Aa
Democrats approve draft of same-sex marriage plank for convention platform
(CNN) - Democrats meeting in Minneapolis this weekend approved draft language supportive of same-sex marriage as a plank in their party's platform, two Democratic sources confirmed Monday.
The full Democratic platform committee will now consider the same-sex marriage endorsement at a meeting in Detroit, scheduled to take place in two weeks. It will then be voted on by convention delegates in Charlotte. If approved, it would mark the first time support for same-sex marriage is included in the Democrats' platform.
The specific language of the same-sex marriage endorsement was not immediately available.
In May, President Barack Obama publicly backed same-sex marriage for the first time in an interview with ABC News. Obama said soon after at a campaign fund-raising event that he believes marriage equality "strengthens families."
"I want everyone treated fairly in this country," Obama said. "We have never gone wrong when we've extended rights and responsibilities to everybody," he said, drawing big applause. "That doesn't weaken families, that strengthens families."
News of the same-sex marriage plank at the Democratic Convention was first reported by the Washington Blade.
Marc Solomon, the national campaign director of the pro-same-sex marriage group Freedom to Marry, said in a statement he was "grateful" for the vote of the drafting committee to include the marriage language.
"As I testified to the Committee on Friday, the Democratic Party has a noble history of fighting for the human and civil rights of all Americans," Solomon wrote. "We are proud that the Committee is including language that will ensure the Party is leading the way forward in supporting marriage for loving and committed same-sex couples and their families."
SOURCE: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/dems-approve-draft-of-same-sex-marriage-plank-for-convention-platform/
The full Democratic platform committee will now consider the same-sex marriage endorsement at a meeting in Detroit, scheduled to take place in two weeks. It will then be voted on by convention delegates in Charlotte. If approved, it would mark the first time support for same-sex marriage is included in the Democrats' platform.
The specific language of the same-sex marriage endorsement was not immediately available.
In May, President Barack Obama publicly backed same-sex marriage for the first time in an interview with ABC News. Obama said soon after at a campaign fund-raising event that he believes marriage equality "strengthens families."
"I want everyone treated fairly in this country," Obama said. "We have never gone wrong when we've extended rights and responsibilities to everybody," he said, drawing big applause. "That doesn't weaken families, that strengthens families."
News of the same-sex marriage plank at the Democratic Convention was first reported by the Washington Blade.
Marc Solomon, the national campaign director of the pro-same-sex marriage group Freedom to Marry, said in a statement he was "grateful" for the vote of the drafting committee to include the marriage language.
"As I testified to the Committee on Friday, the Democratic Party has a noble history of fighting for the human and civil rights of all Americans," Solomon wrote. "We are proud that the Committee is including language that will ensure the Party is leading the way forward in supporting marriage for loving and committed same-sex couples and their families."
SOURCE: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/dems-approve-draft-of-same-sex-marriage-plank-for-convention-platform/
I agree that a Church should never ever be forced to perform a marriage ceramony they do not support. That would be wrong. However, I do also think that people should be able to call their legal union whatever they wish...marriage or otherwise. That's just my opinion and honestly not a huge part of my issue. What I want is for any two consenting adults to be able to be legally joined and have exactly the same rights my husband and I enjoy as man and wife. I also feel that opposition to gay marriage is primarily a religious one (and it's not just Christianity, there are other religions also opposed) and feel incredibly strongly that religion has no place in either politics or law. For me, the law should serve all. So this issue to me is a human rights one. As for what they call it, well, I guess I would have to say leave that up to the couple involved. Again, just my opinion. I can understand where you are coming from, and do respect it.
Sorry Brice, I pulled an all nighter last night with a sick child, so I am probably both hyper sensitve and misreading all at the same time.
I agree with not taking a "I belong to this party or that" approach. For many years I identified myself as a liberal and can honestly say that is no longer necessarily the case. I voted conservative last time and am happy with my decision. I think that our last election, for the first time in my life, I truly looked at the candidates, all of the issues, and found I had to choose which issues were most important at this time in my life, and vote accordingly.
I think my issue if I was American would be that the two parties seem so far apart in their platforms (hoping this makes sense). I just could not, in good faith, vote for what I see as being a lack of equality. I know I couldn't. Issues like gay marriage and pro choice are just that important to me.
I agree though that it is unfortunate when anyone follows party lines so closely that they cannot find positives in an opposing candidate or party. I think you have to weigh all of it and vote according to those issues that are most important to you. Well said Brice!
