Dean Issues Gay Mea Culpa

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

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

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

The platform actually endorsed gay marriage.

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


what the hell was Dean doing talking to the 700 Club anyway???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :crazy: :crazy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2618179

on edit: seriously, though, it isn't funny...

I am stunned by what happened here last night. I have been angry so many times but this just really threw me over the edge. Your rights have been used and abused by the other side for so long and now our side intends to play politics with you too. If one more person verbally pats me or you on the head and says not to worry, Big Daddy will look out for you while selling you down the river (for political expediency wink wink) I think I will just concede and put my little self in the middle of my pasture and wait for the SOB's to get raptured so all us evil ones can get on with our lives.

As to Dean? Well, it seems he is getting a lot of practice in the apology department. :eyes:

to sit on my hands and not say what I really think but it is getting harder. sadly our view on this is a minority view on DU. they'd prefer the fundies to us pesky queers apparently.

Between the womens issues that are pissing me off and this issue that has always pissed me off I am feeling like I am without a ground right now. I stick with you all, that is a given. There is nothing more important than a country that touts equality to issue equality for everyone. Why is everyone too wimpy to say it out loud? Do they not realize the real human hurt they are causing by tossing you all around like a football? There are not enough courageous people who will shout it out so we are not what we pretend to be. How do you suppose they will handle the federal marriage amendment next week (I think next week)?

Ahhhh shit. Legislating inequality once again, seems to be the rage these days.

Edit It looks like I am back to hiding threads now. More Dean is saving the world stuff. I tried to give him credit and not be so down on him but I can't take it anymore. This was the last straw.

I had to put one lout on ignore last night for the first time for his obvious and total contempt for my feelings over this issue. He apparently could care less about gay people's rights. I guess some people think this is just a football game and we have to support our side. But if the Democratic party doesn't stand for anything then what is the difference? Then it becomes a choice of coke or pepsi and why bother.
Thanks for sticking by us.

on ignore after the last few days and I have never really used that function but I had to for my own peace of mind. I don't think that is a good practice most of the time but when I start feeling like I am on the wrong website I have to.

No problem, it is the right thing to do. We will have to fight this for a while I am afraid. I thought we were making progress. I know we are in this bigoted state, big progress, but it was through a huge effort to organize. It ain't easy work but essential. :hug: You do have a lot of allies but most people just do not know what to do with it. We are providing them a place to work. Patience? Hell no, but it still may take a while and when our party seems to want to play with it rather than be vocally supportive our work is much harder. The harder it gets the harder we work. We will win in the end.

I got so discouraged and angry I had to withdraw from posting on several threads and finally stopped reading the ones posted on GD and LBN.

The ignorance and bigotry is very discouraging.

I was a little shocked, I must say. Some DUers were practically GLEEFUL about Dean's throwing us under the bus.

This sounds like a small, budding, branch of his fifty state strategy. For every hundred people who scream "Darksided!" when his face appears on the screen, maybe one or two...or with the way things are going, three or four... will listen. And find that what he says makes sense.

And ya gotta be careful with those thinking fundies...they have ways of influencing others...

Mighty oaks from little acorns grow!

Same thing he's doing in Mississippi and Utah. He's talking to the ten or twenty per cent that might switch teams. What did you think he was doing there, finding Jesus?

I think that's a decent guesstimate of those who might just need a push.

Disenchantment with stupid actions, of the leaders in the Democratic party may well remove as many "decent" votes as could possibly be gained with hunt for disenchanted among the "lawless conservatives".
Let's clean up all the steps and porch before we think we can clean up the HOUSE & SENATE!

causes disenchantment among one of the Democractic party's key constituencies.

With Bush's numbers in the crapper, many of us have wondered why the Dems in Congress haven't taken advantage of this incredible opportunity to drive a stake in the heart of the bloodsucking neocon reich. I've wondered abpout that myself, felt frustrated and furious, until Dean's pandering to the fundie wackos of the 700 Club illuminated the answer for me like St Paul on the road to Damascus. Our Dem leadership isn't using this opportunity to further a Democratic agenda or to support and solidify its loyal base (unions, gays, minorities, women); what they really see is a chance to steal the base they really covet -- Bush's base! White, straight, male, moneyed. We were just the life preserver that kept them afloat until such time they could climb back on board and take the helm of corporate amerikka.

Right now I feel like an enabler in an abusive relationship. I only wish there were some legitimate third parties to woo my vote.

This needs to be explored more. Much of the democratic leadership does seem to hold their nose when talking to the base: people of color, gays, trade unionists and workers. What they REALLY want must be the moneyed white Christian men. I really think you're on to something.

We're only there for the party as a placeholder until they can grab the base which owns what they perceive is the real power. I'm tired of being used and abused.

Not all Bush supporters are alike. You can characterize the support of a significant minority of them as being more of the nature of fans for a popular, "winner", celebrity. Less popularity, less "winning" = less support.

It might be a good idea to characterize BushCo supporters in thirds: 1/3 fanatics, 1/3 who have a 50:50 chance of going either positive or negative, and 1/3 who are Bushites in name only.

that favors the fanatics category?

