WASHINGTON (OfficialWire) — A draft of the Democratic Party’s official party platform includes support for gay marriage for the first time.
A person who has seen the platform draft says the party cites support for “marriage equality” and “the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples.” The person spoke on condition of anonymity and was not authorized to speak publicly ahead of a platform committee meeting in Detroit on Saturday.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
I do not believe that a majority of democrats would back this platform promoting the homosexual lifestyle to a legal status of same sex marraige. What’s next? Legal status for a man who wants to marry his female goat?
It is people like spudsmans2 equating humans with animals that make this argument ridiculous. But what makes it maddening is that the platform should not ‘support marriage equality’; it should denounce and remove the legal causes of the INequality. The only reasons for this inequality are the religious barriers, and because we have the wall of separation between church and state, the religious majority in this country should not have the power of tyranny by religion over those who have done nothing but act on their sexual inclinations.
It is because the religious majority cannot say “It is against God’s will” when they draft legislation against equal marriage rights, they must instead use comments like the comparison of a rational human being married to another, with a goat. When you take God’s will out of the picture, you have nothing left but sexual bigotry.
In God We Trust, not obama and the democrat party, or you for that matter. Your liberal ideas are not American ideas. Why not go to some liberal site to cheer for all the crap you believe.
d: I understand that sometimes it is hard for a conservative such as yourself to divorce ‘conservatism’ from ‘Constitutionalism’. But Judge Napolitano, cited by conservatives and liberals alike, is with me on this one. The Constitution doesn’t give States the power to make such civil choices. I am not liberal, no matter what you may think. I am also not conservative. I am Objectivist. If Objectivism is a bad thing, take Ayn Rand’s pictures off your Tea Party posters.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/05/09/should-states-be-the-ultimate-deciders-of-the-legality-of-same-sex-marriage/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mike-huckabee-feebly-defends-domas-constitutionality-to-a-skeptical-judge-napolitano/
And go to curtisedwardclark.com to see whether or not I am for or against Obama, and whether I support the original message of the Constitution. Was Jefferson against homosexuality? Yes, and he even wanted to execute them. But in applying his own separation of church and state, Napolitano and me and yes, even the liberals, independents, libertarians, and other Objectivists can declare that you have no legal, Constitutional right to prevent such civil liberties.
Your “America, take mine or leave it” attitude is sad. I’d rather take the original idea and apply it more in the style of classical liberalism than even Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Paine and the others were able to.