Barack Obama | Democratic Party | Gay Marriage | News

This Is The Gay-Inclusive Democratic Platform Language

ProudDemocratWe already know that the Democratic Party will be drafting marriage equality into their official platform, but we haven't be able to see the specific language.

Until now, because BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner worked his magic and got the wording from a committee member.

Here it is:

We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

This puts further heat on the Log Cabin Republicans to have something to show for their efforts on the GOP platform.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. "We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference."

    I think that needs more careful wording as that implies churches' interpretation of marital rights trumps secular law, effectively creating parallel legal systems. This has proved to be dangerous for women in many Western countries as they may get the rough edge of their culture/religion's views e.g. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/islamic-mediators-facilitate-two-legal-systems-in-germany-a-839580.html

    Posted by: MikeW | Aug 9, 2012 5:38:29 PM


  2. I understand that the religious protection language is there to head off any criticism from Republicans about the Democrats being anti-religion, but I still do not like how they keep attaching this type of language to laws or statements in support of marriage equality.

    Churches have (as far as I know) always had the right to refuse to perform any marriage for any reason. In fact, just recently a church was criticised for refusing to marry a black couple. The church was never in any danger of being punished by the government for not performing the marriage. Why are folks acting like legalizing same-sex marriage would change that?

    Other than that small issue, I am very happy with this statement of support in the official Democratic Platform. This is a wonderful day, and a huge moment in our fight for marriage equality.

    Posted by: joeyhegele | Aug 9, 2012 5:47:39 PM


  3. I'm sure the LCR's will use their vast influence within the Republican party to get language just like this in the GOP platform (eyeroll). For those who will insist the party platform is only symbolic, it is more than that. It indicates the mainstream position within a party, and that mainstream position within the Democratic party is marriage equality. The final language in the Republican platform will reveal what their mainstream position is. Whether it matches candidate Mitt's support of voiding all legal same-sex marriages via a constitutional amendment remains to be seen.

    @MikeW: Perhaps the language could be changed but I don't see it implying a parallel legal system. (Similar language has been in all the state marriage equality bills/decisions.) It only means religions won't be forced to sanction marriages they don't wish to sanction, but the only legal marriage is civil marriage. I agree that it's unnecessary language, but it deflates any argument that marriage equality infringes on religious liberty.

    Posted by: Ernie | Aug 9, 2012 5:53:53 PM


  4. In the sentence addressing religious protection (which I agree with) I think they should have used the phrase: "administer MATRIMONY as a religious sacrament." - jmho

    Posted by: Fox | Aug 9, 2012 6:00:31 PM


  5. I have never wanted a Republican in the White House as much as I do now -- and this is primarily the reason why. Come November, I will be voting for Romney.

    Posted by: Erick | Aug 9, 2012 6:01:54 PM


  6. @Erick: it really doesn't surprise anyone that a gay republican would be against gay rights.

    Posted by: Emmy | Aug 9, 2012 6:07:55 PM


  7. Equality is that threatening to you, eh, troll Erick? What are you afraid of?

    Posted by: Ernie | Aug 9, 2012 6:10:23 PM


  8. Erick, if this is a primary reason for you, you really haven't been paying much attention to other issues. Closeted bigot much?

    Posted by: Lonewolfen | Aug 9, 2012 6:13:06 PM


  9. I agree - let's see how the GRUBS (Gay Republicans) slime their way out of this one.

    There is no hiding it - the Democrats support equal rights for all and the Republicans are doing everything to stop equality.

    Seems like an easy choice at the election....now if only all the gays were smart and educated.

    Posted by: Icebloo | Aug 9, 2012 6:13:34 PM


  10. Guys - I agree with your comments on the religious bs in this statement but don't get too hung up about it. This is the first step. Once we get marriage equality we can then push for equality everywhere - including in churches - that's what is happening now in the UK.

    VERY pro-gay British Prime Minister Tony Blair brought in new equality laws (civil unions, adoptions, taxes, pensions, equal access for gay couples to homes on military bases, new hate crimes laws, etc) for all gay people but the only thing he wasn't able to do at that time was marriage in churches. Now, some years later, the UK is trying to introduce it this year & it's looking promising. They are now able to have this discussion thanks to Blair making the first steps. People have been able to see the world did not come crashing down with the new pro gay laws.

    People just need time to absorb the change.

    Posted by: Icebloo | Aug 9, 2012 6:21:51 PM


  11. Lets keep Obama in the White House before we get ahead of ourselves...Erick you dropped your towel... only to show us that your little pecker has fallen off.

    Posted by: VDUFFORD | Aug 9, 2012 6:29:36 PM


  12. @ erik

    grab your smelling salts...

