Democrats to officially support gay marriage?


The Democratic Party is going to officially support gay marriage for the first time, reports the Associated Press.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Democratic party source told the AP that the platform drafting committee voted to include backing gay marriage during a weekend meeting in Minneapolis.

While language backing gay marriage would be a major step forward, it’s not clear whether the party would push for legalization federally. Obama has previously stated he considers it a matter for the states.

The party platform is expected to be formally approved during the party’s convention in early September.





Democrats to officially support gay marriage?

  1. This is welcome, particularly since the official Republican platform officially codifies bigotry and animus towards a single minority.

    As for it being a matter of the States, ultimately that’s impossible and Obama knows it, he’s just moving slowly and surely. Because if it’s a State issue, and you are legally married in your State, the federal discrimination is shown to be even more egregious: i.e. a couple who is legally married still can not get Federal benefits, or file joint Income tax, or get any spousal or health benefits if they work for the federal sector (including military). There are a half dozen cases from gay couples — some of them long-term married couples where one is a decorated military vet — moving through the Supreme Court, and they will win. Gay marriage exists, the cat has left the bag, the horse has left the barn, and at least the Dems recognize it, while the official Republican strategy is to spew bile and howl at the wind.

  2. Gay marriage has been put to a referendum in 33 states. Of those, widespread popular support for gay marriage has resulted in a resounding total of … let’s see….carry the one…. er, zero states that voted to change the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. 31 states actually passed constitutional amendments to ensure that the traditional definition of marriage be upheld regardless of judicial activism.

    I suggest the Dems not only make this part of their platform, but keep calling all those who oppose gay marriage bigots and reprobate haters. That’s sure to win even more support for this inspiring cause.

    One final point: it’s been said before, but I’ll say it again… why is Macleans so shoddy in disguising the obvious bias of the Need to Know writers? “While language backing gay marriage would be a major step forward,..” It’s the addition of the adjective “forward”, you see, which renders the piece skewed. Does anyone at Macleans care? Does objective reporting matter to you folks at all any more?

    • Reporters should be neutral concerning the issues of their countries. But you can’t except reporters to be neutral about subjects that are only issues in foreign countries. The reporter is Canadian so he doesn’t have to sugarcoat everything for a historically ignorant Christian fundamentalist public. You wouldn’t except a reporter to be neutral every time Saudi Arabia chops off a woman’s head for witchcraft.

      • Yes, you’re right, gay marriage is unanimously supported by Canadians, because its righteousness is as obvious as not chopping off the heads of women accused of witchcraft.

        I’m guessing you don’t even recognize what I (or you) just wrote as hyperbole, do you.

        Again, Macleans, some objectivity please. When commenters like the above think you’re reporting correctly, you have a serious problem.

        • Dishonesty is a real problem in political discourse these days. For instance, I never said gay marriage is unanimously supported by Canadians. But gay rights are simply not a subject in Canadian political discourse anymore. A few months ago the political support for a far right Albertan political party collapsed after a couple of its candidates made statements critical of gay rights. If one of the most right wing parties in the single most right wing province isn’t willing to touch such an issue than how can you really insist that it’s a matter of public discourse.

          I also didn’t say witchcraft punishments were directly analagous. If you need a direct analogy for homophobia it’s obviously racism. Serious question though, if you are a Christian why don’t you take witches seriously? I’ve read the Bible. Jesus took witchcraft seriously. Witchcraft is mentioned repeatedly in both testaments. Why don’t you support punishing witchcraft?

          I don’t support it because it’s archaic, superstitious, and completely unscientific much like opposition to the sexual orientations that people are born with. Of course most opponents of gay rights will insist that their opposition is not actually rooted in religion even though the only countries opposing UN resolutions on sexual non-discrimination are overwhelmingly Islamic religious regimes + America. There seems to be a pervasive view in the religious community that traditional marriage needs to be protected. However, I think Canadians have enough historical literacy to know that traditional marriage is one where the husband owns the wife as property and rapes her whenever he feels like it.

          • Ok, I’ll overlook your earlier comparison of traditional marriage supporters to witch-decapitating serial killers, and address your more serious tone here.

            (1) “Gay rights” and “Gay marriage” are two different things. For example, “gay rights” can mean the right to practice a particular profession without being disbarred due to one’s sexual orientation. All well and good, widely supported by Canadians, and in place for decades now. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is a stretch from the notion “gays should not be discriminated against” to “gay sex should be formally encouraged by the state”. Please stop confusing the two.

            (2) “I also didn’t say witchcraft punishments were directly analagous. If you need a direct analogy for homophobia it’s obviously racism.”

            You didn’t say it, no, but you implied it by drawing the comparison. Which was idiotic. But no matter, the racism comparison is also somewhat idiotic. It is one thing to despise someone because they are attracted to their own sex (which is analogous to despising someone because of their race), and it is quite another to suggest that acting on that attraction is not something the state should encourage. The latter is an opinion concerning which actions are healthy for the individual and for society, and bears no comparison to holding people in contempt for their nature or origin. If anything, the contempt one often sees from gay marriage supporters toward their opponents is more like racism. For example, I have been threatened with assault and been spat upon for holding a sign that said “I support traditional marriage”. The Bull Connors of our age are in your camp, friend.

            (3) Witches. Yes, Christianity does hold that there is such a thing as witchcraft, and that it is wrong. It doesn’t follow from this that we should behead people who engage in it, and your implication of same is yet another example of your “dishonesty in political discourse”.

            (4) “Of course most opponents of gay rights will insist that their opposition is not actually rooted in religion…”

            Sure, just like most leaders of the Civil Rights movement in the 60’s insisted that their beliefs weren’t rooted in religion even though almost all of them were either Protestant ministers or Catholic priests. Similarly, most of the resistance to Communism behind the Iron Curtain stemmed from Christians, but was not rooted in Christianity. The fact that religious folks get things right a lot of the time and have the guts to stand up for it despite being vilified by their society suggests that a correct understanding of religion helps both one’s understanding and one’s courage concerning social issues; it doesn’t (logically) follow that all positions held predominantly by religious people rely on religion as their basis.

            (5) “However, I think Canadians have enough historical literacy to know that traditional marriage is one where the husband owns the wife as property and rapes her whenever he feels like it.”

            If you honestly think that this is how most Canadians view traditional marriage, i.e. the marriages which most of our parents and grandparents voluntarily chose, you have my pity.

    • I`d also appreciate clarification of “major step forwards” in terms of making a better society, or in terms of campaign policy. As far as a better society goes, I am firmly on one side, but I have no expectations of convincing the other side.

      In terms of campaign policy, taking a stand for a belief that isn`t universally popular is a sharp contrast of recent pre-Obama Democrat approach of avoiding policies that inflame the Republican base, and has to be a major step forwards. What America really needs is a powerful series of debates over what direction they want their country to go in. Being the United States, this will probably be violent & messy. The Dems also need to learn that the American media really doesn`t reflect overall public opinion,so much as it does a Limbaugher-flavoured (sorry, flavored) sub-menu. They need to choose an issue, any issue that`s powerful enough, and get in the trenches and fight a strong, principled fight against the monkey house that calls itself the religious right if they want to remain a democracy.

      • Yep, we on the religious right are a “monkey house”. And maintaining that kind of contemptuous tone is exactly what the Dems need to do to fight a “principled” fight for the true, the good, and the beautiful, while also winning public opinion.

        Good grief.

  3. This is excellent news. The black preachers coming out and saying they would be calling on their congregations and all blacks to not vote for hussein is also excellent news.

Sign in to comment.