Democrats and same-sex marriage
The San Francisco Chronicle ran a front page story today with the headline, "Gays want more from Dems on marriage: Proposed same-sex bans seen as test".
The article reports that Democrats have responded to the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages by offering technical, legalistic arguments about the Federal government leaving the issue of marriage to the states, instead of opposing the amendment on a principled basis as an infringement of human rights.
For example, the Chronicle reports:
Gay Activists who hold high hopes for the Democratic Party should have learned their lesson from the 2004 Democratic Party platform. Nothing has changed, and the Democratic Party refuses to take an unequivocable stand for human rights.
The article reports that Democrats have responded to the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages by offering technical, legalistic arguments about the Federal government leaving the issue of marriage to the states, instead of opposing the amendment on a principled basis as an infringement of human rights.
For example, the Chronicle reports:
[D]uring last week's debate, most Democratic senators argued only that Congress should be confronting more important issues like the economy and the Iraq war; they did not specifically address same-sex marriage. When asked later for Sen. Dianne Feinstein's position on same-sex marriage, a spokesman said Feinstein's speech was her only statement on the topic."Her only statement on the topic"--in other words, she was ducking the question. This is typical of the Democratic Party, and it has been their strategy at least going back to the 2004 election, when the party platform opposed a constitutional amendment on the strictly legalistic grounds that this would be an intrusion on the prerogrative of states to regulate marriages. It has been the party strategy to avoid taking a principled stand on this issue by opposing the amendment so as to satisfy gay activists and liberals, without at the same time coming out strongly for gay rights and thus alienating right wing Christian voters. Of course, by doing this, they managed to satisfy no one.
Gay Activists who hold high hopes for the Democratic Party should have learned their lesson from the 2004 Democratic Party platform. Nothing has changed, and the Democratic Party refuses to take an unequivocable stand for human rights.
Post a Comment