Dean slams gay marriage on the 700 Club

What in the world was Dean doing on the 700 club?

http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=6713

Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean has contradicted his party's platform and infuriated gay rights advocates by saying the party's platform states "marriage is between a man and a woman."

"The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says marriage is between a man and a woman," Dean said May 10 during a "700 Club" program hosted by conservative Christian leader Pat Robertson on his Christian Broadcasting Network.

That statement contradicts the Democratic National Committee's official stance, which was adopted 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," the platform says.

Gay organizations were quick to criticize Dean, saying this is just the latest in a series of gaffes the former Vermont governor has made on gay issues.

Neither Dean nor a spokesperson for the DNC could be reached for comment.

but this was dumb, dumb, dumb and deserving of rebuke.

He could have spoken about civil liberties violations by Bush (RealID, Patriot, etc), possibly wone a few over. Or have spoken about deficits and China (they buy much of our goverment debit). Would have gone over very well and posioned the well against Bush and the Repubs.

Now, that would have been a gutsy thing to do, but instead, Dean chooses to stroke the bigotry and intolerance of Robertson's dwindling TV audience.

I wouldn't be surprised if Dean decided to post at Free Republic to tell Freepers that he shares some common values with them.

It IS/WAS the democratic platform like it or not. Howard IS doing HAS done as much or more than most politicians you can name in order to bring about equality for gay unions.

Yet here you sit in judgment of him .

This guy is working his ass off to get a change in leadership so that things like gay unions can be afforded the same rights as any other union. I am quite sure he finds Pat Robertson every bit as repugnant as you do (Hell he has said so). Yet he swallows his bile and gets on this show in the hopes that he may be able to turn just a few of these fundies watching it from the dark side so that we can get rid of the Asshats we have running this country now and you want to bash him cause he told the truth?

What the Fuck ever!

Howard has had this same exact position for as long as I have been watching him (read way early in the primaries) He believes in Equal rights for gay unions but doesn't believe the government should be trying to legislate what churches can or cant call marriage. That position is one that can be passed. But I suppose you can keep trying to shove gay marriage down Pat robertsons throat in the hope that he will finally see your side. Good luck with that

I'll stick with Howard.

channels and starts speaking the same language as Pat Robertson.

That's hardly swallowing "his bile," and if his true intention was to turn just a "few of these fundies watching it from the dark side," it was a huge FEMA-like failure this time.

It is a waste of time for democrats to go on these shows and speak at these right wing fundamentalist christian conservative extremist universities such as Liberty, Bob Jones, Oral, etc.

I hope it doesn't happen again.

It hardly looks like the same language as pat robertson. This headline is inflammatory and misleading IMHO. More bashing of Howard likely cause he is doing a great job!

"The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says 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."

Looks more like hes slamming Pat Robertson to me.

as much as you, but I'm willing to give Dean the benefit of the doubt.

I just really hate seeing him sit down with that lunatic Pat Robertson and going on intolerant christian TV.

It's not like there's a chance in hell he can change the anti-gay views of Robertson or any of the fundamentalists who watch the CBN.

You don't see the head of the NAACP sit down with the grand wizard of the KKK.

But I think we're on the same page concerning Dean's overall leadership. I generally like what I hear.

It is not nor was it then in the Democratic platform.

Howard Dean knows this as he issued a clarification today and acknowledged his error.

I don't really have a problem with him reaching out to Christian conservatives. I wonder why he finds the 700 club a legitimate venue, however, and I wonder why he misstated a platform he knows inside and out.

I'm a longtime Dean supporter and this doesn't change that, but it does give me pause as to his judgement in this matter.

And, btw, the marriage issues is not now and never has been about religious marriage. It's about civil marriage solely, the piece of paper you get at city hall. If the federal government and all fifty states legalized same sex marriage tomorrow, churches could still refuse to marry anyone they wished to refuse.

It sounds like you're a bit confused on this issue.

For them to call all marriages done in a court house civil unions?

That is what will make you happy? I think you cant see the forest for the trees. You will not get legislation calling gay unions marriage any time soon. Why not face that fact and go for what you can possibly get which is the rights and protections that go along with marriage for gay unions?

The quibbling over the label is ludicrous. You give up the end result for a title. Its as bad as mexican immigrants waving mexican flags and wanting citizenship. All it does is inflame people that would likely support your quest for rights that you don't now enjoy but should.

I seriously do not understand why there is such a need to cling to a label that does nothing when doing so clearly prevents you from achieving the actual rights that would.

But go ahead and keep bashing Dean the guy thats actually doing the work to get people into office that might actually get what you want done.

Self destructive behavior at its best.

Are you talking to me as an individual or this monolithic gay bloc that you have in your head and that you're so angry with?

Not all gay folks think alike, you know. We're a fairly diverse crew.

As I said, I support Dean, so I don't know where you come up with "bashing," and I also am fine with calling marriage rights "civil unions" as long as all the federal marriage rights come with that label.

It's all about equal responsibility and equal access. If we pay taxes the same as everyone else, which we do, then we deserve the exact same rights, responsibilities and privileges that everyone else has.

With this completely


"It's all about equal responsibility and equal access. If we pay taxes the same as everyone else, which we do, then we deserve the exact same rights, responsibilities and privileges that everyone else has."

and if you go on to see what he said in the rest of the interview.

"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.”

Then I don't get where the hubbub is coming from.

My anger is directed at people that want to buy into the Dean slams gay marriage title this article pushes when clearly that is not his position at all.

If I missed my mark when directing that anger at you, as it appears I have. Well you have my apologies.

It's a very simple concept - try it.

Whatever he says, he's doing it to get the votes.

Will it matter? If you're a "D", you're brainwashed into thinking one thing, regardless.

I hope he's not watering down the message to gain broader appeal...

Civil partnership marriage for any two people. No religious interference.

Churches decide what they want to do about religious weddings and marriages in their churches, as long as it meets the requirements of the law. No children, no plural marriages, no forced marriages, etc.

People already have to get "marriage licenses", so we're halfway there. Anybody can get a "civil union" which would confer all the legalities of current-day "marriage". Churches could decide whom they wished to allow to "marry", but that marriage would have no legal standing.

Simple, no?

and only because, PAT is a total FIEND of evil words and actions... he can be a Christian, I have no idea, but it's not in his actions! and to go on that putrid show after all the HEINOUS comments he's said is unacceptable


FOR GOODNESS SAKES - PAT BLAMED 9/11 on GAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





all designs and more, available at:
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <------ CHECK IT OUT!

What a waste of time. And then to make a gaffe like that.

What's next? O'Lielly? Glen Beck? Michael Savage?

What did he possibly hope to achieve by going on that idiot's show?

The people that watch that show are all the 25% bitter-enders for Shrub.

that's what he was doing. Also, let's see a transcript before we deem he made a "gaffe."

The democrats will lose more gay votes than they will gain conservative christian ones. I'd like to read the transcript. But if they're going to play homophobic to win votes, they will seem like cowards. Which is exactly what they will be.

Uninformed reactionaries however, will be.

On edit, it is interesting that no one has posted a transcript. What has been posted is the CBN news release which (when taken in context) falls under the BFD category. See post 61.

a method that gets your message out to the other side, much like what Wes Clark is doing on FOX. Smart strategy, whether you like the message or not.

WTF is he doing on that crappy waste of the public's airwaves? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

You will NEVER convince a 700 club viewer (they call it the 700 club because that's how much you are supposed to donate per year at the LOW level - they have 1000 club and on up too) to vote Democrat so why bother. All Dean has acomplished is alienating those who support him. I generally like Howard but this was just plain wrong and stupid. If he can't support gay marriage the least he could do is keep his mouth shut. I support gay marriage 100%. The solution is so simple - If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry a gay person.

And say that the Democratic platform says that marriage should only be between people of the same race.

How would that sit with you?

As an African-American, it really bothers me when people try to compare the rights of homosexuals and lesbians, with the civil rights movement.

There's just no comparison.

Homosexuals and lesbians have not prevented from voting. They haven't had to go to jail for the right to vote. My ancestors were prevented from voting, and they did have to go to jail for that right.

Gay Americans have never been forced to the back of the bus, or forced to drink from certain waterfountains, or told they were only allowed to sit here or there. My people were. My mom once told me how, when she was growing up and she would go to the movies, she, as an African-American, was not allowed to sit on the floor of the movie theatre. She and her friends were forced to sit in the balcony of the theatre instead, simply because of their color.

I won't.

Edit to add, no, gays and lesbians have not been arrested for trying to vote...

GAYS AND LESBIANS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR WALKING DOWN THE STREET IN GREENWICH VILLAGE, NYC IN THE 1960s.
I won't play the "who's been more oppressed" game with you. But please understand that there are real people, real families, who suffer right now (not just in the past) because of anti-gay bias.

May I suggest you read "Stonewall" by David Carter

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=17-0312200250-0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

The SS money has been stolen throughout the years, and having to come up with ANY extra would only add to the "problem"..

Most of the senators/congresspeople probably don;t give a hoot who married who, male or female, but they know the SS money is an issue, so they have to wave the bloody shirt at all the wacky snakehandlers and fetus worshippers to get them all fired up about gaaaaaaaay marriage...

And my partner mentioned this very thing not long ago. It's not about 'religion/sanctity of marriage' crap. It's about the Benjamins baaaaby!! Think of all the SS money going back into the coffers as long as gay marriage is taboo...yeppers, it's the cash.

I guess if a minority doesn't go through the exact same things that your ancestors did, then it must not be discrimination. I guess being "fag bashed" isn't discriminatory. I suppose it's every employer's right to be able to fire someone because of who they love. Maybe it's not so bad that hateful comments, threats, and non-acceptance have led to homosexual teens having the highest suicide rate among their peers.

but if you have no problem with that, I can't change your mind. There will always be a certain group that say's "I got mine, so what about yours".

is no comparison. I'll agree that queer Americans and African-Americans have distinctly different pasts. However, they share in common that both have been marginalized in society. Surely it isn't the same--queer Americans were never considered property and haven't had their lives relegated to second class in the Constitution--at least not yet in the federal one.
But my African American neighbor can't be fired for his skin color. I can be. He can't be denied a lease on the house because of his skin color. I can be. He is entitled to the privileges of marriage to his wife. I am denied this. He can adopt children. I can't do this.
The struggles of his generations past cannot be called the same as mine, but we can certainly see a comparison.

But stating that the denial of one's civil rights is less severe than what happened to others completely misses the point. After all, fewer people were killed in Rwanda than were killed in the Holocaust, and the machinery for murder was not as extensive, but do we say that one cannot compare the two? Does it matter, really, HOW MANY civil rights are denied? Homosexuality has been ILLEGAL in many states for a long time. It wasn't until relatively recently that the ban on sodomy was struck down in TX. The only reason that gays/lesbians haven't suffered even more is that identifying them hasn't been as automatic as is the case with persons with darker or lighter skin colors. There are plenty of racists today who rail against African Americans, but we don't hear this garbage from "mainstream" Americans. On the other hand, we hear anti-gay language every day from religious people (the fucking Pope, included), politicians, and the list goes on.

In conclusion, the fight for civil rights certainly parallels the struggle that Blacks made in the 1960s. Did Blacks suffer more? I'm certain that they did. Nonetheless, it's crass and untrue to say that one can't compare the two.

Easier to discriminate based on skin color.

in choosing their sexual orientation. It is apples and apples!

Don't you find it ironic that the same arguments made to keep the military segregated, and the races separate, and interracial marriage banned, are the same arguments that are now being made about LGBTs? Or does that even register with you at all?

Many LGBTs I know are African-American and they suffer a lot of intolerance from their fellow African-Americans, and I will say the same thing about Latinos. Intolerance and bigotry are not a WASP monopoly!

Somehow I don't think MLK would agree.

is that some black preachers have brainwashed people like you into believing fundamentalist voodoo bullshit.

The gay and lesbian community, by and large, stands proudly with African Americans in their struggle for full and lasting equality in America.

I know that many, many wonderful African Americans reciprocate that and stand proudly with their gay brothers and sisters in unity and support.

Maybe one day you will be enlightened enough to do the same.

I say (expletive deleted)

For all those who had to endure the unneeded shame from their peers for an immutable characteristic

For all those who suffered physical and mental pain because of who they are

For all those who were disowned by their parents just for who they are.

For all those who cannot fully share their lives with their significant others because others ay their love isn't real

For all those who have died because assholes couldn't stand their sexual orientation.

For all those and more, I say go peddle that Jesse Lee Peterson crap somewhere else.

For approximately the 500 zillionth time: THIS IS NOT ABOUT "ZOMG MY PPL ARE MORE OPPRESSED THAN YOUR PPL!!!11"

If you're too shortsighted, ignorant and/or stupid to realize that when one of us is in the back of the proverbial bus, we all are (hint: divide and conquer was not a tactic abandoned by those in power 2,000 years ago), you really ought to turn the computer off and go read a few books. I suggest starting with anything by bell hooks or Keith Boykin. Google Bayard Rustin.

If you still don't get it after that, please put some fruit, juice and ice in your blender and enjoy a cool refreshing glass of Shut the Hell Up smoothie, because you don't speak for all of us.

(For the record: I am black, I am queer, and I am beyond tired of this ignorant fucking pissing contest that some black folks feel the need to get into any time gay rights is brought up, ignoring the fact that a) GLBTs were at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement because OH MY GOD THERE ARE GAY BLACKS and b) DIVIDE AND CONQUER, DO YOU GET IT NOW?)

God.

Sure there are all the obvious difference, but they have a lot in common too. The important thing is that they both belong to the fruit family. They just have a different color and a different taste.

Shame on you. Your audacity... Fuck I am so pissed at your high-handed comments I cannot be rational with you right now. So :grr: will have to do.

Sorry but really now, not for nothing BUT we can't hide our skin color as say you could your sexual orientation, you shouldn't have to but you could! I'm a little rusty but the middle passage that wasn't a "gay thing" no, no don't think so. Sorry to say that but the reality is many blacks feel that way and are VERY reluctant to show support in this issue because they are too busy "comparing scars" rather than understanding we are all hurt, and need help healing! I must say that GLBT Americans have never done me wrong nor do I think they will (minus my ex-girlfriend but that anther story she was two B's in one LOL) I think that the biggest hurdle we must see is that we are all in this "rights" race together and that's that.

For some strange reason, this guy doesn't think that gay people have been murdered, fired, denied housing, denied service, etc., all for being gay. Asshole.

That comparison you deny? It's there, and it's glaring.

Bigotry is bigotry, and complacency is not called for.

Maybe you had it worse than they have it now. It doesn't make the restrictions on homosexuals OK.

That justification is totally irrelevant.

African-Americans and Homosexuals should have the same rights I do. That includes the right to vote as well as the right to marry the person they love.

"compare the rights of homosexuals and lesbians, with the civil rights movement."

It isn't a matter of Apples and Oranges, this is PEOPLE! I may not be gay but this is an issue that just sets me off. I think that there is a clear moral prerogative and that we are even further diminished as a nation because of they way we have treated our GBLT community.

impinging on anyone's basic human rights lessens us all. It's really that simple.

If the discrimination isn't as overt now, that's a good thing, a step in the right direction. That shouldn't be confused with a lack of discrimination. For one thing, as Zhade says, it's harder to identify a homosexual on sight.

What I don't understand is those who think it's a bad thing to discriminate against African Americans (no disagreement here; I'd bet none at the entire site) and no big deal to discriminate against another group of people. Don't people see it's all the same thing at bottom?

Maybe I don't have a say in this fight; I'm white and hetero. But I agree entirely with you -- this is a bedrock human rights issue for me, and very important to me.

gay people have just been KILLED for being gay, that's all. No big deal there. Nothing similar to racial discord at all.

We've been used as whipping boys and girls for, oh let's see, FOREVER, so we know nothing about being abused for WHO we are.

Get a life!

Yeah us gay Americans have just been tied to fences, beat to death and left to freeze. Us gay Americans have been murdered and burned. And if you can't see the similarities you are part of the problem.

Give me a fucking break.

:eyes:

I wonder how your ancestors would have felt about having to wear make-up to change their skin colour in order to fool people into thinking they were of a different race to avoid being thrown in jail, not as punishment for demanding equal rights, but as a matter of course? Tell, me, had your ancestors been "discovered" for what they were, was castration considered to be a "cure"?

You may consider yourself an enlightened champion of civil rights, personally, people like you who shave slices of imaginary victimhood off one minority or another disgust me.

I LOVE that...so eloquent and powerful! :applause: I teach intro to Cultural Anthropology so I have to deal with a lot of this mentality with what is always a small handful of otherwise enlightened, sensitive and intelligent AA students. But then I break out the Foucault and the Gramsci to show how institutional hegemony tends to be similarly if not identically structured to repress/marginalize whatever group is targeted for whatever reason (and here the historical context/politico-economic dynamics come into play) and they learn not to essentialize "their people's" struggle since to be dominated you must be at least somewhat collectively complicit in that domination, and by marginalizing other groups' struggles against your own is EXACTLY what institutional hegemony relies upon! I ALSO hear from poor rural white students who are against any sort of real accountability for racist attitudes, and they say things like "well, it wasn't ME doing it, it might have been my ancestors, and I'm poor now so why should we have to apologize and give "those people" preferntial treatment" etc. and then they also learn how this mentality is the other side of the same Janus-face of institutional hegemony. Well, some of them learn anyways, others are so entrenched its problematic. All I can do it try tho. :)

How dare you say that we do not suffer bigotry? Certainly your ancestors were more recognizably discriminated against, but what about now? Do you really think that homosexuals are not discriminated against in many ways (legal ways) more than African-Americans? Homosexuals can be fired simply for being gay. Where can African-Americans be fired simply for being African-American? Homosexuals cannot marry or even adopt in many states, is it the same for African-Americans?

Wow. I cannot believe such an attitude still exists.

I feel MISERABLE about the racism and killings of blacks simply for their differences from whites.

and here you INSULT me because we haven't been "kept from voting"...

whoopddeeee fuckn DOO ! our common grounds are this - we have been beaten to death for being DIFFERENT from other people,

is that not enough for you!?

Matthew Sheppard is just ONE, just ONE of thousands and thousands of gay boys & girls, men & women who have been SLAUGHTERED for being found out to be QUEER throughout the ages.

And you insult our suffering with a non-sensical voting difference! They can't tell we're gay (yet) at the voting booth!

Please grasp onto our common struggles, as I have yours, murder for being different is disgusting, and I stand with my black brothers & sisters, as you should fully stand with your gay brother & sisters!

God bless you... O8) O8) O8) O8) O8) O8) O8) O8) O8) O8) O8) O8) O8) O8)




all designs and more, available at:
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <------ CHECK IT OUT!

every morning hunn. Today, you must have dumped the whole F'ing bottle. :wtf:

Do you understand how many gay people "go to bat" for African Americans every single day in this country because we understand what it's like to be persecuted?

And this is the thanks we get. Someone like you who thinks nobody else in the universe faces discrimination except African Americans. :banghead:

Yea, African Americans had to endure awful prejudices, and still do for that matter.

But you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such an ugly (and what could be argued a very, very racist remark) suggesting that gay people's struggle for equality is not a civil rights issue. You make me sick to my stomach :puke: :puke:

she IS a racist....


God bless you cboy4...


he nailed it. when I read her post again, I thought, "how intolerant!".


as an African American, you should FULLY understand what being made fun of, assaulted, and beaten to death, stands for in your community as it does in OURS.

She needs a very serious sprinklin' of somehting all right, it's called compassion.

didn't want to use up my monthly allotment of F words. It's only the 11th!! LOL

Thanks for alerting me bud! :pals:

Getting raped and imprisoned by the police doesn't count, I guess. Read Leslie Feinberg's book "Stone Butch Blues" and then tell me again that we have no right to demand civil rights. The quest for civil rights isn't a contest for who had it worse.

Apparently I'll have to fight for the segment of the African-American community that you've abandoned. Until my African-American gay and lesbian brothers and sisters tell me different, I'll keep calling it a civil rights battle.

for an entire adulthood unable to marry.

Your post sickens me.

Remind me of your stance next time somebody calls you a nigger. I'm sure I've got something more important to do that day.

Better yet, tell it to some of my gay black friends. I'm sure they'd appreciate your sentiments.

Nice job of "divide and conquer".

I'm glad I'm not as "broad minded" as you seem to be!

I'm also VERY disappointed in Dean today.

Looks like Rove has found THE side issue to get the focus off all the REPUKE crimes!

And Dean is HELPING them!

Shame on you Howard! SHAME!

for the benefit of right wing fundamentalists and this isn't a problem?

On this quaint little show as a matter of fact...I take it kinda personally that Dr. Dean would sit and discuss ANYTHING on this nut-ball network.

number of negative responses to your hogwash?

Is it because you know you've embarrassed not only yourself but all of the wonderful African Americans who support gay right civil issues? :shrug:

they're nothing but a cut gays down & run to their Mom coward........ "mom, they yelled at me! they're trying to take away our right to having it the worst in history!"


that's what they pretty much say... there's TONSSSSSSSSSS of people slaughtered every day for being different, in Africa, Europe, SA, NA, Russia and Asia, we all are in the same boat - being a human who kills because of a difference is the lowest type of human you could be. the 2nd lowest, is those who are racist and don't defend others.

he said it so the RWers will remember that one line, and vote Dem next election. :)

I can't believe he would EVER go on the 700 club! :wtf: Those are the people who blamed 9-11 on us liberals!

Dean's appearance on the bigoted show 700 Club adds credence to those that are criticizing Dean's stewardship of DNC. Case in point:



Wasting money on getting fundies to vote Democratic is idiotic and wasteful. Fundies will always vote GOP or stay home because their leaders have convinced them that Jesus wants them to vote against the Democratic nominee.

BTW, Richard Nixon pursued a 50-state campaign strategy in 1960, he later admitted it was a mistake. Dean is now pursuing a similar strategy.

Probably 80% of 700 Club listeners think that Democrats wear horns and have pointy tails and wouldn't vote for a Democrat--ever.

Maybe some 20% of the people watching that show might, just might consider voting for Democrats if they began to believe that Democrats were not the boogey man they'd been made out to be and that some of what they say make sense.

If these people have only heard lies and distortions about you why not go directly to them and show them who you really are and what you really stand for.

I'm less pleased about misrepresenting the platform, but if we win with the help of the fundies who care about health care and working class people, all will be forgiven.

Very disappointing Howard.

And distressing.

Nice way to "support" us!

With friends like these...

We need the spinning to win 06. And then we can focus on some national healing.

or whatever. :eyes:

Don't feel like making a pact with this particular Satan. Dean's factually incorrect, and morally bankrupt.

That is, unless he'd like to apologize. Then I'll consider "letting go."

Pandering to bigots is not big in MY book.

...

Clinton with Murdock, Dean on the 700 Club saying this shit, what next?????
I think I will lose my mind.

for a fundie vote. That is plain wrong in my book.

be allowed to marry. Like me.

it's so hard being gay when you are constantly made fun of on comedy shows, talk shows, at work, etc, and facing your Faith and understanding Christ loves us all the same (that's what I believe, please don't insult it du'ers), and I thank midlodem for saying this!

But I sure as Hell don't support that statement. I'm truly at a loss as to why he would say such a thing. I'm also at a loss as to why he would ever go on the 700 Club.

I keep reading it and hoping this "sovo.com" isn't a reliable source. Are there any other outlets running with this story?

If he did say it, then he has some explaining to do. I love the good doctor and can certainly live with an occasional gaffe, but I would need to hear what he has to say about this comment and it had better be good.

And if Dean said this, allow me to make it clear that Dean does not speak for me in this instance, and I will be very disappointed.

Sadly, it's the real deal.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/5/10/145841/185

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=2344

Damn.

All I can say is that I've always known that Dean supports civil unions but not marriage. I've accepted that because it's a Hell of a lot better than most other politicians. However, I don't think he had any business going on the air at 700 club or anywhere else and saying that the Dem platform says that marriage is between a man and a woman. While he does make it clear that he supports equal rights in all other ways, it's not his job to change the platform.

I think he owes us all an apology and he needs to refocus his efforts on the gay community. He's quickly losing the very demographic that helped propel him to DNC chair.

I think that this latest escape of his puts that event in some perspective.

Yes, he did fire the head of the LGBT outreach program. However, since his partner was actively trying to dissuade people from donating to the DNC, I'd say it was a good decision.

I've said repeatedly here tonight that Dean needs to work on his relationship with the gay community, but his record supports my belief that he really is for gay equality.

Did Valerie Plame deserve to get outed for her husband's political writings?

Also Wilson wasn't trying to talk people out of paying their taxes, and Dean didn't create a smear campaign against anyone or break any laws.

If you're going to set up a strawman, at least set up a good one. This was just silly.

If this story turns out to be true I will officially be out of the Democratic party. If the party thinks they can pander to the fundies and get my vote they are nuts. They won't get either.

I was leaning for volunteering again, not only voting again.

But things like this make me not so sure.

And all you know what? - you'll only have YOURSELFS to blame for allowing this climate to develope - again.

I am NOT gonna be somebody's closet case water boy to sit in the corner and shut up next time around, that's for sure.

Tell me again why I should support people who want to marginalize me - and pointing out how the other party is worse don't cut it this time around.

The repukes want to kill me and the democrats want me to "go away" - well they just might get their wish - I will "go away" and my vote with me - and all you fucking "my history of discrimination is more important that your imagined history" racist bullshit can go fuck yourself all the way to the voting booth!

What did he say about the 2006 Democratic Party platform?

No national convention this year to adopt it.

This is just plain wrong. Why should my ability to marry the man of my choice be more important than gays and lesbians who want the same rights? Nothing...NOTHING...in allowing gay marriage will have the slightest effect on my life, or marriage, or happiness.

I want equal rights for all. This means ALL of us. There is absolutely no reason to deny a segment of our population the right to live the life they were born to live. I have seen gay friends in absolute agony confronting their sexuality, terrified about their family's reaction, and public disapproval. They must make a choice of living the life they were born to live, or conforming to the opinion of bigots. This is wrong, and intolerable.

This country has ended slavery, segregation, women's inability to vote, and other outdated policies. It's time now to end the discrimination against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Outlawing gays won't make them go away. Outlawing gay marriage will not prevent people from forming lifelong bonds with the people they love. There is no reason for outlawing gay marriage than catering to the prejudices of the most bigoted members of our society.

As another heterosexual woman, I feel exactly the same way. When they first started with all the homophobic garbage in '04 I naively thought that no one in this day and age would really object to gay marriage. Boy, was I wrong. Seems like some folks just can't live without bigotry.

If we go "my plight is bigger than your plight" we only embolden the hatemongers that count on dividing us.
Equal rights to all!

I really can't figure it out. Dean. From Vermont. Said that. About the party platform. *boggle*

Did someone kidnap the real Howard Dean? Was that a soulless replicant interviewed on the 700 Club?

It is your hobby - where do you ski? Just curious - plane tickets are pricey.

I did go snow-skiing once in Gatlinburg, TN, and thought it was pretty fun, though.

What does it cost to waterski for a day w/ these gas prices? I remember that when we filled up rentals it was quite expensive (that was 10+ years ago).

it's probably between 70-80 dollars for a full tank of gas.

With prices like they are, I probably will go water-skiing far less frequently this summer. I have a cousin with a lake-house who hosts a weekend-retreat every summer, and that may be the only time I get out to ski this year. I'd rather save the money for movies and travel.

I'll have to live with just swimming or rowing (all are good exercise).

I'm not supporting Dean being on Satans 700 club, but those two statements can exist simultaneously.

One uses the word marriage, the other describes supporting gay families - not the same thing.

Discrimination does NOT support gay families, and that includes discriminating against gays in the legal protections afforded by marriage. Marriage is a legal contract in this country, not just a religious ceremony -- ie, one does not have to be married in a church to be afforded the rights of marriage. If I have to explain to you what those rights are and how they affect families then please let me know because I can certainly spell them out for you.

the same legal rights and call it a partnership. That's what they did in England, as I understand it.

Maybe Dean was trying to make that distinction.

... as a helluva lot of them are not performed in a church.

Frankly, I find quite a few of the posts on this thread to be more than discouraging -- they are insulting. Which is why I think it's time for me to bow out of this discussion before I become too angry.

You can't say "you could have the same benefits but call it something else" if you're not even fucking willing to take a stand FOR that something else.

Your interpretation is fine and I of course agree that there should be no discrimination in either direction - I wish my gay family members could get married just like anyone else. In fact, after they legalized it here in Mass, I asked my "aunts" if they were going to get married - I thought it was cool after all these years! :D

It is legal here in Mass! I was simply pointing out that technically both statements can exist - though I'm for unions with the same rights under a different name for the time being until the RW ass-wipes can get over the religious connotations they see in the word "marriage". JMHO.

You know, I had a thought a while back: maybe there's a reason I've always felt like I am required by those around me to put in twice or three times the effort in literally everything I do just to get the 'pat on the back' the people around me get for doing a whole lot less.

NOW it hits me: as a gay man, I'm expected to prove I'm NOT worthless. After thirty years of that sort of treatment, you'd think I'd have figured it out by now. Well, I just did.

It's pretty obvious that gays are about as welcome in this country as rotten fish, but when something like this happen, well, it just makes me want to sit down and give up. The problem is, we're stray dogs in a nation that loves to kick strays. Even if we give up, we're still going to get stomped on and it won't end until it becomes acceptable to imprison, deport, or kill us outright.

This dog is about to bite. I have HAD IT.

I felt very disillusioned and disenchanted with the U.S. after Bush was re-elected. I felt like it wasn't a home I was comfortable in anymore because the people I was surrounded by were a bunch of hateful dolts that couldn't possibly be any more opposite from me. The anger subsided, I guess, or maybe I just decided it was too heartbreaking and hopeless to keep expecting my fellow countrymen to rise above their willful ignorance only to be disappointed in them again and again.

In fact, one of the things that frustrated me the most was the gay wedge issue used that year. I live in Missouri so we had to vote whether to amend the constitution to prohibit gay marriage. I was dumbfounded to see that something like 80% of the people voted yes. I knew it was bad, but I didn't realize it was *that* bad. I was crushed. It's frustrating to be surrounded by so many people who are completely and utterly wrong but think they're right.

If this is their strategy, it will work great for them - without US!

Jeebus Fucking Christ people.

It's all about EQUALITY. It's either equal or not. No parsing of words.

Simple concept for some, but aparently too difficult for others, aparently.

other Dems don't either

does anyone stand for something?

perhaps not what you wnat them to stand for.

in his campaign? Isn't the Dem Party platform actually the more "wishy-washy" "leave it up to the states" sort of line? What really is the Dem Party platform on gay marriage anyway?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63152-2004Jan7?language=printer

Here's the CBN interview - Dean says a lot of "good stuff" but he sure was way off the mark on the "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says marriage is between a man and a woman" line.

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

Please refer to this entry in my journal: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/theHandpuppet/26

possible to enact a Federal law allowing partnerships with the same legal benefits and obligations as marriage. And, under a different Congress, DOMA could be repealed.

What we want to avoid at all costs is an amendment to the Constitution because that would be much much harder to overcome.

I'm outta here.

My father and his partner would vouch for me.

portability.

I give my bucks to the Human Rights Campaign and completely bypass the fuckers at the DNC. The HRC ONLY gives support to gay-friendly candidates. The rest of them can eat the corn out of my shit.

of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Once a person embarks on a journey to the dark side, there is not stopping it.

can always count on you to throw gas on a Dem fire. You never disappoint though you risk becoming foringly predictable.

Go get your kudos at the Dem hating site now bunky. Good work.

Julie

Whether we like it or not, that's what the position was.

to flaunt it.

which is not what he did. He said he supported equality, but simply stated the Democratic position about the name. If gay unions are given the same rights, but not the same name, I really don't see the difference. What's next, are we going to force churches to perform gay marriages?

On a network that has (since its inception) been openly hostile to the GLBT community?

still exist and are actually humans rather than agents of Satan that have green ooze for blood.

on our side. The 700 Clubbers aren't your average covered dish Methodists. If Dean wanted to reach out to the religious, why not pick another "more mainstream" preacher? Robert Schuler, Joel Osteen, the ones who don't foam at the mouth and tell people to grab their Zeniths and pray in tounges. Roberston blamed 9/11 on the GLBT community. He's Fred Phelps with better hair.

Nice try, but no sale.

HE COULD HAVE KEPT HIS FUCKING MOUTH SHUT.

Now I'm spitting blood angry.

Unless there is a WORLD change in the democratic party, they can definitely count me OUT next time arounnd.

And your equivocating and excuse-making isn't helping ONE BIT.

You can be "that way" - just don't use the same words or do it in PUBLIC, for heaven's sake!

Go fuck yourselfs.

Marriage in this country is a legal contract. One's marriage (at this point, only allowed to heterosexuals) need not be performed in a church or by religious ceremony to be recognized as such by law.

Civil unions do NOT afford the same legal protections and rights as marriage. If you don't understand the difference, please see my post #66 on this thread.

I just didn't care to write that much. ;-)

However, there is no reason that civil union legislation could not be crafted in such a manner to grant all the same property and other rights while not calling it marriage.

Or shall we call all "marriages", including those of heterosexual couples, civil unions unless they are performed in a church? Why is it a couple of drunks at the drive-thru chapel in Vegas can call themselves "married" but my longtime partner and I can't? Goodness, we wouldn't want to sully the "sanctity" of marriage, now would we!

I personally think the state should not be in the business of declaring something a "marriage" and that we should have civil unions for all. If no church will call it a marriage, that's their right.

No one is pushing for such a compromise.

with a change in federal law, they could.

Equality in everything is obviously too hard a concept for you.

No fucking WAY will I belong to a party that thinks of me as separate-but-(un)equal.

that makes a difference.

Even if I didn't, I'd still vote my conscience. Anyone who doesn't like that, well, tough, I guess.

But thanks for marginalizing us!

As if being an independent means I can't, or don't, vote for Dems. I voted for Kerry, for example (not that I have to justify my conscience to you or anyone else).

Here is the quote from the platform:


We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilites, 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.



Apparently you, and Dr. Dean, are not familiar with the facts.

No where in the platform is it stated that marriage is between a man and a woman.

and found it to his liking.

Opposing the Federal Marriage Ammendment is entirely different from supporting gay marriage.

Which is what Dean claims it said and what you claimed it said.

It says, in plain english, that each state should be allowed to make the decisions for themselves. And since Massachussetts had already been ordered to legalize gay marriage, and since that is the decision that precipitated the entire constitutional amendment battle, it is obvious that the platform is referencing that and is endorsing the idea of allowing Massachussetts to make decisions for itself.

I'm not saying the platform endorses gay marriage. It does not. But it quite clearly does not oppose it either, nor does it try to use Republicn buzz phrases like "marriage is between a man and a woman" to beat up on gays and lesbians.

My problem is that Dean knows this. So I wonder what he was thinking when he intentionally misstated what the platform actually says.

Like it or not (I don't, anyone should be free to marry whomever they like, what a joke) that is the current party platform.

Don't blame the civil unions guy who had to wear a bulletproof vest when signing that legislation.

Marriage in the us is a fucking joke. What a fascist state we live in.

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


Not sure what to think, but the above shows a little more than the original article which seemed a little misleading

If Dean believes that equal rights under the law is important, then he should not be supporting those that endorsed DOMA and advocate passing laws and changing states' constitutions to deny gays and lesbians marriage rights. What Dean is really supporting is the moral equivalent of "separate but equal"!

Conservative evangelicals are the American version of the Taliban. We have nothing in common with them, our values and goals are diametrically opposed. They want a theocracy, we want a republic. Dean is a fool if he thinks he can get fundies that reject science and reason to vote for any Democrat.

What's next for Dean, to ask for a dialogue between Jews and Christians that think we are Christ murderers?

Can't figure him out on this one, been real impressed in the past by his appearances and such.

Dean could have simply been honest and said that the Dem platform did not address gay marriage, that it's an issue for churches, families, and religious leaders to decide, whereas the state must stay out of religious disputes. This answer would have connected with fundies, and avoided all this fallout from progressives. It's really common sense, and I'm extremely dissapointed that Dean decided to go the route of "marriage is between a man and a woman."

It would have made no difference, though, as the whackos who tune in to the 700 will never vote for a sane candidate.

aren't among the fundies, and who believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians, but who don't think it's necessary to call that relationship a "marriage." This is especially true among people over 50 or so.

What is so terrible about taking a step by step approach? After several years of having gay partnerships with the same rights as married people, it probably wouldn't seem important to maintain the distinction anymore. And a few years later, all us older people will be gone anyway and this whole thing will be a non-issue.

and stay in the back of the bus and, when the old segregationist die and go away, she can scoot over a few seats towards the front of the bus.

have equal rights. I'm saying that the word "marriage" is relatively unimportant, including to many gays and lesbians.

issues.

If he really wanted to highlight common ground between big-d Dems (the party) and the 700 clubbies, he should have addressed them. Instead, he picked two of the issues most likely to polarize -- fundies are not only opposed to "gay marriage," but to gayness itself. There is no common ground there. Ditto with abortion.

If I were Dr. Dean -- and you should all thank your lucky stars that I'm not -- I'd have chosen to discuss something where there might indeed be connections between the fundies and the liberal/progressives. Something like the high infant mortality rate in the U.S. "Suffer the little children to come unto me." Wasn't that what their Jesus said? Well, little children can't come unto him if they don't survive childbirth.

Dean imho screwed up and screwed up big time. You don't brush aside your own faithful in the quest to pick up somebody else's. In some ways, I think my long-standing distrust of Dean is that he has something in common with booooosh: his "charisma" conceals a certain lack of substance.

What I don't understand is why the DEMOCRATS -- whichever "leadership" group you want to saddle them with, either the DLC, the DNC, the DCCC or whatever -- can't just sit down and look at the issues from a really progressive (lowercase) standpoint and put together a platform based on that. Instead, they seem to be looking at everything from a "how can I pick up a few more conservative voters?" strategy, and I don't think that will ever work.

That said, I think any church or other religious organization ought to have the right to "marry" any couple who wants to get "married." And I think the civil government has an implicit obligation to recognize any consensual union under the same terms as the partners in that union. I was married for 36 years until my husband died last summer. I'm now in a non-marital relationship with another man. I do NOT want that relationship recognized as a marriage nor do I want to be discriminated against because it isn't a marriage. Furthermore, I don't see why the same rights I enjoy shouldn't be extended to any consenting adult. Want to get "married" in your religious community to your partner? Go ahead. Want to have that religiously sanctioned relationship recognized under civil law? It ought to be. Want just the legal recognition without the religious stuff? Fine with me. Want to adopt children? I have no problem with that at all, having seen more than enough abuse and neglect of children who live in "traditional" families.

"Civil" rights should apply to all citizens -- the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to marry, the right to inherit, the right to work, the right to be secure in one's person. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that silly liberal claptrap that SOME of us take very seriously.

Dean should have understood all this, and as a political operative, he damn well should have understood how his actions and words would have resonated with his own core faithful. The pukes are playing more and more to their ever-dwindling base --- sometimes it sounds like Dr. Dean is, too.


Tansy Gold, who talks (and writes) too much.

I can't see right now, for the blood I'm spitting at all the bigoted ignorant posters here tonite, WHO DON'T EVEN REALIZE THEY ARE BIGOTED AND IGNORANT!

that an amendment banning gay marriage (or the equivalent) is NOT added to the constitution?

If this is so, maybe we need to find some common ground with people more in the middle on this area -- with people who feel it is only fair that gay people be able to form partnerships -- with the same legal rights -- but who aren't (for whatever reason) ready to call this "marriage."

It is true that civil partnerships aren't NOW the legal equivalent of marriage. But in the absence of a constitutional amendment, there is nothing to stop a willing Congress from changing federal law and allowing this.

I am so happy I read the quote in context. What a different thing this.

.."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.”

Here he is clearly saying, regardless of what the Democratic party platform of 2004 says, we differ from you in that we believe in equal rights under the law.

My view is-Let specific heteros call it marriage. Others can call it carriage. or fairrage! What you want is equal rights under the law. Anyone worth a damn will understand that you are married or carried or fairried. The rest can go to hell. When did we start caring what anyone else thinks about who we are? As long as we can live a life we feel we deserve. I don't want for myself what many people would call "marriage" and if you do...you need to stop and think about it. But I do want to receive the same benefits of my personal union with my partner, under the law. Same as the rest.

That is how I feel, not as a homosexual, but as an individual living in a cookie cutter society that needs everyone to be the same. I don't chose to legally marry at this time and if I do, it won't be in a church or performed by an official who's affiliation is with some organization I consider to be bullshit.

We should be howling about how his quote was misrepresented. Start bashing me.
:shrug:

You know, reading backstabbing comments such as yours make me really wonder why my partner and I spent fifteen hours manning the polls on Tuesday. Yes, this gay couple of fifteen years answered the call of the local Dem Party when enough volunteers could not be found to fill the position of democratic poll clerks and commissioners. I guess we have better things to do than attend training sessions or giving up days of paid work to help out. Maybe we should just leave these chores to democrats who have full rights as citizens of this country.

And I guess I had better things to do than to drive across country to a place called Crawford, Texas, to protest this abominable war and in support of Cindy Sheehan. I couldn't have done that without the full support of my partner in life.

Then of course there were the countless days and nights spent registering voters, working non-stop on campaigns for Dem candidates year after year after year... not to mention all those checks you cashed on behalf of the Dem Party. Please don't ask us again. After all, since the rabidly anti-gay laws passed in Virginia recently stripped my partner and I of our shared health benefits, we now have to stash away emergency money for any medical care that might be needed.

So now you think it is more important to betray gay democrats in the hopes of gaining a few votes of some RW fundie wackos who not only hate us but who would deny our sisters the right of reproductive choice and support an immoral war. Well thank you very much, Dr. Dean -- and BTW, GO FUCK YOURSELF AND THE DONKEY YOU RODE IN ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The President of LCR has the balls to say that Dean should be held accountable for his actions but this is a guy who said he was warming up to President Bush. Maybe they should take their own advice.

doesn't jeffy lube write for them now?

as soon as I "calm" down I want to send him a little letter...

My partner and I just finished signing a bunch of legal documents giving each other power of attorney, health-care proxies, wills and other papers to hopefully cover ourselves in the event of some serious health problems or worse.

In a previous relationship, my partner was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, we had been together for 17 years when she died. The intrim 4 years of dealing with cancer were bad enough, and compounded by legal status issues. Each time she was admitted to the hospital I had to bring a copy of the health proxy which allowed the medical staff to keep me informed of her condition. I made up many copies of the document, and would make sure I had one with me every time I visited her in the hospital.

How many heterosexual husbands/wives have to do this?

There were instances when I called her doctors for information, and the doctor's staff wouldn't give it to me because I wasn't considered 'family'. On more than one occassions - I had to run down to a local business to use their fax machine and send a copy of health care proxy to the office, run back home and call them back.

How many heterosexual husbands/wives have to do this?

There were other instances when her son was sick, and I had to pick him up from school -- my late partner would have to call the school EACH TIME and tell them it was OK for me to do so and then follow it up with a letter.

How many heterosexual parents have to do this?

sorry for the rant... I'm really pissed off

snake pit on this thread.
I'm totally n00b; just buttin' in for a second to remark to all that there's some Way Cool Shit on this site; well worth the FREE registration.
Man, some of you guys are kinda out there, at least on this topic, but there's a kick-ass stream-of-consciousness that just can't be beat.
Collectively and effectively out to Kick. Some. Repug. Ass.*
We're just gonna grit our teeth and Git-R-Dun...


* (at the polls) >:)

doing on the 700 Club. Why give Pat any type of acknowledgment of existence. After all of Mr. Robertson's unChristian statements over the past 10 years, just release a press statement saying you could not in good conscience be on a program that supports killing of world leaders and believes that law makers will be "struck down" because of their stance on evolution or abortion..... That is what Howard should have done!!!

Due to a combination of black pride and homophobia, the Republicans have been using a strategy of peeling off quite a number of formerly Dem minority voters. Blackwell used that strategy, along with the help of fundamentalist preachers, to win his primary.

And Evangelicals have been working with a growing black/latino/even asian constituency for quite some time. Older minorities, who do vote Democratic most of the time, do watch those shows. Look at some of the black preachers on CBN and other religous stations. If Dean can persuade former Dem voters in these churches to once again vote Democratic for other issues, gay people (and black gay people most of all) will win out. Remember the progress in the 1960's and 70's was made possible because the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in House and Senate built on a foundation that the Dems always looked out for the little guy overall.

Oh, they didn't?

Then BULLSHIT!

The democratic party got where it was in the 60's because they were UNEQUIVOCAL in their support of FULL COMPLETE RIGHTS, not watered down crap like here, for ALL PERSONS, no other adjectives or beating around the bush needed, desired or required.

Go peddle your fantasy someplace else.

democratic party.

i don't think dean is stupid -- and i don't think he misspeaks -- and i think he is stating that he has problems with equality for gay folk -- INSPITE of the party platform.

that's not showing any evolving away from the clintonian triangulation with doma.

Blah blah blah blah. We seem to have a new anti-Dean offensive going on, and offensive it is too.

...advocating discrimination?

What a stupid question.
Offensive is offensive.

Dean did not advocate anything, he mis-quoted the 2004 platform.
Dean has since issued a correction, as he ought.
Dean makes fewer stupid remarks than any politican in Washington, and he lies less too.
BFD.

...Dean's remark, or the "anti-Dean offensive"?

I'm not the "offended" type.

This is the full quote:

“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.”

“I'm not saying we're going to agree with everything, between the more conservative evangelicals and the Democrats, but there's a lot more common ground than most people realize, and we're willing to work with the evangelical community,” Dean said.

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

this is NOT some tin foil hat conspiracy by anti-Dean task forces, this is something abhorrent and completely unfuckingforgivable that actually CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH as he was appearing on the fucking 700 CLUB of all places. Sucks that you have reminded me that Dems have Kool Aid drinkers too

It is true Dr. Dean erred. That does not mean that the incident is not ALSO being used as a wedge issue to try to weaken Dr. Dean. I have seen such organized campaigns against Dr. Dean here many times now. The most important thing Dr. Dean is doing is the grassroots democracy work, and as long as he stays the course on that, he will have my support, however much I may disagree with this or that utterance of his. If the government is forced to follow the will of the people on these matters, the rest will follow, and failing that, we can expect divide-and-rule tactics - like gay-bashing political posturing - to continue, and that will not be good for any of us.

I couldn't agree more!

It isn't US who is misquoting him.

I'm a FORMER dean supporter, not a "kerry-bot" like too many here.

It's what he fucking said.

STOP MAKING EXCUSES!

I will make excuses if I choose to.
And it's not for you to tell me otherwise.

after all, it is the LGBT community that has been under relentless attack from fundies since the Bush regime took power in 2001. I only wish that some of the Dean defenders would find themselves in a planet where heterosexuality was illegal and considered immoral. Their sexual orientation would remain hetero, yet they couldn't love or form a permanent relationship without being constantly being told that their feelings and passions were sick and perverted. A month living under the tyranny of the dominant sexual orientation will make these heteros appreciate what LGBTs have had to endure from their enemies and some of their so-called friends. Perhaps they might even become advocates of equality under the law for all.

I am not surprised, Dr. Dean fucked up. But anger is not an argument either. Dean is not a cautiuous suit-droid, so he will make mistakes, and it is fair an proper to belabor him about the head for it when he needs it. But I do not agree with people who think we should chuck him overboard for it. It is still a better and more honest way to be than some sort of totally scripted media dramatization of "The Politician". And GLBT people need to understand that the cluelessness runs both ways. Dr. Dean likely has little emotional understanding of GLBT people, who are a messy group to understand in the first place, being so many and so varied, and it is much easier and fairer to understand this incident as a faux pas by a straight who has tried to be an honest friend to GLBT people in the past, than as an eruption of Dean's true evil nature and homophobic core.

We need to be patient with each other, not pick fights, and especially with really useful people like Dr. Dean.
Just my 2c.

He says a stupid thing. Fuck him, he's a hypocrite like the rest of them.

it is a private matter between 2 consenting adults. we can't out crazy the repubs on this one.

I realize that Pat Robertson is a leader of the religious right, but you also have to remember that there are evangelical Christians who vote Democratic. 21% of white evangelical protestants voted for Kerry in the last election, and 30% voted for Gore in 2000.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103

The idea that evangelical=Republican is one that the Republicans promote, and they do this as a strategy that will help them win. I don't know why people here would allow them to fight according to plan and acquiesce to it.

phone records. They must have something on him. Otherwise why would he even care about who is getting married to whom.

This is a move designed to strike directly at the conservative base in America. They (the gays guns and god crowd) already believe that abortion is well on its way to being dealt with because of the SCOTUS so Dean knows if he can allay their other fear of the pink revolution they might actually turn their attentions to issues that affect their daily lives. If Dean really feels this way, shame on him. But I doubt that is the case.

You are not going to get elected dogcatcher on a platform that includes gay marriage. You can be for civil unions, gay adoption, or whatever, but people are just not going to vote for you in the numbers you need to get elected if you endorse gay marriage. The nation isn't ready to accept it. The Republicans can still bring large numbers of right-wing sheep to the polls on Election Day by getting this topic on the ballot. Why? Because they know they side with the majority on this issue and whenever it comes up, even DU splits into two angry camps arguing about it. It's even more effective as a wedge than Roe v. Wade, and it will continue to be effective for decades to come.

You all would do yourselves and the rest of us a huuuuuuuuuuge favor by letting it go.

and though I disagree that gay marriage, framed properly, hurts a candidate at all, I'm fine with civil unions for the time being.

What bothers me is Dean intentionally misstating what is in the 2004 platform. The language he used in misstating this, on the 700 club no less, is fundie-speak Republican buzz language that they use in their movemen to bash gays and lesbians.

He should not have done this. Much more artful and better ways to make the distinction between marriage and civll unions, if that is what he was trying to do.

No one has been able to manage this so far.

you're promoting a platform that is indistinguishable from the one in place.

Abolition was not a "winning" issue -- it was a just cause.

Civil rights was not a "winning" issue -- it was a just cause.

Women's right to vote was not a "winning" issue - it was just cause.

If MLK had just "let this one go", Jim Crow laws would still be in place and African Americans would have their own drinking fountains.

So, no, I'm not going to let this one go because it's expedient.

and be left with nothing that matters to me.

Funny definition of "win".

for it?!

How about that for a concept?!

I'd rather fight for what is RIGHT.

Enough of this "triangulating" bullshit.

Who else are you willing to throw overboard to "win"?

If that is what my party has become, they can do it WITHOUT ME - and YOU WILL HAVE ONLY YOURSELVES TO BLAME!

But thanks for showing up and proving my point.

coffin. What values were dems supposed to stand for again? They certainly aren't liberal values.

The 700 Club! :wtf:

Dean is leading it.

:banghead:

this reminds me of the whoopi goldberg show when she was interviewing al haig. she was so desperate for guests that she had him come on and he was so desperate to pimp his book he begged to go on. the two of them looked like a couple on a blind date with less than nothing in common to talk about. it might have been the longest 30 minutes in television history.