- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -


« News Home

AP Source: Dems move to formally back gay marriage

Published: Mon, July 30, 2012 @ 3:20 p.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democratic Party is moving to include support for gay marriage in the official party platform for the first time, a Democratic official said today, 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, N.C. in early September.

President Barack Obama will officially accept his party's nomination at the convention, which marks the start of the fall campaign blitz. Republican rival Mitt Romney will get the GOP nomination a week earlier during his party's convention in Tampa, Fla.

Seeking to ramp up enthusiasm among Democrats, party officials said Sunday that former President Bill Clinton will deliver the nominating speech on Wednesday night of the convention. Obama and Biden are to speak on Thursday, the convention's final night.


1AtownAugie(892 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

@Knightcap -- you said it all. Kudos!

Suggest removal:

2Jerry(861 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

This is intended as a distraction from all the subjects that Knightcap mentions, and every other meaningful subject. Distractions are all they have.

BTW - I am not a "Republican", nor am I necessarily anti-Democrat. I am profusely anti-Obama, anti-Reid, and anti-Pellosi; and the Democrats just cannot seem to separate themselves from them.

Suggest removal:

3rmzrez(134 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

??? Tell me one time that gay marriage
has ever hurt you or yours . Most of the time no body knows . So what is the differences except you want to tell somebody how to live . And that is sick

Suggest removal:

4Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

“Never argue with a stupid person for they will only bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience
If you remember this you can keep your BP down

Suggest removal:

5Jerry(861 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

And everyone knows that anyone who disagrees with Freeatlast is a stupid person.

Suggest removal:

6TylerDurden(367 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

The issue is not whether gays should be allowed to marry or not, the issue is the politicians using a trumped up matter to mask the ignorant from the several hundred more pressing concerns facing the country.

Smoke and mirrors.

Suggest removal:

7Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

See how easy it is

Suggest removal:

8republicanRick(1736 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

I'm still laughing that the Ohio Democrat leadership selected Dave Betras as Chairman of the Year. Obama has brought the economy to its knees. Obama has given billions to now-bankrupt solar compnaies but not one dime to Youngstown to remove blight and rebuild.

Obama is trying to destroy our future and our children's future.

Suggest removal:

9palbubba(811 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

Another step in thumbing their nose at GOD. It truly makes you wonder why they do not see the reason why this great country that GOD has given us continues to struggle. GOD's word makes it perfectly clear that marriage is between one man and one woman and that homosexuality is wrong. The more that man believes they know more than GOD the more they will struggle. Choose to believe what you want. As for me I choose to trust GOD. Remember that GOD's blessings are reserved for those that repent, trust and obey GOD.

Suggest removal:

10walter_sobchak(2727 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

Since the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, vowing to live together as husband and wife, by certain LEGAL and religious commitments, this is a non-issue. Homosexuals (not gays) may enter into a contractual union but, since they cannot be husband and wife, should not have the benefits that are extended to married couples as this process was developed for the full intention of family building by natural means.

Now, if this offends you, stick it!

Suggest removal:

11bumbob(146 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

This is a step forward for tolerance on so many levels, and I laud the Democrats for finally adopting this position as a party platform.

Here's the problem with most of the users' comments on this article: they're blinded by bigotry.

There is no need to go in-depth with this because it's so simple: there is no legitimate reason outside of batty religious views for why two people of the same gender cannot love one another or cannot get married, and there never has been. There is no reason at all. So all of the neurotics and socially awkward taunters in here can either acknowledge this or shut-up. Marriage should be made a possibility to all sexualities, and that's all there is to it.

The Dems can fix the economy and promote tolerance at the same time. Anyone trying to be cynical or shrieking how "it's immoral" needs to get a grip, and probably some counseling. There were people that were against interracial marriage in days past, and those people were eventually told to back off and pipe down.

The same will happen for the issue of gay marriage, eventually. It's just a matter of bravery, and telling the bigots to go back into their caves.