Hey, why don't we disavow support for affirmative action next! I bet we could make inroads with about 10% of the non-fanatical racists in this country. :eyes:

You know, the same guy that blamed gays for 9/11 and advocates the murder of a democratically elected foreign leader. Next week Dean will be speaking at an Aryan Nations meeting in an effort to get them to switch teams too. It's a winning strategery.

More like the other way around, particularly if Dean does a good job.

You can't both say, there's nobody for Dean to talk to because only nutjobs watch it, and say that now Dean is giving Robertson credibility among those same nutjobs.

Dean isn't writing off people who watch robertson. That's all there is to it.

By going on that nutjobs show he gives credibiity to Pat Robertson as some kind of power broker and official spokeman for Christians. It was a stupid idea. There are enough venues for Dean to go to without pandering to that nut. He won't pick up one vote by appearing on that show. All he did was allow Robertson to use him as a useful idiot and get him to insult his own base. Rove, Robertson and the Freeps must be laughing right now.

Doing a bad job is bad in ANY venue. But the question was, why was Dean even on the program, and I think that it's pretty clear. He was doing his job. Not well, but doing it.

to help out Pat Robertson. Robertson is nuts and evil but he's not stupid otherwise he wouldn't be rolling in cash from his con game. Robertson would never have anyone on that didn't benefit him and his political goals. Dean fell for it hook, line and sinker. If he's not smart enough to stay out of right wing traps he's not smart enough to be chairman of the party.

No! Pandering to bigots is NOT his damn job!

Going to red states and, apparently, red TV shows is Dean's strategy: the concept was to compete, which is different from pandering. I haven't seen the clip, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that there were a bunch of statements about how dems differ from republicans, and merely showing up and not eating babies probably gives those viewers the best portrayal of democrats that they have had in years. Blowing up the mere prescence on the show and a single fuckup of the dem platform on the part of the governor who was in the avant garde when he signed the gay union bill in vermont in 2000 is not only unfair, it's a distraction.

Characterizing things you disagree with in extreme terms, without considering the many other possibilities, at least suggests some limitations in the ability to speculate.

Why?

Priorities can differ; so be it. Perhaps some of us need to understand that they can also be fluid, to some degree, while still oriented on certain well defined goals. If you've ever taught, teenagers in particular, you would know what I mean.

"Dean isn't writing off people who watch robertson. That's all there is to it."

He continues down this road and he'll be writing off the majority of the GLBT community which isn't so self-loathing that they will continue to support a political party which takes them wholly for granted and uses them to win elections only to put all of their issues on the back burner until the next election.

Just appearing on TV, on red TV shows, misstating the platform, or what?

I'm looking at statements like "wholly for granted" and "all of their issues on the back burner" and wonder if it's got anything to do with Dean, Dean's appearance, or Dean's statements at all. If the discussion of this one incident is just a proxy for something else, some larger more comprehensive debate about gay rights and strategy, it's got to be identified rather than going into what Dean said vs. the actual Dem platform and how many potential voters there are on the 700 club.

In other words, maybe it's time to pan back and see if there is a real deviation from the road, or not.

You said what I was wondering.

What is it that people Really want to talk about here?

The fact that they want more power in the Democratic party perhaps?

aren't about to change their minds. For crying out loud. Way to go, Howard! Good one!

Was my first thought also! So cozy with the "devils finest advocate" is not where any honest "power democrat" should ever allow them self to be saying a word!

Was it prearanged? Was it spur of the moment?
Did he actually go to their headquarters?

His yell made him look stupid. This just shows his ignorance. I knew He wouldn't be able to hide it.

Since this is my opinion and that is your opinion, which one of us is right?

he gained enough supporters from the 700 club to offset those he dismissed as not important in his base?

wherever they may be, but if it means abandoning your principles even for a moment, do we really want those 20%?

Once they realize it was only a lie anway, how long are they likely to remian swayed?

It quite clearly avoids any discussion of "marriage." It leaves the interpretation open to the individual Democrat as to the best path to take, simply stating that the members of the GLBT community are human beings and entitled to equal protection and access.

There are ways to do that without creating gay marriage.

Personally, I want a new Constitutional amendment that ensures homosexuals have full access to all of the benefits of marriage that are provided by the government.

"Seperate but equal" does not work.

It says that the states shall define marriage. The platform expresses opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, but it does not in any way support my right to get married.

As Democrats, we are still divided by the issue of gay marriage.

Not surprising, actually. It is a complicated issue with several different possible solutions. And people still haven't bothered to educate themselves about the issue, as evidenced by people who post on this board saying that civil unions grant "most" of the protections thereof when they aren't even covered under the full faith and credit clause.

Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing the decision for Loving v Virginia, put it most succinctly: Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry,... resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

What is so complicated about that?

"Complicated" is not the same as "controversial".

This issue may be controversial, but it's pretty damn simple.

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, A PERSON OF ANOTHER RACE resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." (caps added).

By leaving out the fact that the court was speaking of race, you left out the complication of having to argue that marryimg a person of the same sex is the same, or should be treated the same, as marrying a person of the opposite sex. That is, you left out the entire bone of contention, the entire "complication", the entire issue that is being argued.

