Subscribe to Irregular Times via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 846 other subscribers

Will Democrats Make Equal Marriage Rights A Plank In Their Platform?

At present, support for marriage equality for heterosexuals and homosexuals is not a part of the Democratic Party platform. That might change at this summer’s Democratic National Convention, however… it might have to, given that the convention is being held in North Carolina, a state that gained notoriety this month for passing a state constitutional amendment prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages that have taken place in other states.

red white and blue muleSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he’s confident that a provision supporting same-sex marriage will be added to the Democratic Party platform. Of course, he doesn’t get to make that decision on his own. Democratic Party delegates have to introduce and approve such an addition to the platform.

11 state Democratic chairs have called for the addition of marriage equality to their party’s platform. 22 Democratic U.S. senators have done the same. Of course, these numbers constitute only a minority of Democratic politicians in their respective spheres.

It’s a nice thing that some prominent individual Democrats are now indicating some openness to marriage equality. Such expressions aren’t what matter in the end, however. What we need is national law, or judicial recognition of laws that already exist, that guarantee equal legal status for heterosexual and homosexual marriages.

Add this issue to the list of policy matters to watch during the Democratic National Convention.

12 comments to Will Democrats Make Equal Marriage Rights A Plank In Their Platform?

  • Jeffrey "JK" Kelly

    Logic and reason prove that: If those who define marriage to be between a man and a woman are bigots then those who add same-sex to the definition are bigots to those who also want polygamy added and they are bigots to those who add any of the other myriad of choices that humans desire.

    Big·ot, noun, ?bi-g?t
    “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (for example: those who define marriage as between a man and a woman) with hatred and intolerance.”

    So based on the above definition, this is not about those who want same-gender marriage being better and more evolved than the male/female devotees because the polygamists who are open to male/female, same gender AND multiple wives are even more evolved and the merely two choiceers are bigots. It’s about those who are intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and treat others with a different opinio with hatred and intolerance who are the bigots.

    I know I have every right to define marriage as between a man and a woman, just as others have a right to define it in other ways.

    • Jeff, your flawed, semi-logical argument completely misses the point that the debate is not just over personal opinion and quibbling over the definition of words. The debate is most substantially about whether the government will be allowed to create special classes of people who do not have equal access to protection of U.S. law.

    • Bill

      The frothy Santorumesque ‘logic’ which Kelly and other homophobes spout at every turn (“If we let men marry men then we’d have to let chimpanzees marry goldfish!”) reflects the utter illegitimacy of their position. One might as well argue that if we extend the right to vote to 18 year-olds then we would also have to extend it to 17 year-olds and 3 year-olds and fetuses and sperm and dead people and the Undead and corporations and potted plants and sardines. And yet, somehow we managed to give 18 year-olds the vote without the world imploding into a logical black hole. The law is all about drawing lines. The question is not whether we should draw them, it is where we should draw them.

      It is sad that it is going to take so long for LGBTs to gain full civil rights, but time is on our side. Bigots die off, and their children repudiate their hatefulness. Some bigots even come to see the light in the fullness of time. In 1869 Philip H. Sheridan famously observed “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” But by 1878 he had grown in his humanity to the point of being able to declare “We took away their country and their means of support, broke up their mode of living, their habits of life, introduced disease and decay among them, and it was for this and against this they made war. Could anyone expect less?”

      The struggle continues, and we will win. Just not soon enough.

    • Dove

      So you would oppose those who define marriage as a loving commitment between 2 adults by defining marriage as bigotry against all the other people who are not married? logic fails. And if you were instead defining politics as bigotry, that’s also false.

  • Stephen Kent Gray

    Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

    Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that “right.” We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.

    The Libertarian Party Platform quoted above!

    • Stephen Kent Gray

      Ideal Candidate 36
      Gary Johnson 25-29
      Barack Obama 24
      Ron Paul 20-24
      Buddy Roemer 15-23
      Newt Gingrich 2
      Mitt Romney 0-4
      Rick Santorum 0

    • Bill

      It is notable that ‘libertarian’ stalwart Rand “Little Ron” Paul strongly opposes both gay marriage and abortion on grounds of ‘faith.’