I agree with not taking a "I belong to this party or that" approach. For many years I identified myself as a liberal and can honestly say that is no longer necessarily the case. I voted conservative last time and am happy with my decision. I think that our last election, for the first time in my life, I truly looked at the candidates, all of the issues, and found I had to choose which issues were most important at this time in my life, and vote accordingly.
I think my issue if I was American would be that the two parties seem so far apart in their platforms (hoping this makes sense). I just could not, in good faith, vote for what I see as being a lack of equality. I know I couldn't. Issues like gay marriage and pro choice are just that important to me.
I agree though that it is unfortunate when anyone follows party lines so closely that they cannot find positives in an opposing candidate or party. I think you have to weigh all of it and vote according to those issues that are most important to you. Well said Brice!
As of right now a civil union is just that but is also called marriage. Just the words themselves I say keep 1 for church the other for non-church. Gay or straight.
Really who are we to tell you that 2 adults can not be together in a union recgonized by the state and maybe by a church. Since a church is private they don't have to do anything they don't want to.
Really who are we to tell you that 2 adults can not be together in a union recgonized by the state and maybe by a church. Since a church is private they don't have to do anything they don't want to.
I think you are assuming that I am talking about you when I mention "blind supporter". I'm not talking about anyone in general. I'm talking about those who support him in particular (or anyone for that matter) since he is in office, and find no wrong with anything he is doing. There are people her at work who feel this way.... it's pitiful because if anyone felt that way about a republican, these people would label them as the "anti christ" or a "nazi".
The same goes for how hard core republicans feel about the democrats except they tend to use different labels.
"I would have to be a democrat"..... No, no, no! You don't have to "BE" a democrat. That's part of what's wrong with this country. That thought is self perpetuating... You have to be one or the other.... that means you have to stick to party lines....
This is the reason that the middle of the road, 3rd party idea is growing. There are some very conservative individuals who are for "pro choice" and are okay with gay rights. There are some very liberal people who would fight to the death for 2nd amendment rights.
All of those ideals have been labeled as either traditionally conservative or traditionally liberal... its like they are trying to take away your idea to think. Don't fall into that line of thinking. You can vote either way... you can think of ideals from either side of the spectrum without being labeled....
The same goes for how hard core republicans feel about the democrats except they tend to use different labels.
"I would have to be a democrat"..... No, no, no! You don't have to "BE" a democrat. That's part of what's wrong with this country. That thought is self perpetuating... You have to be one or the other.... that means you have to stick to party lines....
This is the reason that the middle of the road, 3rd party idea is growing. There are some very conservative individuals who are for "pro choice" and are okay with gay rights. There are some very liberal people who would fight to the death for 2nd amendment rights.
All of those ideals have been labeled as either traditionally conservative or traditionally liberal... its like they are trying to take away your idea to think. Don't fall into that line of thinking. You can vote either way... you can think of ideals from either side of the spectrum without being labeled....
Ok, I misunderstood your last paragraph and see you covered my question. Sorry!
Vance, I do understand your thought process and do respect it. However, if I am not mistaken, does the law not consider it marriage regardless? Or perhaps that's not true. And I'm not entirely certain it would put the whole issue to rest. Gay marriage is legal here, and there are many Christian churches who do marry same sex couples. So if I am following you correctly, gay couples married in a Church would be considered married, and gay couples married outside a Church would be considered a civil union?
Gay marriage...an issue that will never go away.
Here is my stance and it is not typical nor is it probably that widly spoke of. Anyone married outside of the "church" is considered a Union. Anyone married in a church is Married. Straight, gay...doesn't matter. This will put the whole gay marriage debate to an end and everyone will have equal rights. Just keep marriage for church and unions for all non-church marriage.
I know some may say it sounds stupid but I do put more into the church than others. But if a church will marry a gay couple then so be it. Just trying to find some common ground. While marriage is a privlidge no law should stop it.
Here is my stance and it is not typical nor is it probably that widly spoke of. Anyone married outside of the "church" is considered a Union. Anyone married in a church is Married. Straight, gay...doesn't matter. This will put the whole gay marriage debate to an end and everyone will have equal rights. Just keep marriage for church and unions for all non-church marriage.
I know some may say it sounds stupid but I do put more into the church than others. But if a church will marry a gay couple then so be it. Just trying to find some common ground. While marriage is a privlidge no law should stop it.
