Gay Marriage Added To Democratic Platform

[bodecea]

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.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

Not even. Recognizing race as a suspect class was done by the courts. And the courts can and will eventually recognize homosexuals as the same.

Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of the criteria that have been cited include:

The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait.
They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.[3])
The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.[4]

 

[g5000]

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

Not even. Recognizing race as a suspect class was done by the courts. And the courts can and will eventually recognize homosexuals as the same.

Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of the criteria that have been cited include:

The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait.
They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.[3])
The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.[4]

It does not take only the courts to recognize a protected class. The legislature is also capable of doing so with legislation.

 

[Shelzin]

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.

I disagree. I think the majority of independents support the right. Which... Is really what this is aimed at.

 

[g5000]

I think even most conservatives are fine with gays being able to file a married tax return. That's all the issue really is. I think even those people who don't like gays solely because of the ick factor really don't give a shit if they are allowed to file a married tax return.


It all depends how you ask the question. Try it sometime. "What about gays being able to file a married tax return?" I think you will find most people just don't give a shit, and actually feel a sense of fairness in allowing such a thing.

People just get grossed out seeing two fags swapping spit in public. That's what you hear. Complaints about their parades and stupid stuff like that.

But Americans have a sense of fair play. Why shouldn't two fags be allowed to get the same tax breaks and Social Security death benefits as everyone else? No skin off your nose.

Right, Republicans? A tax break is not spending. It is not a cost. It does not add to the deficit. We live and die by that credo.

If homosexuality was harmful to society, homosexuality itself would be outlawed.

So allowing homosexuals to file a joint tax return does no harm. At all. They get to keep more of THEIR money.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Okie....so what are you conservative on? Abortion, guns?

 

[bodecea]

It should be fun watching the Far Right try to bankroll anti-gay marriage legislature all over the country rather than targetting one state at a time with their lies.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Believe it or not, this is a " big f-ing deal". It wasn't that long ago that Democratic candidates wouldn't even take "gay donations" to their candidacies.

It may be cliche, but...we've come a long way, baby!

 

[auditor0007]

Democrats: Party of Sodom.

That's worthy of a neg rep.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well thank god democrats are on top of the vital issues to our nation and struggling economy

 

[auditor0007]

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.

For governmental purposes, marriage is strictly a contract. That does not mean churches will or should be forced into performing marriages they oppose. So long as the government is not telling a church that they must marry gays, then I don't see where there should be any problem.

On a side note, there is one group that is 100% in support of gay marriage. That would be the divorce lawyers.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

I think this could actually back Fire on the Democrats. The Reason Obama Pretended to be against Gay Marriage for so long before changing was because so many Groups that Normally Vote Democrat have issues with Gay Marriage. Blacks, and Hispanics for Example are both Largely pretty Socially Conservative and not to keen on Gay Marriage.

Regardless of how you feel about Gay marriage, I think if you look at this Objectively it is a potential Risk and it is not at all clear it will help them, at least in the short run.

 

[Vel]

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.

For governmental purposes, marriage is strictly a contract. That does not mean churches will or should be forced into performing marriages they oppose. So long as the government is not telling a church that they must marry gays, then I don't see where there should be any problem.

On a side note, there is one group that is 100% in support of gay marriage. That would be the divorce lawyers.

Have people considered that perhaps it's time to just eliminate federal benefits for marriage for everyone?

 

[Gem]

Sounds like the Democrats might be desperately searching for a way re-engergize their base and motivate the youth to come out and vote for Obama one more time.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Cant wait until the homo perverts and PETA unite and we get a platform on beastiality

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Not even. Recognizing race as a suspect class was done by the courts. And the courts can and will eventually recognize homosexuals as the same.

Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of the criteria that have been cited include:

The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait.
They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.[3])
The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.[4]

It does not take only the courts to recognize a protected class. The legislature is also capable of doing so with legislation.

Legislation by whom? Congress?

Congressional action would be more along the lines of amending existing civil rights legislation to include sexual orientation, which it currently does not.

A suspect class, suspected of being prone to discrimination, where laws likely to adversity effect that class are subject to a higher level of judicial review – strict scrutiny, are more often reserved for racial or ethnic groups.

With regard to homosexuals, the Court has applied what some legal scholars have referred to as ‘intermediate scrutiny with teeth,’ not strict scrutiny but an exacting level of review nonetheless. In Romer and Lawrence the Court had designated homosexuals a ‘solitary class [of] persons’ subject to discriminatory laws predicated only on animus and furthering no important government interest:

The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by “orientation, conduct, practices or relationships,” id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected” and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id., at 634.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Obviously laws prohibiting same-sex couples’ access to marriage are “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected…[having] no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose.”

 

[Inthemiddle]

Well thank god democrats are on top of the vital issues to our nation and struggling economy

As a matter of fact, gay marriage is good for the economy.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well thank god democrats are on top of the vital issues to our nation and struggling economy

As a matter of fact, gay marriage is good for the economy.

Put the crack pipe down and slowly back away
.

 

[Vel]

Again.. why not simply eliminate the federal benefits of marriage and allow it to be a religious rather than a legal covenant? Given that divorce is easy, what real benefit our we as a society getting from marriage to the degree that we should give federal benefits for it?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Well thank god democrats are on top of the vital issues to our nation and struggling economy

As a matter of fact, gay marriage is good for the economy.

Put the crack pipe down and slowly back away
.

I'm serious. States where gay marriage has become legal have seen a great deal of stimulus to their economies, as thousands of couples previously unable to marry flock to tie the knot, spending a great deal of money on their weddings.

Gay Marriage Has Boosted Iowa’s Economy, Study Concludes - ABC News

Study: Gay Marriage Good For Economy - CBS News

New York Gay Marriage Generated $259 Million In Economic Impact For NYC, According To Report