      Libertarian = “I wanna do whatever I wanna do. You?….Meh, not so much.”

      • Stephen Kent Gray

        Rand Paul in an op-ed piece back in 2010 said that despite being the son of Ron Paul is actually a constitutional conservative rather than a libertarian.


        It’s getting hard to remember now, but there was a time for a little while there when a fair number of libertarians were worried that Rand Paul was shaping up to be another Beltway sellout. There was his post-primary rapprochement with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the powerful and seemingly eternal Senate minority leader who had hand-picked Paul’s opponent to replace retiring Sen. Jim Bunning. There was Paul’s odd August 2010 USA Today op-ed piece, titled “Rand Paul, Libertarian? Not Quite,” which smacked of a self-conscious distancing from the word. And then there was his pre-election meeting in Washington, D.C., with representatives of the neoconservative establishment that had tried to kneecap him in the Republican primary, including Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, American Enterprise Institute scholar Thomas Donnelly, and former Iraq Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor.

        “Well, yes, it looks like Rand Paul is indeed a neocon stooge,” columnist Justin Raimondo wrote after that meeting. “The great danger is that the election of Rand Paul to the US Senate will change the ideological complexion of libertarianism, as it is perceived by the public, and quite possibly succeed in derailing the ongoing work of his father and the Campaign for Liberty in challenging the neocons’ hegemony in the GOP when it comes to foreign policy.”

      • Stephen Kent Gray

        Randall Paul is letting the Christian Right know he is one of them, not a libertarian. He starts with his desire to impose State control over every uterus because all life starts at conception. He brags about the multiple new laws he has tried to push through at the federal level to control abortion.

        Then he ridicules Obama for, in fact, taking a position on marriage that doesn’t differ from his own father’s views about leaving the issue up to the states. Randall made the remark “I didn’t think his views could get any gayer.” He then invokes the Bible against it and then says that all gays are sinners and this is sin (you may as well be deemed a sinner for having brown eyes). He falsely claims we have 6,000 years of tradition, presumably on marriage. That indicates he knows as little history as his father. The kind of marriage Randal has with his wife didn’t exist 6,000 years, 1,000 years ago, or even 200 years ago.

        He invokes anthropology, which if he knew a tiny bit about it, would show that the structure of family and marriage has changed multiple times in history, and he implies that allowing gay couples to form marriage contracts is magically anti-family. I have never heard any one, including fake libertarians, explain how gay marriage contracts destroy anyone else’s family.

        Then Paul leaves politics to preach the need for a fundamentalist revival in America, apparently thinking he is elected to preach religion, not freedom.

        Ron Paul has always been weak on social freedom issues, especially gay issues. Randal is even weaker, he is a full-fledged, out of the closet, social authoritarian who believes government should control moral issues like abortions and gay rights. He will not support deregulation of marriage laws to allow same-sex couples to enter marriage contracts. Every indication is that he would want more social regulations on marriage, not less.

    • Dove

      Sorry libertarians, you too have been out-framed by the republicans. Those that think gay marriage threatens their hetero marriage should feel even more threatened by your goal of abolishing all marriage. (or will you come out and say marriage should still have its privileges but be under the institutional control of your church ? ) Also, if you think we have activist judges now, wait until you see what they have to go on when you repeal most of the laws and people still have disputes that need to be settled.

    • Stephen Kent Gray

      Outright Libertarians is my favorite gay rights group!

      Congratulations to former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson on winning the Libertarian Party’s Presidential Nomination. His running-mate is Judge Jim Gray from California, who is famous for his opposition to the War on Drugs.

      Governor Johnson has endorsed marriage equality, and his positions on the issues compared to the other two parties’ candidates are not only vastly more pro-freedom, but also exactly what voters in this country have been clamoring for — more freedom and less government discrimination, intrusiveness, and debt to future generations.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>