The General American Politics Thread

[-Robin-]

The Democratic Party draft committee has drafted rhetoric onto the Democratic platform that shows support for same-sex marriage and other LGBT-inclusive policies. The vote to draft it was unanimous.

The Democratic Party platform drafting committee approved on Sunday language endorsing same-sex marriage in addition to other pro-LGBT positions as part of the Democratic Party platform, according to two sources familiar with the drafting process.

Retiring gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who sits on the committee, told the Washington Blade on Monday that the 15-member panel unanimously backed the inclusion of a marriage equality plank after a national hearing over the weekend in Minneapolis, in which several witnesses testified in favor of such language.

“I was part of a unanimous decision to include it,” Frank said. “There was a unanimous decision in the drafting committee to include it in the platform, which I supported, but everybody was for it.”

Frank emphasized that support for marriage equality is a position that has been established for the Democratic Party, from the president, who endorsed marriage equality in May, to House Democratic lawmakers who voted to reject an amendment reaffirming the Defense of Marriage Act earlier this month.

A Democratic National Committee staffer, who is familiar with the process and spoke on condition of anonymity, said the language in the platform approved on Sunday not only backs marriage equality, but also rejects DOMA and has positive language with regard to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The exact wording of the language wasn’t immediately available.

The platform is still in a draft phase. Writers of the platform are now set to come up with close-to-final draft that will be presented before the full platform committee in Detroit from Aug. 10 to Aug. 12. That committee will discuss amendments before presenting the platform at the convention in Charlotte in September.

A number of witnesses were to testify in favor of a marriage equality plank in the platform: Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry; Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign; Army Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan, a lesbian New Hampshire guardsman with stage-four incurable breast cancer and a plaintiff in Servicemembers Legal Defense Network’s lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act;  Michael Macleod-Ball, the American Civil Liberties Union’s chief of staff for the Washington Legislative Office; and Aaron Zellhoefer, a gay delegate to the Democratic National Convention representing the National Stonewall Democrats.

Solomon, whose organization has been leading the effort to include a marriage equality plank in the platform, praised the committee in a statement for the adopting such language.

“We are grateful for the Platform Drafting Committee’s unanimous vote to include the freedom to marry in its draft of the Democratic Party platform,” Solomon said. “As I testified to the Committee on Friday, the Democratic Party has a noble history of fighting for the human and civil rights of all Americans. We are proud that the Committee is including language that will ensure the Party is leading the way forward in supporting marriage for loving and committed same-sex couples and their families.”

Zeke Stokes, an SLDN spokesperson, said following Morgan’s testimony that Frank spoke favorably about marriage equality and expressed the sentiment that such language would wind up in the platform.

“He spoke very passionately of his support for marriage equality following the Morgans’ testimony and left a strong impression that he believed it would ultimately be included,” Stokes said.

The DNC didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/07/30/democratic-platform-draft-includes-marriage-equality-plank-sources/

The draft can be finalized and implemented in early August.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Qwilfish

[VO.SUPER]

This election is certainly going to be a battle of extremes. I wonder which will prove the larger.

[Tornado]

$20 says the pull it at the last minute after they have drawn attention to it, just like they did with the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal.

As I testified to the Committee on Friday, the Democratic Party has a noble history of fighting for the human and civil rights of all Americans.

That is certainly an interesting statement to make considering it was the Democrats that controlled the (segregationist, Civil Rights Act-opposing and laughably racist) Deep South from 1874 up until 1968.

Yes, turbojet, I'm aware that that isn't even remotely a fair statement. But neither is the Democratic party painting themselves as the bastion of civil rights, so turnabout is fair play.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Gilda

[Conando]

Oops. Shit. Wrong topic.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Crow T. Robot

[Your Vest Friend]

Uh, so how did America take Romney's foreign affairs attempt?

[Conando]

Everyone I know is thinking he's going to screw us. Especially my mother, she thinks that Romney could actually ruin our relationship with England. I don't know if he could do that but, he certainly seemed to be trying in London. I know one thing, voting him in will destroy all the international good will we got just for voting in Obama.

[Solkia]

So who all is still in the running? Haven't been following.

[Conando]

It's just Obama v Romney. The real election has begun.

