Some here apparently want a concensus that all Democrats should have a consensus about something.
I think the only consensus the Democratic Party can have is the goal that Democrats win elections. Any other goal transforms an adaptable political party into an ideological party where the party assumes they know something better than the voters.
Suppose the voters are against policy A and Democrats assert that Policy A must be enacted and pursued. Democrats will lose elections and should lose elections where a person out of step with the voters should not be elected as the representative to represent the constituents in our representative form of government.
Free speech and dissent is all about tolerance towards disgusting, horrible viewpoints or otherwise no tolerance is required anyway. If the dissent is not objectionable it barely deserves the name dissent. We need to allow folks who are wrong to be Democrats also.
The anti-gay marriage folks are boneheads. They are wrong-headed, mean-spirited bigots that seek to deny civil rights to some of our fellow citizens in the name of preserving a social institution, just as slavery and the supposed inferiority of women were social institutions. These dinosaurs have to try and amend the Constitution because otherwise those gay citizens are entitled to equal protection and due process.
The Democrats should allow candidates in those districts or states with a majority of dinosaurs to be for the anti-gay marriage amendment. That is, if Democrats want Democrats to win elections.
Gay marriage is just one extreme example. I am against any litmus tests for Democratic nominees or the need for Democrats to Stand for something. All elections are local and the local candidates can and must address their particular constituents concerns and values, not echo cute slogans or concepts decided by some Democratic committee.
IMHO