Dean represents a quantum leap for the gay movement

Dean got started largely on the grassroots activism of the gay and lesbian community, who remembered him for his courageous fight in Vermont in 2000. The first Dean fundraisers I attended when living in the USA were at gay venues who provided Dean with organization, manpower and early contributions. Back when he was at 3% in the polls, he appeared on the cover of the Advocate and asked for our support.

Being net-savvy and well-connected, the gay community quickly laid the groundwork for the Dean For America campaign. We provided, early, a network of support, funding, and local presence everywhere to build upon. We connected Dean to local organizations, fundraising sources, web experts, campaign veterans and activists used to local organizing and winning campaigns against big, powerful Republican special interests. Without this early boost, Dean wouldn't have been able to take off!

Prior to this campaign, GLBT people were embraced awkwardly. Conservative Dems like Bill Clinton took our money but often stabbed us in the back. Other Dems ran away from us or capitulated to the Republicans on issues. Dean's strong stance for equality and willingness to work with us has paid off big, and now, suddenly, we're the belles being courted at the ball by lots of candidates who see Dean's success. :loveya:

It's about time! ;)

for gay issues. The one who confronted gay bashing as soon as he took office in 1985 to follow through on his longtime commitment to civil rights.

Too bad you know so little about the history of gay advocacy that you credit Dean for taking a lead that others had instituted on their own MANY years before Dean.

I got on with the Dean camp back in Dec 2002. I know several others here active in politics in the gay community who have been on with Dean for a LONG time. I think we see in him what we thought he had with Bill Clinton.

Kerry, Clark or others could have had access to this network!

We tried to get Democrats to grab on to what we had to offer for YEARS, but they always turned us down.

James Carville was instrumental in ignoring us (and then DOMA happened and nobody wanted to help Clinton after that).

Then Bill Bradley mounted his challenge to Gore, had lots of support in the gay community, but refused to allow his campaign to be seed-carried by the gay movement.

It wasn't until Dean decided to go ahead that we "made it" and showed what we could do. And it's tremendous.

It's doubtful that Clark or others would have adopted positions so close to Dean's on gay issues if we hadn't shown the power of the gay grass roots! :)

How DARE you impugn Kerry on gay issues. He was advocating for gay issues LONG before Dean. He stuck his neck out legislatively as SOON as he took office in 1985.

You can't impugn the guy who advocated for gays to serve openly in the military, and made it a mission.

You can't keep misrepresenting those lawmakers who were there for gays LONG before Dean.

Please provide proof that Kerry ever turned his back on gay participation or advocacy for their causes.

I am noting that Kerry was offered full access to the gay activist network across the USA for his campaign org, and basically turned it down, preferring a traditional centralized approach with gays just contributing money rather than resources. Doing this, along with turning down support from Silicon Valley, are the two things I think pretty much ended his chances to win the nomination.

.

Kerry declared his race sooner than Dean. But who has the GLBT grassroots network -- Dean or Kerry? It's "Dean for America," not "Kerry for America."

Kerry missed a major opportunity there.

As for SV, I am in technology and know a lot of folks in the DLC community there who supported Bill Clinton. Kerry generally didn't treat them very well, and they're supporting either Dean or Clark. Incidentally, the conventional wisdom from these people who helped nominate Bill Clinton is that either is equally electable.

I happen to believe that having Dean and Clark as the two front-runners is a win-win situation, we cannot "lose" with either. It's just a matter of getting their supporters to stop attacking each other.

know for a fact that Kerry was the lawmaker who advocated for them more than any other. Try reading Kerry's floor speech when Matthew Shephard was murdered. Or read his Hate Crimes legislation, or his testimony to allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Please provide PROOF that Kerry rejected gay outreach. I think all the NEWBIE activists are completely unaware of the history of political advocacy for gay issues and have no idea that Kerry was on the forefront for them LONG before it became fashionable OR profitable for others.

As I've laid out time and again. . . *sigh*

I never said he rejected gay outreach. He rejected a "Kerry For America" type grassroots network to run a traditional campaign.

That's all I am going to say further about this.

