RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

09/04/2012

Read: Democrats embrace the freedom to marry

by Jeremy Hooper

One of the big stories out of the Republican's convention was the speed and throatedness (both full) with which many in the party distanced themselves from the platform. I'll be curious to see if that happens with the Democrats here in Charlotte.

The platform in question:

Screen Shot 2012-09-04 At 8.03.03 Am 2012 National Platform

No, no one is bound to the platform language. But if the platforms are meaningless, what does any of it mean? Why a convention? Why a guiding document? Why a party?

Personally, I'm pretty happy with this language. It's nice to feel invited onto the platform rather than being told my marriage should walk the plank.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails