Democrats set to add gay marriage to official party platform

posted at 6:01 pm on July 30, 2012 by Allahpundit

Might as well, no? Most voters doubtless believe it’s already in the platform, especially after The One’s carefully timed, hypercynical “evolution” this spring. Keeping it out wouldn’t win them any votes at this point but might irritate gay rights supporters, especially the young adults whom they need to turn out in November. Besides, anything O can do to change the subject from his economic record is probably a net positive for him this fall. That’s why he invited Bill Clinton to give the pep talk at the convention instead of Biden. The One can run on Bill’s record instead: Centrism, strong growth, higher taxes on the rich, DOMA, “don’t ask, don’t tell” — no, wait, scratch those last two.

It’s a comfort to know that, after centuries of noncompliance, the Democratic platform now officially comports with “Chicago values”:

Party officials met over the weekend in Minneapolis and approved the first step in the platform-amending process. In two weeks, the entire platform committee will vote on the matter at a meeting scheduled in Detroit. Then, if approved as expected, it would move on to convention delegates in Charlotte, N.C., for final approval in September.

According to Democrats who were briefed on the vote in Minneapolis, there was no objection when the issue came up. Though the language that was voted on still could be revised, party officials do not anticipate any major obstacles going forward.

The platform language approved over the weekend also included a condemnation of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages.

The current draft platform, authored a few months ago, mentions the “freedom to marry” for gay couples. Wonder how this language would have ended up if The One had kept up his charade on SSM:

A draft plank circulated in February — before the president’s endorsement — read: “We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.”

Exit question: Does the platform really matter? It’s a meaningful symbolic victory for gay rights supporters, but a much more meaningful one would be if Democratic pols tout the issue in their speeches at the convention. And I don’t mean just any Democratic pols; I’m sure there’ll be some gay congressman who gets three minutes to speak on C-SPAN at 3:30 in the afternoon to make the case for SSM. I’m talking about Clinton, Biden, the keynoter, and of course the Lightbringer himself, who I suppose is now obliged to include a sentence or two about this in his acceptance speech. Will he do more, though, by spending some time on it, or are the electoral effects still too unpredictable to justify more than a check-the-box approach? Makes me wonder if including it in the platform isn’t a way for them to appease gay rights supporters so that they don’t have to include it most of the big speeches.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Will this plank of the Democratic Party be called the “Arrest All Committed Catholics” act? Seem far-fetched? Might have a few years ago… now this fantasy of activists seems so much closer, indeed, inevitable with an Obama re-election.

theCork on July 30, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Well, they all blindly follow “The Word” of Nancy Pelosi. The Catholic Church should have forcibly expelled Pelosi and her entire family for life based on her actions alone, but even if they HAD anyone intent on preserving the integrity of the church, they were long ago bullied into silence.

Even if Obama loses, you betcha that not only will the Democrats endorse a wholesale persecution of practicing Catholics, but possibly far worse than that. Look at the typical “tolerant” liberal track record.

Myron Falwell on July 31, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Good.

Let the democrat party be the party of same sex marriage and the radical homosexual agenda, and let the GOP be the party of traditional marriage and family values. Let the chips fall where they may.

Judging from the results of 32 state referendums, the chips will fall just fine.

Rebar on July 31, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Rebar on July 31, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Amen, brother.

Rusty Allen on July 31, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Rusty Allen on July 31, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Amen seconded.

hawkdriver on July 31, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Rebar on July 31, 2012 at 1:14 AM

From your lips to God’s ears. :)

Myron Falwell on July 31, 2012 at 1:51 AM

Being gay isn’t the sand trap of life…

libfreeordie on July 30, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Well, I don’t know, if a lesbian’s partner doesn’t lubricate the d–uh, maybe I should stop there. :O

R. Waher on July 31, 2012 at 4:37 AM

This ain’t yo’ Folks’ Democratic Party. My take.

kingsjester on July 31, 2012 at 6:32 AM

Hmmmm.

A draft plank circulated in February — before the president’s endorsement — read: “We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.”

This platform would also endorse polygamy and child marriage, wouldn’t it?

Beth Donovan on July 31, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Keep bringing this up, Donks. A large percentage of your Afro-Am base hates it. Turn-out among blacks may not be the slam-dunk it was in ’08, so good move, Axle-grease.

smellthecoffee on July 31, 2012 at 7:48 AM

Yeah, that’s REALLY the point that’ll attract voters, not economics…

MelonCollie on July 31, 2012 at 8:24 AM

“Oh look, a shiny new gay marriage plank. Look! Right over there!”

Akzed on July 31, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Although it’s been said many times, many ways, I’ll say it again –

Once we throw away what the Bible says about marriage being between one man and one woman (e.g. Matthew 19:4-6), and what Western civilization has found to be the best arrangement (especially for the wife and children), the door is open to any combination of people being married. Any number of them, either or both sexes, and perhaps younger and younger spouses.

