Gay Marriage…Coming Soon to a (Democratic) Party Platform Near You!!!

In case you need the reminder, today’s Democratic Party is not your grandfather’s Democratic Party.

To wit, it seems that support for gay “marriage” is about to debut as a plank in the Democratic Party platform this fall. Byron York has the story over at the Washington Examiner:

On Monday, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told the Washington Blade that the Democratic Party’s 15-member platform drafting committee has approved a plank supporting gay marriage for the party’s upcoming convention. “There was a unanimous decision in the drafting committee to include it in the platform,” Frank told the gay newspaper.

The committee made its the decision at a weekend meeting in Minneapolis. Before the unanimous vote, members heard testimony from several witnesses who urged the party to adopt the pro-gay-marriage plank. According to a party source, there were no witnesses who testified in opposition to making gay marriage part of the party platform.

This is what the Democratic Party, at least at the level of national leadership, wants to spend political capital on? And they call social-conservatives “culture warriors!”

Stephen P. White is a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC and coordinator of the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society. The views expressed here are his own.


Categories:Feature Recommended Uncategorized

  • william noonan

    “This Is Not Your Father’s Democratic Party is a lively and humorous historical analysis of the Democratic Party as told by a lifelong liberal with close ties to the Kennedy family. Political junkies of all stripes will find it provocative and interesting.”

  • Sean Argir

    Just point out: I am all for homosexuals getting married. How and why they are being persecuted against is beyond me.

    I hate hearing that banning gay marriage is about religious freedom. Don’t people realize that there are many different religions that exist today, no longer exist now, and new ones that will show up in the future? Even todays religions can become extinct. Christianity can fall to the wayside and become a non-existant religion.

    Back to Gay marriage: Banning gay marriage does not give religious freedom to everyone. Not everyone is religious. Besides….isn’t there separation of church and state? Why is the church trying to alter the government to conform to the church’s view on marriage? If gay marriage is banned, then religion is getting forced on everyone even if they don’t believe in a certain religion or even don’t agree with the bible.

    I say that if anyone is against gay marriage should deeply think and feel in their hearts about when was the last time that a homosexual used their sex preference to persecute others. Also, those against gay marriage should ask themselves, “have I ever met a homosexual in and outside their house?”, “Have I ever been a friend with a homosexual and their partner if they had one?”, “If I didn’t know about gay marriage and that a homosexual got married, then would it even affect my daily life, religious views, and even my religious practices?”. These are some of the questions people should ask themselves if they don’t want gays to marry as these questions may reveal what sits in the heart for the love of a human being and the suffering they may go through for being denied the rights that others may receive.

    IN ANSWERING ABOVE QUESTIONS: Make sure to throw out anything having to do with following a specific religion and rather focus the answers in a philosophical way!

    • Tom Hoopes

      The state’s only interest in marriage in the first place is because it encourages and protects child-bearing and child-rearing. If you mean something else by marriage– “the state’s stamp of approval on couples’ love” — then what’s the state’s interest in that? And what’s the couple’s interest in having the state wink at it? That’s just weird.

      • Patrick

        Tom, you are wrong. If your statements were correct, then no benefits would be given to married persons and state benefits would be limited only to PARENTS.

        You personally benefit from the fact that my wife and I are married, even though we are childless.

    • faith & reason

      JC Penny’s Ad for SSC registry is certainly affecting me (glad I don’t have children that I would have to explain that to), the denial of a business because of its traditional marriage which affects all of us and so on and so on. We should enact a change (not a ban, sir, it’s never been a part of marriage to include SSCs, incestual relationships, polygamy, SS pedophile sexuality which I believe NAMBLA does support the right to marry young boys, hetero pedophilia which also has groups advancing the right to ‘love’ and marry minors and many other ‘different’ views of valid relationships)for the benefit ‘of a human being and the suffering they may go through for being denied the rights that others may receive’. This homosexual person ‘suffering’ who belongs to a very very small percentage of the whole world is not suffering because they can’t fit the definition of marriage but because they want to and can’t whether laws are enacted or not. I did address this topic philosophically in response to Patrick above. Yes, let’s deny the biological reality of probably more than 90% of the world so homosexuals won’t suffer because they are not the same as heterosexuals. For God’s sake, man. Stand up in truth for your belief in SSUs and define through law the proper, truthful way to reflect monogamous homosexual relationships without comparing to or dismissing heterosexual reality.

      • Doug

        Was is it with you religious sickos and your constant comparison of two adults committing to each other for life with those who prey on non-consenting children or animals? Are you that base?

        • faith & reason

          Don’t even understand what you’re writing about Doug. and, pretty sure I don’t want or need to……

  • Michael

    Homosexual marriage supporters haven’t yet answered this fundamental question. Step forward and explain!

    Homosexuals cannot have children by sexual intercourse, as in traditional marriage. They can only get sons or daughters by having sex-change surgery, mutilating their bodies in the process, or by adopting.

    So how do homosexual partners plan to help maintain or grow the world’s population naturally? They simply can’t, can they?

    • joey

      Maybe not through natural processes, but what does it matter? An infertile couple can only raise children if they adopt. How do they contribute naturally to the world’s population? Your “fundamental question” isn’t exactly fundamental.

    • Patrick

      Michael, why should gay people answer your question? Growing the population is not a requirement of straight marriage OR gay marriage.

      You seem to be another right winger who thinks sex and marriage are the same thing? It’s insulting to married people!!!

      • faith & reason

        It’s insulting to marriage to dismiss the couples who do bring forth the next generation by enacting change to our marriage laws to include relationships that are 100% biologically sterile. Although not a requisite to produce children by the state or the church, marriage or at least hetero couples do give us the children of the world in every generation and therefore deserve a unique law to reflect that truth. Intimate physical union can create a child if God allows. That can never be said of SSUs. Fact not discrimination unless we now are responsible for ‘equalization’ of the physiological nature of beings which is ridiculous. Also because of the unique difference in physiology, hetero’s are capable of becoming one in a complete biological way that SSUs are not and never will be capable to do. So Michael is right, how do homosexual partners plan to help maintain or grow the world’s population naturally?’ Only I would add support the importance of prioritizing the children of our nation and world.

        Secondly, to address ‘sex only’ definition of marriage, SSUs might be humanly equal in joining emotionally, sexually, psychologically, financially and other ways but will never be equal to hetero unions biologically, physiologically with or without children. Lumping SSUs into the same legal ‘contract’ of heterosexuals will do one of 2 things: emphasis the inequality of SSUs since their needs and contributions are not the same as hetero’s or enforce an incorrect collective denial of the importance of children in families and the world. Frankly, I wonder why if SSUs are valid relationships, homosexuals have not demanded a new law that truly reflects their ‘unique’ same sex lives. Plus am appalled at the bigotry hurled at all people with the sense to see the facts presented here since it is the overwhelming majority of our population both Christian and hetero that have removed the criminal onus of homosexual acts from our society, enacted laws for equal education, jobs, housing and the right to living the homosexual life.

        • joey

          So, you’re saying that an infertile woman can become pregnant through God’s grace in a heterosexual marriage. Don’t the same rules apply to a woman in a homosexual marriage. You’re argument on grounds of child birth are obviously not valid. As I stated before, how do you classify parents who adopt children? Are they not fit to be parents due to the lack of biological connection between them and the child? You’re reasoning is circular and therefore invalid.

          • faith & reason

            Joey, if you don’t know the complementary differences between men and women that creates children then what the heck has sex education been about for the past 4o years in our schools???? Since men and women are physically made to complement each other sexually(and many other ways), their relationships remain different no matter how powerful the group, government or person aggressively advancing the untruth they are the same as homosexual couples. If you don’t see the sense of this, then have fun on the merry go round of collective denial.

    • Doug

      They don’t plan to help maintain or grow the world’s population. They intend to stand up in front of family and friends, commit to each other, and ask those invited to help them through thick and thin. Pretty basic (and beautiful) stuff, actually.

      • faith & reason

        No one I know who supports marriage would want to stop or outlaw the ceremony you describe above. It’s just not logical or morally valuable to call that ceremony a marriage when it does not fit the definition biologically, physiologically or complementary as the marriage union by law and the marriage covenant by God that is and has been.

  • Shelda

    Yes,everyone should have a right to marry whomever they’re in love with.If 2 family siblings or first cousins are in love, make it legal for them to marry. If a 25 year old and a 10 year old are in love, let them marry! If we’re going to redefine marriage, then go all the way!

    • David

      States where first cousins can marry either outright, or with court permissions: Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Washington DC, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Utah, Wisconsin. What was your point? Ooops.

      • Patrick

        it’s insulting when people are ignorant of the current laws and then spout us their opinions on them anyway.



Receive our updates via email.