Freedom To Marry Pushes DNC To Incorporate Marriage Equality Into 2012 Party Platform

WASHINGTON -- An LGBT organization is calling on the Democratic Party to officially support marriage equality, launching a national campaign to get Democrats to enshrine it in the 2012 party platform -- even though the head of the party, President Barack Obama, still does not support same-sex marriage.

The "Democrats: Say I Do" campaign will enlist Democratic Party leaders, elected officials, activists and voters to promote the cause.

"An overwhelming majority of Democrats support the freedom to marry, as do a significant majority of Independents and voters under 50 across the political spectrum," said Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, which is leading the campaign. "The Democratic Party has a noble history of fighting for the human and civil rights of all Americans. It's now time for the national party to be true to its values and its voters and go unequivocally on record for the freedom to marry."

The language that Freedom to Marry wants included states:

We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.

If adopted, it would be the first time the party's platform embraces marriage equality. In 2008, the platform stated, "We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us," but it did not explicitly call for same-sex marriage.

In 2004, the platform condemned Republican attempts to pass a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, but it also said the decision should be left to the states: "In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a 'Federal Marriage Amendment.' Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart."

The Democratic platform will be ratified at the party's national convention, which begins Sept. 3 in Charlotte, N.C.

Although a strong majority of Democrats are in favor of granting gay and lesbian individuals the right to get married, Obama still does not support this position. Recently, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president continues to "evolve" on the issue, but he still does not publicly back same-sex marriage.

The Democratic National Committee did not return a request for comment.

So far, nearly 3,000 people have signed Freedom to Marry's petition.

The group recently launched Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, a nonpartisan group pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage. It currently includes 70 mayors from around the country and is chaired by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D), among others.

Comments

[rockysparks]

11:28 AM on 02/14/2012

Incorporating it into the DNC platform would should that Democrats, unlike Republicans, don't believe in tier levels for citizenship. Everyone should have full and equal marriage rights.

[Mediorite]

10:05 AM on 02/14/2012

@Skeptical Cicada,

I spent a good deal of yesterday and this morning being offended by the accusation that I am only interested in gay rights out of political expediency for some other set of agenda items. I thought about listing everything I have done to change minds and votes in favor of marriage equality--my resume of "Good Ally" bona fides. But as I was making a Valentine for my wife, I had a moment of clarity: It's not about me. I am merely a stand-in for a type of expression of straight privilege.

You're right, it's no skin off my nose (not directly, anyway.) I have the luxury of thinking about the path to marriage equality purely in terms of strategy, but that can make me at times lose sight of looking at it in terms of human dignity.

You make a good point about constituencies holding party leaders' feet to the fire and making their support conditional.

However we get there, I hope you achieve marriage equality at the soonest possible moment. Happy Valentine's Day.

[SimonBao]

05:44 AM on 02/14/2012

I hope the Democratic party does NOT do this.

In order to repeal DOMA after the 2012 election, the Democratic party must simultaneo­usly hold the White House, recapture the House, and secure a filibuster­-proof majority in the Senate. That is also needed in order to extend federal housing, employment­, and other protection­s to LGBTs.

In order to ensure that justices being appointed to the Supreme Court of the US are not ideologica­l homophobes but ARE committed to equal rights for ALL Americans, the Democratic party must simultaneo­usly hold the White House and secure a filibuster­-proof majority in the Senate.

In order to advance equal rights for LGBTs at the state level, the Democratic party needs to win governors' races, state senate races, and state house races, across the country.

Will making same-sex marriage a major plank of the 2012 Democratic platform help the Democratic party to win all those elections, across the country? Will it cause those swing voters and independents to suddenly vote Democratic?

No. No effing way, not in 2012.

For the sake of the LGBT community, I WANT the Democratic party to clean up in the 2012 elections. For the sake of the LGBT community, to help ensure that 2012 is not a repeat of 2004, I want the party's platform language on marriage equality remain unchanged.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

11:08 PM on 02/13/2012

I think that it's way too risky for the Democrats to have gay marriage in their platform. Half of the country is still against it.

http://www.pollwatchdaily.com/2012/02/07/the-shift-in-public-attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage/

And one issue is not worth the Dems giving up the White House and possibly more. To claim otherwise is selfish.

[Pablito Garcia]

08:56 PM on 02/13/2012

Sure I suppose anything that show how much of a right win corporatist my president currently is.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

07:07 PM on 02/13/2012

Having gay marriage in the Democrat's platform could cost us the election. Ironically, such a victory could elect ultra-conservative Republicans who would throw gay militants into Gitmo indefinitely.

[ez duz it]

09:06 PM on 02/13/2012

Well, this could be one of the key issues that will prove the mettle of everyone claiming the name: “Democrat.”

I am a Gay man who long ago stopped being willing to sit silently by while my Gay brothers and Lesbian sisters are denied the right to civilly marry the person they love - a right that is often mindlessly presumed as a given by our heterosexual counterparts.

If some of our fellow Democrats, especially those who say they’re liberal aren't willing to support us in our struggle for equality that would be both sad and unfortunate.

However, the words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. encourage and embolden me and those of us who support equality: “The time is always right to do what is right.” and “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

[AdamWest1313]

02:04 AM on 02/14/2012

I'm not so sure about that. Marriage is finally polling at 51% popularity, and NJ could quite possibly be the 8th state to legalize marriage equality in a rather short amount of time.

[Gina Parziale]

01:23 PM on 02/14/2012

You are looking at overal numbers, not electoral college numbers.

I want gay marriage as much as anyone-but I am afraid it will cost democrats the election, and while democrats are not moving fast enough on this issue-it would be far worse if they lost.

If you don't think President Obama is doing will on LGBT issues-think about how President Romney or Gingrich will do. Then go out and get an Obama button.

[goodog]

06:48 PM on 02/13/2012

Most people know that Obama supports same-sex marriage (the right-wing certainly does, I assure you) and more observant people know that he doesn't need to lead those who support same-sex marriage to support it. He needs to lead those on the cusp of supporting it through their ambiguity about the constitutional principles involved. That's the kind of person he's emulating publicly, someone teetering between conflicting traditions. He facilitates respect for a kind of obsolete nostalgia while interjecting the technical, constitutional lesson. We see it manifest in his unwillingness to defend the hate while he supports the repeal of DOMA. Everybody who's paying close attention knows what that means... that he supports same-sex marriage, in reality, but there's probably about 10-15% of the population who more genuinely reflect the mind-set he's imitating: They recognize the constitutional principles, but they (not you, definitely not you) need to be led respectfully away from their uncertainty about outmoded traditions.

Yes, surely, there's an alternative and much more exciting strategy, an emotionally satisfying tactic. We can shove them into the future and risk the kind of backlash that the last Democratic administration faced in congress when the public, even then, seemed ready to address some of these inequities. That congress, constantly afraid of its own shadow, notoriously bolted in the face of an historically enlightened moment and struck back at their own liberal, Democratic president with regressive legislation, causing the center-left to regroup behind compromises like DADT and DOMA in order to fend off more draconian blow-back.

While a majority of Americans finally support same-sex marriage, a significant number are new to the fold, and most people alive today can still relate to their own evolution on the subject. Believe it or not, there's even ambiguous gay people and some hardcore Radical Fairies who scoff at the idea of adopting hetero-normative roles that model straight society, some believing it's a shameful, cultural sellout of the principle of default dissent and a philosophy of unrelenting resistance to inherently capitalist institutions of authority.

So, sure, we can shove, like we didn't learn the lesson 20 years ago about how quickly seemingly enthusiastic support can dissipate immediately when the debate turns to name-calling even between friends.

With DADT, Obama proved that he can take the hand of those who aren't sure and facilitate their buy-in for the right decision, not by shoving them, but by showing them respect we'd all want as we're coming out of darkness. It's they who need leadership, not us, so we should stop pretending his job is to lead the convinced.

You really have to ignore a lot to pretend that Obama doesn't support same-sex marriage, and he's kind of hoping you do.

[falsified]

06:12 PM on 02/13/2012

Good for them! It's way past time.

[Skeptical Cicada]

05:39 PM on 02/13/2012

If straight Democrats are dying to toss somebody under the bus for the cause I suggest they pick one of the following:

- drop the support for abortion rights
- drop the support for affirmative action OR
- declare that climate change is a hoax

After 40 years of exploiting gay voters, let them treat some other constituency with contempt for a cycle.

[Mediorite]

06:47 PM on 02/13/2012

Go ahead and keep spiting your face.

