圖片來源/Photo by: adennak, Daily Kos

美國2008總統大選即將於十一月四日舉行投票,十月三日舉行惟一一場的副總統候選人辯論會。民主黨副總統候選人Joe Biden累積數十年政壇歷練果然不同凡響,辯論爭點掌握、內涵、氣度、風範都屬上乘,評論家皆稱這是Biden最完美的辯論代表作;反觀共和黨副總統候選人Palin,在完全不被看好的期待中,卻沒有出現任何紕漏,打破眾人眼鏡。

然而,這種不出紕漏的辯論結果,很大一部份原因來自沒有人聽懂Palin說什麼。

於是,網路評論者adennak便製作了首開<Sarah Palin辯論技巧使用流程圖>作為讀者了解Palin辯論內容的輔助,入木三分!

說到這場辯論,我剛好看到CNN實況轉播中兩人討論同性婚姻合憲性的立場。



大多數同志媒體都以高度正面的支持立場報導Biden的辯論回答;然而,仔細了解Biden的用語與說法,再對照提問人一針見血的進一步提問,便可知其實Biden的立場並沒有與歷來民主黨立場有絲毫增減。

提問人雖然問的是對同性伴侶的權利保障(same-sex benefits),Biden也就此語意回答,認為他和總統候選人Obama的立場一致,便是支持同性伴侶在法律上與憲法上應有的權利獲得平等保障,但是,Biden並沒有明確的表示,究竟同性伴侶所謂憲法/法律權利平等保障意指為何。也就是說,對同性伴侶權利保障有很多種方式與程度上的差異,Biden的立場並沒有改變當前美國各州法院近來的見解,亦即,同性伴侶所有權利都可以與已婚的異性戀伴侶完全一致,獲得相同的保障,但就是不能稱其伴侶關係為「婚姻」!

BIDEN: "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 hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, etc. 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."

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 that if there is 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..."

當然,就一位副總統候選人的身分而言,Biden的發言的確應給予最高度的掌聲,同時,在未來Obama/Biden真的贏得總統大選後,許多同性伴侶涉及聯邦法律的權利保障,或許便有可能因此獲得應有的對待。然而,我相信提問人也清楚這個問題回應的差別,對照Palin直接從傳統角度切入反對同性婚姻(婚姻仍須是一男一女的結合),但也某種程度對同性伴侶權利保障表示「不反對」(容忍,言下之意是,「同志愛怎麼搞是他們的事,我才不管哩!」),因此提問人才進一步問Biden是否支持同性婚姻("gay marriage"),而Biden說不表示贊成,才引來提問人笑稱兩人終於在這議題上有共識(Palin終於有一點同意Biden的立場)。

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 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 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."

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."

從整個辯論的基調而言,Palin應該是仍然不同意Biden的立場:Biden第一段辯論的話說得很滿,就是似乎應該賦予同性伴侶與異性伴侶所有憲法與法律所保障的任何權利,僅在第二段說明對「婚姻」這個名稱的保留,這的確也是Obama的立場,同意賦予同性伴侶法定準婚姻關係(civil unions)的保障;然而,共和黨總統候選人John McCain的立場非常堅決而明確,反對給予同性伴侶任何「接近婚姻的權利」,而這立場似乎也是Palin第一段的意見,也就是說,同性伴侶與異性戀伴侶兩者權利保障應有不同。

Biden第二段的解釋,似乎表示除了婚姻這個名稱之外,應給予同性伴侶與異性戀已婚伴侶完全相同的權利,不但側面迴避是否支持同性婚姻的直接肯定陳述(間接肯定:因為要賦予同性伴侶無差別的權利保障,所謂無差別,就是支持同性婚姻),還設一個局給Palin,讓Palin搞不清楚Biden回答的實質意涵,果不其然,Palin便回答其同意Biden第二段陳述意見,才引來提問人笑稱Palin「真的」同意Biden第二段說明的意見。Biden辯論口才果然了得!

實際上,Palin的阿拉斯加州長任內,曾數度否決賦予同性伴侶工作權之保障,也與其第一段說詞不符(雖然容忍,但卻透過政治權力實踐其對同性伴侶權利保障的否定!)。


 

narzissmus 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()