Eleven Democratic State Chairmen, Nancy Pelosi Push for 'Freedom to Marry' DNC Platform Plank; Will Media Ask Obama's Position?
"Eleven Democratic state party chairs will announce their support today for a proposed 'freedom to marry' plank in the 2012 Democratic platform," Politico's Alexander Burns reported this morning. Among other high-powered backers of the platform petition is none other than former House Speaker and current Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Yet nowhere in Burns 9-paragraph story did Burns seek comment from the Obama White House about whether the president -- whose 2008 campaign position was that he is "not in favor" of it because marriage is "between a man and a woman" -- takes a stance on the issue of adopting the platform plank. What's more, Burns failed to note that a recent survey shows only 49 percent of African-American voters -- who are among the most loyal of Democratic voters and staunchest Obama backers -- support same-sex marriage. The same survey shows that 42 percent of Catholic voters, a key swing voting bloc, oppose same sex marriage. Thirty-eight percent of political independents also oppose gay marriage.
While the media have repeatedly hyped how social issues may harm the appeal of the Republican Party and its presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, there's decidedly little focus by the media on how gay rights activists within the Democratic Party can make life uncomfortable for President Obama by pushing a social issue onto the platform that the president, for political expediency, would like to ignore.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Crazy people.
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 4:41pm.
Crazy people.
This shows to what extreme
Submitted by iFight on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 4:28pm.
This shows to what extreme the Dems are willing to go to repair the foundations of our society.
What "foundations
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 4:50pm.
....of our society"?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
The pursuit of happiness
Submitted by iFight on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 4:54pm.
At the expense of those who obsess about what others are doing with their penises and vaginas behind closed doors.
Who's obsessed?
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 4:57pm.
No one except you is talking about what goes on behind closed doors.
This is about marriage, if you care to pull your eye away from the keyhole.
But, of course, iFight, your continual bad-mouthing ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 5:29pm.
of conservatives will ignore the fact that GLAAD, GLBT & O continually flaunt their sex practices and preferences, not only out loud, but also wielded as if it were a weapon, against a tyranny that exists only in their homosexual minds.
Seems as if most regular people are willing to ignore what goes on behind closed doors as being none of their business and are merely reacting to the pushiness of the pump wearing flamers and the outright aggressiveness of the flannel shirt wearing, short haired dykes.
Strangely enough, homosexual practice is a weapon - but only against those who partake of the practice.
Same sex activity cannot biologically reproduce other humans, making homosexuality an inevitable biological dead end if practiced exclusively; and combined with the horrors of HIV, lurking as an additional peril, may well stamp 'Insufficient Funds" on the homosexual account.
MD
I have yet to badmouth a Christian
Submitted by iFight on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 5:48pm.
Aside from members of the Ku Klux Klan. You know sometimes reproduction fails during straight sex, and most women over 50 can no longer reproduce. You know this already which is why your focus is on the reproductive aspects of sex, which as we all know is the sole reason for people to have sex. Thinking back to my youth, oh so much fun it was hiding under the covers with a flashlight dreaming of impregnating that staggering redhead on page 48.
➚staggering redhead?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 5:57pm.
OK, so we know photos of a drunken Carrot Top turn you on and you gratify your lust with a flashlight.
We didn't need to know that.
I posted "bad-mouthing conservatives' ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 6:14pm.
dorkwad; not Christians.
Besides, your attempt to portray a mind reader when relating 'why' my focus is such and such is nothing more than trollish tomfoolery.
Get a grip; pay attention, liberal loon of a repeat troll.
MD
Careful Matthew
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 6:17pm.
He will start "counting strikes" whatever that is supposed to mean, and not be impressed by you.
And we all know how we give a $h1t about what an uninformed uneducated troll thinks. HAHAHAHA
delete
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 4:57pm.
delete
Nambla
Submitted by Fredy on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 6:56pm.
When Pelosi says she wants an open marriage plank, someone needs to ask her what she considers to be an age of consent.
Nancy marches with NAMBLA and they favor 10-12 year olds!
Being a logical person, I'm
Submitted by big.league.slider on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 12:05am.
Being a logical person, I'm always confused by the notion of "equal rights" pushed by gay marriage proponents. If a homosexual person has the same limitations on marriage as a heterosexual person, just how is that discriminatory? As a heterosexual male, I cannot legally marry another man, just as a homosexual man cannot. Where's the discrimination?
11 dem state chairman
Submitted by icu4whatur on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 6:50am.
should be impeached for vilolating the constitution. They all swore an oath of office to uphold the constituition. By any and I mean any Gov official who sides with this is simply breaking there oath they swore to uphold. Main article: Establishment Clause
The establishment clause is "[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."[1]
Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.
Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."[2]
The 1st amendment
establishment clause
Submitted by icu4whatur on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 7:04am.
The establishment clause is "[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."[1]
Notice the clear frame work here Fed & State Gov from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another.
Nuff said stop disfavoring your religious views on the rest of us!!!!!!! you are elected officials swore to uphold this very constitution that was set for the exact purpose to stop you people from doing what you are doing right now.
Resign today if you disagree with the constituition because you are not fit to hold the office we the people voted you in for !!!
Test
Submitted by icu4whatur on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 7:15am.
I can't stop being so damn betrayed. WE THE PEOPLE should demand that every person running for any office in Gov State or Fed which WE THE PEOPLE vote in should write there views on what the constitution means to them so we all know who we are voting in to office. Then we can hold them accountable from there written views on the constituion. This way The People will know who is really qualified to hold the office. And who will uphold the constitution as it was intend to be in the first place.