[SchemingMinor]

$20 says the pull it at the last minute after they have drawn attention to it, just like they did with the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal.

That is certainly an interesting statement to make considering it was the Democrats that controlled the (segregationist, Civil Rights Act-opposing and laughably racist) Deep South from 1874 up until 1968.

Yes, turbojet, I'm aware that that isn't even remotely a fair statement. But neither is the Democratic party painting themselves as the bastion of civil rights, so turnabout is fair play.

They call those class of Democrats from between 1874-1960s Southern Democrats; not including the more extremist far right group that broke off called Dixiecrats and the latter group of Reagan Democrats. Most of the Democratic party today wouldn't acknowledge Southern Democrats as upholding the core values of their platform and would shun them.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Kintobor

[Linkabel]

Uh, so how did America take Romney's foreign affairs attempt?

Well I don't know about Americans but at least we know how Palestinians see him now

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-comments-fundraiser-irk-palestinians-144516604.html

[Mono]

Uh, so how did America take Romney's foreign affairs attempt?

It's laughable

Edited July 30, 2012 by Mono

[blackherox]

I'm getting the impression that Romney would have won this election if just didn't say anything at all. Nothing at all.

[Tornado]

Most of the Democratic party today wouldn't acknowledge Southern Democrats as upholding the core values of their platform and would shun them.

That is my entire point. It's all well and good that they would like to distance themselves from that particular sect of the Democrat Party today. But that's not what they are doing. They are saying that they were the ones who have always held civil rights in high regard. They were the ones who used civil rights as a rallying point in and of itself. That they are the ones who had... lemme see:

a noble history of fighting for the human and civil rights of all Americans

Which is absolutely, completely true. So long as you weren't a black person living in the South between 1874 and 1960, because then the Democrats holding onto a huge white power base was just much more important.

They aren't saying that they are okay with what they let fly back then. They aren't saying that their current values are still aligned with the Democratic party of, say, 70 years ago. What they are saying is that their current values apply retroactively; and that the values that were held right up until Kennedy was elected were never their "real" values. Which obviously isn't true, because for nearly 100 years the Democrats held a stranglehold on Southern politics exactly because they were willing to appeal directly to values that were the exact opposite of what they are now claiming they supported at the time.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Gilda

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Which, come to think of it, is no different from how the Republicans tried to promote themselves during the 2008 election, such as how the freed the slaves back during the civil war and all that despite the complete reversal of both parties values. Gotta love hypocrisy...

[PSI Wind]

I'm getting the impression that Romney would have won this election if just didn't say anything at all. Nothing at all.

Yes. Because we've never voted for horrible presidents before

[Patticus]

"When our health care costs are completely out of control. Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care. 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, let me compare that with the size of our military. Our military budget is 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs."

~ Mitt Romney, this morning in Israel

http://www.classwarf.../#axzz22AnHzu2c

Oh boy.

There goes Mitt Romney, flip-flopping his way through his political life in a way that'd make other politicians blush; First he's for, and creates, a healthcare program. Then he hates Obama's same program, whimpering in part about mandates. Now he's for healthcare again, this time overseas and with mandates included... Did the massive celebration of the UK's NHS in the 2012 Olympics' opening ceremony make him think for once? Is he even aware that Israel has a universal healthcare system?

How are the right-wing demagogues reacting to all this, by the way?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Wait...what? Yeah, he's not exactly doing a good job arguing against the healthcare.

Also, our military is 4%? So? That's a HUGE ass 4% compared to the rest of the world's military budget. That budget is larger than the next ten nations combined, so he's kinda shooting himself in the foot there.

[Patticus]

If the American defense budget was reduced by a third, it'd still be by far the largest in the world and billions of Dollars would be freed up to, oh, I don't know, feed the poor, shelter the homeless, upgrade infrastructure, help fund a proper universal healthcare system etc etc. And if the US did have universal healthcare, many more billions would be available in the people's bank accounts, even after any increase in taxes to help fund it, which would provide an enormous boost to the economy as people at all levels of society would feel richer and would feel like spending more.

Basically, Americans would be so much better off if its military budget were to be reduced by a reasonable percentage, and over time a more universal healthcare system (ala Canada, Israel, the UK) than Romneycare/Obamacare were to be implemented.

On another note:

Democrats are including support for gay marriage in their official policy platform

The Democratic Party is moving to include support for gay marriage in the official party policy statement for the first time, a Democratic official said Monday, marking a key milestone for advocates of same-sex unions.

The party's platform drafting committee voted to include language backing gay marriage during a weekend meeting in Minneapolis, the official said.

Democratic delegates will formally approve the platform during the party convention in Charlotte, first reported by The Washington Blade, a lesbian and gay newspaper.

President Barack Obama will officially accept his party's nomination at the convention. Rival Mitt Romney will get the Republican nomination a week earlier during his party's convention in Tampa, Democrats, party officials said on Sunday that former President Bill Clinton will deliver the nominating speech on Wednesday night of the convention. Obama and vice-president Joe Biden are to speak on Thursday, the convention's final night.

The Obama campaign and convention organizers on Monday announced that Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Senate candidate inGay rights advocates hailed the decision as a significant step forward.

"I believe that one day very soon the platforms of both major parties will include similar language," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "There is no more American value than honoring and protecting one's family."

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex unions, said the decision sets up marriage as a defining issue in the presidential election.

"We will rally supporters of traditional marriage to make sure they realize that the outcome of the presidential election may determine the future of marriage in our country," said Brian Brown, the organization's president.

http://www.guardian....t?newsfeed=true

This is fantastic news! What will happen in regards to this in the event of an Obama victory? Will the issue of gay rights, marriage etc be taken out of state hands?

[turbojet]

They should have done this 4 years ago.

[Mono]

They should of done it 60 years ago.

[TheGerkuman]

They should have done this 4 years ago.

They should of done it 60 years ago

Why look a gift horse in the mouth? This is the first time something like that's been on a major party manifesto in the US and the republicans aren't going to do it any time ever.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Gerkuman

[Ethan Thomas]

I've always wondered why people honestly give a shit about other people's sexual preference/orientation. WHY do people care? What difference does it make in their lives if homosexuals are granted the right of marriage? Homosexual marriage should not be a hot topic issue, especially not in this country.

[turbojet]

Why look a gift horse in the mouth? This is the first time something like that's been on a major party manifesto in the US and the republicans aren't going to do it any time ever.

Because Gerkuman, it is a social policy issue that is merely a distraction from the main issue: WE ARE BROKE, PEOPLE ARE UNEMPLOYED, SHIT SUCKS AT THE MOMENT. This is nothing but a lightning rod that the Democrats(I say Democrats, not Obama because he has always shown to be pro-gay marriage if not for the de-institutionalization of marriage in government, and sexual orientation equality) are using just to say that the Republicans are bigots. Every time gay relations have been brought up by either party in the past, it was stunted or stopped by the one that was against while the other did not care for political reasons or did nothing to support the opposite opinion. Who is to say that once the election is over with, that the Democrat party won't just sweep it under the rug right? If they win the election and gain seats in the House and Senate, well, we no longer need to worry about that polarizing piece of legislation prospect. If they win the presidential election but lose seats in the house, they could easily summarize that it was because of this platform and never touch it again. I'm saying this as an extremely left leaning person. This platform is just like how immigration reform was on four years and not a thing has been done for immigration since(Although admittedly, the DREAM Act was stopped by incoming Republicans at the time). I am just being a cynical cynic who is cynical about the sheer competence of the Democratic party to show solidarity on any issue and stick with it.

Edited July 31, 2012 by turbojet

[SenEDDtor Missile]

I've always wondered why people honestly give a shit about other people's sexual preference/orientation. WHY do people care? What difference does it make in their lives if homosexuals are granted the right of marriage? Homosexual marriage should not be a hot topic issue, especially not in this country.

fear of change? fear of things that are different from us? a belief that if you are different, you are deformed?

[Chris]

I've always wondered why people honestly give a shit about other people's sexual preference/orientation. WHY do people care? What difference does it make in their lives if homosexuals are granted the right of marriage? Homosexual marriage should not be a hot topic issue, especially not in this country.

Right wing religious fanatics that believe it's not 'right' for people to deviate from the man and woman "intentions" introduced in the Bible. It's a much larger portion of the voters, especially in the southern 'States, than people realize. By including that in their campaign even in the slightest they might compromise their majority.