What the hell is Howard Dean doing?

[kevinbgoode]

John Aravosis over at AmericaBLOG.com posted that Howard Dean sat down for a nice chat with CBN News, the "news" organization for Pat Robertson's 700 Club. In his attempt to show how the Democrats can appeal with the cuckoo-bananas crowd (and yes, that is exactly how I view anyone associated with Herr Robertson) Dean talked about all of the things Democrats have in common with conservative "christians."

Problem is, he also apparently misquoted the Democratic platform from 2004 about same-sex marriage:

“Well, let's discuss abortion first,” Dean said. “I think what we have in common with the evangelical community is that we ought to have a lot fewer abortions than we do. The abortions have actually gone up in the last few years. We should have far fewer abortions…we ought to make sure that there's not just abstinence, but family planning used to get rid of abortion, and that is something that we share. Now the difference is that we don't think making criminals out of doctors and women is a good idea.”

He added, “The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says. I think where we may take exception with some religious leaders is that we believe in inclusion, that everybody deserves to live with dignity and respect, and that equal rights under the law are important.”

This little pandering error has caused one national GLBT organization to already return a $5,000 check from the DNC, according to reports on AmericaBLOG.

It is also wrong - or at least appears to me to be from the statements from the Democratic platform in 2004:

"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 definited 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."

You can read the report from CBN at:

http://cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/060510a.asp


And AmericaBLOG is located at:

http://www.americablog.blogspot.com


Now look Howard, I certainly agree with the idea of "inclusiveness," since after all gay Americans ARE Americans, and there is no excuse to expect us to be perpetually "single" just because a bunch of evangelical crazies demand that someone else make sacrifices for their "sacred" and personally-held CHOSEN lifestyles. But when you misquote the damned Democratic platform, you look like a pandering fool and the Democratic party is rapidly marginalizing the support of many gays with this kind of crap.

If Democrats want to cozy up to a bunch of lunatics, then at least do the gay community the courtesy of telling US that you only think of us as some kind of money-and-vote mining operation.

I am now going to have an even more difficult time choosing candidates in the midterms - it is bad enough that I already know most Republicans are beholden to the christo-fascist mafia, but I'll be damned if I'm forced to scrutinize every Democrat the same way too. This is the kind of stuff which makes me start to think that its time to put both parties on notice that running our government is not a damned entitlement - nor that you defend the rights of all Americans by pandering. We've had enough of that crap with the Republican party.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Strong need to accellerate stem cell research to grow some spines

for our so-called Democrat leaders. Arggggh.

[katinmn]

2. Maybe they changed it without telling everyone.

:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. I Trust In Dean And Think He's Doing Great.

I don't mind how he said it at all. This is politics, after all. We need to win in 06, and to do so we don't just need to nationalize, but need to appeal to the masses. There is strategy to politics. I think he did a great job.

[kevinbgoode]

7. Well, let me put it this way. . .

I've watched members of a same-sex couple be forcibly buried 150 miles apart from each other. And I remember when the stupid-ass fundies in Missouri went crazy demanding their own constitutional amendment. At the time I read an account of a gay man who buried his partner in a cemetary according to his own stated wishes, only to have the legally recognized "family" come along, go into court and have the damned body exhumed and moved to an undisclosed location.

Why does this crap happen? (Along with legalized property theft, the tossing of partners out into the street, and partners denied access to both funeral arrangements and attending the funerals?) It happens because our politicians are more interested in protecting the deeply-held, chosen religious belief lifestyles of distant relatives or strangers rather than uphold the dignity of OUR lives.

It might be reassuring to consider it a political strategy, but I'm in no mood to support anyone who will not stand up to these lunatics. And how strategic is it if he just lost the support and had a donation returned from one of the largest national gay organizations for this maneuver and that remark?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Plenty Strategic If He Gains 10 Times As Much From Other Donations.

Hence, the term strategy.

I believe in Dean and trust what he's doing. There have been times here or there I may not agree with him perfectly, but overall I think he's doing great. He's going to help us win in November and I'm proud of him for his efforts and intellect.

[kevinbgoode]

11. Well, pass the collection plate to the christo-fascists then

and our community won't need to bother asking why when they demand certain pandering policy statements that deliberately ostracize us. I don't intend to become some Log Cabin Democrat.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. LOL

Ok you're entitled to the dramatic reaction, if that's how you feel. But I think the strategy is sound and I think Dean is doing great. I feel the same about Kerry, Pelosi, Feingold and many other Dems as well. Eye on the prize. Taking back congress in 06. Period.

[kevinbgoode]

18. I'll explain that to an old friend of mine next month

when I visit his grave on the anniversary of his death. Maybe in 50 years someone will be able to move his body back to where it was intended to rest...if the Democrats have permission from Pat Robertson's heirs.

[Bill McBlueState]

58. yes, apparently that's key

We need permission from radical cleric Pat Robertson before we can fight for civil rights. Have to go on his show and pander to his sorry, immoral ass.

That sucks about your friend. :(

[MuseRider]

15. That is exactly

what I see happening in the community.

[donco6]

44. Wow. That pretty much says it all, I guess.

So, for ten times the donations, we throw the gays under the bus. Yeah, that's a "strategy" to support.

[Maven]

99. Yes, I'm sure 700 Club viewers were rushing to donate to the DNC

after Dean's appearance. :eyes:

[donco6]

35. So, abandoning principles in favor of "politics" is OK.

IMO, that's just what's wrong with both parties. No one really holds to any principles - it's all maneuvering and quid pro quo. It's sickening. I haven't been supporting the DNC, though through the last national election I gave almost $2000 to the party. I get called at least once a week for a donation. They won't be getting another dime from me.

[katinmn]

37. Bingo. I don't think pandering or saying anything for votes is acceptable.

Particularly not acceptable if you have to slam one community in order to make points with another.

Sure, the Repukes do it all the time but Dems should hold themselves to a higher standard.

But that's just an idealist talking.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. And I Don't Think Allowing The Republicans To Retain Control Of Congress

is acceptable.

To each their own priority though...

[donco6]

43. What's the POINT????

When the Dems are willing to abandon right for wrong - who the hell cares if they regain power? They won't be worth supporting anyway!!! Jeez, what the hell is so hard to understand about that?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. What The Hell Is So Hard To Understand About The Fact That If

you don't support democrats and only want to smear them, that this isn't the site to do it on. In fact, it explicity says such in the rules.

And the democrats haven't abandoned anything. I'm damn proud of their principles in fact.

[kevinbgoode]

53. So you are the one defining democratic principles?

And the rest of us are supposed to just go-with-the-flow at the political direction of a single head of the DNC, without comment, disagreement or saying anything about being thrown under the bus? You make the sacrifices. Have Dean go appeal to the KKK . . .you know, and the Moonies, and he could indicate the party agrees that everyone should be included but certain racial minorities could lighten their skin if they moved to the North Pole for a couple generations. Then he should drop by the Concerned "Women" for America and the American Family Association and tell them that we have some things in common with them as well. . .after all, we believe in inclusion but that employers like Ford shouldn't be pandering to the gays who can't be married. Then he can just appear in front of the Traditional Values Coalition, speak at Liberty University, and proclaim that by "inclusion" he only meant that gay families should not be seen and not heard.

[donco6]

55. There's nothing in the rules about . . .

disagreeing with wrongheaded statements made by the chair of the DNC. Go ahead and alert me if you're concerned. I'm not worried.

[katinmn]

45. People over party, man

Ideologues of any stripe are dangerous.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. And So Is Narrow Mindedness.

[donco6]

52. And more ad hominem.

Scooby snack anyone?

[MuseRider]

84. Too late

I'm full up to my eyebrows with Scooby snacks today. :hi:

[katinmn]

54. It is not narrow minded to care about protecting rights of others

I have the right to think for myself and question and tell leaders when they make a mistake.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. Want A Scooby Snack?

Hooray for you.

Dean is doing a great job in my opinion.

[donco6]

42. Your profile is exactly correct.

But I believe we've had this discussion before.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. Sorry To See That Was The Best You Could Do.

Doesn't say I'm wrong though does it.

And I'll be damned if I listen to someone who smears democrats openly and doesn't support them, as in your post above. So tah tah.

[donco6]

51. You're obviously wrong, but not worth rubbing your nose in it.

And I continue to support Democrats - just not the DNC. You go ahead and stick to your princi . . . er . . . whatever it is you stick to.

[libnnc]

69. If you were in my shoes, would you not be just a little pissed?

Will you recieve your spouses' SS benefits when they die?

I won't.

Do you get to go through the *thrill* of being passed and punted like a political football every fucking election year?

I do.

My partner works for the government (FAA). She gets health insurance. I don't get that coverage. We pay out of pocket for mine. Do you pay out of pocket for your wife's insurance?

Have you had to go out of your way to retain a lawyer's services to write your will/living will because the state doesn't recognize your long term relationship?

We have.

Do you get looked at funny because you and your wife go out to dinner together at a romantic, quiet restaurant?

We have.

Do you feel aprehension in discussing the fact that you even HAVE a spouse to begin with for fear of ridicule?

In the past, I have.

But we should just play to Ma and Pa Kettle's bigotry, right? Fuck what's right and just.

[MuseRider]

86. Good post.

That sort of puts it right out there doesn't it?