That is exactly what I mean. Good on you considering I was exhausted last night and re reading my posts, I didn't really make much sense..lol.
Brice, I am not a blind supporter and I also do not dislike Romney. I actually haven't said a bad thing about him. In all honesty, the only US President I have disliked was Bush 2 and that had a lot to do with his negative comments about countries not supporting the Iraqui war, plus I didn't invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
They all misspeak, and immediately the other side jumps on it, but it's been that way as long as I have followed US politics. These politicians are certainly far from perfect, but I guess the opposition will take and use any opportunity to slam them - that happens on both sides though, don't you think?
I do very much like Obama in terms of his social policies. I think both parties have made some pretty valid points in terms of economic issues and think that if they were able to come together and make it more about the situation then who holds the power, a lot more could probably get done. I do think that the economic situation has been contributed to by both sides and for a long time. If I were American, my biggest frustration would be the seemingly inability for both of them to put down their swords and just get to work. But there is no doubt that when it comes to social issues - the pro choice/pro life debate, gay marriage, etc. etc. I would have to be a Democrat just as I am a Liberal in my own country. Doesn't mean I would blindly support though, and I don't. I actually have not voted Liberal in either our last Federal nor Provincial elections and for me that was a first.
Brice, I am not a blind supporter and I also do not dislike Romney. I actually haven't said a bad thing about him. In all honesty, the only US President I have disliked was Bush 2 and that had a lot to do with his negative comments about countries not supporting the Iraqui war, plus I didn't invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
They all misspeak, and immediately the other side jumps on it, but it's been that way as long as I have followed US politics. These politicians are certainly far from perfect, but I guess the opposition will take and use any opportunity to slam them - that happens on both sides though, don't you think?
I do very much like Obama in terms of his social policies. I think both parties have made some pretty valid points in terms of economic issues and think that if they were able to come together and make it more about the situation then who holds the power, a lot more could probably get done. I do think that the economic situation has been contributed to by both sides and for a long time. If I were American, my biggest frustration would be the seemingly inability for both of them to put down their swords and just get to work. But there is no doubt that when it comes to social issues - the pro choice/pro life debate, gay marriage, etc. etc. I would have to be a Democrat just as I am a Liberal in my own country. Doesn't mean I would blindly support though, and I don't. I actually have not voted Liberal in either our last Federal nor Provincial elections and for me that was a first.
What I've done is removed myself from that fight. Obama misspeaks and Romney lies/is an idiot, Obama evolves and Romney flip flops.... that fight. I removed myself from that fight. You and I see the double standard there, and it is kind of funny (yet tragic) when you take a good look at it.
Take the 57 state thing that the President blurted out a couple of years ago. "He misspoke" was the common retort from the democratic party and "its no big deal" was a common after thought. Under the same circumstances, if Romney said the same thing, those very same democrats would have crucified Romney and labeled him as slightly dumber than Palin.
I've got it and I am tired of the double standard. The people who blindly support Obama would do so regardless of the circumstances.
Take the 57 state thing that the President blurted out a couple of years ago. "He misspoke" was the common retort from the democratic party and "its no big deal" was a common after thought. Under the same circumstances, if Romney said the same thing, those very same democrats would have crucified Romney and labeled him as slightly dumber than Palin.
I've got it and I am tired of the double standard. The people who blindly support Obama would do so regardless of the circumstances.
I think I see what you're saying...
Romney (and party) are following party lines, whereas Obama (and party) might feel a certain way about something, but they're not letting their personal beliefs get in the way of passing laws that are right?
Did I get that right?
I re'read what you wrote, but I'm not sure if I'm interpreting you correctly.
It's an interesting line of thought.
Romney (and party) are following party lines, whereas Obama (and party) might feel a certain way about something, but they're not letting their personal beliefs get in the way of passing laws that are right?
Did I get that right?
I re'read what you wrote, but I'm not sure if I'm interpreting you correctly.
It's an interesting line of thought.
Lol...I know. I have to call it like I see it though. I do think it's different...not supporting it or believing it is one thing, but attempting to keep it illegal because it doesn't fit your religious beliefs is another. I guess I just feel really strongly that religion should stay out of the law (and vice versa).
Amanda, get ready for a beating....lol....
Ok, so before I say this, let me say again that I actually quite like Romney. I also liked McCain, so even though if I were American I would probably still vote Democratic, I don't hate the Republicans or anything.
