what is the Democratic Platform for gay marriage?

[gWbush is Mabus]

I know what I believe and what Dean believes...

but what does our party's platform actually say???

[MADem]

1. If I recall, it's an issue for the states, but I'm not positive n/t

[terrya]

2. I believe this is it.

"We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families"

[RethugAssKicker]

3. Does this forked-tongue response mean they support

Gay marriage or not?... Not an attack on you.

[Balbus]

4. I think it means maybe...

:shrug:

[displacedtexan]

6. Forked Tongue?

"We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families"

We support:

Full inclusion;

Equal responsibilities;

Equal benefits; and

Equal protection.

Where's the forked-tongue response?

Color me confused about your post.

[RethugAssKicker]

15. A real response would have been

No, I am not for gay marriage I am for civil unions !... and then proceed to describe what a civil union is.

[displacedtexan]

16. Thanks for the clarification. eom

[donco6]

7. They're OK with the states' deciding.

Which is great if you live in MA, VT or CA I suppose. Sucks to be you if you're from LA, AL, GA, MS etc.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Ultimately, the matter MUST be decided by SCOTUS

This is Loving v Virginia all over again. Before too long (and quite soon, I hope), we will have an unwieldy situation where people who are legally married in one state are being persecuted because of that marriage when they visit or move to another state. We will have states making it a crime for residents to leave the state to get an "illegal" marriage. The Court will have no option of backing down from a ruling, and equal marriage across the nation will become a reality.

[donco6]

17. I'm hoping that's the strategy.

It's the best we can hope for right how, it seems.

[Todd B]

5. From the 2004 Democratic Platform

It's on (roughly) page 42:

We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal
responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at
the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate
President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage
Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. In other words...

Marriage is a matter for the states, not the federal government, and we oppose any effort at the federal level. If the states wish to prohibit equal marriage, however, we don't mind.

[patrice]

10. " . . . we don't mind" is a Mis-characterization.

Why?

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. I don't see it as a mischaracterization

In fact, most of the gay people I know who have actually seen and read the platform see it as a weasly way of pandering to the gay community while (as usual) offering no meaningful commitment to equal rights. What is wrong with "We support equal marriage"? Why the elaborate dance of invoking the very same states rights argument that was long used to outlaw interracial marriage?

[patrice]

14. It still seems a big jump to "we don't mind".

You don't know what "the party" (whatever that is) feels about this.

I personally don't know why we should go to war over the word "marriage" if the civil rights can be secured through civil unions. All things being equal in regards to civil rights, relationships are just precisely as sacred as the people involved in them make them. They don't need anyone else to say anything else about the "sacredness" of their relationship.

I would like "the party" to be strong for ALL of your civil rights and leave room for people to pursue whatever works best in re the ***WORD*** "marriage" at the local level.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. I assume the platform is what "the party" feels about any matter

Is it unreasonable to assume that, for any issue brought up in the platform, the platform represents the general attitude of the party towards that issue? Since the platform says that marriage is a matter for the states to decide, and since the platform makes no mention of support for equal marriage, is it unreasonable to conclude that the party doesn't care how the states decide as long as it is the states doing the deciding?

As for civil unions....

Point 1: Marriage is and always has been a civil institution, never a religious one. No religious ceremony by itself has ever granted a legal marriage. What makes a marriage legal is the filling out and filing of civil documents with the appropriate authorizing agency. At best, clergy are empowered to act as a notary public and countersign that the couple being married have stated their intent to be married in the presence of two other witnesses. This same notarial power is granted to judges, sea captains and, in Florida and Maryland, to any notary public. Any person who insists that marriage is a religious matter is either lying or seriously ignorant of marriage law.

Point 2: Marriage, as a legal concept, has more than two hundred years of judicial precedent and common law defining the rights, privileges, responsibilities and protections that come with marriage. Civil union does not have these judicial precedents. As such, merely creating civil unions will not and can not create an equal institution.

Point 3: It is theoretically possible to create equal civil unions. To do so, a state would first need to research each and every court ruling with regards to marriage and place these precedents in statutory form. Then, it would need to duplicate each and every one of these statutes to specifically apply to civil unions. Once this is done, each and every law that in any way modified the statutes regarding marriage would have to be duplicated. In many western states whose Constitutions prohibit legislatures from passing bills with more than one subject -- Washington is one such state -- two essentially identical laws would have to pass in order to keep marriage and civil unions equal.

All in all, separate is not equal, no matter how much we try. If civil unions are to be equal marriage, why not just make marriage equal? And if the Democratic Party wishes to express support for equal marriage, why not express support for equal marriage rather than use weasle words that mean absolutely nothing?

[Atman]

11. A soft mattress

With some candlelight and maybe a nice bottle of Chardonnay.

[Ksec]

13. There shouldnt be one.

These are personal issues, not political ones. The repukes use these things to win elections as I see theyve already started. The religious right gave the repubs a time limit to start putting these things out in front. Right in time for the mid terms.

IMO these issues like abortion and gay marriage are all personal issues. Personal issues should not be put on platforms .

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. So the Democratic platform must remain silent on all civil rights matters?

After all, racial and gender equality are personal issues, too.