[Maven]

101. Of course he wouldn't be pissed!

Strategy would still be his most important concern, even if Dean had kissed up to *his* enemy!

Right?

Right...?

[skipos]

4. They gay marriage statement bothers me but

I am glad he is trying to explain to ANYONE why they should vote for dems. Who gives a crap if idiots go out and vote for dems because Dean convinced them to? As long as he is honest about it (and I guess that is the issue here). I am going to explore this further.

[Ava]

5. Dean is being a smart politician, that's what he's doing!

:eyes: sheesh. trust the man! he know's what he's doing!

[tishaLA]

109. So lying about the party's platform makes one

a smart politician?

Sheesh and :eyes: indeed.

[madfloridian]

6. These attacks are becomng unceasing since the firing at the DNC

It is going on at every blog. Dean is keeping his mouth shut about it. But you can not go around bad mouthing the boss and not expect something to happen. No one can do that. It makes working conditions unpleasant.

[kevinbgoode]

9. Perhaps. .. but it is a little different when he gets into bed with

people who believe I have no rights...and then leads them to believe that "inclusion" really means "second-class status." If there is one thing we've seen with the Republicans, these christ-fascists don't come without some hefty demands - like pre-screening Supreme Court nominees and free rein to attack us.

[madfloridian]

13. So you agree it might be sort of organized?

Maybe he is having some very tough decisions to make right now. He has to walk a fine line on many issues with many groups.

The attacks that are going on right now from that community are going to hurt all of us in the party.

If I spread ugly things about my boss when I was teaching, I would have been in trouble as well.

We don't always get our way in this world.

[kevinbgoode]

16. What does that have to do with his statement on CBN?

Don't change the subject here. . .this isn't about that stupid firing and appointing someone else - I could give a crap about that nonsense. And you don't consider misquoting an important political party platform statement an attack upon our community, particularly on the broadcasting network of a group which believes we deserve no civil rights at all?

[madfloridian]

20. I don't know the answer.

I wish I knew the whole answer, but I don't. I guess you know Bill Clinton went after him for the civil unions bill....one of the reasons he lost in Iowa. Made calls to his backers, said he had forfeited the right to be president. He can not win for losing, so I guess he is having to make some tough decisions. I don't like the CBN, but I have been reading some of the attacks at the blogs, and I don't like them either.

The attacks are getting out of control, though. Talk to the others who are not standing up either. I don't know the answer.

I am not being ugly, and I am trying to see both sides. I am afraid of our daughters losing their right to contraception, and I fear there is a Taliban mentality in this nation toward women as well now. As a woman, that bothers me.

Dean is not perfect, he is trying to win in November. He will make some mistakes along the way.

[maddezmom]

97. I'm confused, Dean went on the 700 Club because he was being

bad mouthed on Blogs? Is what you saying here?

[Boojatta]

8. Hmmm

If (some) Democrats want to cozy up to a bunch of lunatics, then at least do the gay community the courtesy of telling US that you only think of us as some kind of money-and-vote mining operation.

Does anybody else get that courtesy? This might be one example of genuinely equal treatment.

[Disturbed]

14. "As long as he is honest about it."

Sadly, he wasn't. Howard Dean needs to correct that, now.

[Patsy Stone]

17. Right now and in 2004

federal law (DOMA) says it's between a man and a woman. The Democratic platform does not dispute that fact. Thus, by default, agrees with it, which allows him to say what he did to mollify the people he's pandering to. It further says that it's in the states' hands and it should remain so. Seven states choose to recognize same-sex marriage.

Also, the platform says that they reject a Federal marriage amendment. It says they want equal rights for everyone.

If any case reaches the SCOTUS, any law which doesn't meet the equal protection challenge will be struck down. Some people can't be more equal than others, legally. Once that happens, all states will be made to recognize the legal aspect of marriage (same or opposite sex) and not be able to pass judgment based on gender without suffering threats of a discrimination suit. The SCOTUS will never be able to make all states swallow their stupidity and force them to call this recognition "marriage" or not. It's all about the semantics of the word "marriage". It scares Pat's crowd.

Also, remember that Kerry said it he felt it was between a man and a woman while he was campaigning. In effect, once he said it, it became the platform. But he, too, is for equal rights for all.

Walk softly and carry a big stick. Don't be afraid.

[kweerwolf]

19. I'll let my bank account do my talking.

I printed out copies of the BlogAmerica article and will send it along with a note explaining why I'm am no longer donating any of my money to the DNC next time I get a mailing. While I will continue to donate to Democratic politicians individually, the DNC will get no money from me as long as it has a slimeball turncoat for its chairman.

Too bad the Democratic Party lost the passion it once had and settles for third-rate opportunistic political hacks like Howie and Hillary who pander to the enemies.

