Gay Marriage Added To Democratic Platform

[Inthemiddle]

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

Yes, a one time boom because it's illegal everywhere else so EVERYONE from across the country flocks to one or two places thus that place has an influx of cash. True enough but hardly a sustainable source of funds.

No, you're completely misunderstanding. Yes, there is the initial windfall, and it has less to do with out-of-state visitors than you are suggesting. You think that Iowa has no gay couples? There are going to be a continual source of gay people getting married, spending money on those marriages, all right there in their state.

Weddings can be incredibly expensive affairs. I've been involved in more than one wedding where the couple spent in excess of $50,000 on the whole event. That's alot of economic activity, alot of jobs. The stimulative effect alone from gay marriage has made it an economically worth while undertaking. But even beyond that initial stimulus, it's a sustaining market that will continue to contribute to a local/state economy indefinitely.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Put the crack pipe down and slowly back away
.

what's wrong with that statement.

Let's say gay marriage was legalized.

That would mean more work for photographers, caterers, florists, reception halls, printers who do invitations, and everyone else who makes money off of weddings.

Can't see this as anything but a good.

The gay marriage windfall

I'm eagerly anticipating. Next summer is going to be lucrative for me. I think I'm finally starting to understand what the right means when they talk about government regulation driving down my revenues.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Horse shit.. there are plenty of conservatives that want equal treatment for all by government... maybe not in your forced acceptance way, but it is definitely there

 

[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.

Horse shit.. there are plenty of conservatives that want equal treatment for all by government... maybe not in your forced acceptance way, but it is definitely there

I've seen a few of you make this claim now, and I totally acknowledge there are exceptions to every rule, but are you honestly trying to tell us that there is any kind of sizable population within the Republican party and its voters that believes all those good "conservative" things and yet, is FOR marriage equality?

Nah. I don't buy it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

There are many people silently skeeved by homosexual acts and isn't always on religious grounds.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

DISCRIMINATION IS ALLOWED BY LAW. The progressives made it part of their early platform. BEFORE YOU BLOW A GASKET..When was the progressive tax code put in place...........


So its ok for you to discriminate against me but not I you.

Another double standard folks.......

 

[Seawytch]

There are many people silently skeeved by homosexual acts and isn't always on religious grounds.

Feeling icky isn't a legitimate reason to discriminate.

 

[Pho_King]

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.

But you are not on the side of marriage equality. You are only advocating that marriage be changed to accommodate the deviant relationships of homos. There are a whole range of other human relationships that the current false proponents of marriage equality care nothing about.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Horse shit.. there are plenty of conservatives that want equal treatment for all by government... maybe not in your forced acceptance way, but it is definitely there

I've seen a few of you make this claim now, and I totally acknowledge there are exceptions to every rule, but are you honestly trying to tell us that there is any kind of sizable population within the Republican party and its voters that believes all those good "conservative" things and yet, is FOR marriage equality?

Nah. I don't buy it.

There are a GREAT number for equality in treatment for family couples... like I said, maybe not in your FORCED ACCEPTANCE way, but in terms of equal treatment by government there are indeed MANY

 

[g5000]

DISCRIMINATION IS ALLOWED BY LAW. The progressives made it part of their early platform. BEFORE YOU BLOW A GASKET..When was the progressive tax code put in place...........

When? Why, right from the beginning!

Thomas Jefferson, beloved by so many Libertarians, is the originator of the American progressive taxation system.

While in France, Jefferson noticed the huge wealth gap between the rich and poor and felt strongly that we in America should avoid such a thing happening here.



Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison:

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.

The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one.

By this, Jefferson meant we must eliminate the practice of primogeniture.

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

There you go. The very words right out of Jefferson's pen. Progressive taxes.

If you think that's bad, you should read Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice.

Paine actually advocated a welfare system, with the government providing a free stipend to the poor.

Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

"Natural right". That is John Locke's influence right there. And the concentration of wealth is a violation of natural rights.

The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

The government must put in place a system whereby everyone has a chance to succeed and become a small businessmen.

So its ok for you to discriminate against me but not I you.

Another double standard folks.......

You are equivocating.

It is a simple fact that homosexuals do not have equal protection under the law.

 

[Pho_King]

DISCRIMINATION IS ALLOWED BY LAW. The progressives made it part of their early platform. BEFORE YOU BLOW A GASKET..When was the progressive tax code put in place...........

When? Why, right from the beginning!

Thomas Jefferson, beloved by so many Libertarians, is the originator of the American progressive taxation system.

While in France, Jefferson noticed the huge wealth gap between the rich and poor and felt strongly that we in America should avoid such a thing happening here.



Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison:

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.

By this, Jefferson meant we must eliminate the practice of primogeniture.




There you go. The very words right out of Jefferson's pen. Progressive taxes.

If you think that's bad, you should read Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice.

Paine actually advocated a welfare system, with the government providing a free stipend to the poor.



"Natural right". That is John Locke's influence right there. And the concentration of wealth is a violation of natural rights.

The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

The government must put in place a system whereby everyone has a chance to succeed and become a small businessmen.