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/09/fox-news-poll-obama-lead-grows-as-romney-support-slips/#ixzz235eVrxOC

    latest FOX poll shows Obama beating romney by 9% if the elections was held today.......ROFLMAO

    last week PEW shoed obama ahead 10% and now the freaking repub choir themselves died in the wool repub news channel's own polling is almost the same with 9% lead for Obama

    LOL I think I might explode from schadenfreude, drinking all the delicious tears of sorrow from the repubs
    real clear politics took the average of every poll and pegs it at obama 4% ahead average the same as 2008 at this point in time against mcshame

    LOL schadenfreude time

    Posted by: say what | Aug 9, 2012 6:33:12 PM


  13. PS Nate silver is rating an Obama win at 70% at this moment

    :-P LOL happy dance upon the sorrowful heads of the repubs

    Posted by: say what | Aug 9, 2012 6:37:27 PM


  14. Actually it's 72.5% Say What!

    Posted by: Stefan | Aug 9, 2012 6:51:24 PM


  15. This is a bit rich coming from the Party that will have Bill Clinton, the man who signed DOMA into law, as a speaker. Democrats, thy name is hypocrisy.

    Posted by: jason | Aug 9, 2012 7:17:02 PM


  16. While the religious language is annoying, it apparently has to go in every time just to shut up the religious crazies. The First Amendment is apparently not enough for them. What annoys me is that the religious angle usually gets first billing. So our VT marriage equality law was officially titled: “An Act to Protect Religious
    Freedom and Recognize Equality in Civil Marriage.”

    It should be called Marriage Equality (oh and by the way, the 1st Amendment still exists).

    Posted by: KevinVT | Aug 9, 2012 7:28:38 PM


  17. Legal contracts are the government's business, but sacraments, holy or not, are the business of religions. Let us keep them separate. I think the wording does this, so good, so far.

    Marriage is a contractual state of affairs, well, maybe not affairs, if you get caught that could end the contract. Only the government can grant a dissolution of the contract. Churches don't seem to be too big on a divorce sacrament. They overlooked that money maker.

    Posted by: matters of state, not religions | Aug 9, 2012 7:31:20 PM


  18. This is as good as it gets folks...and happening in our lifetimes. Maybe not perfect...but almost. And...I would happily listen to Bill Clinton fart before hearing Jason say one more word. Got that a-hole?

    Posted by: PAUL B. | Aug 9, 2012 7:39:22 PM


  19. someone mentioned that they will be pushing in EG England, to get the churches to do gay marriage ceremonies.

    the Anglican church is a state church, with a lot of financial support from the state. The church should be able to (And I'd support this) simply renounce the state financial support, and do as they please re str8 marriage, gay marriage or even a marriage ceremony for those wonderful critters called mans best friend

    And why should we want the churches to go off independent - because as the world evolves on this issue, anti gay churches will more aNd more discover that the parishioners are voting with the butts, not their fee.

    and sitting on their butts at home rather then going to church.

    I cant speak for what the deal is with the non anglican churches and their relation to the state

    And the English do not have a constitution that eg, like in the USA, allows churches religious freedom.

    Its all TBD

    Bettinbg back to packing - a week in beautiful copenhagen, topped by pride .

    Posted by: stevemd2 | Aug 9, 2012 7:58:19 PM


  20. Paul B = ".....And...I would happily listen to Bill Clinton fart before hearing Jason say one more word. Got that a-hole?...."

    HA! ditto

    thanx Stefan for the 72.5% correction :-)

    Posted by: say what | Aug 9, 2012 8:06:07 PM


  21. Ha @Jason, the Newt Gingrich supporter now criticizing Bill Clinton. Yet he never realizes his comments are a waste of typing.

    Posted by: Ernie | Aug 9, 2012 8:51:48 PM


  22. good for the dems. this just puts more daylight between them and the repubs. i remember well the 1992 gop convention and what a regressive hate fest it was. i can only hope they repeat that again this year. as far as allowing a church or congregation decide what marriages they will perform, or not, is fine. who would want to get married in a church that does not welcome them? the point of marriage equality is that it is the state that issues marriage licenses, not the church. a church wedding is extraneous, a couple doesn't need it to be legally wed, they need a marriage license issued by the state. there are many churches that will perform same sex ceremonies, and that number will continue to grow, so why worry about it?

    Posted by: ian | Aug 9, 2012 9:46:39 PM


  23. A church can marry you, but only a government can give you a divorce. That tells you who has the real power here.

    And just ask anyone who has wanted to end a marriage which is more important.

    And it will be a state court that decides who gets the children, not a church.

    Churches are for putting on a show, nothing more.

    Posted by: getting real | Aug 9, 2012 9:50:57 PM


  24. @SteveMD2: It would take a lot more than the Anglican Church unilaterally renouncing government support. It is wrapped into the British state in much complex ways including the reigning monarch being head of the church, the ABC having state functions and bishops within the church having seats in the House of Lords. To unravel all of that would need an act of parliament.

    Posted by: MikeW | Aug 10, 2012 4:27:36 AM


  25. @SteveMD2: It would take a lot more than the Anglican Church unilaterally renouncing government support. It is wrapped into the British state in much complex ways including the reigning monarch being head of the church, the ABC having state functions and bishops within the church having seats in the House of Lords. To unravel all of that would need an act of parliament.

    Posted by: MikeW | Aug 10, 2012 4:27:37 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide To The Tube #1183« «