Marriage Equality in Democratic Platform

For the first time in history, one of the two major parties — the Democrats, of course — is endorsing full marriage equality in its platform. And the vote of the platform committee was unanimous. That’s a major step forward, spurred by President Obama’s endorsement of this idea a few months ago. This is why I said at the time that, while Obama’s endorsement was clearly politically calculated, the motives didn’t matter much; regardless of why he did it, the fact that he did it was one more step toward equality. And this is another. MLK’s arc of history continues to bend toward justice, however slowly it may seem to do so in real time.

Comments

  1. Michael Heath says

    Ed writes:

    MLK’s arc of history continues to bend toward justice, however slowly it may seem to do so in real time.

    I would add ‘moral progress’ in there as well; which is a primary reason I find conservatives so ridiculous given they claim a false past more moral than today.

  2. says

    Ed said:

    endorsing full marriage equality…

    Tsk, tsk. You mean partial marriage equality. Polygamists and incestuous couples are just two groups still left out in the cold.

  3. slc1 says

    It didn’t take long for fucktard JD, the disgrace to the Air Force Officer Corps, to weigh in with a typical apples and oranges comment. He forgot to add that marriage between people and their dogs was also left out.

  4. Aliasalpha says

    He forgot to add that marriage between people and their dogs was also left out.

    or for people to marry their own shit, he does seem to love it so.

  5. Mr Ed says

    I think JD is right. Laws are base on absolutes. If we let a two year old snitch a grape at the grocery store without cutting a hand off then we have vacated all property right. Once you start thinking you are on a slippery slope.

  6. Michael Heath says

    The traitor and liar JD:

    Tsk, tsk. You mean partial marriage equality. Polygamists and incestuous couples are just two groups still left out in the cold.

    Are you attempting to argue gays and their family members’ rights shouldn’t be protected equal to those of heterosexual male-female marriages simply because these other groups exist? Since this slippery-slope argument is a popular one among bigots, I’m wondering if this is a rationale you also use to justify your cowardly and traitorous bigotry.

  7. Stevarious says

    You know, I’d never actually been to JD’s blog before today. Took me about a minute to find this:

    Still, no mainstream Christian has ever suggested people with a homosexual preference be treated in any other way than with respect, love, and gentleness.

    LOL! Are you REALLY this naive, JD? Or is it just the bald-faced lie that you know it was when you wrote it?

  8. Michael Heath says

    Stevarious:

    Are you REALLY this naive, JD?

    No, the traitor and liar JD has repeatedly argued that gays have no right to be treated with respect; that they should instead remain in out of both sight and mind, e.g., his defense of DADT. Your quote of JD’s just illustrates the extreme level of his dishonesty and hypocrisy.

    JD is one of the most morally contemptible human beings I’ve ever encountered arguing on the Internet. He’s certainly the most overt traitor to the U.S. I’ve encountered on the Internet.

  9. dingojack says

    MO (#9) – But how did they know this was true for both parents?
    Farm animals can’t speak, let alone give consent. ;)
    Dingo

  10. Chris A says

    JD is one of the most morally contemptible human beings I’ve ever encountered arguing on the Internet.

    Wow! That is one of the most searing indictments I have ever read. At least, when considering the level of moral contemptablity which can be easily found while arguing on the internet, and Mr. Heath’s record of well considered and carefully phrased comments. Not that I object to, nor disagree with it either — JD is clearly an appalling example of near humanity, but seriously harsh.

  11. Michael Heath says

    Chris A.

    My indictment of JD is in the context of the general reputation of the U.S. military when it comes their claimed fealty to honor, integrity, and obligatory defense of the Constitution. A standard I applaud. JD openly shits on all these ideals in a way that both promotes increased human suffering and the effective destruction of the Constitution and its underlying principals.

  12. Chiroptera says

    JD, #2: Polygamists…

    Ironically, JD’s Bible actually supports legalizing polygamy. Just sayin’, is all.

    -

    …and incestuous couples….

    And the only place that I recall this is condemned is the same place that condemns eating pork.

    I don’t recall an instance in JD’s Bible where incest occurred and was explicitly condemned.

  13. Chris A says

    Don’t get me wrong, Michael (if I may be so informal). I absolutely agree with you. JD is clearly both a horribly human being and in violation of his oath. I just wanted to point out how very strong (and justified) that condemnation was is all.

  14. 'smee says

    Chiroptera @14

    I don’t recall an instance in JD’s Bible where incest occurred and was explicitly condemned.

    On the contrary, it appears to be a lauded practice – such as between Lot and his daughters, following the extreme calcification of his wife!

  15. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Still, no mainstream Christian has ever suggested people with a homosexual preference be treated in any other way than with respect, love, and gentleness.

    So God is not a Christian, then. Or if He is, He’s from a fringe sect. Good to know.

  16. says

    Tsk, tsk. You mean partial marriage equality. Polygamists and incestuous couples are just two groups still left out in the cold.

    So, why do True Christians™ love this moronic false equivocation?

    But hey, at least you didn’t go full fuckwit and insert bestiality into that mix.

  17. says

    To be fair, the story of Lot being plied with alcohol and seduced by his daughters was probably less about condoning incest and more about creating a tawdry origin story for the Moabites and Ammonites (i.e. saying that the whole tribes were the product of incest).

    On the other hand, it’s not like there aren’t examples that legitimately could be used, like Abram and Sarai (his half-sister) or Moses’ parents (nephew and aunt).

  18. says

    *Sigh* I meant “Adam and Eve”. I can’t even imagine what kind of twisted, sexy coitus it takes for identical twins to reproduce successfully. My guess? Adam was hermaphroditic, like a slug.

  19. iangould says

    “Tsk, tsk. You mean partial marriage equality. Polygamists and incestuous couples are just two groups still left out in the cold.”
    -JD

    Don’t give up hope JD.

  20. says

    MLK’s arc of history continues to bend toward justice, however slowly it may seem to do so in real time.

    Best thing about doing it slowly, is that you have time to guide it properly, fixing small mistakes as they happen, and securing it permanently in the public acceptance for the future.

    There are many more people to come in the future, than those currently oppressed. The future will look back and only have thanks for those who took the oppression and used it as a force for change.

Leave a Reply