We'll be over here helping secure your rights whether you give us any credit or not. That's not what it's about.

[Skeptical Cicada]

08:19 PM on 02/13/2012

The only thing that secured any gay rights from this administration was standing up to smug straight Democrats, who are otherwise to busy throwing us under the bus and running over us to notice.

[Skeptical Cicada]

08:46 PM on 02/13/2012

Hey, how about Obama just come out against partial-birth abortion? That would just toss like a pinky toe of the women's movement under the bus for the cause of grand progressive unity. No? Yeah, I know. It's the gays who are supposed to obediently march under the bus election after election for straight Democrats, right?

[JohnBryansFontaine]

07:01 PM on 02/13/2012

That's precisely the type of thinking that will put a Republican in the White House. Choice, Affirmative Action, and especially Labor rights are infinitely more important than gay marriage.

[Skeptical Cicada]

08:18 PM on 02/13/2012

Why are you addressing me, you bigot?

[Pablito Garcia]

08:59 PM on 02/13/2012

Infinitely more important?

Perhaps climate change is... And that's the only one by a huge mile. Beyond that, who cares what the outcome is, if we have to be an anti-Constitutional party?

[randallr01]

05:30 PM on 02/13/2012

Equality GO!

[leyvadaniel]

05:27 PM on 02/13/2012

Homosexuality is normal and natural. The faster we understand this as a society, the faster people are gonna left the closet and many conservatives are gonna be finally free to be themselves, which will result in the decimation of conservatism.

[lendmeanear]

05:24 PM on 02/13/2012

I'm shocked it isn't already in the platform. What the heck are we waiting for?

[NWBrunette]

05:53 PM on 02/13/2012

Apparently some Dems' idea of leadership is to sit around and wait for someone else to do it and then cheer when it's all done. I'm with you. Put it in the platform. Take a public stand for equal rights for all.

[Mediorite]

06:48 PM on 02/13/2012

To do what? Vote to secure marriage equality, like they just did in WA and NJ? That was Democrats.

[reality4u2]

05:24 PM on 02/13/2012

At least the contraception issue is moot with this agenda...

[x2zero]

05:09 PM on 02/13/2012

Obama will be the last Dem nominee who didn't support gay marriage

[Mediorite]

07:36 PM on 02/13/2012

Yup.

[Skeptical Cicada]

08:43 PM on 02/13/2012

Or so the self-serving DNC talking point says.

Wallet still closed.

[Pablito Garcia]

09:00 PM on 02/13/2012

He can't be. He supported it before he was against it. :)

[Gina Parziale]

05:05 PM on 02/13/2012

This issue is going to be settled in the states and courts for a while-not by the President.

Who do we want appointing those judges-not Romney or Gingrich-for this and a lot of reasons.

We need to win over moderates-this is not the way to do it.

[Skeptical Cicada]

05:41 PM on 02/13/2012

What's the first words out of the mouth of any state legislator? "My position is the same as the president; neither of us support gay marriage."

Go have the Democratic Party crusade against abortion or affirmative action if you want somebody sacrificed for moderates. Forty years of treating gay Democrats with contempt are quite enough.

[Mediorite]

10:02 PM on 02/13/2012

Any state legislator? That's obvious nonsense.

[Gina Parziale]

01:20 PM on 02/14/2012

Then how come Washington and New Jersey legislators just passed gay marriage?

No one is being asked to be sacrificed for moderates. The proposal listed here was to change the current platform, not move it back as you suggested doing with abortion and affirmative action.

I would love to see the democratic party take a stronger stand on gay marriage-but mroe important, I want to see them win this election.If they do not, LGBT issues will not be the only ones sacrificed.

[NWBrunette]

05:50 PM on 02/13/2012

Moderates more and more and more are supporting marriage equality. The tide has turned (google the polling data).

[Gina Parziale]

01:17 PM on 02/14/2012

I agree-but it has not turned enough in terms of the electoral votes needed to win.

As much as people do ot like Obama on LGBT issues, and I agree, he i far better than any republican candidate. While he may not move forward, he will not move the movement backwars-as Romney or Gingrich would do.

There are a lot of issues at stake here. Do I wish a more LGBT friendly candidate was running? Yes! They are not. Trying to tear down the one who is is not going to help LGBT causes.