Obama camp noncommittal on gay-marriage plank in party platform

latimes.com ^ | March 7, 2012 | Seema Mehta

[Free ThinkerNY]

Reporting from Steubenville, Ohio— Just as President Obama's top campaign advisers are arguing that the prolonged GOP primary is raising controversial issues that will alienate the eventual GOP nominee from independent and swing voters in the fall, Democrats are facing a similar quandary.

On Wednesday morning, the chairman of the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, called for the party's platform to call for the legalization of gay marriage. That's a position opposed by Obama -- though he's said his views on the issue are "evolving" -- and one that many Democrats ostensibly would not want to have highlighted a few months before the general election.

Campaign manager Jim Messina, asked about the matter during a conference call with reporters, did not take a position on such a plank, but said that such a proposal would go through the normal platform revision process.

[Rudder]

Such a platform plank would be a perfect fit for democrats.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Why do Democrats get a pass on this issue?

The Democrat convention was in Boston in 2004. It happened right after homosexual marriage was put into effect via court order.

If the Democrats wanted to highlight homosexual marriage, it was all set up for them to do so in Boston in 2004.

At that convention, not a single word was said about homosexual marriage. Yet we’re told that homosexual marriage is the big civil rights movement of our time.

So now in 2012 they still don’t want to touch this issue.

Based on what you hear from talking heads, Hollywood idiots, late night comics, liberal politicians, etc. , same-sex marriage is the civil rights movement of our time, AND we don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.

So, will Democrats get a pass for being on the wrong side of history in this modern civil rights movement?

Barack has said he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, without having to commit to same-sex marriage. Why does he get a pass on this?

[Tublecane]

“the legalization of gay marriage”

I realize words are weapons of metaphorical war, and we’re all dedicated propagandists. But sometimes examples jump out at you, and this is blatant legerdemain. Whence this notion that gay marriage is illegal? Hard to believe we don’t read stories of risky backalley marriages and cops sicking dogs and opening fire hoses on ceremonies.

I’ll tell you, per usual it’s all about the story (or “narrative,” if you wanna be pretentious about it). Libs must control how we see the gays (and various others lumped together with them, eg trannies and bisexuals, for force of numbers, although they have nothing else in common but being perverse). We can’t have it as it is: that governments—or some of them—simply fail to grant homosexual couples special status. No, it’s gotta be about oppression, equality, and allusions to the Civil Rights Movement. People must needs picture “legalization” as getting government off gays’ backs, rather than gays shouting for the government to stick its nose in to either elevate them or pull down heterosexual couples. Not sure which.

In any case, it’s a lie, and I feel stupider for responding to it.

[a fool in paradise]

He would lose the black Christian church going public.

Some of their ministers lied to them last time around and said it was overstated how he supported same sex relationships.

They’ve already had a black president. No sense in being “damned for all eternity” to knowingly support his re-election.

They also oppose infanticide of babies. So Obama had to shift the terms to “birth control” (for lesbians?).