Democratic Party officials met in Minneapolis over the weekend and moved towards changing their platform: going forward, the party will officially support marriage equality. The decision is not yet final -- party leaders still need to approve the final language -- but by all appearances, the 2012 platform will reflect this historic shift.
And while this was a pretty big story in the political world yesterday, and I saw plenty of news accounts, what I didn't notice was any Republican pushback whatsoever. Maggie Haberman noticed this, too.
The move by the Democratic National Committee to put gay marriage into the party's platform at the convention for the first time ever could never have happened had President Barack Obama not taken a public position on it before the election (and there is a split in the reporting on whether that was forced by Vice President Joe Biden going public first).
But what has been most remarkable about the announcement is the lack of pushback from mainstream Republicans. There has been very little by way of outcry over the decision, which was not made clear until today and which has been discussed behind closed doors for weeks by Democrats.
There was no press release from the Republican National Committee; no statement from the Romney campaign; no screaming headlines about an "attack on traditional values" aired on Fox News. Democrats will become the first major American political party to change its platform to endorse legal protections for same-sex couples who wish to marry, and in a development that was hard to even imagine in the not-too-distant past, no one is blinking an eye.
If the right saw an electoral opportunity by going on the offensive on this, Republicans would take it. And therein lies the point -- the political winds have shifted quickly and anti-gay bigotry no longer translates into votes. The GOP didn't attack President Obama when he endorsed marriage equality in May, and the party didn't attack Democrats yesterday, not just because Dems are on the right side of history, but because Republicans no longer want to advertise about being on the wrong side of public opinion.
Between this and the Obama campaign's ads on reproductive rights, the culture war appears to have entered a very different phase.
Leave a Comment:
They will still push it hard in the churches. The Sunday before the election, this will be front and center. Obviously, things are moving in the right direction. But, like gun control, this is is an issue where the majority feels one way, but the minority on the other side is VERY ACTIVE.
Well now does this mean that the majority will sit in those churches and let bigotry rule?Will they continue to worship in a house of hatred and tithe to political preachers? I would hope not.
Plus, not all churches are the same. A while back, someone (I think maybe it was sandyc954) brought to my attention gaychurch.org, a website which among other things keeps track of accepting churches worldwide. I knew that there were churches and whole denominations that were accepting, but I had no idea of the scale until I looked around on that site.
On a smaller scale, I've been posting some about the attack on a gay woman in Lincoln, NE a week ago Sunday, and that a vigil had been held at a church located very close to where the woman lives. That church is one of the accepting ones (it appears on the list for Nebraska on gaychurch.org). I read in one news article on the vigil a quote from one of the staff of that church, a Rev. Gregory Stewart, to the effect that since the attack he's been very careful to make sure the doors and windows of his home are locked. I wondered at that, so I went to the website of that church (firstplymouth.org) and checked out the staff link and, judging from the bio, the man is gay. So he has a reason to be concerned. But the point is: not only is this one an accepting church, it has at least one gay clergy on staff as well. (It's a big church with a big staff, so I didn't read all the bios, just the one I was interested in.)
And then there is this posted to the WaPo website yesterday concerning the Episcopal church and transgendered persons, showing development on a usually under-reported front.
I don't know where the balance is on accepting v. non-accepting churches, although I suspect the scale is still tipped toward non-accepting. Nonetheless, things are changing in the churches as well. It's a mixed picture. There are many bigoted churches, there are many moving away from bigotry, although at differing paces. People aren't all hearing the exact same message about teh gay on Sunday mornings. It's important to understand that, otherwise we may mistakenly condemn allies and nullify the existences of people who are both LGBT and religious, and that only aids the other side.
From the article "The decision is not final yet." Hope it gets past discussion stage.
Total Devil's Advocate position here but...
