Montana Democratic Party Amends Platform to Support Full Marriage Equality

by jhwygirl

This all I got, and it’s minutes old.

It’s that big.

From D. Gregory Smith’s twitter feed:

@Dgsma: MT Democratic Party approves platform amendment supporting full marriage equality for gays and lesbians #MTPol #Equality #guts


It’s a beautiful thing, and I poached it from D. Gregory Smith’s From Here to Eternity. I really hope he doesn’t mind. He’s got it printed out over there, too – so go read it.

Missoula’s CBS KPAX news led the 10 o’clock with the story. They even interviewed Jamee Greer, spokesperson and lobbyist for the Montana Human Rights Network.

The Missoulian, too, got this piece up from Charles S. Johnson shortly after the news broke. It’s got some good background.

This will certainly make this year’s Montana Pride 2012 event even more celebratory next weekend in Bozeman.

  1. Big Johansson

    If you’re going down, go down big.

    Jon T. needs to follow their lead.

  2. Pete Talbot

    It’s about time. Progressives within the party have been trying to get this in the platform for years. Glad to see the Blue Dogs finally came around. Congratulations to those who have been pushing this plank.

    And Big J: this isn’t going to bring the Dems down. To quote Bill Clinton (actually James Carville), “it’s the economy, stupid.” The candidates with the best ideas for economic recovery will win — and it won’t be Mitt or Denny or Rick or Steve …

    • Big Johansson

      Standing on principle is what’s important.

      I fully expect all the supporters of this plank to fire off e-mails to Jon to verify his position.

    • I wouldn’t be too hasty Pete – after listening to the pundits talk about Bill Clintons comments, where he praised Romneys business experience, I started googling it up, and I founfd that Mitt Romney was very good at reviving struggling businesses and making them successful.

      That by itself, is worlds ahead of the Obama regime, isn’t it ?

      Check it out for yourself –

      • Pete Talbot

        Romney was also very good at destroying more jobs that he ever created. He ran a classic “strip and flip” business, sucking the short term profits out and then selling off the businesses or just shutting them down, meanwhile making millions of dollars for Bain and himself.

        I don’t think that’s going to play too well in middle America.

  3. I just realized that I was waaay off topic on this post –

    as far as the Dems pushing gay rights in their platform, I have a couple of thoughts –

    First, let’s see if it stays in the platform-

    Second, with the GOP ready to run the table this fall, what do they have to lose ?

  4. I hate to do it, but I kind of agree with Eric here. This isn’t a move to gain votes this election cycle – it will energize some people to vote who wouldn’t otherwise, but it will probably lose more votes than it gains. The point is to get on the right side of a major demographic shift, and set a precedent for the future. I think this is a positive step, and I do think it will earn dividends for the party in the future.

    • Pete Talbot

      So PW, expediency over principles? I think that’s a major criticism of the Democratic Party these days, and one of the reasons Democrats who went to the polls in 2008 have stayed way in ’10 and ’12.

      As I mentioned above, it won’t be social issues that decide this election. It will be economic.

      I suppose the big, anonymous PAC contributions flowing into Montana will play a role. But candidates who stand up for their beliefs — are genuine and principled — have a decent chance against the vocal, yet small, anti-marriage equality constituency.

      • Steve W

        Pete have you seen this? It’s a great analysis of power.

        The Dems putting marriage equality into the state plank is an example of moral power.

      • “So PW, expediency over principles?”

        Quite the opposite – I think this is a more principled stand than an expedient one, at least in the short term. Hopefully it will in the long run gain them votes, but I’m glad they did it anyway.

  5. Jim Fleischmann

    Stromaier’s campaign was a significant factor in changing party regulars’ views…..

    • Not to sound mean, but I doubt it. That statement also seems to ignore the role of many many others over at the last 8 years or so leading up to yesterday’s event.

      I don’t doubt his sincerity, but Strohmaier has never been able to keep his support for gay rights from looking like it’s about him in some way. It’s always had that tinge to it..and it’s a turnoff.

      • Jim Fleischmann

        You say you doubt it. I say youre ignorant and I was at the convention.

        • I’ll believe his impact when Kim Gillan openly campaigns on the issue of full marriage equality,

          Until then, he’s a legend in his own mind.

          • Fleischmann Jim

            It takes many people to move things in the right direction – Barack Obama, etc. Just b/c you don’t like Strohmaier is no reason – as a journalist – not to recognize the impact that his campaign had on the larger debate.

            • I’m not a journalist. I have bias’. They’re pretty obvious.

              You, on the other hand, have yet to disclose yours. In fact, having had a paid position, anything you say regarding Dave really should disclose that information.

              • Jim Fleischmann

                Since you are not a journalist (by your own admission) and since I was unpaid (which I’m telling you now), let’s get back to the issue at hand: did the Strohmaier campaign serve to advance the issue of marriage equality?

                Rather than answer that question, I’ll ask another one: Did Obama’s recent statement of support for marriage equality help to advance marriage equality, whether or not he was partially motivated by the financial benefits gay donors might bring to his re-election?

  6. Big Johansson

    You guys have a lousy state plank.

    We have a super PAC.

    “[H]e’s providing $1 million to start a new “super PAC” with several Republican compatriots. Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.

    In an interview on Tuesday, he told me that he’s confident that in Congressional races, which would most likely be the super PAC’s initial focus, there are more than a few Republicans “who could be on the verge of support” or are “harboring and hiding their views.” …

  7. Turner

    Here’s the wording of the plank of gay marriage: “We support repealing Section 7, Article 13 of the Montana Constitution. All adults should have teh right to legally marry another adult of their choice regardless of sex or gender. We believe same-sex spouses should have the same legal benefits, protections and responsibilities granted to all those who marry.

    I’m very proud of the state Democrats. At the convention they came down firmly on the side of justice.

  8. KC Whistle

    “I think Bozeman is becoming more ‘gay-friendly’ each year. Something happened, though, in the last 5 years. This community tipped from being on the line, to being welcoming, regardless of background.” (Tom Marsh, Pride organizer)

    This is in reply to Strohmaier’s assertions, loud, self serving, repetitive, about Missoula’s exclusive support for this issue. And the usual Strohmaier rant about Democrats being the only supporters of lgbtq rights. Bozeman IS welcoming, regardless of background, and has the ordinances to prove it. It is also the only local government to pass a resolution and sign a letter of support for the couples’ lawsuit that Bullock is against.

    It’s Bozeman’s Jim Goetz doing the heavy lifting on the legal side, just as he has done with medical marijuana.

    When I see Strohmaier yelling about “marrying any two people” (see ECW for a legitimate response to that statement), it is counterproductive in its unthoughtful approach, just as his claim to exclusivity is.

    Something did happen in Bozeman in the last three years, in particular in the high school and in the city government, as it had been gradually in the culture in general. Democrats and Republicans both had a role, and there were no two am city council meetings. Nobody ran for Congress congratulating themselves on it and it isn’t being used to further divide and incite rancor into the political discussion.

    It’s just business as usual in the Montana university town that isn’t being investigated for civil rights violations against women.

    I think it’s true that support for “gay marriage” is ahead of the Bozeman city populace, just as it is in the state. If you read the Magpie piece linked and its reference to 2004, you’ll read that the democratic candidate for Governor supported the amendment against gay marriage. I don’t know if that’s true or not. But this new democrats’ platform plank shows we’ve come a long way towards the respect for individual rights upon which this country is founded. It is true that the Republicans in charge of the party continue to be authoritarian, big government bigots on the issue, led by those who wish to implement puritanical religious establishment. But I know that young republicans and small government libertarians reject that leadership.

    Social conservatives will continue to hold sway as long as democrats reject small government and property rights as a fundamental human right. People are just going to vote against the “what’s yours is mine” big government agenda, and hope to influence the lgbtq issues in their own lives.

    PS, hope everyone has a great time in Bozeman next weekend and spends all their disposable income with the local merchants while in town.

    • Steve W

      i understand your inferiority complex given the score. But cheer up, we out West also like Bozeman.

      Just because our gay football players are better than your gay football players is no reason to get mad!

      • KC Whistle

        I chuckled, but then, remembered that yours are mentioned in the judge’s report as gang rapists, too. I think we win. 189 MSU vets properly administered versus 82 at UM with some screwed over. We win again. You do have three investigations into civil rights violations and we just can’t get off “zero”. Let’s not forget your “NCAA investigation into the football team” if we need a tie-breaker.

        The reality is, nobody outside of Montana can tell the difference between UM or MSU or knows Missoula or Bozeman from Winifred or Darby, so we are all getting tarred by the same brush. I hope UM can clean house and we can get back to keeping score on the field.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,877 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • June 2012
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: