Gay Marriage Added To Democratic Platform

[g5000]

AP Source: Dems move to formally back gay marriage - Boston.com

The Democratic Party is moving to include support for gay marriage in the official party platform for the first time, a Democratic official said Monday, marking a key milestone for advocates of same-sex unions.

It annoys me when journalists do not name their sources.

The Democratic official would not comment on the exact language of the pro-gay marriage plank approved by the drafting committee. It was unclear if the party would call for any national action to legalize gay marriage.

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex unions, said the decision sets up marriage as a defining issue in the presidential election.

"We will rally supporters of traditional marriage to make sure they realize that the outcome of the presidential election may determine the future of marriage in our country," said Brian Brown, the organization's president.

The original source of this news is The Washington Blade:

Retiring gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who sits on the committee, told the Washington Blade on Monday that the 15-member panel unanimously backed the inclusion of a marriage equality plank after a national hearing over the weekend in Minneapolis, in which several witnesses testified in favor of such language.

“I was part of a unanimous decision to include it,” Frank said. “There was a unanimous decision in the drafting committee to include it in the platform, which I supported, but everybody was for it.”

I guess Barney Frank is the anonymous source in the AP story?



The GOP's unbroken record of supporting the rights of second class citizens is now officially over.

As the OG (Original GOPer) said, "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."

Except for the ones who walk funny and have limp wrists, according to the new GOP gangstas.

Now we are engaged in a great civil rights war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I don't see the potential for a significant uptick of voters from such a proclamation.

I do see how you could lose ones who otherwise supported you.

 

[WillowTree]

I guess there won't be any contributions from Chick Fil A.


Eat more cow!

 

[Ariux]

Democrats: Party of Sodom.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That this must be a plank in any party’s platform at all is what’s troubling.

And there should be nothing ‘controversial’ about a major American political party in compliance with Constitutional case law.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I don't see the potential for a significant uptick of voters from such a proclamation.

I do see how you could lose ones who otherwise supported you.

Exactly.

Those who are in favour of marriage equality are already on the Democratic side and those against it are on the Republican side. I can't imagine this decision does anything more than fire up "conservative" voters.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That this must be a plank in any party’s platform at all is what’s troubling.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Those who are in favour of marriage equality are already on the Democratic side and those against it are on the Republican side. I can't imagine this decision does anything more than fire up "conservative" voters.

I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T-S

Believe it or not there is a significant segment of our population who could care less what you do in your personal life but feel marriage is between a man and a woman.

Acceptance of homosexuality sure feels forced on folks these days.

There is fallout from that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Let's see... been shot down every time it's been on a ballot.... yeah, brilliant move.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Those who are in favour of marriage equality are already on the Democratic side and those against it are on the Republican side.

Not true.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And there should be nothing ‘controversial’ about a major American political party in compliance with Constitutional case law.

The reason is to apply the case law one has to accept that being black and marrying a white woman is equal to two men getting married.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And there should be nothing ‘controversial’ about a major American political party in compliance with Constitutional case law.

The reason is to apply the case law one has to accept that being black and marrying a white woman is equal to two men getting married.

Yep, I'm good with accepting that. Now if bigots like you would just get it through your thick skulls.

 

[g5000]

This is interesting in a historical context, and it is unfortunate that it is the Democratic Party which is coming down on the winning side instead of the GOP.

I don't see the potential for a significant uptick of voters from such a proclamation.

I do see how you could lose ones who otherwise supported you.

This is a very short-sighted view. The very myopia destroying the Republican Party.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And there should be nothing ‘controversial’ about a major American political party in compliance with Constitutional case law.

The reason is to apply the case law one has to accept that being black and marrying a white woman is equal to two men getting married.

Yep, I'm good with accepting that. Now if bigots like you would just get it through your thick skulls.

"Bigots" .........that will sure help keep those independents !

 

[g5000]

I don't see the potential for a significant uptick of voters from such a proclamation.

I do see how you could lose ones who otherwise supported you.

Exactly.

Those who are in favour of marriage equality are already on the Democratic side and those against it are on the Republican side. I can't imagine this decision does anything more than fire up "conservative" voters.

I am a conservative Republican in favor of gay marriage having equal protection of the laws.

 

[g5000]

And there should be nothing ‘controversial’ about a major American political party in compliance with Constitutional case law.

The reason is to apply the case law one has to accept that being black and marrying a white woman is equal to two men getting married.

It is the same thing. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court said that a rational reason must be given for banning interracial marriage, and that all the opponents had was that they didn't like it, which is not a rational reason.

The same is true for gay marriage. There is no rational reason for opposing it. It all boils down to some people just don't like it. "God hates fags" is not a rational reason for denying a gay married couple the right to file a married tax return. No opponent has ever proven that a gay marriage causes harm.

What does not seem to penetrate through the smoke thrown up by opponents is that this is all about "equal protection under the law".

That was the basis for Loving, and that is the basis for gay marriage rights.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I don't see the potential for a significant uptick of voters from such a proclamation.

I do see how you could lose ones who otherwise supported you.

This is a very short-sighted view. The very myopia destroying the Republican Party.

By all means please demonstrate the potential for fence sitters to be moved by a gay marriage platform ?

After his "evolution", Obama had to specfically reach out to "black pastors" for the very fallout I allude to.

 

[g5000]

I don't see the potential for a significant uptick of voters from such a proclamation.

I do see how you could lose ones who otherwise supported you.

This is a very short-sighted view. The very myopia destroying the Republican Party.

By all means please demonstrate the potential for fence sitters to be moved by a gay marriage platform ?

After his "evolution", Obama had to specfically reach out to "black pastors" for the very fallout I allude to.

You keep thinking about 2012, and not the future. That is what I mean. In the long run, opponents to gay marriage will be on the losing side.

You keep thinking this is just about politics, and not that this is more about human rights and equality.

It is about time we rose above ourselves.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And there should be nothing ‘controversial’ about a major American political party in compliance with Constitutional case law.

The reason is to apply the case law one has to accept that being black and marrying a white woman is equal to two men getting married.

It is the same thing. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court said that a rational reason must be given for banning interracial marriage, and that all the opponents had going for them was that they didn't like it, which is not a rational reason.

The same is true for gay marriage. There is no rational reason for opposing it. It all boils down to some people just don't like it. "God hates fags" is not a rational reason for denying a gay married couple the right to file a married tax return.

What does not seem to penetrate through the smoke thrown up by opponents is that this is all about "equal protection under the law".

That was the basis for Loving, and that is the basis for gay marriage rights.

Homosexuals are not a protected class. Racial identity is. That is why Loving though applicable in your emotional court hasn't stood scrutiny of its application to gays.

 

[g5000]

Homosexuals are not a protected class. Racial identity is. That is why Loving though applicable in your emotional court hasn't stood scrutiny of its application to gays.

Homosexuals can be made a protected class with a simple act of legislation.

And this new plank in the Democratic Party's platform is a step in that direction. This is what I mean about near-sightedness.

We are on our way.