[madfloridian]

21. Maybe all of we who are women should stop donating as well.

Because they are not loud enough about our rights.

That will really solve the problem.

[kweerwolf]

22. You never know. Give it a try.

I have a hunch the only time you'll really have the DNC's attention is when you grab Howie's tiny little balls and squeeze real hard. And what better way to do some figuritive ball-squeezing than let him know you're sending your money to candidates who actually have backbone.

[madfloridian]

23. Now that was ugly to say.

Not funny at all.

[kweerwolf]

25. I wasn't trying to be funny.

I was trying to point out that while we fight for our rights, we get sold out by our spineless leaders because it's "the pragmatic approach."

Sorry if it offends your delicate sensibilities, but being pragmatic at the cost of any group might best be described (so as not to risk offending you) bovine efluvia.

[donco6]

39. Yes.

"being pragmatic at the cost of any group . . . "

Exactly. We get thrown under the bus, AND told that for the loss of our support, the DNC will gain 10X as many donations?

bovine effluvia, indeed.

[katinmn]

26. Since you brought it up...let's talk about his abortion statement

Dean said: “I think what we have in common with the evangelical community is that we ought to have a lot fewer abortions than we do. The abortions have actually gone up in the last few years. We should have far fewer abortions…we ought to make sure that there's not just abstinence, but family planning used to get rid of abortion, and that is something that we share. Now the difference is that we don't think making criminals out of doctors and women is a good idea.”

I hope that by engaging evangelicals Dean believes they will be open to self education about abortion.

The number of abortions have risen among poor people, but they've declined among the more affluent. That's because state and federal family planning clinics have been cut or closed entirely, thanks in good part to the evangelicals who preach abstinence over contraception. Rich people with health care insurance and a liveable income can afford good contraception. They don't have to visit community women's clinics or fight past the asses who protest in front of Planned Parenthood offices.

If evangelicals (or Democratic leadership for that matter) are serious about slowing abortions, they better support women's easy access to contraception because people will never quit having sex. And for the budget-minded, contraception is a helluva lot cheaper than feeding, clothing, vaccinating, and educating a child their parents can't afford.

I think the Dems are backing down on reproductive rights for women in a big way and that's bothersome.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/04/AR2006050400820.html?sub=AR

As a result of the growing disparity, women living in poverty are now almost four times more likely to become pregnant unintentionally than women of greater means, the study found.

Asked what was driving the trends, the authors noted that some state and federal reproductive health programs have been cut or made more restrictive in recent years. State and federal programs have increasingly focused on abstinence rather than contraception, and some analysts have argued that the shift is leading to less use of contraceptives and more unintended pregnancies.

Based on nationwide data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics and other sources, the researchers found that from 1994 through 2001, the rate of unplanned pregnancies increased by almost 30 percent for women below the federal poverty line -- now defined as $16,000 annually for a family of three. For women in families comfortably above poverty, the rate of unplanned pregnancies fell by 20 percent during the same period.

The abortion rate also rose among poor women while declining among the more affluent.

[madfloridian]

28. Then anyone not satisfied with how he is doing...

could just not donate. These attacks are going to continue, they are not going to stop.

They are furious with him. Now, since the stance the DNC is taking is the same stance Clinton took "safe, legal, and rare"...then maybe we should all just stop our donations.

I don't agree with it fully, but I am using a little snideness or sarcasm or something to make a point.

Did you notice the WP is blasting him tonight as well? Did you notice the DLC has a new book out on National Security?

It is just beginning. The DC folks do NOT want him as chair. The gay community does NOT want him as chair since the firing there at the DNC, and the attacks will continue. They will get worse.

So if we don't like it we can either stand with the party, or leave.

[kevinbgoode]

30. This member of the gay community doesn't care about the firing

but I DO care about being treated as a second-class citizen. My community is not an embarassment to the Democratic Party and my life and relationships sure as hell aren't damaging anyone. Either we as a Party believe and stand on that or we don't.

[katinmn]

34. I'm not gay but I certainly stand with you.

Repeating the Republican matra "marraige is between a man and a woman" is a cave-in. It gives acceptance to bigotry. Anyone who has been watching the zealousness of the gay marraige amendment supporters should be concerned.

[MuseRider]

24. That is pretty much

what I told them when they called, that we were not giving money to them anymore but to candidates that we believed in. They argued then paused, started to chuckle and said, "Oh, you are from Kansas, no big loss." (that was the sentiment, the exact wording I forget but they sure did not think that money or support from Kansas was needed I suppose) With an attitude like that it will be a cold day in hell before I support them. Meanwhile I have sent money to some really strong people and feel very good about it.

:hi: kweerwolf!

