Democratic Party Platform Includes Abortion, Same-Sex 'Marriage,' While Excluding God


For the first time in American history, a major U.S. political party has incorporated support for a redefinition of marriage into its official statement of beliefs.


The Democratic Party’s platform, formally adopted at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Sept. 4, supports “marriage equality,” a phrase used by those who wish to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples.

The platform, which outlines the party’s official views on a variety of subjects, called for the full repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes and protects states from being forced to recognize the same-sex unions of other states.

It also called for the passage of the so-called Respect for Marriage Act, which would require the federal government to recognize same-sex “marriages.”

While the document voiced support for the freedom of “churches and religious entities” to determine how “marriage as a religious sacrament” should be administered, it did not include any mention of individuals or groups that hold religious objections to recognizing and supporting civil marriage.

It also noted that the administration has redefined the word “family” in immigration regulations to include homosexual relationships.

Affirming its support of abortion with no restrictions, a redefinition of marriage and free birth control for all women, the Democratic Party said in its official statement of positions that it is committed to “pursuing policies that truly value families.”

Read more


Platforms are what define a political party.


Oh just Wow!:eek: Can’t be surprised with this.


Why are you dredging this lie up again? Honestly, do people bother fact-checking anymore? Here is the platform. God is mentioned once. Religious faith is mentioned eleven times.


Actually, this is incorrect. Platforms define the majority position of the Party. If 51% of Democrats supported abortion, it would be in the Platform. I realize that the number is higher than that, but it isn’t anywhere close to 100%. For example, approximately 24% of the US House Democratic Caucus in 2010 was pro-life. Also God was in the final draft; it was accidentally omitted originally and added back in later. There’s a reason that year-old articles probably aren’t a good thing to cite.


This was a hot topic last year, when it happened.


We have another election coming up, and the platform of the Democrat party is still as it was in the last election. So, this is still very relevant.


Not really. The election isn’t for another year, and the next Platform isn’t eligible to be drafted until 2016. Plus, this article is factually incorrect and outdated. The timestamp on it is extremely revelant.

Edit: also, you vote for the candidate, not the platform.


It is very close to being 100%. We can know this by how the voting goes. The votes from Democrat politicians are always close to 100% in favor of no limits on abortion and now also for redefining marriage. There might be one or two tokens that are different, but it’s still close to 100%. Anyone who watches the news and follows politics can see this as plain as day. Obama would not have won the election twice if Democrats were divided on these issues.


In 2010, 64/257 House Democrats were pro-life and voted pro-life. That’s about 25% of the Caucus. It’s not correct to argue that a factually incorrect and outdated article from last year about the platform of the Democratic Presidential candidate in any way is relevant to 2014, when he isn’t on the ballot, and when individual candidates will have individual positions on different issues.


Where is the proof of this claim? Also, you will have to define what you mean by “Pro-Life” since many who are in reality Pro-Abortion claim to be Pro-Life to confuse the issue. They do this trick by claiming that although they think that abortion should be absolutely legal that they want it to be “rare”. However, making it absolutely legal and calling it an absolute “right” did the opposite of making abortion rare. And if something is a right why should it be rare? For example, would it make sense to say that having a job is a right but that it should be rare? Those who are so-called “Pro-Choice” are always strongly opposed to showing a pregnant mother an ultrasound of her baby because they are afraid that she will change her mind and not go through with the abortion. So much for “choice”.


My apologies there were 258 House Democrats, not 257. Doesn’t really change the % though.


Stupak was seen as compromising for Obama. He lost the respect of many conservatives because this phony compromise. Therefore, your example is a non-example. That amendment was pure political smoke and mirrors. It was only something that was begging for Obama not to take abortion further with the HHS mandate. And Obama did what he wanted regardless, and the Democrats all knew he would. So it isn’t an honest example of Democrats supporting a Pro-Life initiative. Try giving me a real example of something put up for a vote that is actively Pro-Life such as an ultra-sound law or an initiative that would place restrictions or increased regulations on abortion clinics, or something that would defund Planned Parenthood and then tell me the numbers of Democrats that supported measures like that.


You honestly think Pelosi brought those to the floor? :rolleyes:


Stupak was seen as compromising for Obama. He lost the respect of many conservatives because this phony compromise. Therefore, your example is a non-example. How about giving a real example such as ultra-sound laws. Give me an example of how Democrats voted on any given ultra-sound law.


I don’t know why you think Nancy Pelosi brought up ultrasound laws or any other pro-life legislation to the floor. She isn’t pro-life herself. She had to be strong-armed by Stupak & a ton of other pro-life Blue Dogs into allowing the Stupak Amendment.

Either way, we’re getting off-topic, which is that this topic is factually incorrect and a year old, and it isn’t really relevant anymore anyway.


You are avoiding the question. One of the ways the Pro-Life movement has ACTIVELY been working is by introducing ultra-sound legislation initiatives in various states around the country. You deny that Democrat politicians aren’t close to being 100% Pro-Abortion. If you are right then it should be easy for you to provide the numbers for any given ultra-sound legislative initiative to back up what you say. But I can guarantee that it will always be 100% or close to it of Democrat politicians voting against any initiative to show pregnant mothers their baby before an abortion.


Exactly, That was a year ago, and won’t change their platform until 2016.
My family has been democrat for quite a few years because they supported unions and werent radically liberal as they are now. We are no longer democrats because of this and are now mostly independent, and most of my family voted just about all republican last election. Nothing the democratic party does surprises me anymore.


Indeed it has been, but there is no doubt lots of pressure from a lot of its members to take it out. No one needs to identify with that crowd.

The amendment, proposed by former Gov. Ted Strickland, chief of the platform committee, restored the notation that Americans were encouraged to reach their “God-given potential.”

It also recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Strickland didn’t offer an explanation for why God and Jerusalem were removed, explaining only that “our belief in God is central to our American story” and “the president recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and our party’s platform should as well.”



Pro life and pro traditional marriage democrats, the democrat party has deserted you and here is it clearly shown. The fact that the party platform supports no restrictions on abortion is extreme. The majority of people who are ‘pro choice’ support some abortion restrictions

Democrat party is given a lot of money from pro abortion organisations, and they want to keep that funding going to their candidates so they want to keep the pro organisations happy, and they have done it with this platform so they be assured funding.

By ‘marriage equality’ I presume they mean support for homosexual marriage. This term ‘marriage equality’ has got be argued against, because it is a bogus statement.

The following dictionary gives the definition of ‘equality’

  1. The state or quality of being equal.
  2. Mathematics A statement, usually an equation, that one thing equals another.

Two people of the same gender and two of the opposite gender being allowed to legally provide does not ‘marriage equality,’ as it means many people still can’t get married to each such, such as people in polygamous relationships. ‘Marriage equality’ would be allowing whoever wants to marry to be able marry. But people shouldn’t be able to marry whoever they want, and no matter what a manmade law says about marriage, you can not change the definition of marriage.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit