Given the context of North Carolina’s recent vote to uphold traditional marriage in the state, the Republican and Democratic conventions are slowly building their respective platforms and taking completely divergent paths on this topic.

The 2012 Democratic platform will include support for same-sex marriage, as a reported earlier this month from Bloomberg:

Democrats unanimously voted today to endorse same-sex marriage in their party’s platform, the first time a major political party has supported the issue in its statement of policies.

Today’s action at the platform committee meeting in Detroit sends the document for ratification by delegates to next month’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. President Barack Obama, a Democrat, said in May that he supports same-sex marriage. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney doesn’t.

A drafting committee included the same-sex marriage provision in the platform last month. Platform committee members raised no objections.

Reports are now indicating that the 2012 Republican platform will include language which “strongly upholds” the concept of traditional marriage in opposition to same-sax marriage. Report on this from Buzzfeed:

The Republican Party platform will strongly oppose the Obama administration’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that bars recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages, in court and will support “a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” according to the draft platform language approved by subcommittees today.

The language must still be adopted by the full committee on Tuesday and then by the convention delegates in Tampa next week. According to the draft documents obtained by BuzzFeed from two subcommittees, the Restoring Constitutional Government subcommittee and the Health, Education and Crime subcommittee, the platform will take those two positions, as well as “support[ing] campaigns underway in several other states” to amend their constitutions to recognize only marriages between one man and one woman.

As BuzzFeed first reported, the platform also includes language about “respect and dignity,” which a gay Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans, cast as an olive branch.

But social conservatives ended the day claiming victory.

Not much of a surprise here given President Obama’s “evolution” on the subject that the Democrats would finally build it into the party platform. Also not a shocker that the Republicans will do the opposite given the large faction of social conservatives within the ranks and party base.


  1. So what ? ? ? ? Hey we got problems big time and to focus on same sex marriage just ain’t one of them.

  2. And all over a subject that is none of the federal government’s bloody business.

    Why are they wasting our time arguing over something that constitutionally is a State level question?

    I really don’t understand why this is such a big deal anyway. I for one don’t give a fig what people do on their own time, in private, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. I think that EVERYONE in this country should be afforded the same opportunities and treatment regardless of the above. If you are a permanently committed couple, you should have whatever legal benefits a permanently committed couple are granted. Call it “marriage”, call it “civil union”, call it “life partnership”, who cares what the label is or who the couple is? (again so long as everyone is an adult and nobody is being harmed)

    The decision to recognize such a union however, is the responsibility of each State. The people of each State get to decide whether this is right. I may not agree with their decision, but if I have a problem with it I can vote to change it, or there are 49 other States from which to choose.

    The fact that people are arguing over this as a presidential campaign issue only goes to highlight the fact that far too few in this country are aware of the seriousness of the mess we’re in.

  3. The only reason this matters is it’s another example of Flippin’ Mittney:

    In 1994, Chicken-Hawk Robme favored the idea of gays serving openly in the military. But by the time he ran for president in 2008, he argued against it.

    Also, in 1994, he favored the idea of gays serving openly in the military. But by the time he ran for president in 2008, he argued against it.

    Also, after first backing legislation to protect gays and lesbians from job discrimination, he (you guessed it) now opposes it.

    Willard may flip again. There have been hints of that already.

    He called gay marriage a “tender” issue and chose his words carefully about civil unions.

    “I don’t favor civil unions if they’re identical to marriage other than by name. My view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate,” he said. He also restated that he thinks it’s fine for gay couples to adopt children.

    Mitt Rockefeller. . .

    Remember, back in Massachusetts, he said he’d be “better than Ted Kennedy on Gay Rights. . .”

    The Wall Street Journal notes, “on gay marriage, the presumptive Republican nominee has been notably quiet.”

    One would guess, as president, Willard would sign the “selective suspension” of the Defense of Marriage Act, with the acronym, D.O.M.A.S.S.

  4. The issue not about equal protection under law, if it were then those for gay marriage would be able to point to ‘laws’ which are not being enforced equally. Nor is it about what people do in privacy. If it were only about what people do in privacy, there would be no demand for public acceptance….and it is a demand.

    Over 30 states have amended their constitutions to say explicitly marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. This is the people’s right. We do live in a representative republic. Even California did it…twice. Once & their supreme court overturned the constitution. Then they did it again.

    This is not an issue like women’s rights, racial equality, slavery, or many of the other societal diseases we came from around the world carrying. Those issues’ solutions had a clear majority of the public, otherwise they never would have stood the test of time.

    This is an issue about a smaller portion of the society imposing their belief system on the majority. That is called Tyranny.

    America is composed of mostly Conservative (do it the right way) and Libertarian (do it your way, but not at someone else’s expense) people. To have Liberals (do it ‘my’ way because I’m right and i don’t care if its at your expense, i’m right so i’m right to demand this your expense and i’ll lie, cheat, steal, alter historical records, do whatever it takes to get my way) who are in a minority of the country to get their way will result in long term backlash similar to taxation w/out representation. People don’t change, tyranny results in downfall of the tyrant. This decision doesn’t bode well for the future of the DNC.

    • So what you are saying is that the majority should have complete, unchecked control over the minority then? How exactly does denying homosexuals the right to marriage help our society? How would allowing them to marry harm our society? Gay men and women aren’t greedy and they don’t want to impose their lifestyles on you. They want the right to visit each other in the hospital. They want the right to jointly adopt a child. They want the rights extended towards any couple who loves each other enough to get married. That is all they want.

      People fear what they don’t understand. People say this is an issue of state’s rights. People said the same thing about slavery. Many called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant; your language is not new. He was in the minority when he stood up for what he believed in and he died for it. Ideally marriage would have no place in the government; it should be left up to religious institutions as to who their ceremonies will allow. Anyone who wants to should be able to form a contract with anyone else which grants them the rights which are extended to a married couple. Privatize marriage, get the government out of it and end this bigoted “one man one woman” baloney.

      • Now yours John is a page I can read and for the most part just follow the money answers
        everything. Good post tough. But still where is the money concerning this instant topic?

        • Billy:

          Obviously, the “money” is in the pockets of the Televangelistas and other extremists who are duped out of their money by politicians who are making this an “issue” to begin with.

          • Good point but usually these “men of the cloth” want it from both sides as they did during prohibition. Remember they collected from both the flock followers and the bootleggers. Kind of like Bill O’Reilly on drugs.

      • Its not about ‘controlling’ people, its about representation. It would injure any society for the moral beliefs of the majority to be subjugated in preference for the minority’s moral beliefs – whatever those may be. We’ve already had this type of discussion as a nation with polygamy. We as a nation decided we would not allow polygamy. People still have polygamist relationships, but it just isn’t accepted by the gov’t or society.

        The difference here (sorry to sound bad about this, but it this seems to be the truth) the polygamists have a strong enough self image to go on doing what they’re doing without societal acceptance, or legal recognition. Some gays (not all, just some) do not have a good enough self image to do what they do without someone else accepting them – this is why there is such outrage when someone says ‘that’s not normal.’ That is why there are gays who are against the forcing of gay marriage, because they fundamentally believe in the concept of republicanism (little r).

        Its not about misunderstanding. People can completely understand something, and completely disagree with it at the same time. Creationists and evolutionists understand each other’s arguments – they just don’t agree. It is a false assumption that the only things you disagree with are what you don’t understand.

        The majority getting their way is how Democracies and Representative Republics (we are an RR) work. Societies fail when the majority doesn’t get their way. Is it OK for people to disagree on this topic? Yes. So what do we do when the majority thinks one way and the minority thinks another? (BTW – Linclon was not in the minority he was in the majority. he ran on an abolitionist ticket, and was elected by a majority. also the majority wanted slavery abolished, otherwise the Republican Party never would have been created and come to power like it did in those days)

        We can have the discussion as a society and decide as a society what we want to do. But to have the discussion we really must recognize that its OK for people to differ on this.

        Saying that people who disagree with gay marriage on this are bigots is hate speech and not helpful in coming to a peaceful conclusion on matters of stark disagreement.

        Your ideas about marriage are legitimate, so are those ideas which are not in agreement with them. We should have this discussion as a society and decide as a society. Currently society is saying ‘no’ and the few are trying to impose.

        • Josh:

          Well, actually, no. Having laws that control and restrict the activities of individuals IS “controlling people.” That’s what “controlling” means. And I generally figure what you want to do should be “allowed,” as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

          And if you are going to frame it as being OK for the majority to have its way over the minority, aren’t you then obligated to concede that if the overwhelming majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal (and they do), that abortion SHOULD be legal? [That’s not to put abortion in this thread, too. It’s just a point of logic.]

          However, I do fully agree with you that we are all entitled to our own opinion, and that words like “bigot” don’t help a discussion. Still, if you are outlawing an activity, you are, in fact, “controlling” people.

          • Laws are passed against behavior, not people specifically (at least they’re supposed to be). People control themselves, laws don’t control people. For example, if an individual passed a law that only they knew about, people would only obey that law who already had the ‘legal behavior’ before it was determined to be ‘legal behavior’ but those who had different behavior before the law would continue to break the law because they didn’t know it existed.

            Some even after being informed would continue to break the law and be criminals. If a majority of the society didn’t agree with the law, they would eventually revolt against it and it would be changed. At least an empowered, informed, and diligent society would do that.

            For abortion, yes, if a majority of the society wants it, then it should be. But the honest truth is the majority *doesn’t* want it, that’s why it had to be dealt with at the supreme court rather than legislatively. I saw a map of what the states allowed before roe v. wade – there was mass restriction (hence the back ally horror stories), and that was the state’s legislation, or constitution, written by those who were elected by a majority of society.

            Even though the majority don’t want abortion, the reason it isn’t a larger majority is because there really hasn’t been an open honest discussion about it where the various views get a fair hearing.

            But yes, if a majority wanted it, they wouldn’t need the supreme court to implement it, it would be done legislatively.

          • I may be on thin ice here but the majority don’t mean squat if it opposes the constitution. The Supreme Court does not run a popularity contest. They are in charge of making the square pegs fit into the round holes (5-4 decisions)

            • Billy: In a perfect world.

              In the real world, the Constitution doesn’t mean squat compared to whatever the Supreme Court says.

              Remember, “Corporations are people, my friend.”

            • I remember during the Thomas confirmations hearings one of the senators saying something like, I can name 9 judges right off the top of my head that would sail right through these hearings and if on the bench we would never hear of a 5-4 decision again.

              The guys we have now were appointed because they have an agenda.

            • Billy:

              I am not a big fan of the filibuster. It has turned the Senate into a pit of quicksnd where nearly all legislation goes to die.

              However, in the case of Supreme Court nominees, I think we should have justices who are middle-of-the-road, who can look at a case without first thinking how they can forward a political agenda.

              The only way around that is to make sure almost no one objects to the nomination. For instance, if five or ten senators object, the nomination is withdrawn.

              I’m tired of having the court filled with political hacks whose votes you can count before the case is heard.

            • Oh the objections are all legit because the Prez only nominates guys that share his agenda. None ore middle of the road judges.

            • Billy:

              Precisely, so we end up getting a sycophant like Abe Fortas or a dork like Bork. But if the prez knew that he had to pick someone beyond reproach–a judge, not a fricken hack, he (or she) would have to nominate someone with jurisprudence, not just a party membership card.

              The only problem is that there are so few statesmen. If this were put into effect, we would go a long time before the first candidate would gain acceptance–for the prez to realize that it was no more business as usual. Then, he/she would look for someone with legal cred and a good mind.

              If we had a court of independent thinkers, our Constitution would be safe.

            • Sounds good but to get into these positions of power you need “investors” and these “investors” expect a return on their “investments”. So just follow the money and almost every question as to a why is answered.

            • The constitution can be changed by the President, Congress and a vote of the states. It takes a ‘super-majority’ (2/3rd of Congress, Presidential Approval, and 2/3rd of the States), but it can be done. The people, when diligent enough and persistent enough, with enough of a majority can change the constitution to say what they want.

              The supreme court only has the power the constitution says it has. Strangely though, the Supreme Court ascribed to itself (and has mostly been unchallenged) the exclusive authority to interpret the constitution. The fall back is always what the Declaration stated:

              …whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, pursuit of happiness…and other rights these are among], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

              If there’s enough oppression of the majority by the minority, this will always happen.

            • Yeah but you need two things to even begin the process. Wide support (you got that) and little opposition (you fall a little short here)

            • also remember too – the constitution was written and approved by those elected by a majority of the citizens.

            • Just think what would happen to this country if we let the welfare people vote. We might end up with a black politician from Chicago.

            • you mean duped. George Washington was the wealthiest man ever to hold the office and it follows that he was also paying the highest taxes to King George. He had the most to gain. Now what about all them soldiers who died so George wouldn’t have to pay taxes to King George? How much in taxes were they paying at the time? Not as much as George that’s for sure.

              Just follow the money for the answer.

        • “majority wanted slavery abolished” Yeah after Honest Abe duped the people into believing that the slaves were going to take their sweat shop jobs away from them. Abe like the politicians believed that the less people have the more they appreciate what they got. (However the cut off point is welfare)

  5. Lexington 1775 — The Shot Heard Around The World.

    Tampa 2012 — The Shout Heard Around the World!

    Come to Tampa on the 26th American Patriots — a Million+ True Americans are expected to show — be One of Us!

    Last chance to voice our support for the only Real American that deserves to be US President: Ron Paul !!!

    Don’t delay — start your trip to Tampa today!

Comments are closed.