[donco6]

36. That's a great idea.

I get appeals all the time. I'm going to do exactly what you've suggested.

[LSK]

77. so you want the GOP to retain control this November?

That money funds Dem candidates at a local level, funds the party in every precinct, funds lawyers to contest election results, funds pollsters, funds protecting your vote nationwide come election day. You know how Kerry lost in Ohio in 04?? He lost is in many ways such as decisions on how many voter boxes go to what precinct, discouraging voters of the right to vote, denying voters, fudging recounts. I want party reps involved in every step of the election process. That costs money to train people, hire lawyers, etc. Not supporting the DNC hurts the party in more ways than you can possibly know and only helps the GOP win.

[kevinbgoode]

82. No....but do I want to elect Democrats who are going to. . .

end up owing the 700 Club just as much as the Republicans do?

[katinmn]

111. and remeber it also funds party members who vote for this:

H.R.4297 Tax breaks for the wealthy during war time and record deficits. Support the candidate but be sure you know where your money is going!

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll135.xml

Barrow
Bean
Boren
Case
Cramer
Cuellar
Davis (TN)
Ford
Gordon
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Peterson (MN)
Salazar

[Captain Hilts]

27. He's preaching to someone other than the choir. Good on him. nt

[NYCGirl]

29. What's he doing? He's cutting the GOP off at the knees, that's what.

Because vaporizing the GOP's wedge issues is a good thing.

[madfloridian]

31. Let's get this out in the open.

Howard Dean has written op eds, made statements to the leaders of the gay community, he has gone to see some of the groups and met with them. He has done just about all he can do except give in on the word "marriage."

Since he fired someone there at the DNC because their partner was sending letters around telling people not to donate to the DNC, the attacks have been merciless.

He has more than received his share of grief for not actually supporting the term "gay marriage", yet he is one of the strongest supporters of their total inclusion into the Democratic community.

One of the biggest reasons he lost support was that Bill Clinton was working behind his back early in the campaign in 03. Here is what he was doing. I am excerpting it and leaving out a name or two to keep peace here.

On Page 113 of his book "You Have the Power, Dean says:

"It remains to be seen, too, just how much my support for the civil unions bill will hurt my chances to reshape Democratic politics. Some pretty important Democrats have shown they think it might. When former president Clinton was trying to drum up support (for another candidate), just prior to (that candidate's) entry into the presidential race a year ago, he called a friend in a large city and said "I need you to be for so and so." The friend demurred. (sentence left out)

The friend told Clinton he was Dean supporter. "Howard Dean", Clinton said "forfeited his right to run for president when he signed the civil unions bill. He can't win."

It was a rare mistake for the president. The supporter was gay and called us to tip us off.

Page 113 You Have the Power

For a man who is trying to fair to most everyone, trying to rebuild a party that has been in corporate hands for years....he is going to be the brunt of attacks. People don't want change. Clinton did not want change...and he played a big role in Dean's loss.

Time to be open. Dean can not win for losing on this issue.

[indigo32]

32. WTF

Ya know I've been a huge fan of Howard Dean for a long time. I went to Iowa for him. I've listened and supported him since. I believe in the idea that we should try and reach out. But I'm sorry...I 100% certain I'll see pigs fly before I see CBN viewers vote democratic anytime in the near future. That network, and all their churches are far too busy telling them not to.
So why would he piss off the GLBT (my) community by doing this?

[Tiggeroshii]

33. It doesn't really say

The Democratic platform for gay marriage isn't really a platform. It's not clear either way as to what marriage is defined as and could probably pass as what Dean said. He is being tricky, but also a smart politician. I think we need to stand by him as he works at getting the Dems Congress and bring justice on the truly crucial issues -war, criminal incompetence, and corruption. Those are the issues we can win on right now. Dean knows that and so should we.

[LSK]

38. can I nominate this for the worst instead of greatest???

The part about not voting for Dems this November clinched it. So basically you want NO CHANGE and more of the GOP rubber stamp
Congress and nothing happening to Bush.

THANKS FOR NOTHING.

:nuke: :grr:

[kevinbgoode]

47. I didn't say I wouldn't vote for Dems this November

but it is rather obvious that I'm going to have to scrutinize them for stealth candidates from the christo-fascist 700 Club/Falwellian/Dobsonian tribe now too. Wooing 700 club members to the Party also means having to make commitments to them, and since a large part of their agenda is the elimination of my civil rights and the criminalization of my LIFE, you are damned right I'm going to scrutinize Dem candidates.

Some may think Dean's actions on CBN are just a good political strategy, but I say that there is little prinicple attached to appearing on a network owned by a lunatic . . .a LUNATIC. . .who regularly utters outrageous statements like murdering the president of Venezuela, nuking the State Department, etc. I'm not about to make any more sacrifices for anyone else's damned comfort, especially their chosen religious lifestyle. Is there some reason why Democrats are afraid they cannot win in November without pandering to the 700 Club?