Suggest removal:

12James_S(268 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

Revelation 21:7  He that overcometh [believes in and has faith in Jesus] shall inherit all things [mainly, the Kingdom of Heaven, New Jerusalem]; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable [including homosexuals, amongst other abominations], and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all LIARS [emphasis mine], shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Suggest removal:

13Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

Add a little bit did we ?

[including homosexuals, amongst other abominations], and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all LIARS [emphasis mine],

Suggest removal:

14cambridge(4150 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

James_S....Thanks for the lesson on how the bible was actually written. You don't agree or it doesn't represent your thinking just add your own thoughts or change it altogether.

If God is all powerful I don't think it would be all that hard for him to write a book. Maybe he thought what he gave us in common since was enough and we shouldn't really need a manual written by who knows who and who knows when.

Suggest removal:

15walter_sobchak(2727 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

So, simply put, there are the God-fearing believers on one side and the non-believers on the other side. I choose to repent and believe in the Gospels!

Suggest removal:

16Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

As wrote by James_S book 19 will be as James said .
God never said to hate or to be intolerant
But if that is what is in your heart I wish you well. And GOD BlESS

Suggest removal:

17James_S(268 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

1 John 5:4  For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1 John 5:5  Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

Romans 1:16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30  Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31  Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32  Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Leviticus 18:22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Suggest removal:

18James_S(268 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

Hebrews 4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Suggest removal:

19Jerry(861 comments)posted 3 years, 12 months ago

walter_sobchak hit it right, but I wouldn't even bring RELIGION into it (sorry walter)

I have respect for anyone’s right to have any personal relationship they choose with any person they choose, and I would work with anyone to defend that right (Freedom of Association). This includes the right to publicly proclaim the relationship and seek the sanction of clergy or church, if that is what they choose. We are not discussing personal relationships, however; we are discussing the LEGAL definition of what constitutes a marriage as recognized by the State. A legal marriage carries with it benefits (financial and other) that SOCIETY determines should be bestowed on a special relationship that SOCIETY defines.

I believe that the traditional one-man-one-woman marriage relationship (family unit) has value and provides benefit to society over and above any other relationships; and is therefore worthy of special status and benefits, and also worthy to hold that status alone. Please note that I distinguish between freedom of association (which is a right) and the legal benefits bestowed on marriage (which are privileges).

Others may, of course, disagree with me; but to them I pose two questions:

One - If you reject the male-female 2 distinct genders premise, and reject society’s right to define what a marriage is and is not; what reasonable argument can be made for limiting a marriage to 2 people?

Two - I believe the text of the actual law in Ohio reads in part, "...marriage shall be a union of two consenting adults not nearer of kin than second cousins, ...". Obviously the second cousin provision was put in place to avoid the potential outcome of genetic defect in the off-spring that might result from a marriage relationship. By rejecting the male-female premise for marriage and allowing members of the same gender to legally "marry", however, one makes a stark and irrefutable statement that marriage is no longer about procreation of off-spring. This then leads to the question....What reasonable argument could be made to retain the second cousin rule? Please note that I am not asking anyone to respond about incest. What if someone wanted to "marry" their cousin, or sister, or child, or anyone for the sole purpose of extending financial benefits; what reasonable argument would limit this?

My point with my questions is that altering the definition of legal marriage in the manner proposed by same-sex-marriage advocates effectively throws out the rules. That may not be the goal of all the people who advocate same-sex-marriage, but it will be the result.

If we discard the one-man-one-woman family unit premise, there will ultimately be no limits and no definition of legal marriage left, making it impossible to continue to recognize a legal marriage. This would be, in my opinion, a loss to our society (perhaps inevitable at this point). Can anyone provide reasonable, legally viable, answers to my questions??

Suggest removal:

20James_S(268 comments)posted 3 years, 11 months ago

"So, simply put, there are the God-fearing believers on one side and the non-believers on the other side. I choose to repent and believe in the Gospels!"

Yes:^) That's how I understand it.

There are those who have no fear of the LORD.

Fear no man who can only kill the body. But fear God who not only can kill ones body but throw ones soul into Hell.