I have yet to hear why polygamy (and perhaps polyandry) aren’t next. The former is more likely than the latter; however, polygamy makes women settle for a marriage that is all fractions (because she must share her husband and everything else in their marriage with other women), and it makes it very difficult for poorer, younger men to find mates.

Even ancient societies did not put same-sex marriage on a par with heterosexual marriage. What did they know that we have yet to find out?

KyMouse on July 31, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Still waiting for your insight as to why…

CorporatePiggy on July 30, 2012 at 9:27 PM

 
I addressed this on the previous page.

libfreeordie on July 30, 2012 at 9:33 PM

 
I’m not sure you understand what the phrase “I addressed this on the previous page” means.
rogerb on July 30, 2012 at 10:13 PM

 
Perhaps I missed it but I don’t think I did.
Quote yourself if you did
CorporatePiggy on July 30, 2012 at 10:30 PM

 

Why do you let so many threads die after you present your data and/or open ended argument?
 
rogerb on June 14, 2012 at 11:37 PM

 

Which threads are those?
 
libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 11:44 PM

rogerb on July 31, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Democrats set to add gay marriage to official party platform

Time to start working on the UAW, the Teamsters, the Mine Workers, and all other trade unions (well, excluding teachers and govt workers) on this one. The message needs to be delivered in a less than politically correct way.

The union members don’t call it gay marriage. The word they most often use rhymes with beer and typically is preceded by some form of an f-bomb.

I would think a special PAC would work nicely.

EconomicNeocon on July 31, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Catholics and Christians should be fleeing the Democrat Party now. First ObamaCare and now gay marriage. Two mandates seeking to force the faithful to violate their faith or suffer consequences. Time for Conservatives to take off their blinders on this as well.

Blue Collar Todd on July 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM

The GOP should commit to supporting gay marriage too. Who CARES??? The U.S. is a SECULAR nation…

Craig Nelson on July 31, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Well, this is entertaining.

I was going to say the same thing about your other post where you fixed my response replacing “gay” with “pedophiles”. I think that’s a huge and frankly downright disgusting stretch to make. Just b/c you may not like the gay lifestyle is no reason to equate them to pedophiles.

This sentence was included in what you quoted:

Way overestimating, in my opinion and direct experience. I take far more abuse for being a conservative from gays than I ever did from conservatives for being gay.

In short, I know from whence I speak, and while I find it amusing for straight people to tell me I don’t know how bad I have it for being gay, I put it up as an attempt at rationalizing for plantation kindness.

And based on what you’re saying above should only people who plan on having kids be allowed to get married?

This country does not have over a million abortions annually and crazed liberal women like Sandra Fluke demanding the government pay for the thousands of condoms she supposedly needs annually because whether or not you plan on having kids determines whether you actually have them.

Key point: We do not know what heterosexuals are going to have kids, but we know that virtually every biologically-normal heterosexual couple CAN have them. And thus marriage exists: not because people PLAN to have kids, but because their mere act of sex is capable of producing kids whether they plan to or not.

Also there are plenty of kids in bad homes and in foster homes for which a gay couple would be much better parents.

LevinFan on July 31, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Yes, and there are plenty of blind people unable to drive for whom a mentally-deficient individual would be a “better” driver than they are. But wouldn’t it be even better to have a normal sighted person of typical intelligence doing it?

Furthermore, really? REALLY? In most states, gays can already foster; if such is the case, why aren’t the foster homes empty, since there are so many gays who are just dying to do it?

You want to help with the situation of bad homes and fostering? Make heterosexuals be better parents. Instead of band-aiding the situation and using foster children as a cheap excuse for pushing gay-sex marriage, call for better parenting and for people to take responsibility for the children they produce.

northdallasthirty on July 31, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Millions of black voters will NOT vote for Obama over this. He will be toast, and he put the bread in the toaster.

Amazingoly on July 31, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Well, they all blindly follow “The Word” of Nancy Pelosi. The Catholic Church should have forcibly expelled Pelosi and her entire family for life based on her actions alone, but even if they HAD anyone intent on preserving the integrity of the church, they were long ago bullied into silence.
Myron Falwell on July 31, 2012 at 1:09 AM

The Pope can exert his authority to ex-communicate Pelosi…but to what benefit?

Pelosi doesn’t care about her immortal soul…and each Arch Bishop has autonomy within his parish.

Priests can refuse communion to Catholics who use the political bullhorn against the church and have in the past…and look what happened?

The Pope is doing everything he can to correct the liturgical errors, reform the clergy and return conservatism…and he’s got a lot on his plate.

He has stated emphatically that the Church is ok being smaller and stronger in faith…But it is the principles of that faith which will not be compromised to please the culture.

workingclass artist on July 31, 2012 at 12:29 PM

What is this “gay,” that everybody speaks of?

Oh! You mean homosexuals!

OK, got it.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 31, 2012 at 12:30 PM

A dead thread.
 
How unexpected.

rogerb on July 31, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4