Dean Issues Gay Mea Culpa

[William769]

(Washington) It was less than an apology but Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean now says that he "misstated the Democratic Party's platform" when he told TV evangelist Pat Robertson's 700 Club this week that the 2004 platform stated "marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says."

Dean was taken to task by LGBT groups - including gays in his own party - for the remark. (story)

The platform actually endorsed gay marriage.

This is what the document says: "We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a 'Federal Marriage Amendment.' Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart."

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/051106deanUp.htm

FUCK DEAN!!! I gave him the benifiet of the doubt last week, this week I have declared war on him!

[emulatorloo]

1. You will have a hard time convincing me that Dean is anti-gay rights

Given his record and history.

[IndyOp]

2. Howard has F*ed Up for sure... The Truth. We Want Truth.

Locate and live by core moral principles. Don't speak differently to different audiences.

Howard has F*ed Up for sure...

"I misstated the Democratic Party's platform, which does not say that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, but says the Party is committed to full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and leaves the issue to the states to decide," he said in a statement.

"The Democratic Party remains committed to equal protection under the law for all Americans. How we achieve that goal continues to be the subject of a contentious debate, but our Party continues to oppose constitutional amendments that seek to short circuit the debate on how to achieve equality for all Americans."

Not only has the "misspeak" forced Dean to acknowledge it has hurt the party with gays, he now has to face conservative Christians who have begun portraying his original remarks to be a callous attempt to get their votes by misleading them.

I think Dean can recover from this mistake - but I am very disappointed to hear that he has betrayed our principles more than once.

[lyonn]

3. It's the word "marriage" that causes the problems

Using the words civil union or facimile to give g/l the same rights that the word marriage gives people why not accept those terms? The repubs will use the word "marriage" to the maximum to get the dummies fired up. All people want their constitutional rights, so why quibble over the terminalogy? The g/l people may be asking for too much and end up destroying what the dems are trying to accomplish with all of our civil rights that are being lost due to the repubs.

[William769]

4. Asking for to much?

Not being afforded rights (& were not just talking marriage here).

Why thats mighty Democratic of you. :sarcasm:

[lyonn]

5. It is my understanding that most dems are for g/l civil rights

which to me would mean they are entitled to the same rights with a civil union as man/woman marriage without the word "marriage". I'm married but I don't get all excited by the term. It is like a contract. A contract for marriage (civil union), contract for purchase, contract that is covered by the law, protection in other words. Civil Union could give g/l the same rights as the word marriage. Try getting a divorce and you will find out how much of a contract the marriage is. You fight over property, kids, retirement plans, the family dog!.

So, when I say that the g/l might be asking for too much I mean that there are many contracts that are being ignored. G/L need a law protecting their way of life. We all need laws protecting our way of life that is disappearing before our eyes. The NSA issue today is one of sooo many issues the repubs are stripping from us.

[Boomer]

7. You're making a false assumption

"Civil union" is not just a less emotionally charged term for "marriage", it is a DIFFERENT contract. Civil unions do not provide the same coverage and benefits as do marriages.

Civil unions are better than nothing, but they are not equal to a marriage and still leave partners uncovered for a variety of federal benefits and legal protections.

[lyonn]

8. I haven't read any civil union contracts but,

if it is lacking in provisions than that should be attacked and fixed. The divorce law has changed through the years along with probate laws, etc.

[theHandpuppet]

13. Read this and educate yourself on the subject

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/26

[theHandpuppet]

12. Ditto that, 769

... and yet another person whose ignorance of the legal differences between civil unions and marriage doesn't prevent them from speaking up on the subject!

[WhollyHeretic]

14. Separate but equal

Yeah, that idea always works out well.

[Maven]

16. Incorrect.

The other side doesn't want to give us ANY rights, and they're not about to fall for the "in name only" argument either.

Secondly, "marriage" is a legal term written into countless statutes on a state and federal level. There is no way that most laws could be or would be amended to add "civil union" to their provisions. Hence, they would not apply. That's not to mention the centuries of relevant decisional law. Contrary to what you might think, the name *does* matter.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Why should we be the ones to create a new word?

Marriage is and always has been a civil institution in this country, and the matter of equal marriage is a matter of civil law and civil rights. If the bigots want a different word to indicate a religious ceremony, let them be the ones to create it for themselves. Marriage carries many hundreds of rights, some defined by statute and some defined by common law. Any other insitution, no matter how "parallel", will not.

Separate is never equal.

[applegrove]

6. I think its a good statement.

[GymGeekAus]

9. The platform does not mention marriage.

In fact, it sidesteps it with great agility.

Dean did get his statement wrong, but he might not have gotten the party's position wrong. But the party's position is whatever we, as the individual Democrats, agree that it will be.

A compromise. A consensus. A reliance upon majority rule, with temperance towards the minority.

The Democratic way.

[RWM_texdem]

10. WTF?

Forget the message.... why was Dean even talking to that sum bitch anyway? Does anyone really believe it is possible that ANY member of the 700 club nut balls can be converted to progressive ideals and vote for someone other than a right wing radical, faux cHristian, hard core Calvinist candidate?

Ego.... that's my take on it.

[GymGeekAus]

11. My guess? Exposure.

Media access is very restricted for Democrats. If someone invited me to speak on television, I'd jump at the chance. It's an audience, and if even one person says "you know, that made some sense" then you've got a victory on your hands.

Assuming your allies don't rise up and cream you for consorting with the enemy. To which I say "we are all Americans now." Especially given the fact that we have a cabal of lunatics in Washington.

[Maven]

15. You know what's saddest about this episode

It's not the useless pandering in the present, it's what it bodes for the future.

I think all of the GLBT people on DU, hell, in the Democratic Party, were hopeful that there was at least a 50% chance that we'd have an equal rights candidate in '08.

Now, obviously, given this latest trainwreck, we know that the Dem leadership just won't let that happen.

[WhollyHeretic]

17. I'm also saddened by a lot of the responses on DU

There has been a glut of condescending and accusatory posts leveled at the GLBT community on DU.

[GymGeekAus]

18. Can you give some examples?

Or at least clarify what you're saying? Because I don't think I understand what you mean.

Who (in terms of political philosophy) are making these condescending and accusatory posts?

[William769]

21. HOWARD DEAN!

[GymGeekAus]

22. Howard Dean said something about the GLBT DUers?

Or are your passions confusing your perceptions?

[William769]

23. Yes he did.

[WhollyHeretic]

24. Here's one example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1161117

There were a lot of posts in other threads accusing anyone else upset with Dean's marriage comments of being a freeper.

[GymGeekAus]

25. Didn't see much mess in that.

Did see fur flying on both sides, though. And a lot of people in the middle saying "whoa!"

Dean's marriage comments were basically that the Democratic platform said that marriage was between a man and a woman, this comment he made on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson, getting airtime with an audience that probably only knows him as an insane man who yells at people during political rallies.

The actual platform doesn't seem to take a position on gay marriage itself, instead it advocates for equal treatment to gay couples. Most homosexuals read that as "advocates for gay marriage." However, that argument has not been fully played out yet, and the platform is still kind of vague. I would have preferred that Dean not said what he said, and not try to mislead any audience about elements and movements of the Democratic Party--our arguments can stand on their own merit, after all. Calling Dean out on his approach is fine. Not calling him out is fine. Calling for his metaphorical head on a platter, as some have done? I don't see much purpose or value in that, and wouldn't put it past a freeper troll. Of course, you have to evaluate a post in regards to the poster.

There has been more in the news about Dean and his clashes with elements of the GLBT movement. There's that guy he fired a week or so ago, who had the political activist boyfriend that shouted at Dean (I think it was before the other was fired, right?), and an accusation of misconduct. I haven't seen anything more about said misconduct, however. And any political activist who stands up and yells at the minority party that they're "not doing enough" when they actually hold next to no political power, either personally or thru the party, speaks poorly for said political activist. You don't get the elephants to move by yelling at the donkeys. But maybe he had a specific grievance that I don't know about. Anyone hip to that?

This is a big community, apparently. Lots of names coming and going. Lots of variations in passion and reason. One can misinterpret tone in any direction. I think it's just always best to seek clarification before anyone starts bashing away. Clarification would have probably resolved all of these threads without any need to raise an angry voice.

Of course, we can't be clear unless we know why we are saying what we do, and are honest with each other about those (sometimes unrealized) motivations.

[MuseRider]

19. That really blew my mind too.

I was stunned by the calls for focusing on something more important. WTF?