What is the Democratic Party's official position re gay marriage?

[Guaranteed]

Read the platform statement first:

"We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been definited at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a Federal Marriage Amendment."

[WobbliesUnite]

1. "We are afraid to take any meaningful stand"

[marmar]

2. Actually, in their 2004 party platform....

I think it was defined as being between a man and a woman. but supportive of unions. Again, taking the wimpy way out.

[neoblues]

3. While, in principle...

I would estimate the Democratic position to be that there's no valid reason to discriminate--therefore, it should be as available to same-sex couples as others; it currently is a state issue. Attempting to demand full equality would probably harm the party's chances to some degree, and it has it's hands full elsewhere. Also, any attempt to make it a federal issue, particularly while Republicans are in majority could backfire entirely and result in a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Therefore, for the time being at least, it would be best to avoid making it a key issue (clearly Republicans want to make it a key issue to assist them in rousing their rather base base, just as they did in 2004).

It doesn't seem right to have such concerns addressed in in the Constitution--therein there should merely be guarantees of equal rights. The details of marriage could be codified in law elsewhere either at the Federal or State levels, though, in my opinion, it somehow doesn't make sense for the determination of who can participate in marriage to differ from state to state (whereas other aspects of marriage can be handled at the state level and therefore differ tolerably from state to state--it's just that to determine who can marry and have it differ would mean you could be married here, but not there--thus making a simple move to another state involve a significant disadvantage). It's enough to make you wonder if marriage should be recognized by law for anyone (though that's an inconceivable thought too).

At a time when we're in a fight for the very future of our country, though, such considerations might reasonably fall by the wayside. It's not right and proper, but it seems it might just be necessary if we ever hope to address it.

[Selatius]

4. It sounds like it's in favor of civil unions, but

it doesn't explicitly say it's in favor of that or gay marriage.

Legal issues aside, a church can't be forced to recognize the union of two individuals if it doesn't want to, but it can be forced to not discriminate against people. Agree or disagree, the law must afford everybody the same legal protections in accordance of the equal protection clause.

[sandnsea]

5. states define marriage

That's the official position of the Democratic Party.

If a state wants to pass gay marriage, fine. If a state wants to pass civil unions, fine. If a state doesn't want to, that's fine too. States write marriage laws.

[Olney Blue]

6. We will have to take a clear stand because the GOP is

going to have this issue on ballots in 06 and 08.

[undeterred]

7. Official position is still Don't ask about it, Don't talk about it