[LSK]

60. count me in the camp of it being just political strategy

I see it as driving a further wedge between the GOP and the fundie base. Give them something else to consider. They are already starting to see themselves as betrayed by Bush and the GOP. Why not go in there and do some sabotage.

[kevinbgoode]

66. And there isn't any way that wedge can be driven

without making 15 million of us sacrifices? I don't see what is productive about a strategy that further alienates one group of supporters in favor of embracing a group of wackos. This was CBN News, for godsakes...why don't we just endorse the Family Research Council and tell gays they were never taken seriously anyway.

[katinmn]

49. You want to be the party that welcomes fundies but not gays??

[madfloridian]

I was a so-called "fundie" once. I resent the term.

I believe in equal rights and civil unions, but I do not feel comfortable with the words gay marriage. Most in our area don't.

[Bill McBlueState]

61. some people don't feel comfortable with interracial marriage

They had to get over it.

[madfloridian]

64. I don't mind it.

I believe in equal rights for everyone, but I think the word marriage should be used when referring to a man or woman. I think civil unions give equal rights.

So now all of you can go after me as well.

[kevinbgoode]

68. What do you think a "marriage" in front of a justice of the peace is?

It's a "civil union." Making a contract with the state, not God, not the church, not the 700 Club. . .the state. We have to change the name to make someone else comfortable, and yet heteros will still be considered "married" when THEY go to the justice of the peace for the same ceremony?

It's a state contract.

[madfloridian]

70. You know exactly what I mean.

Most people may understand the stances are similar, but they will not go with the word marriage unless it is man and woman.

I was raised in the church, and I understand that view. I don't like being made fun of either.

[kevinbgoode]

75. Well, when someone buries your spouse 150 miles away

from you without your permission or consent, you'll have something more substantial to be upset about in this situation. "Most people" are uncomfortable about the symbolism of a "word" - yet they are perfectly comfortable looting our estates, our graves, making our health decisions. . .all because a "church" told them we were sinners.

Of course, we don't see this treatment of child abusers, pedophiles, adulterers or divorcees. . .the church doesn't operate "marriage" nor does it provide any benefits or legal responsibilities of the institution. The State does. And every constitutional amendment being passed (except in Oregon) has been used to outlaw even the simplest health benefit to anyone who isn't "married."

[katinmn]

62. Sounds like you are one who is comfortable with the new arrangement

As for me, I hope we beat the crap out of the traitorous centrists in November. Progressive Democrats, independents, Greens -- whatever it takes.

[donco6]

67. Straight people have destroyed the sanctity of marriage.

In what possible way can gays bring any more harm to "marriage" than you straight people have already done? After all, it's the observance of the vow that makes marriage sacred, but straights break it with impunity any chance they get. And then we're denied access because straights "don't feel comfortable?" What the hell is that? I don't feel comfortable with straight people getting married in a cheap Vegas chapel on a drunken binge and then getting divorced the next day, either. But I wouldn't put any roadblocks in front of it. It's not hurting ME any.

[katinmn]

72. Well said.

People really need to look inside themselves to recognize their feeling of "discomfort" for what it is.

[madfloridian]

73. Let's put it this way.

If the gay community is willing to destroy a man like Howard Dean who is really sincere is trying to help the party.....then I will be honest.

I don't support gay marriage. I never have. I do support equal rights and civil unions, but the word marriage should be man and woman.

You want to take him down? Go ahead. Just remember these attacks started when Jeff Gannon went to work for The Blade. Coincidence? Maybe.

[donco6]

76. From what basis can you support that?

"the word marriage should be man and woman." Why? I just don't get it. There's no logic to it. Except perhaps if you believe that gay relationships truly are second class.

[madfloridian]

79. So you are being intolerant of my beliefs? That I was raised with?

Oh, my,that is just not fair.

[kevinbgoode]

85. You chose those beliefs. . .

just like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Don Wildmon does. Chose. For yourself. I just draw the line when someone else's CHOSEN beliefs require ME to make sacrifices throughout my whole life in order to accommodate THEIR choices.

[donco6]

91. Of course it's fair!

When your sole argument seems to be, "I believe it because I believe it" - that's just not good enough! Sorry, but your baseless belief is keeping me from enjoying the rights that you take for granted.

Example: My partner and I have been together for 10 years. We own two houses, three cars, other property and stuff. We went to get cemetery plots in his family plot in a little mountain town in Colorado. He was able to get a plot, but I was denied, because I'm not "family." We had to get an attorney and fight the cemetery for over a YEAR to get them to sell me a plot next to my partner.

Now, obviously, if I were straight, that wouldn't have been an issue. But you seem to think it's A-OK. I just don't get it.

[kevinbgoode]

80. Don't even go there. Jeff Gannon has ZERO respect

among the gay community. Just because a stupid publisher was dumb enough to give him a job (and the reasons are speculative) doesn't mean he has or holds any sway or support in our community. Most of us loathe that non-journalistic ho.

And I don't care if you don't support "gay marriage." Maybe I don't support YOUR marriage...shouldn't I have been asked about my opinion of it before letting you get a special buffet of discounted benefits?

[dsc]

108. I have to say this is rich

You, who would force people to sell things they don't wish to sell because you wish to have access to the product, think it is reasonable for others not to have a right to marry because you are "uncomfortable with the word". Never mind that you don't have to see, perform, or in any other way be involved in, the marriage. Just what is your standard for the role of government?

[LSK]

57. right, like thats an accurate description

:eyes:

[jonnyblitz]

56. Joshua Frank was right. nt

[Jeffersons Ghost]

59. I saw the interview

and thought DEAN handled it well...

btw, Robertson didn't bash us as bad as he has in the past... I'll take ALL the votes he wants to send our way. I'd climb right into bed with the DEVIL to beat these crooks and liars.

[LSK]

95. did Dean say that about the 2004 platform?

[LittleClarkie]

63. Eh, so he's for civil unions as opposed to marriage

So what else is new?

[madfloridian]

65. He always has been.

These attacks are about something else entirely.

[kevinbgoode]

71. Don't define for me what I'm talking about here. . .

These "attacks" are about a community BEING "attacked" by the leader of the DNC who chose to appear on a "news" program operated by the most unscrupulous, unprincipled barnyard televangelista empire this country has ever seen. Next we'll see him speaking to the KKK as their marching against same-sex marriage so he can reach out to them and explain the Democratic position.

[madfloridian]

74. Don't define me then. I am important too, even though...

I was once a "fundie", one of the evil ones.

Intolerance is intolerance.

[kevinbgoode]

90. Unless you can haul out some practical or material damage

you'll be suffering, you don't have to suffer one thing from these policies about marriage. Nothing. A contradiction of a chosen belief. Spousal health decisions? Nope. Burial rights? Nope. Being barred from your spouse's funeral? Nope.

How would you care to define that?

[leftstreet]

78. "..shouldn't govern if you're ignoring a whole section of the population."

WTF?

He says this AFTER he tells CBN:

“The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says."

"Even if we didn't even need evangelicals to win, we ought to be communicating to the evangelical community for two reasons. First, you shouldn't , and , you're not going to do a good job. You shouldn't govern if you're ignoring a whole section of the population."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/060510a.asp

[Jeffersons Ghost]

81. did ANYONE here actually see the interview?

or are some of you just using this thread as an excuse to bash Dean?

[leftstreet]

83. You can read the transcript at the link

[Jeffersons Ghost]

88. he ducked the issue just like he was supposed to do...

instead of losing votes If we're discussing Dean, how do you think his platform compares to Kerry's?

Howard Dean: "I can tell you what our agenda is for the '06 elections, according to myself Senator Reid, Leader Pelosi and others."

"One, we want honesty and openness back in government again.
Two, we want a strong national defense, first of all, based on telling the truth to our citizens and our soldiers before we send troops abroad to defend America. Three, we want American jobs that will stay in America using energy independence as a new industry to create millions of construction and manufacturing jobs.
Four, we want a health-care system that works for everybody, just like 36 other countries have in the world.
And, five, we want a strong public education system so we can have optimism and opportunity back in America.
I think that's a pretty good agenda, and I think it's one that can win it for us in '06."

Senator John Kerry stays within Democratic guidlines, while expanding the Dean plan to TEN POINTS:


(1) Obey the law, and Protect civil rights in this country.
(2) Tell the truth, and tell it to Americans all the time.
(3) Fire the incompetents, and Restore competence and integrity to Washington.
(4) Chase the money changers from the temples of democracy, and
reclaim it for the grassroots of this nation.
(5) Bring our troops home from Iraq.
(6) Find Osama bin Laden, and Secure our ports and homeland.
(7) Stop subsidizing “Big Oil,” and start investing in energy alternatives.
(8) Make access to affordable healthcare a right and not a privilege for ALL Americans.
(9) Reduce the deficit, and Respect work over wealth.
(10) Invest in education, and Fight for American jobs that restore the American dream.

[leftstreet]

92. and you're ducking the issue

Apparently he stated in his interview that the Dem 2004 platform defines "marriage" as something between one man and one woman.

The issue is that his statement is pissing off some Dem voters.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

96. any Dem with half a brain will dodge this issue in a public forum

I mean, DUH... what are we doing here? Do you want Republicans in office? they CERTAINLY don't dodge the gay marriage issue and instead present threads on it in public forums.

[leftstreet]

100. Right. But Dean went public with the issue

The REAL "centrist" and "moderate" voters/non-voters out there don't give a shit about gay marriage. In their minds, gay marriage, abortion, and flag-burning amendments have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF GAS.

If the Dems could get a clue, they'd realize the voters they SHOULD be targeting don't have the slightest interest in preventing gays from marrying, women from making private choices, or flags from burning.

It's just soooooooo DLC for Dean to pop up on a religious program. Hillary I would have understood. It's quite surprising, that's all. Most thought Dean was a progressive Dem.

:shrug:

[Zhade]

87. It's not like there isn't homophobia/anti-GLBT bigotry on the left.

I've experienced it myself.

And it's fucking pathetic. Anyone who exercises such backward thinking is not as liberal as they like to think they are.

[WilliamPitt]

89. *cough* Welcome to a really important election year *cough*

Bring a helmet.

Pssst...peeling even 10% of the CBN goobers off the GOP in districts with close races is worth any bullshit you saw on that show. If he got 2%, it was worth it.

Remember: he was doing it for John Conyers. Dem victory in House = Conyers as Judiciary chairman.

I will eat through boxcars of shit to see that happen. Dean kissing a little fundie ass ain't nothing.

[libnnc]

93. But Will, why the 700 Club?

Why not Robert (Grab Ass) Schuler's show? Or Joel (the forgotten Osmond) Osteen?

The effing 700 Club?!? At least Grab Ass Schuler didn't accuse us of causing 9/11! :wtf:

[leftstreet]

102. Ambien maybe? He was asleep and won't remember it tomorrow?

I hope. I hope.

:rofl:

[LSK]

94. did anyone ACTUALLY SEE this interview???

And video footage?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

98. I did and thought DEAN handled the issue VERY well.

I wonder what these other idiots expected him to preach in Freeper Church... I think this thread is Troll central.

[LSK]

103. did he really say that bit about the 2004 Dem Platform?

[libnnc]

104. About this thread being "troll central"...

I'm a lesbian. I don't like a tee-vee network accusing my community of causing 9/11, molesting children, killing kittens, etc. I certainly don't appreciate my political party leader's sitting down with the president of said network who made said outrageous comments-- to "chat" about "my" rights--or lack there-of. I'm no troll, honey. I'm a pissed off dyke. Deal, mmmm-kay?

[Autonomy]

105. Perhaps I am being a literalist

but I see Dean making a historically inaccurate statement. Inaccurate, but historical. There's no news here. What's all the hubbub? We all know he's spinning the Dems' platform for the fundy audience. There's no actual change of any platform here, even if he had been right about what that platform was.

I can understand feeling marginalized by an anti-gay marriage statement, but that's not what this was. The Democratic Party maintains the position that it's a state issue. No news there. What's the fuss?

[Guaranteed]

110. Good post. nt

[eridani]

106. The thing about Dean is--

--that if you send him what you wrote, he'll pay attention to it.

[Maven]

107. Let me spell out the broader issue for the "strategy" people here

These are HARDCORE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES.

They will NEVER VOTE for anyone that supports reproductive choice.

They will NEVER VOTE for anyone that supports anything but persecution of GLBT people.

They will NEVER VOTE for any party that supports equal rights for politically unpopular groups of any stripe.

In short, they will never accede to the values our party is supposed to represent.

Any attempt to make "inroads" into this territory is misguided and counterproductive--all it does is push our party away from a strong position that honestly reflects what we believe. In short, it just undercuts Dems' ability to actually LEAD on these issues.

That is what pisses off GLBT people (and allies) on this thread most: not only is this more of the same "throw the gays under the bus" crap we've dealt with in the past, our leaders don't even seem to get by now that trying to appeal to people like this DOESN'T EVEN HELP US WIN.

I see a lot of blindness in this thread on the part of self-styled "pragmatists" who fail to see the problem with a cynical strategy that has FAILED again and again. And even more disappointing is the refusal to question our leaders, even as they repeat the mistakes of elections past.

Those of you licking your chops for donations from the CBN crowd might be well advised to consider the potential loss of support from *other* organizations that have stood by the DNC and helped finance them for years and years with little return on investment. Then ask yourself: Is this progress?

In any event, have the courtesy not to tell your fellow DUers that they shouldn't be upset that someone whom they respect, who is supposed to represent and defend them, actually went out of his way, into enemy territory, to repeat exclusionary rhetoric for no good reason whatsoever.

[donco6]

112. Couldn't have said it better.

Thanks, Harvey Korman.