I have to say, Brian, you are being ridiculous. Kerry is our hero, not "sign-papers-in-the-closet Dean." Dean is just a hypocrite. He hated signing those papers and is now USING gay and lesbians. He'll dump on us during the general election, if he gets the nomination. You just watch and see. I know his type.

C'mon, inform us. Show us what you're made of.

There are GLBT folks (connected inside-the-beltway types) who support other candidates -- hell, David Mixner supports Gephardt, who is a staunch promoter of DOMA! But the fact remains that only Dean wore a bullet-proof vest over his support for civil unions. That's the biggest advance for gay people in 20 years or more -- and it's something that took Dean to get done.

Or are you one of the folks who benefits from the actions of people like me and Governor Dean, only to tear them down later when the status quo orders you to?

I brought those points home right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=54713&mesg_id=54713

The evidence is in the network that exists. I think that's all the evidence you need.

John Kerry is good at EVERYTHING. You should know that. ;-)

In all seriousness, he is not a devout catholic, but an occasional church-goer. There is a superb article referring to the spiritual side of John Kerry in Windsurfer Magazine.

Don't have the link to hand at the moment. Sorry.

When they tried to tell him what a "good Catholic legislator" could do. He is a staunch defender of the line between church and state -- both directions.

the gay rights issues and reproductive rights because they are part of our constitution and civil rights and separate from any church issue.

Unfortunate but true.

.

It's much better to post a few articles from the web than actually be there in the trenches. How insulting!

You aren't here in America, fighting for your civil rights. I am sorry, but how can you expect to have any credibility as an expat and self-professed spokesperson for the GLBT community? You're an observer in the process here, not a participant. It takes chutzpah to lecture people here about who to vote for, and why they should vote for them, from your perch in London.

So much for the disinterested rankings thread.

To quote the famed philosopher, Richard Starkey,

"I'm looking through you..."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is that how you intend to win elections -- by calling gay people "bullshitters?"

Where was that even implied... except in your own mind? :shrug:

After all, you made the allegation.

To you it's just a platform. To me, it's life and death and potential.

Your insults against gay people don't win people to your cause.

is a blanket condemnation of all gays???!!! I don't think you really want to go there because then the inverse would also have to be true; an offense by one gay person is an offense by all gay people. Your logic is both ridiculous and dangerous.

You're mad because my view doesn't favour your candidate and rather than discuss the issues, which you know nothing about, you attack me personally. Your lack of interest/understanding in the issues and personal attacks aren't going to win over gay people to your candidate.

You're making an enemy out of someone who should not be an enemy and accusing me of being a liar based upon my concern for gay issues. I find that homophobic, and you've done nothing so far to change my impression except step up the personal attacks. Bad, bad boy. :spank:

Wes would be horrified.

You really don't get it, do you?

I certainly care about gay issues. Over the past 15 years I have worked for PFLAG (even though I am not a single-issue activist)

Just attacked me personally. The latest slur being the suggestion that I'm a "single issue voter."

You don't attract gay votes that way.

Will Dean win over that 35% of the gay community who vote Republican?

On whether he can convince them that fiscal conservatism is the right way to go. Considering the appeal he's had with libertarians, I'd be willing to bet he could.

The last election, Bush got 1 million gay votes because they were able to convince conservative gays that there was so little difference between Gore and Bush on gay issues that you might as well vote for Bush and get your tax cut.

JK was out front on legislation long before the doctor

I have never denied that I have an opinion on the issues, nor have I "covered up" my Dean support. As a gay man who is politically active, I have a good understanding of the issues and apply them from my own perspective.

It's unfortunate that you cannot comment on my logic or offer an alternative viewpoint, but instead choose to attack me and other gay people instead. That's not going to win you or your candidate any points.

heh heh

in question was Paul McCartney.:)

then had to wear a bulletproof vest for awhile.


And he's never regretted any of it. :hi:

matter who was the Governor of Vermont -- wasn't signing it pretty much mandated by the VT supreme court? I'm not from VT so I'm just interpreting what I've read so help me understand this better.

Did Gov Dean lead an active fight for gay civil unions in VT or did he go along with the will of the court -- they aren't the same thing.

They could have amended the constitution, or sent the issue to study until after the election. This is what happened with Alaska and Hawaii. Dean stuck his neck out because it was the right thing to do.

It did matter. Yes, it was an issue handed to him, but he didn't dodge it. Instead, he artfully brought it to implementation and survived the process. A lesser politician would not have survived. I think that kind of skill is valuable.

where you posted inaccurate info about everyone about Howard Dean, before you make another post on a similar subject?

I made it clear that everything was my opinion, and made corrections as necessary. I will not apologize for being a gay man concerned about equality, as some on this forum would have me do.

Even though Dean has said before that he was uncomfortable with homosexuality, he still knew that it was a question of civil rights and that gays are just as entitiled as every one else in this country. He was able to set aside his own prejudices and do what was right, and I respect him for that. Since his descision he has enjoyed the support of the homosexual community and I think being in contact with all of these people has really opened his eyes to just how important his decision was. Don't listen to those that say Dean is flip flopping he made the right decision when it counted and that is all that matters.

?

Actually, you *may* see a number of GOPs vote because of that reasons, especially if Bush uses it as a wedge. Then again, maybe not?

Calling Dean's actions "his courageous fight in Vermont" is nothing but revisionist history.

Supreme Court Says Yes to Equal Rights

Legislature ordered to extend marital rights, benefits, and obligations to same-gender couples.

All of the rights and benefits of marriage must flow to gay and lesbian couples in Vermont.

In eloquent and forceful words, the Vermont Supreme Court overturned decades of discrimination on Dec. 20 and ordered the state Legislature to fix state law.

<snip>

Elected leaders are trying to figure out their options and all of them, from the governor down, seem to have latched on to the court’s suggestion that domestic partnership might be legal.

“The Legislature will pass a domestic partnership bill and I’m comfortable with that,” Gov. Howard Dean said.

What was more interesting was what he was not comfortable with.

“It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said of gay marriage. “The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect. I think there are a lot of people in this state who are uncomfortable about the concept of gay marriage.”

There are thousands more who are not uncomfortable and at least some legislative leaders said they would be willing to consider enacting a marriage statute.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm

He puts a chummier face on it, but morally, Howard Dean's position (especially to the degree expressed by his Attorney General's brief which could only be described as homophobic) is no different from his opponents'. While their positions might be summed up as, "We're not sure we like you enough to afford you the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else in our civil society," the Governor's position is "I'm not sure you're worth the price to my re-election campaign."

In the interview the Governor stated, "Since nothing is going to happen on this issue in the legislature until the court speaks there's no particular reason for me to take a public position on it." His attempt to link whether he makes his positions public to the actions of other branches of government is illogical and insulting. Failing any sense of responsibility on his part, the insistence of OITM and its readers' voting power should give him the "particular reason" he needs to decide to make his position public. Would environmental groups accept a refusal to take a position on clearcutting, NARAL a demur from supporting or opposing abortion, or even Wall Street a "no opinion yet" on capital gains taxes?
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul98/deanoped.htm

so don't say that Dean did nothing because he told the legislature that he was ok w/civil unions and that is what they passed.

He was extremely courageous.

In order to pass this constitutional change in Hawaii, they told us about how people from the mainland would boycott us, damaging our economy. They told us that all these terrible homosexual people w/aids would come here from all over the U.S. to get married. They stood out on the sidewalks and waved signs to "support traditional marriage". They got donations from all over the U.S. and waged a substantial TV and radio campaign.

They played upon our prejudices in order to hurt people who are just trying to live their lives the best way they can.

I am ashamed to say that I was one of the ignorant people who voted to amend the Hawaii constitution mostly because I felt uncomfortable w/homosexuality. Boy have my views changed since then.

have enough support in Vermont to change the constitution?

I've seen the "they could have changed the constitution in Vermont" argument used several times to extol Dr. Deans' heroism in signing the civil unions bill - and I'm curious - was there a possibility that changing the state constitution could have gone forward?

If Dean hadn't brought around a lot of people on the issue, we'd be facing down a VT constitutional amendment right about now (it takes several years to pass one).

And it is insulting to gay people to keep disseminating this BS. On the "gay issues" thread, I noted that I campaigned for Dean back when he was unknown and fighting for his political life over civil unions.

Governor Dean is the ONLY candidate for president this year who had to wear a bullet-proof vest and get death threats against his family for taking a strong stance for gay equality. For you to pooh-pooh that, regardless of what candidate you are supporting, is insulting to Dean, me, and everyone else who fought so hard to preserve the victory in Vermont from the forces of Democratic party apathy and right-wing hatred.

openly in the military. I guess you forgot about the emotional impact of that issue at the time?

Can you tell me when I have said that Kerry isn't pro-gay, or didn't do the right thing on hate crimes along with Joe Lieberman, Arlen Specter and Alan Simpson?

I'm not arguing he's anti-gay. I am a supporter and former member of his prez campaign for cryin' out loud!

Sheesh, I cannot win.

when it's demonstrably untrue.

And Kerry did far more than just VOTE. He's been drafting progay legislation from his first year in office.

Do you think he is? Seriously, at this point I worry for that guy's safety.

Totally rational people I know just melt down over the man.

Nice how you want to diminish the long term efforts of others who LED the way on progay legislation for MANY YEARS in an effort to glorify Dean.

All I did was quote some articles from "Out in the Mountains". You are actually accusing them of being anti-gay?

And you weren't there to understand about what I was talking about.

You're using your enthusiasm for your candidate or against Dean to avoid getting a clear picture of what happened there. You don't seem interested in learning the whole story, but only finding snippets that enforce your pre-conceived notions. That's cool, but don't call it informed.

If you're trying to argue that Dean's support for CUs was "grudging" and "forced," and "no big deal," this article from Out In The Mountains sorta debunks that:

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/2003/11nov2003/news01_dean.htm

As of mid-October Dykes for Dean had 176 members nationwide with a distribution through 27 states — including Vermont — and Washington, D.C. Out for Dean has chapters in 24 states and Washington, D.C. There is currently no chapter of Out for Dean in the candidateÕs home state of Vermont, though Cooper maintained that lgbts in the missing states are involved in a state or city chapter of Dean's official campaign organization.

"With Dean as a candidate, there is no way that the Democrats — and our community — can run from this issue ," Cooper said.

I suppose all those Vermont GLBTers are busy supporting a grudging, forced supporter of civil unions? :P

which is ridiculous revisionist history. As is shown by looking at what was written in the Vermont gay press at the time. Which is what I quoted.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But the articles are right there for folks to read for themselves. Your spin won't make them go away. The facts are there despite your attempt to make them into something else.

Also, saying that I have 'preconceived notions' and falsely claiming that I called you a liar is like debating on a 3rd grade level. I won't go there.

I was there.

I know who I believe. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=35539&mesg_id=36381&page=

So no, you weren't there in the timeframe of these articles.

And, DUH, whether or not he signed the bill would determine the tenor of the campaign.

Why not talk about how your own candidate has advanced gay equality and taken a stand, rather than trying to splash mud on Dr. Dean's courage back when he was just the governor of a small state trying to do the right thing? 66% of gay Democrats who support Dean (not to mention those of us who campaigned for him in Vermont) aren't stupid, which is in my interpretation what you're trying to argue.

I posted some articles from "Out in the Mountains". I think they are worth reading. You have your version of events that happened before you showed up. I choose to believe the published source instead.

But don't worry. Gay people are used to "hit and run" debaters. :)

that you choose to paint me as anti-gay because I disagree with you.

I simply noted that you weren't interested in discussing the issues. When I referred you to my experience, you kept falling back on your articles and insisting my experience didn't matter. When I objected further, you said you didn't want to debate. I happen to view that as "hit and run."

You called it "his courageous fight in Vermont" and I think that is revisionist history based on what I've read about Dean's words and actions leading up to the signing of the bill. You've admitted you weren't there at the time so no I don't think your experience after the fact is relevant. You aren't making any new points, just repeating the same ones you made earlier. Can't we just agree to disagree?

