Russ Feingold, Jeanne Shaheen Support Adding Marriage Equality To Democratic Party Platform

WASHINGTON -- Two of President Obama's national campaign co-chairs called on the Democratic Party to endorse marriage equality in its platform on Tuesday. The announcements are notable because Obama, who is also the head of the Democratic Party, still does not support same-sex marriage.

A spokesman for Russ Feingold told The Huffington Post that the former Wisconsin senator would like to see the Democratic Party's platform embrace equality, pointing to his long-time support of same-sex marriage rights.

Feingold, who is the author of the new book "While America Sleeps," first announced his support for marriage equality in 2006 -- a time when very few other elected officials were publicly taking such a stance.

"Denying people this basic American right is the kind of discrimination that has no place in our laws, especially in a progressive state like Wisconsin. The time has come to end this discrimination and the politics of divisiveness that has become part of this issue," Feingold said at the time.

Feingold also voted against Don't Ask, Don't Tell when it first came before the U.S. Senate during the Clinton administration, and he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) also said on Tuesday that Democrats need to "stand up for the rights of same-sex couples and their families."

"I call on the Democratic Platform Committee to affirm the freedom to marry in our party's national convention platform this September," Shaheen said in a statement. "Any Democratic statement of core beliefs about the importance of families must include all our families, gay and straight. Our party has a long tradition of leading the charge on important questions of justice."

The push to enshrine marriage equality in the Democratic Party platform is being led by the pro-LGBT rights group Freedom to Marry in the "Democrats: Say I Do" campaign.

The language that Freedom to Marry wants included in the platform 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 has embraced 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.

White House spokesman Jay Carney recently said Obama continues to "evolve" on the issue.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has also endorsed adding marriage equality to the party platform. When asked at a Feb. 17 press conference about Obama's stance on the issue, Pelosi said, "I hope the evolution continues."

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D), who is also the chairman of the Democratic National Convention, was recently asked about his views on the platform change. He reiterated his strong support for same-sex marriage rights but said he could not "dictate" what goes into the party's platform at the September convention.

So far, more than 20,000 people have signed Freedom to Marry's online petitions.

The Obama administration did not immediately return a request for comment.

Shaheen spokesman Jonathan Lipman said the senator would be more than willing to talk to Obama about her position on the issue.

"I think her personal views are spelled out pretty well in her existing statements. As regards to the President, we've let the campaign know the Senator's position on the platform and Senator Shaheen would welcome the opportunity to discuss it with the President," Lipman said.

Jen Bendery contributed reporting.

This is a developing story and the original has been updated.

Comments

[nycbillt]

02:45 AM on 03/01/2012

and thank you Jeanne Shaheen.

[nycbillt]

02:42 AM on 03/01/2012

Bless Russ. And thank him for his unwavering support.

[Alisa Neely]

08:24 PM on 02/28/2012

CIVIL RIGHTS are NOT just for "some" citizens.....it's meant for EVERYONE, who are LEGAL CITIZENS of this country.....this isn't about wanting to marry "many partners" at 1 time or marrying "pets/animals".....this is about wanting the SAME rights and protections that HETROSEXUALS take for GRANTED.

alisa

[KAYLEE BURRIS]

06:39 PM on 02/28/2012

The quicker we get rid of DOMA,and everyone is equal,the faster this country can build a better future for all of us.

[lambdin1]

05:25 PM on 02/28/2012

DOMA should be overturned. I wonder if you could make it a national referendum during an election for president? It sure would bring out the vote...

[BooBoo Bob]

07:31 PM on 02/28/2012

Not possible. National referendums do not exist, nor should they.

[Alisa Neely]

08:26 PM on 02/28/2012

it should be FEDERAL LAW, that allows EVERYONE of LEGAL AGE and legal citizen of this country to MARRY.

alisa

[El Duderino 791]

05:12 PM on 02/28/2012

Women will be less interested in having intimate relations with such lawmakers.

It appears that members of the Virginia legislature will not be very much inconvenienced.

[Mike Rock]

04:44 PM on 02/28/2012

Yeah, bad move. Just focus on this single fact: No one can name even one major policy of the GOP+TP that isn't aimed at enriching billionaires at the expense of the rest of us. The Dems should state that fact simply and clearly and add only that any other issues are designed by the GOP+TP to be a "wedge" to distract people and get them to vote against their own interests.

I HAVE CHALLENGED PEOPLE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR to name a single GOP+TP policy that doesn't match my description. Even a high-flying Tea Party "intellectual" (ha ha ha) on the Harvard alumni boards couldn't name one.

[KAYLEE BURRIS]

06:52 PM on 02/28/2012

mike you know they worship the god of money 8-)

[Mythoughts808]

03:44 PM on 02/28/2012

The democrats focus on all these issues that tend to continue to separate the country. Why don't the democrats focus on Jobs and Taxes and Home ownerships and de-slaving welfare generations......and closing our boarders so terrorists can't get into the country through the tunnels the cartels have dug.
Oh I know why the democrats won't focus on real tough issues facing all of us....it's because A) they are to corrupt and dumb to know what or how to fix them.....and B) they are to dumb and corrupt to even care to fix America. It works better for them to stay in power if the American people are kept in the dark.......that's how they like and Need their voters to be......Kept in The Dark. Where they are now and where many continue to remain.

[DessieRandom]

05:09 PM on 02/28/2012

Your thoughts are very ill-informed.

Democrats have focused more on creating jobs lately than Republican's have.

I want you to to go take a real good look at the news these last few months. It's been the Democrats who've repeatedly tried to pass jobs bills while the Republican'ts were busy legislating what goes into women's vagina's and trying to make embryos into people.

[Mythoughts808]

05:38 PM on 02/28/2012

I'm afraid you need to read the news, with an open intelligent mind. Your Obama went after the catholic church forcing congress to hold sessions on birth control. Your Obama bowed down to the afghan president showing the same weakness for foriegn affairs as Jimmy Carter. Your Obama lied about everything he promised in his bs speeches for president. He took a 11 million dollar vacation. He spends and wastes money more then any other president in the history of the United States. So you need to read the news and not be a sheep and follower.

[FantasticFourFan]

07:43 PM on 02/28/2012

That's pretty funny coming from the party that led this country into an unnecessary war and gives tax breaks to people who don't need them that don't produce jobs anyway. As for who is dividing the country with this issue, you might want to pick up a history book. Your party threw the first punch in this fight by taking this issue up over twenty years ago.

[Buffmuff69]

03:25 PM on 02/28/2012

Not even sure why this is on the plate to start with..these people are not asking for entitlements just the rights they should already have no? If you want to bring sanctity to marriage then make divorce illegal. Most of the politicians that oppose "gay marriage" have committed adultery no? Thump your Bible on that one! To each their own and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. It's time to get religion out of politics, and politics out of people's bedrooms.

[KAYLEE BURRIS]

06:32 PM on 02/28/2012

F&F buff good post

[JMilton1976]

03:08 PM on 02/28/2012

Though I agree with Marriage equality, don't we have bigger fish to fry when a seat on the supreme court is possibly at stake in the next presidential election. Is it really good politics to push hard to the left when the Republicans are drowning themselves in their own fringe politics?

Yes, this is an issue that Democrats should take on...starting on Nov. 3, 2012. Until then, "it's all about the economy, stupid"

[Dennis Fleming]

04:11 PM on 02/28/2012

To me, there are no bigger issues than equality. I don't care what kind of economy we have. If I cannot enjoy the same rights given straight married people, my citizenship is useless.

[KAYLEE BURRIS]

06:36 PM on 02/28/2012

dennis, agreed,
once everyone is equal,and it's illegal (not to hire) on the basis of being LGBT
then everyone will be able to work and contribute to the betterment of society
even more.
so let me be your first fan F&F

[infinitivesplit]

02:39 PM on 02/29/2012

I understand your feelings, but JMilton is right. If the Ds start talking about gay marriage right now (or anytime before the election, they will lose the swing districts and the swing states). That will mean that we will have at least one and maybe two 'liberal' SCOTUS justices replaced by two conservative justices. That will cut off all opportunities for gay marriage getting through on the constitutional challenge end for the next 30 years.

In addition, it would mean DOMA would be vigorously defended in the courts and that you might just see an outright federal ban on gay marriage. Look at the ENDGAME. You HAVE to play chess not checkers.

[H S]

04:42 PM on 02/28/2012

There is no reason why Democrats can't work on equality AND the economy.

[infinitivesplit]

03:08 PM on 02/29/2012

First off, more legislation on 'equality' has been passed in the last 4 years than since the civil rights act - so to say that Ds haven't been 'working on equality' is a bit far-fetched. Second, taking a strong stance on gay-marriage right now would be political suicide - which would mean that you get the Rs in power & at least one conservative SCOTUS justice replacing one 'liberal one. Terrific plan for setting marriage equality back 20 or 30 years.

[cbwHouston]

03:02 PM on 02/28/2012

Look, as Progressives we all get it: America in general is warming to Gay Marriage Equality… in tandem to President Obama evolving on the issue.

However, sometimes as Liberal Progressive Democrats, we can't help ourselves from losing... well, but for losing?

Immediately upon Republican pivoting from economics and job-creation to culture war fetishes and an outright assault on women's rights, Democrats have followed the script campaign-wise by concentrating on GDP growth, Job in-sourcing, Manufacturing revival, and job-creation…focusing on the economy?

Yet alas... there go Democratic Progressives, throwing away a major advantage to Republicans who've been wallowing in culture war issues for weeks on end now.

Russ Feingold, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi... in my personal experience, are smarter than that for which they are now professing regarding Gay Marriage Equality.

Interjecting Gay Marriage Equality... of which I personally support, into the "2012 Democratic Convention Platform [being hosted very southern South Carolina] will be a mistake that will undercut not only President Obama re-lection bid, but also down-ballet Congressional seats as well.

Few Progressives are that tone-deft, the very least of whom I’d suspect as Feingold, Shaheen, and Pelosi, to even remotely think if Republicans take back the Oval Office and control of both the House and Senate [boasting an option to appoint 2-4 retiring Supreme Court Justices] will not immediately reverse course on DADT and stay DOMA?

Democrats can't be that “effing stupid!”

[KennyJr]

03:00 PM on 02/28/2012

To liberals this makes all the sense in the world. To conservatives this is blasphemy. Okay, so far, no votes lost, no votes gained. The target now has to be the moderate. Most moderates will say live and let live but don't try to force the extremes of your ideology onto me. If Santorum wins the moderate will be looking at extreme religiousness vs. the extreme advocating of men marrying men and women marrying women - tough call votewise for the moderate. If Romney wins, they'll be looking at no real extreme positions vs. the advocating of men marrying to men and women marrying to women (like it or not, that represents extreme deviation from current accepted practice). The likely moderate lean would be toward Romney.

The current drive toward equal gay and lesbian rights is moving right along and full equality will be coming in the not too distant future. How far distant will probably depend on which party comes out on top in November. It would not be a good thing at all for the cause if the Republicans win. Thus .. the Democratic platform needs to be developed with emphasis on winning votes, not on the advocacy of extreme ideology.

[Alisa Neely]

08:44 PM on 02/28/2012

i disagree....if the republicans WIN in Nov. , you can KISS women's rights GOOD BYE....as well as the REPEAL for DADT and other things.

alisa

[infinitivesplit]

03:12 PM on 02/29/2012

That's correct. That is why democrats can not afford right now to put an emphasis on marriage equality. They would lose the swing states & thereby lose the election and the courts. That would not be good for marriage equality.

[Gringostan]

02:53 PM on 02/28/2012

Code Blue! Get the defibrillator Ricky's going into cardiac arrest.

[mushimom]

02:57 PM on 02/28/2012

LOL!!..:D

[KAYLEE BURRIS]

03:00 PM on 02/28/2012

darn we was too late lol

[Bob Wood]

02:43 PM on 02/28/2012

Any two adult, consenting Homo Sapiens Sapiens that desire to join their lives together for better or for worse...certainly should be legally allowed...and encouraged to do so. Same-sex marriage is the right thing to do...because it's right. Millions of people...our neighbors and friends...will benefit. No one...nobody will be harmed. Zip, zilch, nada. The Democratic party should, by all means, make this a part of their platform. The Republican theocrats certainly will not. They're too blinded to the reality of 21st century life by their myths and superstitions to think rationally about the subject. The time is right for Democrats to make the right choice...for no other reason than it's right...(sigh)

[infinitivesplit]

03:14 PM on 02/29/2012

NO< NO< NO. Get over the sanctimony. The democrats need to WIN. If they focus on marriage equality in this election year they LOSE - and that means marriage equality loses. Please THINK.

[08Voter]

02:25 PM on 02/28/2012

It's funny to see people arguing that this shouldn't be a part of the platform going into the elections and then state that this should be tacked on after the elections. Why? Why should it be something dealt with only after the elections? It appears to me that tacking this issue on after the elections is disingenuous. Say what you mean and mean what you say. If you are going to pursue this issue post elections shouldn't that be made known prior to the voters getting into the booth and casting a vote? I'm already not voting for Obama (or any Republican), but depending on how this plays out, I might not vote for any of these _clowns.

[infinitivesplit]

03:16 PM on 02/29/2012

'I'm already not voting for Obama (or any Republican), but depending on how this plays out, I might not vote for any of these _clowns.'

Well - that sentence makes about as much sense as the rest of that meaningless rant.

[08Voter]

05:48 PM on 02/29/2012

If you didn't understand some of the words, it's okay. However, you could have asked for help. Finishing your GED would likely help as well.