Democrats Ready to Include Gay Marriage in Party Platform At Convention Yay or Nay?

I can't wait for the day gay marriage is allowed & everyone just gets over it...it wont do anything to society but show people that everyone is equal.....

But That's not about equality, it's about Politics. It's about votes.

Everyone should have a shot at happiness

Hell Yeah!!! Go Blue Team!!!
Liberty and justice for all!!!

They are frank about things,Joe is Frank one night,and Bill is Frank the next night.

It's about time.

Yay-yeah! ^.^

As nice as it is to hear this, I do wish they wouldn't insult us by only doing this now when elections are coming up. Would've been better if they did this a few years ago.

Should have done it a long time ago... i'm for progression not regression. IF you think money is the big problem in the government your sadly mistaken... it's only a symptom.

its contrary to Gods' law and is causing our entire country to be cursed

Your god has no authority over our laws. His authority extends to the lives of his followers. That's it.

It would be fairly pointless from a pragmatic standpoint, since the issuance of a marriage license is something that states have to approve the parameters of, not the federal government.

As far as political strategy? You would have to look at the situation with an eye for cost vs. benefit. How many potential voters would you win over to your side by adopting it vs. how many you would potentially lose? They pay polling agencies millions to figure out the answers to questions like this. The DNC (and the RNC) do not really care about principle much, they care about potential votes.

I realize it sucks to boil down what are sometimes deeply personal and emotional issues to plotting points on an excel spreadsheet, but that is exactly how large political parties operate.

That was true of interracial marriage too, until it wasn't.

Obviously, we differ on how we interpret civil rights laws. If I was an African American, I would take your comment as an insult (and I know several in African American studies who do), but that is me.

And if I was gay, I'd take offense everytime a black person, tells me that civil rights only apply to them, and not to me. And I too, know several who do. I also know a few gay African-Americans who have experienced BOTH worlds, and say that it is exactly the same struggle. Gays didn't start as slaves; but the fight for equality is the same, regardless of starting point. Either we are ALL equal, or we are ALL unequal.

I am sorry, but there is a fundamental difference between ethnicity and sexual preference, both in the eyes of the law, as well as philosophically.

You will never be able to equate the two, which would explain why I found the comment to be very insulting to African Americans. Many civil rights leaders would share my sentiment and find it equally as appalling to compare the two.

If you are attempting to garner sympathy for your positions using civil rights as a platform, you are going about it the wrong way.

IF sexual ORIENTATION is a choice, then there might be something to that. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that that is the case, and the overwhelming majority of psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental-health experts; are certain that it is NOT a choice. You simply ARE gay or aren't. Having lived around many gay people in my own life, I can tell you that religion is FAR more a choice than is sexuality. And you know damn well that religious discrimination would fall under the heading of civil rights.

There is no evidence for a biological basis, or "born this way" assertion either (though I personally I think it may be both nature and nurture). There is really not much sense in arguing the point since neither of us can prove our assertions with 100% validity. Wishful thinking on your part (or mine) is not evidence.

Ethnicity however, does have a 100% basis in DNA I am afraid, which adds further credence to my point. Show me proof of biological determinism for homosexuality, and I will adjust my views accordingly.

Fine, I concede that AT THIS TIME there is no BIOLOGICAL evidence that people are born gay, that is in the public domain.
But there is STILL far more psychological evidence of the congenital nature of homosexuality, than of religion. Religion is still protected under Civil Rights laws. Therefore, homosexuality should be as well.

People are free to practice their religion as they see fit. Similarly, people are free to engage in homosexual behavior as they see fit.

What the individual states decide to do with marriage law (which is basically just a glamorized and more stringent version of contract law) is entirely up to them, as the federal government does not have legal standing over such matters according to the constitution.

Me personally? I would not care if you wanted to marry your dog since it has no effect on me whatsoever, but that is not how the American legal system works.

Put gay marriage on the ballot in my state and I will vote for it, but what I will not allow is for people to circumvent the law to push their agenda.

Who's trying to circumvent the law? We're trying to change the law.

Then do so. My only stipulation is that it must be done on the state level.

Also, if you do not like the laws of the state you currently reside in, you are naturally free to relocate elsewhere. My father is a perfect example. His business was originally located across the border from us in Missouri. Due to taxation and zoning laws, he has since relocated the bulk of his operations back across the border into Kansas.

No. If slavery was done on a state level, or civil rights, black people might STILL be picking cotton in Mississippi. When it comes to equality, that ultimately MUST be handled federally.

Aside from marriage, gays have the same freedoms as anyone else. They also have numerous laws in many jurisdictions which single them out as a protected class in discrimination suits.

With marriage law, this brings us back to what is a conscious choice and what is a biological trait. Since this can't be determined, its simply ludicrous for federal law to intervene here.

Its very naive of you to think that the federal government (especially now, with Obama in so much trouble politically) would involve themselves in such matters. They would get sued by half of the state attorney generals in the country.

You are living in a utopian dreamworld if you think that federal legislation or a constitutional amendment on marriage law is even a remote possibility my friend.

Lincoln lost half of the country and his life, standing for what was right. Johnson knew he would lose his reelection campaign after he stood for what was right. We should expect, and demand that our leaders have the character to do this. Most won't live up to it; but those who will are the ones who will be hailed as great. How dare we accept less than this from the person WE make the most powerful person in the world?

Once again, it simply won't happen. You have to look at the situation realistically.

Moreover, until a biological determinant can be established, the federal government has no legal basis to do so to begin with. Obama is not exactly the most competent person I have ever seen in the political game, but he is certainly not stupid either.

His play on game marriage will remain unchanged. He will endorse it when possible to win points with voting blocks from afar, but he wont file suit against the individual states hindering their ability to control their own laws.

"Moreover, until a biological determinant can be established, the federal government has no legal basis to do so to begin with."
That's where you're dead wrong. We are a nation in which FREEDOM is the default position. In order to deny anyone a freedom, evidence must be shown that that freedom needs to be denied. It isn't the individuals responsibility to prove their equality, it is the oppressors responsibility to prove their inferiority. Any other approach is simply contrary to the principals on which this country was built.

You misunderstand the law and inset ideology instead to suit your viewpoints.

While not uncommon, (especially here) it is an emotional argument and not a rational one. I think if you take a step back from that little microcosm you have fashioned for yourself, you will be able to identify it as such.

Good day. This discussion is going nowhere.

It's not emotional, it's the American way. Your way is a theocratic one.

As with all politicians, I do doubt they'll keep their promise... but if they support the issue, that's a step in the right direction.

i'm torn ... i'm for complete equality, but i'm not sure that this will help Obama get elected, and as far as i'm concerned that should be the first order of business in this election ... politicians say all kinds of things, but it is going to be the courts that make difference in recognizing that individuals deserve the freedom to marry whomever they wish, because too often we've seen that voters are perfectly willing to screw minorities when they (voters) get into the voting booths ...

IMHO ...

There are many ways to do this but this is putting it right up front, that the Democrat party believes in equality for all citizens.

At election time... where was the equality three years ago? Why also did the White House oppose the end of DADT by the courts? (Many seem to have forgotten the Justice Department appealed the lower court ruling even AFTER the pentagon said they were ready and it was time to allow gay soldiers)... This isn't about supporting equality, it's about a last minute attempt to curry the gay vote... which I hope they (gays and lesbians) are smart enough to see this for what it is...

Ships and electorate change courses.

And were supposed to fall for that? No thanks. Too little... too late.

Except in cases of unretreivable acts, it is never too little or too late.