I wish I could have edited instead of replying but it was too late. But I just wanted to say that if instead of saying "his courageous fight in Vermont" you had said "his courageous signing of the civil-unions bill in Vermont" I would have had no argument with you. Maybe you see that as an unimportant distinction but I don't. The fight you participated in during the campaign was a fight to reelect Dean, not a fight to get civil unions passed - that was fait accompli.

Peace.

I am curious.

What have you done to help family farms? :eyes:

You're arguing about civil unions and which candidates have done the most to advance them. So basically, you're saying you've done nothing -- yet you're informed enough to accuse others of "not doing enough?"

Ugh.

And I never accused anyone of "not doing enough"

:eyes:

. . . if you've never done anything about civil unions, why are you arguing with people who have?

It would be like me arguing with a wheat farmer about wheat policy, and citing some farm almanac. The authority would be the wheat farmer dealing with the situation, not what some people say in a wheat journal I link to on the Internet.

Oh, never mind, I don't think you're interested in civil unions anyway. . . :eyes:

Only WWII veterans can talk about WWII?

I'm glad you aren't making the rules around here.

:eyes:

. . . bitchy queens. That's what the article makes me think, anyway.

Good heavens, if you think that every article written by gays is going to present things in a totally objective light, you need to read more of the gay rags. We can be a unappreciative bunch.

They need to come live here in Colorado where *all* the government would just as soon see us in concentration camps. That might make them appreciate the fact that Dean handled the situation with considerable aplomb.

Both times for Dean events. I think it's wonderful how open and accepting the campaign is.

he is the only one who will give full marriage rights to us

I am simply noting that Dean's success wouldn't be possible without his unwavering embrace of gay and lesbian people. It wasn't until after he found success in this that the other campaigns were ready to go "whole hog" and take advantage of the gay grass roots -- but by then, he'd locked up the nomination.

I think most of the proof is that the MEDIA never bothered to tell new activists about any other candidate than Dean. And Dean perpetuated the belief with his stump speeches that always imply that he is the ONLY ONE who has ever done anything about ANY issue. People come away believing his horseshit.

Gay people are IGNORED in the media. One candidate chose to involve us in the core of the campaign, and he's benefitting from that wise choice. If you don't like it, wait until after the second Dean administration wraps up in 2012 and do the same thing for your own candidate.

I did it because my network of gay friends *invited* me to. This is the same network Dean grasped, and the others apparently chose to ignore.

At least, I never got an invite from any Kucinich supporters. ?

oh, he was talking about only MAJOR candidates

LOL, remember we have to qualify all Dean's remarks by "what he really meant" and "who he is actually referring to in his broad generalization"

:)

that there is a difference between "civil unions" and true rights; the right to marry the person you love.

I neglected to mention to you that I first heard about Dean from a gay cyber buddy...over a year ago.

So I have seen the grassroots gay support of Dean and I owe my early knowledge of his campaign to just that. His web page wasn't very well developed at that point, but it told me what I needed to know. I had been disappointed that Gore had decided not to run, and I didn't think that I could get truly excited about any other candidate. I could not believe what I found.

Google "Take Back Vermont" if you want to see what Dean was facing...



:puke:







Thanks for the great post Brian - keep it up!

You should have seen the town meetings where out-of-state Christian Coalition people would show films like "The Gay Agenda" and gay porn and say people were coming to do that to kids. Violence was threatened constantly.

I cannot imagine it, but we might see some strange stuff happen in this next election, especially if Dean gets the nomination (which I expect he will).

One thing really confuses me. This seems to be such a negative, but only to a comparatively small amount of people (and the media of course, who love to use it for ratings).

I honestly believe that most of the American people respect civil rights and don't really want to get into other people's sex lives. It's just that crazy, raucous few who stir things up all the time.

Am I being naive?

Was following buses full of good Christian Coalition ladies with Virginia plates who were sent up to recruit new voters. I would follow them from church to church and threaten to report them to the IRS for providing support for political activities, in violation of tax laws. I was condemned to hell about 3 dozen times, if I recall correctly. :-)

Have you ever heard of Bread Loaf Writers' Conference? How long were you in Vermont? I was at Bread Loaf in '94 and loved it, and I still have connections to some Bread Loaf folks today.

Edit: Middlebury College. The oldest writers' conference in the U.S.

Vermont is a neat state, lots to see and do. I'd enjoy living there one day.

I won't derail the thread with chat too much further. But I have to say that a friend (and mentor) of mine who is a marvelous and distinguished poet drove to Vermont a couple of years ago to spread the ashes of one dog and one cat whom she raised when she lived in Vermont (and New York). She did this in the woods around Bread Loaf.

I lived in Connecticut for a couple of years and visited Vermont a several times, but nothing beat the 10 or 11 days at the conference. It is no wonder that writers love Vermont.

This is the nomination campaign that proves gay people have arrived as an organizing force and part of a broad coalition -- not "take your money and run" like Bill Clinton, but actual full, equal coalition partners.

His only guide on this journey is Al. An observer from the year 2000, who appears in the form of a hologram that only Howard can see and hear. And so Dr Dean finds himself, leaping from life-to-life, striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time his next leap will be the leap home (to Vermont).

Which, incidentally is exactly what Clark, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Kucinich and co. are hoping for too!

;-)

politicians stopped hiding from GBLT issues. I've been saying this for years -- including on DU (it's in the archives). The GBLT community has, out of necessity, established a VAST network for and by GBLT Americans and their supporters. That support translates into activism, money and votes. Hello??? I know that the Dean campaign embraced the GBLT community very early on. And here's what's amazing.

There are people on THIS thread who threw up warnings about how necessesary it was to AVOID GBLT issues because the Republicans were going to hammer us with it. Remember that? I do. I remember debating it right here. Now, all of a sudden the other candidates are sidling up to GBLT Americans.

But don't get too close, just close enough to grab the money and run. Dean's been addressing these issues and PROUDLY going to events sponsored by GBLT organizations all along. And he backed up his support for Civil Unions by signing the bill (spare me the middle-of-the-night crap -- that's been explained ad nauseum and those still hanging on to it are either too bigoted to be swayed or too stupid to read). THAT was a politically balsy thing to do but it was the RIGHT thing and in the end, he gained the respect of Vermont's voters and they re-elected him.

There are people on THIS thread who threw up warnings about how necessesary it was to AVOID GBLT issues because the Republicans were going to hammer us with it. Remember that? I do. I remember debating it right here. Now, all of a sudden the other candidates are sidling up to GBLT Americans.

I remember it and I see it right now, today, when candidates "evolve" (but cannot manage to have any openly gay people in their campaign staff). They want our money and endorsement -- they don't want us to be part of "their" campaign.

I'm proud to be part of a campaign I can say is "ours." "Ours" meaning not just gay people (though they're part of it), but Americans from all walks of life. That's what makes Dean's campaign so different and innovative. It's not a calculated, cynical action about "electability" or positioning around "who has the best platform." It's something that builds upon past results and experiences from everyone who participates.

in the general election. It will be played up by the GOP. Middle America isn't exactly behind a gay rights movement (although they may not be against some individual bills that are passed).

But now they're on board. America needs a courageous leader like Howard Dean who brings the issues to the fore.

I refuse to pretend I don't exist or hop into the closet so that Democrats can "win" Alabama or Texas.

I bet they said the same thing about women's voting rights, and civil rights, too.

I don't think the right wing should determine the national agenda any longer.

I will let the party slide without a woman on the ticket this one last time. I won't be happy about it. But next time around there is a woman on the ticket or there will be hell to pay.
I am sick of compromising on civil rights and equality. That goes for gay rights, Women's rights and the rights of minorities to be treated like equals.

This is an issue about basic civil rights. It's not about fakery and "winning issues."

Dean couldn't help it .. he believes in equal rights for Everyone.
What a concept!

It's been the combined power and organization of the country wide LGBT community? Because it sure as hell isn't Dean's telegenic appearance or smooth talking TV skills!