Democratic platform discriminatory?

"Bush to Press for U.S. Ban on Same-sex Marriage" headlined a half-page story in the New York Times.

And guess what this strongly sodomy-acceptance newspaper-of-record featured?

TRENDING: Nancy Pelosi's election-rigging H.R. 1

Mary Cheney, the vice president's daughter, who is a lesbian, went on national television promoting her book this year and discussed her distaste for the president's opposition to same-sex marriage in 2004.

Advertisement - story continues below

Adding to what conservatives describe as the fuzziness of the White House's position, the president's wife, Laura, said of same-sex marriage last month, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool."

Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Mrs. Bush added, "It requires a lot of sensitivity just to talk about the issue, a lot of sensitivity."

Regarding the first lady's remarks about using sodomy "as a campaign tool," where has this issue ever, ever been used anywhere nearly as much as a campaign tool than by the Sodomy Lobby?

As for the vice president's daughter, what if her sexual orientation were S&M? And what if this rather pretty young lady had been offered a lead role in Hollywood's venture into that practice entitled "Pain is Pleasure"?

Fortunately, nothing like that has happened. And while the vice president understandably goes on loving his lesbian daughter, he has not resigned his high office in any protest of the president's support of marriage as being between one man and one woman only.

The Times also noted that President Bush's "push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, part of a new campaign to appease cultural conservatives, will be the first time Mr. Bush has so strongly promoted his opposition to same-sex marriage since his re-election campaign nearly two years ago. Democrats accused the White House of trotting out a reliable hot-button issue to help soothe and re-energize disgruntled conservative voters five months before the midterm congressional elections. 'Everybody's going to see through it,' said Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee."

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the very same Howard Dean who when he appeared on the Christian Broadcasting Network's Pat Robertson 700 Club show declared:

"The Democratic platform from 2004, says marriage is between a man and a woman."

Poor desperate Howard may have been momentarily confusing that Democratic platform with the Holy Bible.

For the Democratic platform of 2004 stated as follows:

"We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families."

(And this, of course, was Democrat Party discrimination! For there was no mention of families that are sado-masochists, adult-child or human-with-freely-consenting-beasts.)

Times reporter Jim Rutenberg noted:

The vote on the amendment is considered largely symbolic because it is not expected to pass by the required two-thirds majority in Congress, let alone the ratification by three-fourths of the states that a constitutional amendment requires. The amendment would not only define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but would also prevent courts from requiring that states allow civil unions.

Phil Burress, who organized the successful campaign against same-sex marriage in Ohio in 2004 that many credit with helping Mr. Bush there, said the president's involvement would call attention to the issue as several states moved on "defense of marriage" initiatives this election year.

Mr. Burress said the Senate's amendment was already paying off for a Republican senator in his state, Mike DeWine, who faces a tough re-election fight. Mr. Burress said that he was displeased with Mr. DeWine as being too silent about same-sex marriage, but that his opinion changed when Mr. DeWine co-sponsored the proposed amendment.

"It's going to send him back to Washington," Mr. Burress said.