Alexander Burns Of Politico reports on news first published in the gay press:
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi supports a pro-gay marriage plank in the 2012 Democratic platform, her spokesman Drew Hammill confirms to POLITICO.
... The proposed plank states: "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."
Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill tells Metro Weekly, "Leader Pelosi supports this language."
Obama currently supports much of the Freedom to Marry plank language -- outside of the marriage equality language itself. He has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, and opposes "divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples." After several requests by Metro Weekly, however, the Obama campaign is yet to provide specific comment on the proposed platform language.
Burns continues:
Platform fights often fall into the sideshow category, but this one has the potential to be different; same-sex marriage is perhaps the most prominent issue on which the president's stated views and the official views of the Democratic Party are out of alignment with the party base and many of its prominent liberal officeholders.
The Democrat base supports redefining marriage? Does that include the majority of African Americans who have voted in favor of marriage in numerous states?
23 Comments
"voted in favor of marriage in numerous states?" How so? By banning certain Americans of all races from marrying those they love?
@JR
Blacks are the staunches opponents to the redefinition of marriage. 70% of them voted to amend the California Constitution definition marriage between a man and a woman.
Race and sex have no correlation between them.
That's yet another reason why it's a bad idea to have a radical San Francisco liberal head up the House Democrats. They push for crazy things that moderates don't support. Barack Obama doesn't support SSM so I don't think he'll want it in the party platform either.
Pelosi is particularly outside the mainstream, even of Democratic thought, because San Francisco is an island of liberalism of itself.
Biased language: 'Obama... He has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act [bill], which WOULD repeal DOMA...' There is no Respect for Marriage Act. It is a bill which is going nowhere, because DOMA marriage is not discrimination. DOMA is truly an Act - a law. But it is an 'act' to try to deny it.
What opponents of DOMA are implying is that for 16 years the US Congress upheld a discriminatory law. Which Congressmen and Congresswomen should we believe? The current Congress still upholds DOMA by majority. Obama is not the ruler of Congress. Actually, it is the opposite
- otherwise, we would become a monarky (sic.)
I've always assumed NObama supports SSM, but has been holding back his true intentions until his 2nd term. He's already been practicing his end-runs around congress and the law. And if he gets that 2nd term he'll most likely have the chance to nominate at least one, perhaps as many as three supreme court justices.
@JR
Polygamy precisely bans certain Americans of all races from marrying those they love. Moreover, the ban comes with draconian punishments: fines, imprisonment, or both.
By contrast, in 1856 Republicans had a plank that included a provision that defended traditional marriage from those who wanted to redefine it.
Good thing the Supreme court ruled such nonsense unconstitutional back in 1878...oh wait.
Michael - And that is why I dont see the US supreme court ever saying that SSM is a right in this country. If they did, Then they would have go back and do the same thing with polygamy and who know what other groups will want to be a part of marriage in the future.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Senate had certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking if a proposed civil unions bill that EXPLICITLY provides that “eligible same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities afforded to opposite sex couples by the marriage laws of the commonwealth, without entering into a marriage” and that “spouses in a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”.Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440 Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2004)
Several gay rights groups submitted amici briefs arguing that the civil unions bill would violate the Massachusetts ERA, on the basis that civil unions are “separate and unequal” and a form of “segregation”, GLAD Brief, Opinions, at 12, because they denied the “social recognition” that comes with marriage, Id. at 24,they would “mark [same-sex couples] as inferior to their heterosexual counterparts and diminish their status in the community” regardless of whether they provided “the same benefits, protections,rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”, Civil Rights Brief in Opinions at 12 , and that civil unions “would not constitute equality, because their relationships still would not be recognized by the rest of society as being as valued as heterosexual relationships.” id. at 13
And in Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 388, 110 P3d 91 (Or. Sup. Ct. 2005) plaintiffs had argued that civil unions would be “inherently stigmatizing" and "inherently separate and unequal” Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Li, at 10.
And in Jackson v. Abercrombie , the plaintiffs are suing because of the "special status" of marriage, not just
the "bundle of rights" which the civil union law would allow them. See Complaint in Jackson v. Abercrombie, CV11-009734-ACK-KSC, at 13, quoting Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 315 at 289, 957 A.2d 407 at 416 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2008)
The underlying fallacies of these arguments are the assumptions that the social recognition and social value, and social status of marriage is independent of the male-female dynamic, and that heterosexual relationships are valued BECAUSE they are called marriages. If this be so, it is not because of anything in the proposed civil unions acts, but the solely due to the construction sodomist fundamentalists choose to put upon it.
In other words, the purpose of same-sex “marriage” is to make sodomist fundamentalists feel better about themselves.
@Michael
You are correct to point out connection between the historic polygamy cases and SSM. The SSM proponents need to strike down those cases or pretend they don't exist.
You are also correct to note that Massachusetts has an ERA. The federal ERA did not pass. Of course, liberals assured us at the time that the ERA wouldn't lead to SSM, which shows us what such assurances are worth.
JR,
Only voting to preserve the essential requirement of marriage as a union of male to female is "voting in favor of marriage".Voting against that is voting to falsely call other things marriage.
Mr. Ejercito, you might be able to sway people better if you didn't refer to gay people as sodomists all the time. It's beneath you.
And you Louis, will of course always know the difference, so I immagine that long after marriage equality is the law in all 50 states and in the majority of the free world, you will be sure to remind "married" gay couples that they are not really married (but never a gay couple where on of the men or women is bigger than you of course).
Saw that in your crystal ball, did you Reformed?
Your claim reminds me of the prophosies of the left that Communism/Socialism will take over the world. Have you checked the status of the Soviet Union lately? They also said that abortion would be a non issue by the year 2000. Here it is 2012 and it is still a hot button topic.
Any cause that relies so heavily on the government to force their ideology onto society is doomed to failiure in the long run.
JR: We all love our friends. That doesn't mean we should claim the blessing of the Church or the State. Friendship is slightly older than marriage. It is positive. In King David's biblical poem he tells of a friendship greater than that between man and woman. But friendships are already regulated independently by the Church and State - there are laws that limit what friends can do to/for each other, like in the case of obsessions. Friendships are already regulated. The Public Interest for regulating marriage has everything to do with regulating the engendering of children in an economical way for the government. Government should do more regulating of opposite-sex marriage, not less.
Pelosi just has to be babbling whatever her constituents want to hear, to keep her post in California. Democrat politicians play dirty, and this reflects on same-sex civil marriage advocates.
@ Michael Ejercito
No. It is to prevent the government from enforcing an anti-gay stigma.
Whether a bill amounts to "separate but equal" or "separate but unequal" is irrelevant. Brown v. Board ruled that separate but equal is inherently unequal. Thus the government cannot enforce such policies.
Spunky,the general welfare requires enforcement of "an anti-gay stigma",and any government that won't at least get out of the way of private sector efforts to do so needs to be replaced.
There is no excuse for treating same-sex sexual relationships as if they were of no lesser worth to humanity than opposite-sex ones,when only the latter need to exist at all!!
@ Louis E.
Why do you feel this way?
Spunky,
Not every instance of discrimination- real or perceived- equates to the civil rights struggle of African Americans.
@AM
I'm not talking about African Americans in the '60's, but rather the concept of "separate but equal" in general. The Supreme Court ruled that government enforcement of such a policy is unconstitutional.
Spunky,the species having two sexes makes it absurd and illogical not to feel that way.