There is a world of difference in my opinion between what Obama has said and what some of the Republican candidates have said. Obama say's (or said) his personal belief, based on his religion, is that marriage is between a man and a women. Romney say's the same thing. The difference is that the Democratic Party doesn't seem to by attempting to create laws based on Christian principals, therefore seeming to be more in tune with supporting the rights of all. So while it may be Obama's personal belief, he won't attempt to block gay marriage.
Romney and the majority (or so it seems) of Republican politicians seem to wish to prevent it from being legal therefor having laws based on Christianity.
Now, no one beat me up over this please...lol. This is just how I personally see it and understand their stances. Again, I do not dislike Romney or the Republican Party. I would just personally have an issue with some of their stances on social issues.
There is a world of difference in my opinion between what Obama has said and what some of the Republican candidates have said. Obama say's (or said) his personal belief, based on his religion, is that marriage is between a man and a women. Romney say's the same thing. The difference is that the Democratic Party doesn't seem to by attempting to create laws based on Christian principals, therefore seeming to be more in tune with supporting the rights of all. So while it may be Obama's personal belief, he won't attempt to block gay marriage.
Romney and the majority (or so it seems) of Republican politicians seem to wish to prevent it from being legal therefor having laws based on Christianity.
Now, no one beat me up over this please...lol. This is just how I personally see it and understand their stances. Again, I do not dislike Romney or the Republican Party. I would just personally have an issue with some of their stances on social issues.
I have ZERO problem with gay marriage.
My issue is with the flip-flop (evolution), and the fact that Romney is being called a flip-flopper, when it doesn't seem to be recognized that President Obama is just as guilty of it as Romney is.
If President Obama can have an 'evolution' of thought, in reference to particular decisions he's changed his mind on, then I think Romney should be extended the same latitude.
But clearly, there's a SLIGHT double-standard when it comes to Romney vs. Obama.
Romney flip-flops
Obama evolves his thoughts/ideas
Romney lies and is an idiot
Obama misspeaks
There just seems to be a double-standard, when it comes to Democrats vs. Republicans.
Democrats are the benevolent party that cares about the people.
Republicans are the scheisters that want the rich richer, and the poor poorer.
My issue is with the flip-flop (evolution), and the fact that Romney is being called a flip-flopper, when it doesn't seem to be recognized that President Obama is just as guilty of it as Romney is.
If President Obama can have an 'evolution' of thought, in reference to particular decisions he's changed his mind on, then I think Romney should be extended the same latitude.
But clearly, there's a SLIGHT double-standard when it comes to Romney vs. Obama.
Romney flip-flops
Obama evolves his thoughts/ideas
Romney lies and is an idiot
Obama misspeaks
There just seems to be a double-standard, when it comes to Democrats vs. Republicans.
Democrats are the benevolent party that cares about the people.
Republicans are the scheisters that want the rich richer, and the poor poorer.
I'm relatively conservative about most things and liberal about some others. When it comes to gay marriage, it can not and never will affect me just the same as anyone else's marriage on this board.
I love the argument brought around by some fundamental Christians saying that gay marriage is damaging the "sanctity" of the institution of marriage. To that, I laugh. 1 thing far more damaging to the sanctity of the institution of marriage would be infidelity.... look at all of the "good Christians" that get wrapped up in that....
Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone but gays. Your God will not condemn you or judge you if two gay people around the corner from you get married.....
I don't know... the guy changed his mind. People do it all of the time. Perhaps he had an awakening.... we could go for a lot of awakenings in DC. Millions of them in fact,.
I love the argument brought around by some fundamental Christians saying that gay marriage is damaging the "sanctity" of the institution of marriage. To that, I laugh. 1 thing far more damaging to the sanctity of the institution of marriage would be infidelity.... look at all of the "good Christians" that get wrapped up in that....
Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone but gays. Your God will not condemn you or judge you if two gay people around the corner from you get married.....
I don't know... the guy changed his mind. People do it all of the time. Perhaps he had an awakening.... we could go for a lot of awakenings in DC. Millions of them in fact,.
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” – April 17, 2008, while running for president, defining marriage at the Saddleback Presidential Forum.
Anything to try and get a few more votes.
I wish I was gay so that I could be offended by their pandering. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be straight and be offended just the same...
Anything to try and get a few more votes.
I wish I was gay so that I could be offended by their pandering. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be straight and be offended just the same...
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