So its ok for you to discriminate against me but not I you.

Another double standard folks.......

You are equivocating.

It is a simple fact that homosexuals do not have equal protection under the law.

It is also a simple fact that polygamists do not have equal protection under the law. Where is their marriage equality?

 

[g5000]

It is also a simple fact that polygamists do not have equal protection under the law. Where is their marriage equality?

False analogy.

Polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all illegal, having been determined as harmful to society.

Homosexuality is not illegal, having been determined as not harmful to society.

 

[g5000]

There are many people silently skeeved by homosexual acts and isn't always on religious grounds.

Feeling icky isn't a legitimate reason to discriminate.

Encapsulates Loving v. Virginia succinctly.

 

[Katzndogz]

In Iowa what happened to the judges who imposed same sex marriage on the state?

Iowa Judges Who Ruled for Gay Marriage Voted Out

hree Iowa judges who were part of a unanimous ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, have been thrown out of office by voters in a retention election that's seen as a rebuke to what critics call "legislators in robes."

The outcome Tuesday was praised by opponents of gay marriage and opponents of judicial activism. But it troubled advocates of an independent judiciary, the New York Times reported Thursday. Same-sex marriage will remain legal in Iowa, but the governor will replace the ousted state Supreme Court justices, picking from a slate of candidates assembled by a lawyers' committee.

"I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people," said Republican Bob Vander Plaats, who led the campaign against the justices. "It's we the people, not we the courts."

The only reason why ALL of the judges who imposed same sex marriage weren't voted out was because only three were up for a retention vote.

IF this election becomes a referendum on same sex marriage, democrats may be in for a very painful surprise.

 

[Pho_King]

It is also a simple fact that polygamists do not have equal protection under the law. Where is their marriage equality?

False analogy.

Polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all illegal, having been determined as harmful to society.

Homosexuality is not illegal, having been determined as not harmful to society.

It's an accurate analogy. Homosexuality is not illegal. Homo marriages are. Relationships with multiple partners are not illegal. Polygamous marriages are. What is false is the homo push for " marriage equality".

 

[Shelzin]

It is also a simple fact that polygamists do not have equal protection under the law. Where is their marriage equality?

False analogy.

Polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all illegal, having been determined as harmful to society.

Homosexuality is not illegal, having been determined as not harmful to society.

It's an accurate analogy. Homosexuality is not illegal. Homo marriages are.

Homosexual marriages aren't illegal... They just aren't recognized as married by the government.

Relationships with multiple partners are not illegal. Polygamous marriages are.

Again... No they are not illegal. They just don't recognize more than one of them.

What is false is the homo push for " marriage equality".

Eh... What's false about it?

 

[Pho_King]

False analogy.

Polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all illegal, having been determined as harmful to society.

Homosexuality is not illegal, having been determined as not harmful to society.

It's an accurate analogy. Homosexuality is not illegal. Homo marriages are.

Homosexual marriages aren't illegal... They just aren't recognized as married by the government.

Relationships with multiple partners are not illegal. Polygamous marriages are.

Again... No they are not illegal. They just don't recognize more than one of them.

What is false is the homo push for " marriage equality".

Eh... What's false about it?

You are correct. There really is no marriage between consenting adults that is illegal. What is false about this homo push for "marriage equality" is that it only seeks to have legally recognized homo marriages. They could care less about other deviant relationships between consenting adults that are currently in the same boat as the poofters.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Horse shit.. there are plenty of conservatives that want equal treatment for all by government... maybe not in your forced acceptance way, but it is definitely there

I've seen a few of you make this claim now, and I totally acknowledge there are exceptions to every rule, but are you honestly trying to tell us that there is any kind of sizable population within the Republican party and its voters that believes all those good "conservative" things and yet, is FOR marriage equality?

Nah. I don't buy it.

There are a GREAT number for equality in treatment for family couples... like I said, maybe not in your FORCED ACCEPTANCE way, but in terms of equal treatment by government there are indeed MANY

When I see evidence of this, I will agree.

 

[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.

But you are not on the side of marriage equality. You are only advocating that marriage be changed to accommodate the deviant relationships of homos. There are a whole range of other human relationships that the current false proponents of marriage equality care nothing about.

First off, fuck you bigot.

Second, I am in favour of two consenting adults entering in to a legal contract. Why are you not?

 

[Pho_King]

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.

But you are not on the side of marriage equality. You are only advocating that marriage be changed to accommodate the deviant relationships of homos. There are a whole range of other human relationships that the current false proponents of marriage equality care nothing about.

First off, fuck you bigot.

Second, I am in favour of two consenting adults entering in to a legal contract. Why are you not?

First off, fuck off you pussel-gutted little tickterd. Second, are you on record as believing that the "marriage equality" push shhould include not only poofter relationships, but incestuous and polygamous ones as well? Third, we are not talking about two consenting adults entering into a contract. We are talking about marriage. Fourth, what makes you think I am against homo marriage? Fifth, fuck off again. You OWS parasites are insults to your family trees.