If republicans hope to use marriage equality as a reason to attack Dems in November, it makes tactical sense not to attack it before it's official. Sure, we've seen Republicans go off on pants-wetting scream fits over the slightest of things - things that aren't even true but are perceived to be true (ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, "you didn't build that" etc ad nauseum) so many times in the past - you'd think the threat of traditional marriage coming under attack by those terrorist lovin' libruls would be automatically a cause to start the sirens screaming. But if they started their hissy fits now, Dems, who still have the history and reputation as being gutless cowards, might pull marriage equality from the platform before the convention.
We'll hear about this, we'll hear about it plenty. I'm sure the right think of marriage equality being on the Dem platform as manna from Heaven, fortune that is SOOOO good, they don't want to jinx it by attacking it before it's here.
Which is not to say I agree with how they feel about marriage equality. Just that I think that's what they're thinking, which is why they're waiting before issuing forth the hysteria.
"Traditional Values" is in itself the stop of progress. It was once a traditional value that women could not vote. Or that African Americans were not considered full US citizens. And that interracial marriages were illegal.
The problem that The GOP has with same sex marriages. Isn't a legal one. It's a religious one. But they fail to realize that the two have no real connection to begin with. Because legally same sex couples can be married. Because you cannot legally tell two knowledgeable and consenting adults. That they can not enter a legal contract. Which is what a marriage license is. The Religious Ceremony is more for show and religious reasons. Not constitutional or legal ones.
This whole thing about not calling a same sex marriage a marriage. But a Civil Union. Is just arguing semantics. They are both the exact same thing. No matter what you call it. It's legally the same . This whole "We're going to force our tridional values down your throat. And you're going to like it." Is in itself self defeating.
As much as they want to call for a national ban on same sex marriages. It will never happen. Because even with SCOTUS the way it is. Banning a legal contract for a certain sect of people. Violates the 14th Amendment. No matter how you slice it up.
Calvin I'm going to nitpick you on Civil Union=Marriage.
It's a separate-but-equal gambit. Separate-but-equal has been a disaster for us as a nation. We should avoid it.
My view is that the official document for everyone should be civil union and be done with it. You want to take vows in a church, then that's between you, your partner and a church. I think it is a bad thing for the government to be involved in what is apparently (if you believe Conservatives) a religious ceremony defined by the Abrahamic religions. The state is not an arm of religion.
There are compelling civil, secular reasons for marriage and the state should not be restrained by religious considerations that are none of the state's business.
Also, while not a national ban on same-sex marriages, DOMA sure made it hard on same-sex couples. If DOMA isn't completely dead, it will be soon. But all kinds of ridiculous stuff makes it through the legislative process. Don't be so sure a national ban won't pass.
There was no public outcry because they were all watching Mr. R-money abroad, in terror. Don't worry, it'll happen today or tomorrow, like clockwork!
Thank you Mr. President! I am sure you wrestled with this for some time but I am glad you made this move.
Once more I say with pride-I am liberal,I am a democrat and I am American!
All of which are only a part of the right-wing weirdverse. For example, this roundup of crazy via Right Wing Watch. I particularly like (in a point and laugh kind of way) Robertson's and Huckabee's fact-free assertion that the Dems' support of marriage equality spells the end of the party. It's like they aren't even paying attention to reality. Oh, right. They aren't.
But I’m still seeking a non-emotional, non-empathetic and non poll-based answer which provides an all logical reason for supporting gay marriage rights. If we try, we can all find many examples in which pre-disposition cannot be used to approve or reject particular actions or types of behavior. I agree that marriage can legally be defined outside of religion. However, if we rely on science and logic for an objective basis, it seems that I can’t override science that points to homosexuality being a sexual dysfunction (i.e., dysfunction being an impairment or malfunction of an organ or structure and/or an abnormality in behavior) nor can I override logical consistency by which we as society always did and always have been able to (or allowed to) distinguish between a proper functioning system and a dysfunctional system. So if (a) pre-disposition to homosexuality can be logically shown to be irrelevant to claims used for supporting (or rejecting) gay marriage and marriage equality and (b) homosexual behavior is logically shown to be a sexually dysfunctional behavior, what fully logical (and/or scientific/objective based) arguments can be used to support gay marriage and marriage equality? I eagerly await a response. Thank you.