I am REALLY getting annoyed at Dean

Especiallypecially since I supported dean as the new party chair and thought he would finally begin to shake things up and do some serious reform.

Then I heard about the firing of certain gay liaisons. Then I read this...

"In an apparent attempt to reach out to ultraconservative Christian voters, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday incorrectly stated on Pat Robertson's The 700 Club television show that the Democratic Party platform defines marriage as strictly heterosexual. “The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman," Dean said during a Christian Broadcasting News segment aired on the show. "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.”

In fact, the DNC 2004 platform says, "We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a ‘Federal Marriage Amendment.’ Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.”

The platform was approved by the more than 4,000 elected and at-large Democratic delegates who met in Boston in 2004 to pick a presidential candidate, and there have been no official revisions of the platform since 2004.

Dean's comments drew swift criticism from gay rights leaders. "Governor Dean is wrong about what the Democratic platform says about marriage equality," said Matt Foreman, executive director for the National Gay anLesbianin Task Force. "Disturbingly, this is not the first time he has misrepresented this important and affirming plank, and he has been asked before to correct the record and to cease making these misleading statements.
.................."

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid30795.asp

is this true? What is Dean even doing on the 700 club? I mean, if we bitch (rightly so) when Republicans go to Bob Jones, what is Dean doing on that show? I sit just me or is this guy becoming a total sell out? What happened to that Democratic spirit he had before?becausese I don't think it's just gay issues this guy is having problems on.

I know I sound incredibly cynical but like i said, I SUPPORTED Dean and now I am feeling betrayed.
"

It really does. It sounds ridiculous.

abortions and that Kerry was personally going around and telling the press.

That is a hit piece, and it is being done at every blog.

I read the CBN article, and it sounded pretty good to me.


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

From the CBN link- "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says."

Except i don't believe the plank does say that. At least I haven't seen it. Maybe I missed it. But I doubt it. Doing a word search , the closest I can see to what the dem platform says on this is.."Marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years and we believe it should continue to be defined there."

So either Dean said this and he's flat wrong. (and a Dem party chairman who doesn't know his party's platform is nothing too brag about) OR CBN is flat out lying ( I guess ot make Dean look bad but couldn't he sue for this kind of misrepresentation?)

Personally I would like to believe that CBN is lying. It's not as if Pat robertson's personal echo chamber has much credibility to me anyway. But why would the Advocate go along with it?

that nobody liked from Kerry and Edwards. Standard line, really.

The difference between civil unions, domestic partnerships and the weighty term "marriage" can be debated ad nauseum. Since "marriage" can go into the "official" netherworld of organized religious ceremonies, it can fall into that trap. And then nothing gets done or passed legally.

I personally think civil unions and domestic partnerships should be fought for and leave the "marriage" baggage for later.

I think that, warming everyone up to the idea of gay households will yield faster results than fighting for "marriage" straight off. However, I'm not gay, and I respect the fact that there are aspects to this issue that I can't understand because I'm not.

Either way, I'm for gay marriage and adoption by those families.

the state, and simply state that the Democrats believe in a secular state separated from the church, and it is up to the churches themselves to define marriage, with the state left out of the picture. He should say he doesn't believe the state should be defining what's written in the Bible. This model gives real respect for church, and also to gays, who can define marriage in their own way, without the state interfering.

on divorce, which most church going people seem to love as much or more than the do marriage.

Msongs
www.msongs.com
batik & digital art
mugs and shirts

And having GW define religious ideas is violation of the separation of church and state. Regarding the divorces in churches, yeah its a mostly fundy thing. Religious moderates are a great untapped force in this country, and they are sick of being grouped with fundies. That's why churches need to define their own policies, separate from the government, and embrace separation of church and state.

Its origins are in property.

And since we know LGBT people aren't interested in either propert or religion, I suppose it's fine to leave them on the outside looking in with marriage.

regarding the origins, but its beside the point. Where this leaves LGBT people is creating their OWN meaningful definition of what marriage is, shared with each other, and then having a state recognize thier civil union just like it should be heteros. The people, not the state, should define their own romantic commitments, and let the property/financial commitments be handled by the state in separate terms.

But you brought it up and I corrected it. I have two chapters in my dissertation about marriage and I've read FAR too much about it at this point, so I tend not to let "common sense" arguments about it pass me by.

We have an Administration that has our children being murdered by our own US made weapons and having their legs and arms blown off in an illegal war and someone "feels betrayed" over this??

You want to feel BETRAYAL, try going to Iraq as a soldier......or try being an Iraqi for that matter.

...in an attempt to pander to conservative Christians.

I kinda feel betrayed, too. This is NOT the type of behavior I expected to see from a man I supported.

Dean has never supported it but suddenly everyone is after him, not the others, just him.

If he wants to give religion sole control of "marriage", making it a purely religious thing with no legal status while making "civil unions", whether between same-sex or opposite-sex couples, the ONLY process with legal recognition, that's fine.

Otherwise, he's at best advocating a "separate but equal" system. If it's not O.K. to make blacks use "black only" restrooms and water fountains, it's not O.K. to make gays use a "gay only" process for legal recognition of "marriages".

That's not what people are objecting to.

Here's what there was: "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." Dean says, in fact, that "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman." Only it doesn't. It says something else altogether.

'leadership' in Washington.

I believe Governor Deans intent here is similar to what it has always been: trying to bring people together and get dialogue happening between those who are typically isolated in their cliques judging one another out of fear and ignorance.

So much about stopping hatred and division is simply getting people to know one other. It's easy to have an enemy that we don't know.

Governor Dean's agenda would seem to be what its always been about - inclusion, bringing people together and building communities.

Like all of us, he may have his shortcomings, but that is not one of them.

Yes, Dean has been good on many issues, but he's always been kinda wishy-washy on GLBT issues IMO. I wish that were different.

the administration. They stir our pot enough. Let Dean stir theirs up for a while.

Why should I feel betrayed by somebody who I knew was never on my side to begin with?

I can feel outraged at what Shrub has done, disgusted, angry, saddened and dispointed. But betrayed would make no sense.

But Dean is supposed to be one of the good guys. I beleived in him and still want too. But with this and other things, it seems that my faith in him may have been misplaced. So yes, BETRAYED is a perfectly rational emotion to feel.

Just because I want to belive that I am wrong about him doesnt' mean I can just ignore stuff.

was woefully underreported except on AmericaBlog and in the Washington Blade. His partner spoke out agaist the party's inaction the previous week and the liaison gets canned the next. Here's that sad story of seeming retaliation.

Here's what the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has to say about the most recent foible:

Statement of Matt Foreman, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

"Governor Dean is wrong about what the Democratic platform says about marriage equality. Disturbingly, this is not the first time he has misrepresented this important and affirming plank, and he has been asked before to correct the record and to cease making these misleading statements.

"Governor Dean's record on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues since becoming DNC chair has been sorely and sadly lacking. The Democratic Party chair should stand by and fight for the party's own platform and values. In light of Governor Dean's pandering and insulting interview today with the Christian Broadcasting Network, we have decided to return the DNC's recent $5,000 contribution to us. We do so with great sadness, knowing that the Democratic Party has long been a champion of our rights. Once again, we urge the governor to accurately represent the party's commitment to equality for LGBT people and our families, and to do everything in his power as chair to realize this vision. This would include but not be limited to fighting anti-gay ballot initiatives in various states this November. We urge him to take the money we are returning today and spend it to defeat these attacks on LGBT people and our families."

And he has too much class to talk about it.

and the action was indefensible.

I'm happy to see the National Gay and Lesbian Task force speak out on what they call the DNC chair's "misrepresentation" of the DNC platform; I am even happier to see them say that they have pointed out this misrepresentation before and it still continues. After all, 4000 elected and at-large Democratic delegates to the Boston convention who approved the LGBT plank of the platform fought (and argued hard) about it. But now it seems to have little relevance to the chair of the party.

There is nothing on the HRC website.

Remember: the HRC endorsed D'Amato when Schumer ran against him because "conventional wisdom" said that D'Amato would win the race and--save the fact that Schumer had better positions on LGBT issues--the HRC didn't feel it advantageous to endorse the Democratic candidate. They are/were more interested in access than in policy and they sell LGBT people short with their antics.

That they have remained silent over this (predictably, one might say) only displays how insufferable they are.

Well I am somewhat less annoyed at Dean now. I admitted he was wrong to say what he did. Factually wrong at any rate...

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean admitted on Thursday that remarks he made about the Democartic Party platform during a Christian Broadcasting Network interview aired on Pat Robertson's The 700 Club on Wednesday were incorrect. “The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman," Dean said during the interview. "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.”
...........................
On Thursday, Dean issued the following statement: "I misstated the Democratic Party's platform, which does not say that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, but says the Party is committed to full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and leaves the issue to the states to decide. The Democratic Party remains committed to equal protection under the law for all Americans. How we achieve that goal continues to be the subject of a contentious debate, but our Party continues to oppose constitutional amendments that seek to short circuit the debate on how to achieve equality for all Americans." ....."

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid30814.asp

However, some people seem to think it was bashing for even pointing this out. Why? When our leaders mess up, would you rather ignore it until the freepers shove it in our faces?