More pressure for Democrats to "come out" for gay marriage? From a Young Democrats of America press release:
Today, Young Democrats of America’s Executive Director Emily Tisch Sussman ... [endorsed] language proposed by Freedom to Marry as part of its Democrats: Say I Do campaign calling on the national party to include a freedom to marry plank in the national Democratic party’s 2012 platform.
"As the Executive Director of Young Democrats of America, I represent young people, and the way we connect young people back to Democratic politics is by speaking out for what is right and taking action,” said Sussman. “Polling shows that 70 percent of voters 18-34 support the freedom to marry, and for many of our members, it’s a cause that goes to the core of why they consider themselves Democrats. It is time to realize that marriage is no longer an effective wedge issue; it is a cause that we as Democrats should be leading on.”
13 Comments
I would rather Marriage not become a Partisan issue- and there are a number of Republicans who support Same Sex Marriage too.
But, given that Kulture Kampf really is a fundamental issue to the most influential Democrats, they should quit trying to hide their true agenda and put SSM in the platform.
The Democratic Elites are deluded. They live in echo chamber where the only reason to oppose SSM is bigotry. They have never been exposed to rational arguments for Marriage. And when confronted by a Robert George or Maggie Gallagher, they are left spewing irrational emotional appeals.
Right to unit yes. Right to 'marry' no.
Help connect our young people back to reality.
The fight for the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman. That's a cause that goes to the core of truths.
A union where the sex of the other person has “nothing” to do with it.
A union where the sex of the other person has “everything” to do with it.
They are, at their very core, complete opposites.
How do you make equality of these two things?
You don't.
How do you respect each one.
You start by giving each its own name.
Anything else is a wedge in reality.
So, it's funny that we give so much power to children aged 18-34, when for the most part they know nothing: 4 years of college to scramble their brains, and 14 years to live in the real world to figure out that college was a big waste of time.
Given the ever-extending period of time that children remain dependent on their parents, I think the voting age should be returned to at least age 21 (where it was in 1971) and perhaps as high as age 25, since so many kids remain in grad school these days to complete their high school education.
Austin R. Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund said it best;
"The government's interest in marriage is narrow and unique. This is why marriage is always about opposite sexes. It's never been conditioned upon a couple's ability and desire to find happiness together, their level of financial entanglement, or their actual personal dedication to each other. Marriage laws exist because children are the product of sexual relationships between men and women. And that fathers and mothers are both equally necessary for children.
Be prepared for a Republican landslide.
"...so many kids remain in grad school these days to complete their high school education."
Excellent ResistSSA!
Amen, David. What Austin said is rational and straightforward; unlike this mushy-gushy, "equality" tripe that comes from the other side. If the Young Democrats want to take the emotional, illogical position of supporting ssm, then so be it.
Man/woman marriage, family, and responsible procreation stand in the way of socialist, nanny-state, promiscuous, wealth-distribution and entitlement values, which the Democratic party embraces whole-heartedly.
Young Democrats don't realize they are useful pawns.
I've been active in Democratic politics since the age of seven,and the embrace of the homosexual agenda by certain of our leaders has been our party's worst blunder of that entire period.(What can possibly be done to oust Pelosi from her leadership post?)
Wow David in post #4. A new poster and he came out swinging with the best first comment I ever read. Hope to hear more from him.
Anyways go for it young Democrats. There are millions of people like me who were once liberals and have now gone conservative. Todays moderates are the liberals of yesterday. These new breed of young Democrats are more like socialists and communists.
I hope you do put this on your platform. Echo it loud and clear at the convention. Make this a big issue in the election year. You will pay dearly in November when you go down big time. If I was a moderate or conservative Democrat I would have abandon ship by now.
God help us when my generation starts taking the Oath of office(I'm 20 years old).
Well at least they're being honest now. They've denied their allegiance to the gay lobby for quite a while.
Regarding post 4, marriage is not necessary to procreate, and you can be married and not have children. Children are not the only thing that brings couples together. That argument has been used over and over and it's reasoning is weak at best.
I ask again, have any of the regular posters on this site ever talked to a same sex couple? Do you know any? You may be suprised to realize that they're no different than you or me. No different.
David in post #4 said it brillantly:
Austin R. Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund said it best;
"The government's interest in marriage is narrow and unique. This is why marriage is always about opposite sexes. It's never been conditioned upon a couple's ability and desire to find happiness together, their level of financial entanglement, or their actual personal dedication to each other. Marriage laws exist because children are the product of sexual relationships between men and women. And that fathers and mothers are both equally necessary for children.
What makes this statement so true and why post#12 is lie is due to people who are single. The government in creating these licenses and benefits justified this due to procreation. Married people are afforded benefits that are not available to single people. We singles are not treated equally.
This has always been justified due to procreation. It is because of this of why the state is involved. Without this the state cannot justify giving married people these benefits not avialable to us singles.
Remember the marriage license and benefits that accompany it are priviledges not rights. So no rights were violated.
I would encourage the ADF to use the singles issue in future arguments.