What gain is there for one who may own the entire world (Jesus' Kingdom, New Jerusalem, is not of this world) only to forfeit and lose his soul in Hell (now known as the Lake of Fire)?

And there are some who have NO FEAR OF THE LORD AND HAVE GAINED THE ENTIRE WORLD- ( ...they're the ones who own our money and for the most part our politicians:^)

Suggest removal:

21BabaGhanoush(106 comments)posted 3 years, 11 months ago

"still, nobody has answered the question of how gay marriage affects you. because it doesn't. i thought republicans were all about freedom. well unless you're gay, a minority, a muslim, or a woman."

It's not about homo sexual "marriage", it's about redefining marriage in the first place.
Bride and Groom are to be replaced with Party "A" and Party "B".
It used to be two consenting adults, but now it is two (or more) people that "love" each other.
How about an uncle and his niece or nephew, or both.
Why not brother and sister?
Or any one and another?
Or maybe it is just another way to make polygamy acceptable again.

"well unless you're gay, a minority, a muslim, or a woman."

Funny you should put muslims in the same sentence as women and homo sexuals.
They certainly don't consider women and homo sexuals to be equal with them.
And they are certainly not about freedom for any minority, eh?

Suggest removal:

22WilliamSwinger(341 comments)posted 3 years, 11 months ago


Ready for it? Your "how does it affect you" argument is about to be demolished...

If a woman is killed in a remote village in Botswana how will if affect my life? It won't and don't even try to argue that it will. Since this murder, or any other happening for that matter, doesn't directly affect my life then it is perfectly acceptable, right? Wrong.

What a stupid argument! This is the same argument you melon-heads are advancing here and it is the same argument advanced by atheists, marxists, socialists, communists and other -ists around the world all over the ages in an attempt to undermine traditional values.

It is a stupid argument intended for weak fools that lack the intelligence to understand it, like you guys. Now you can understand the silliness perhaps.

See how stupid the idea of moral relativity is? I hope so but I won't hold my breath.

Suggest removal:

23WilliamSwinger(341 comments)posted 3 years, 11 months ago


I apologize for including you in that list, that is an error.

Suggest removal:

24southsidedave(5199 comments)posted 3 years, 11 months ago

The way things are going, we will elect a gay President one day, and possibly have a gay wedding at the White House...think about it!

Suggest removal:

25XBROWNSX(35 comments)posted 3 years, 11 months ago

Sadly, gays, the gay cult, the gay community still keep trying their hardest to shove their misguided view that "gay marriage" is just the same, and as *gasp!*, as "normal" as a marriage between one man and one woman. It's NOT and it will NEVER be!. Even in nature, gay life is non-existent. Male lions don't seek out other male lions for sex and procreation. So QUIT pretending the "gay life" is as normal as the day is long. It's sick and perverted. Imagine is we all thought being "gay" was normal and righteous. The human race would cease to exist. Think about THAT, Southside Dave and others.

Suggest removal:

26XBROWNSX(35 comments)posted 3 years, 11 months ago

Should read: Imagine if we all thought being "gay" was normal and righteous? Memo to Post #1, -toycannon- : ADD me in to the SAD, SICK and DISGUSTED Group. For one, being gay has been around long before our time, and it will be around long AFTER our time. My postion is, I am against any and all actions, that try and make the gay lifestyle just as common and as equal as traditional marriage between one man and one woman. It NEVER will be, not even close, to being "normal" and those who try and legalize gay unions and marriages will never be accepted, or become normal, traditional or mainstream with society. Muslims think it's normal to have their women walk behind the man, cover a woman's face, and let the woman wear baggy "coverings" (I don't consider them "clothing for women") with bedsheets for their daily coverings. So why isn't that considered "normal"? WHY? because it's a disgrace and shameful. Same thing with making "Gay marriage" normal.

Suggest removal:

27IslandMike(764 comments)posted 3 years, 11 months ago

I wonder where republiCONS Mark Foley, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig stand on the issue. Knock on the door in the men's bathroom and ask them.

Sarah Palin and former NBA player Glen Rice couldn't be reached for comment.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes