Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Howard Dean's Gay-bashing of Ralph Nader

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 11:29 AM
Original message
Howard Dean's Gay-bashing of Ralph Nader
Leave it to Counterpunch to come up with a subheadline like that...

http://www.counterpunch.org/wolf07102004.html

Howard Dean gay bashed Ralph Nader on live radio before millions of listeners on NPR and no one chimed in to stop him. How could the Vermont also-ran, shilling for the anti-gay marriage John Kerry, slander the only presidential candidate who is for gay marriage by claiming over and over that Nader had accepted support from anti-gay Republicans?

Nader has not only come out for same-sex marriage--a basic civil right--but he is for ending legal discrimination against gays and lesbians that allows employers to fire someone for their sexual orientation in 36 states. Kerry and Dean oppose same-sex marriage, and both have repeatedly argued to leave it to the states to decideÐreminiscent of the Dixiecrats of old who argued to leave desegregation to the enlightened minds of the Mississippi and Alabama legislators. As a result, segregation remained the de facto law of the land for a century after the Civil War.

Though Dean is often trumpeted as a great advocate of gay and lesbian rights because Vermont was the first state to offer civil unions while he was governor, the reality behind that partial victory exposes Dean's own opportunistic nod to the homophobes. When the Vermont Supreme Court unanimously ruled that gay couples were due the same legal rights of marriage as heterosexuals and ordered the legislature to pass a law to that effect in 1999, Dean made it clear that he would not sign gay marriage into law and pushed instead for civil unions.

Civil unions do not carry with them any of the 1,049 federal rights and benefits of marriage. When Dean did sign civil unions into law, he did so "in the closet," without the usual cameras flashing and notables in attendance. At the time of signing, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Dean "was going around the state telling folks he was only doing it because the Vermont Supreme Court made him."

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. What is wrong with those people?
That premise is such a logical fallacy it is stunning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. True, it doesn't seem like gay bashing
That's an odd way to put it. But they are right in pointing out that Dean never supported gay marriage or a national civil unions bill. I don't believe he ever deserved the credit he got among some for "courageously" supporting Civil Unions in Vermont. If he has so much courage over the issue why doesn't he support a national civil unions or gay marriage bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RogueTrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. You should read about the election campaign that
happened after Howard Dean signed the legsilation. He spebt most of the campaign in a bullet proof vest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. Kerry isn't against gay marriage
He's said he doesn't think it can pass yet, and until it does, he's for civil unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Fuck Nader! He is a POS that takes money from Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. It's not that simple
Kerry has said a lot of what you want him to, but if he says flat out "I'm for gay marriage," he loses the south. So he talks around the issue, but his beliefs are obvious. I don't think he's handling it well, but it's still early.

This is no different than what LBJ did on civil rights, and frankly it's a hell of a lot more bold than what JFK did on civil rights.


http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/05/050604kerryGays.htm

"It may well be that if we achieve civil unions ... then we may -- all of us -- progress ... to a place where there is a different understanding . But I think that one has to respect the current cultural-historical-religious perception , and I respect it."

"An equal-protection clause, I think, pertains to the rights you give to people, not to the name you give to something, so I'm for civil unions. That gives people the rights: the rights of partnership, the rights of inheritance of property, the rights of taxation and so forth. But I think there is a distinction between what we have traditionally called 'marriage' between a man and a woman and those rights. ... I believe very strongly that we can advance the cause of equality by moving toward civil unions. But that's where my position is at this point in time. What is distinct is the institutional name. Whatever people look at as the sacrament within a church or within a synagogue or within a mosque as a religious institution, there is a distinction. The civil state really just adopted that. It's the rights that are important, not the name of the institution.""

Note also that Kerry was one of 14 senators who voted against DOMA.

Some other Kerry statements, for anyone who hasn't seen them (I'm sure you have, IG, but others may not have):


"While I do not support gay marriage, I support civil unions and I believe that gays and lesbians should have full rights and equality under the law. ... Same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights and benefits as married couples ... including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation and survivor benefits. ... Additionally, I am one of six cosponsors of legislation to provide domestic-partnership benefits to gay and lesbian federal employees."

"Whether you call it marriage or not is up for grabs, but you have to have the rights. ... I think marriage is a term that kind of gets in the way of this discussion. But there is a distinction between church-sanctioned marriage and what rights the states give. A state itself can afford different rights. The rights is what's critical. It's equal protection under the law that is at stake here."

"Marriage to many people is obviously what is sanctified by a church. It's sacramental. Or by a synagogue or by a mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has. Clearly there's a separation of church and state here. ... Marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church, between a man and a woman, and I think there's a separate meaning to it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. Oh my goodness, we seem to have a food fight going ...
Thin skins all over the place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheneys_former_heart Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. So that makes it ok for Nader to accept money
from anti-gay, anti-choice conservative groups? Since Dean was not as supportive as he could have been during the civil unions vote in VT, Nader can accept money and volunteers from all the rightwing haters he wants. Gee, that makes alot of sense. You really have to bend yourself into a pretzel to justify Nader's fundraising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftistagitator Donating Member (701 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. Well, I knew Counterpunch was untrustworthy, but this is really sad.
All Dean did was catch his Holiness taking contibutions and signatures from people he knew weren't going to vote for him and called him on it. Ralph is a tool for the rethug party, and all you have to do to prove that is follow the money and look at the signatures collected for him to be on the ballot. It was sad when Mister Integrity actually pretended that the Bush* ambassador who donated to him actually was doing that out of a sense of dedication to civil liberty. What I don't understand though is, if Ralph doesn't even have the politicial power to get a few thousands valid signatures in each state, what good does he think he can do in a an election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yeah. Nader once called gay rights "gonadal politics." Counterpunch blows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Zanti Regent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
10. Is GOP money funding Counterpunch, too?
It sure seems so!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. No gay bashing from Dean
I heard the debate. I agree with many of Nadar's views. Third parties have such a slim chance in Amerika. Amerika really needs Instant Runoff, Open Debates, Complete public financing of campaigns and no Corp. contributions or any private ones either over $500, Proportional representation. The system is fixed toward two parties and I am not pleased with either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
12. Divide and Conquer
Dean calls Nader on using anti-gay right wing groups to get him on the ballot in Oregon because he lacked the grass roots support to do it himself.

Counterpunch does address that issue. Instead it focuses on bashing Democrats and Dean in particular for

Who's side is Counterpunch on anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
15. To paraphrase Edmund Burke,
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to waste their votes on Ralph Nader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC