The group Freedom to Marry has proposed a plank for inclusion in the Democrats’ platform this year:
Will the party accept this plank?
Sadly and shamefully, probably not.
No, they’re not going to go that far. There’s not enough in it for them in terms of votes, and too much to lose.
Yep, the democratic party is as bad as the republican party on these issues.
Picture this: Someone is drowning. There are two people nearby. One doesn’t help because he’s sure he’s too weak a swimmer and the drowning person will kill them both. The other person has a pole and is pushing the person, trying to keep their head underwater.
Both are equal in your opinion? Because that seems like what you’re suggesting.
Doubtful. While I think marriage equality is gaining popularity, it’ll likely cost the Dems more votes than it would gain them. I think most people who support it are likely to vote Democrat anyway, and most who support it but don’t probably wouldn’t be swayed on that single issue or they’d probably already be voting that way anyway. But as I understand from recent votes on the issue, like Prop 8, a lot of minority groups, which will tend to vote Democratic, are more likely to oppose it and it might be enough to sway away those minority votes.
Moreso, with the current state of the economy, I think many voters might take it as a distraction. If nothing else, it would at least be attacked as a distraction from the “real” issues facing the country. I think Democrats would need a new candidate to really push it though, didn’t Obama already publically say something that doesn’t really fit with that?
This election year, being a presidential election makes me doubt they will adopt it. If things go well as they have been trending in the past few years as far as public opinion goes. I would expect them to adopt it some time in the next few election cycles.
Unlikely that they will accept this plank. To their shame.
As to Omar’s opinion that this makes them equivalent to the GOP, at least they won’t have a plank that calls for a federal amendment outlawing same-sex marriage in those states that allow it.
LOL at your analogy. I think it’s quite humorous that you consider the democratic party as a weak swimmer on this issue. :rolleyes: It’s more likely that in your analogy the democratic party just doesn’t want to jump in and try and save them because they are gay! And sure it might be nice to save them, but someone might see them saving a GAY person, and what would the neighbors think?
Both parties are at fault here. And when we as a country can see that and move on, we’ll be able to focus on more important things like the fucking economy.
I’m not so sure. I haven’t been around politics for that long but I recall both Obama and Biden stating that they were against gay marriage during the last presidential debates.
I doubt that is true, but unfortunately it is a little too unpopular, even if more than half support it.
Very recently the percentage of citizens supporting the full legalization of marijuana just crossed over 50%. I don’t think Obama or the democratic party is going to embrace that either, even if a large number of them are current or former pot smokers.
You’re trying too hard to set up an exact equivalence. And when we as a country can stop doing that we’ll be able to focus on more important things like ending government-sanctioned discrimination.
I think you believe that Democrats are progressive? If so they are not, Progressives tend to be Democrats but Democrats are not all Progressives.
There are lots of Labor types that need to have their fear due to unfamiliarity with gay people reduced and this takes time.
To push this on them too quickly would be a good way to elect a GOP president IMHO.
There is no desire or hate for gays in this, it is politics which often requires strategy and timing.
Which sucks out loud, but is still better than holding their head under.
Both parties are not *equally *at fault, and no amount of foot-stomping will make it so.
I’d love it if the Democrats would adopt this on principle, but in reality people who support gay rights already vote democrat, so to do so gains them nothing.
When the result is the same, I doubt it makes much difference to the person drowning.
The result is probably not the same - if the Democrats go for it and lose as a result, the “swimmer” is worse off than before, pushed back instead of continuing to make slow steady progress toward shore.
Nope, and they shouldn’t. For better or worse (worse), American politics isn’t a case of “make good stuff your platform and the good people will make you king.”
Republicans have decided to demonize marriage equality this cycle. Anybody who cares enough about it is already voting Democratic. The only major effect of publicly endorsing equality, in this case, is for Democrats to lose votes from swing voters and to potentially drive some Republican hardliners to the polls.
Of course, they’d drive some extra pro-equality folks to the polls as well, but I really don’t think the gain would nearly outweigh the negative. The ugly Republican rhetoric will likely already mobilize pro-marriage-equality voters who know that Democrats are far, far more favorable to the concept already.
While I’d like the Democrats to get behind this 100%, it’s hard to argue that the result is the same. The Obama administration is (slowly) removing discriminatory federal policies and same-sex marriages are being legalized, primarily in Democrat-leaning states. Meanwhile the Republicans are adamantly opposed to it outside of the Northeast and perhaps the West Coast, and the party may nominate Rick Santorum for president.
Working within the analogy, it probably would not make much difference to the person drowning. (I do believe by this point we have lost the appropriateness of the analogy, but that’s not your fault.) But we are not a consequentialist society, and popular moral codes in America are not consequentialist in nature.
What do you think?
And regardless of whether or not they will, should they?
I don’t know what the “Respect for Marriage Act”, but I can see them accepting a repeal of DOMA as part of their platform and opposing constitutional amendments to limit marriage to one man and one woman.
Not gonna look it up, nosir. Sooner or later someone will say something that will tip me off, and I can pretend I always totally knew what “consequentialist society” means.