According to the article, this was in the 2008 platform:
So presumably most of the proposed language will get through, and with the possible exception of the “freedom to marry” bit. I’m skeptical that that phrase will make it, but I don’t think its impossible.
If New Jersey had a Democratic Governor, gay marriage would be legal there right now. They don’t so it isn’t. The result isn’t the same
That would put Obama in an awkward situation, as his position has not evolved to that point yet. So, I’d be very surprised if it was included.
I few years ago who would have ever believed that Dick Cheney would be a supporter and Obama would not on this issue.
I do have to give Cheney credit, he stated support in 2004 despite it’s potential cost in the party.
Well, he’s got six months to keep evolving.
Plus, I don’t think I remember the wording of a parties platform being an issue…ever. I don’t think anyone really cares what goes in there beyond party functionaries, so even if it contradicts Obama’s stance I’m not sure it would really put him in an “awkward position”.
In anycase, the Respect for Marriage Act is the bit that actually has a chance of going anywhere, and I’m sure that will make it into the final platform.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama’s position may suddenly “evolve” on November 7.
And as to the equivalence between the two parties, that’s nonsense. One party is practically ambivalent to same-sex marriage; the other is actively trying to pass constitutional amendments to ban it, block laws that would allow it, and repeal it in states which already have it.
Too much politics on a lot of issues…again on both sides. Drowning man…Lulz!
If the election were a total slam-dunk, certain to sweep the Party of Darkness from the halls of power, I’d say go for it. But there’s too much at stake to risk it. The Pubbie assault of women’s health issues has priority, both as a moral issue and a political bonanza.
It is right for progressives to be skeptical of pragmatism, it is a dangerous and slippery thing. But it is our duty as citizens to look at things with a frosty and clear perspective, truth must be tempered by fact.
Cold mind, warm heart.
Sorry drowning dude, maybe next election cycle. Unless assault rifles become an issue again.
A viewing for the drowning guy analogy will be held Saturday at Shady Grove Funeral Home on the corner of Third Street and Enough Already.
I don’t know that this is true. I’ve seen very few Democratic pols come out in favor of SSM.
For starters the Democratic governors of New York and Washington have signed same-sex marriage laws in the last couple of months, and the governor of Maryland has said he will do the same with the bill that recently passed there.
Passed in New Jersey leg. Vetoed by Governor Oink. Simplicio has it right.
Oh, sure, fucking admins can ninja whatever they want, even change the time stamp! Jackboots! Jackboots!
Can we build a memorial, showing a Republican holding the guy under while Democrats stand there watching?
OK - knew about NY, not NJ.
It seems that the prudent thing for Obama to do is to take the position that it’s a state’s rights issue, not under the overview of the federal government. I see three reasons for this;
[ul]
[li]This will keep from offending those opposed to SSM which could be a significant stumbling block to re-election.[/li][li]The battle the state level seems to be going in the right direction.[/li][li]Although the progress is painfully slow more ground has been gained in the last 5 years than in the last 5 decades (OK that may be hyperbole on my part I admit).[/li][/ul]I understand the desire to make a stand and draw a line in the sand but frankly in the current political environment it could actually cost Obama the election and the result would be a President openly hostile to the cause. The best thing Obama can do for SSM at this point is to keep his mouth shut.
Cristie’s opponent for the Governorship said he’d sign a bill in favor of SSM if it passed while he was in office. He lost and when such a bill did pass the (Democratically controlled) legislature, Cristie vetoed it.
Elections are important and their results have real consequences for peoples lives. People that think “the results are the same” irregardless of which party wins aren’t paying attention.
(on preview, several people have made this point, but I’ll post since I think its worth noting that in NJ the candidates for governor explicitly had differing views on the issue).
Must…maintain…composure…
I think zoid got it exactly right. Marriage is a state issue, and Obama, as president, should oppose DOMA, but not take a stand as to what the states should do.
National - no.
But I think it will be on a lot of state party platforms. And as an issue, some states’ parties will use it to help draw voters to the polls.