是公平。

這是憲法要求的, 所以我們支持。我們絕對支持確保在同性婚姻中的忠誠的伴侶應享有與異性戀伴侶同等的與產業權, 探訪[伴侶]權, 保險方面的權利, 以及所有權有關的憲法上的權利。

IFILL: 州長, 你會否贊成將[同性伴侶享有的權利]由阿拉斯加擴展至全國?

PALIN(培林): 嗯, 我不會, 如果這意味著我們要重新定義一男一女婚姻制度的傳統定義。不幸地, 有時候, [此項立法]正帶領我們走上此途。

但我亦想澄清, 如果我的答案有任何暗示我對美國的成年人選擇他們的伴侶或選擇他們認為對他們最好的關係不予容忍的話, 我希望你明白, 我是容忍的, 我有多元化的家庭及朋友圈子, 尤算在我的朋友圈子裡, 你可以看到, 有些朋友未必在這課題上同意我, 有些很親密的朋友並不同意我在這課題上的立場。

但在這容忍下, 在麥凱恩-培林陣營裡, 絕對沒有人會提議做任何事情去禁止例如醫院探訪權或簽署或協商合同[的權利]。

但我會確切地告訴美國人, 我不支持將婚姻定義為一男一女以外的事情, 而我想, 通過一些細微差別, 我們可以反覆探討它的真正含意。

但我想盡我所能確切地讓美國人知道我不支持任何違反傳統婚姻定義的事情。

IFILL: 讓我們嘗試不要談那些細微差別, 參議員。請問你支持同性婚姻否?

BIDEN: 不。貝拉克.奧巴馬和我均不支持從民權方面重新定義何謂婚姻。我們不支持這樣。基本上, 這是個可以由信仰及那些實踐他們的信仰或 - 你可以說 - 決心的人作出的決定。

但是, 底線是 - 我很高興從州長的回答中理解到, 很明顯 - 她認為忠誠的同性戀伴侶與忠誠的異性戀伴侶在民權的角度是絕對沒有任何分別。如果是這樣, 我們的立場是一樣的。

IFILL: 這是否你所說的?

PALIN: 你對他的提問是他支持同性戀婚姻否, 而我的答案和他的一樣, 就是我不支持。

IFILL: 很好。你同意。於此以上, 我們現在談談外交政策。

6 留言:

华兰 說...

看不懂英文,请问有翻译版本吗?

Zeke 說...

"Sarah Palin, she's getting ready for tomorrow's debate. I understand she now knows all three branches of government." --Jay Leno

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palin-jokes.htm

华兰 說...

谢谢

.bwd. 說...

華蘭: 已譯。自問文筆不好, 故只譯我quote的這一段。有關在下對這段的評論, 你可到在下網誌一讀。

Zeke: 呵呵Letterman有點mean... 但這女人(可不是福爾摩斯那句的含意噢!!)被人取笑, 唔係冇理由架真係, 我把她的辯論呀訪問呀粗略看了一下... 哎呀她真的是言之無物的呀。

掬香齋主人 說...

我相信“麥凱恩-培林”勝出的機會不大。不過,假使天禍美國,靡所厎止的話,也許在關鍵時刻會有一次“恐怖襲擊”,令他們可以反敗為勝。我記得很清楚,上次布殊競選連任,在投票前一個星期就出現拉登錄影帶,不失時機的提醒美國選民國家正受“壞人”威脅;陳水扁中槍也用上同一套戲法。事有“湊巧”是常常發生的。

美國攻打伊拉克的時候我總覺得這是一個由盛入衰的轉捩點:任何毀滅都是以輝煌和熣燦為開端。

.bwd. 說...

我絕不希望麥凱恩-培林勝出, 希望美國選民唔會膚淺到咁嘅地步。奧巴馬上場可能是另一個馬英九, 但點都好過另一個更爛的蘋果。

事有“湊巧”? 擺明就係陰招, 賤格。

我同同事講, 萬一麥凱恩-培林陣營居然勝出, 我要請一日假 to mourn for the future of America. 冇盛又何來衰呢? 但我唔想要攪到全世界好似要reboot咁班大帝先明白問題嘅嚴重性。