I guess if convincing americans on gay marriage is the same as het marriage was as uncomplicated as changing a quote with an ellipsis, we'd have gay marriage in every state by now.

...but that doesn't make it so. I assert that sexual orientation is NOT equivalent to race in this matter, recognizing the fact that this is just MHO.

You didn't argue that sex orientation is equivalent to race: you made sure that you wouldn't have to, by leaving out the part of the sentence that made the ruling in Loving limited to interracial marriage and pretending like there was constitutional precedent.

That's my point. By the use of the ellipsis, you simply pretended that the supreme court had made a ruling that included same sex marriage, by leaving out a limiting phrase.

You wanted to make it seem "uncomplicated" by making the equivalence seem decided. That lasted about five minutes, because even DUers can read. In fact, the equivalence is exactly the issue that causes opposition. Simple declarations don't do it, obviously: ignore the fact that it must be proven to them at your own peril.

The Court has bent over backwards to keep from ruling on equal marriage. Why? I expect it is because they know how the Constitution would force them to rule.

Loving has been cited favorably by lower courts with regards to equal marriage; the King County (Washington) ruling on Anderson et al. v. King County et al. is just one such example. Every such ruling strengthens the precedent of Loving being used to extend equal marriage with regards to gender.

I mean, compare what you said in the post I respond to here, and the post to which I objected.

One's a single sentence purportedly quoting the supreme court.

One's not; one's based on your personal expectation that the law will change with a new precedent.

The difference is pretty compelling. Reality is complicated. Ellipses are not.

You are personally AGAINST gay marriage, right? What's your personal agenda for arguing with us.

for disagreeing. I can't just point out a false argument because it's false, now, without a "personal agenda"?

Between misquoting the supreme court and then bringing that up, so much for making friends and influencing people.

I'm for gay marriage. Legal recognition of marriage for two people of the same gender. Just for the fucking record.

Nope. My apologies. That's why I said, "if I remember correctly." Apparently I didn't. You don't have to have a personal agenda. But sometimes people do, and when they do, it needs to be on the table.

then social conservatives and fundy nut cases will do to gay marriage what was done to roe v wade.

it's already banned in like 19 states -- we have equality in one.

Let's draft an amendment to The Constitution that gives each state the right to choose between either banning gay marriage, or guaranteeing the right of all citizens single-payer health insurance and to receive health care.

"Marriage shall be defined as the union only between a man and a woman, except in those states where citizens are guaranteed a right to health care and to medication."

That pretty much distills the entire 2004 Election down to a single sentence, doesn't it?

Health care or bigotry-- choose one.

I wonder what people would pick.

i'm trying to imagine the cacophony just at du over that.

works for me though.

"Okay, fuckers. Banning gay marriage or having guaranteed universal health care. Bigotry or your health. You choose."

That was the national referendum in 2004, wasn't it?

You want clean air and water, universal health care, a balanced budget and social security? Or do you want to ban gay marriage, give rich people more tax cuts, and bomb a whole lotta brown people?

Put Gay Marriage and Universal Health Care in the same amendment.

Flash-forward to 2009:

"Yeah, my wife Ethel and I couldn't afford our diabetes medicine, but we weren't gonna move to Massachusetts to get free health care. They allow the damn queers to get married there! I've lost two toes now, and I reckon I'll have to take a hack saw to my leg next week. Ethel's been begging me to move to New Hampshire so she could get dialysis. She'll be dead in about a month, but it's important that we preserve the family and stay right here in Alabama where we've chosen to protect marriage. And even if we both die, our kids will be out of foster care when they turn 18 in a couple years, anyway. Hey, can you pass me my spittoon?"

"Marriage shall be defined as the union only between a man and a woman, except in those states where citizens are guaranteed a right to health care and to perscription medication."

I'd vote for that!

besides you'ld give the best news conference ever!

"Excuse me, Chairman Dean? Cynthia McKinney just kicked a Capitol Police officer in the shin."

"Oh, that's too bad. Call Senator Ian and ask him to give a news conference today at noon."

"A news conference about McKinney?"

"Oh, goodness no! A news conference about anything but McKinney!"

oh god what an image!

oh yeah i'm sure you could set some hair on fire.

as a straight married couple, then I can ALMOST see leaving it as a state issue

but as long as some states don't recognize gay marriages performed in another state and recognize straight marriages performed in another state even if that marriage would have been prohibited in the second state (have I lost anyone yet?) then no I don't want it state by state

And in him appearing on the "700 Club" program in the first place.

So, I share your disappointment.

I support same-sex marriage rights (those of us with law degrees refer to it as ... "equal protection of the law," to which each citizen and resident is entitled).

No excuse for this on Dean's part.

I'm assuming the DNC knows enough about the 700 Club to know that a *portion* of its viewership can, potentially, be shaken loose by dispelling misperceptions about the (ugh!) 'values ' of the DEM party.

Dean spoke well to this point,I thought, when he addressed abortion ( there is some common ground in the shared desire to reduce the NEED for abortion) and coarseness and vulgarity in the popular culture ( I personally wished he had addressed this at more length; my sense is that this spooks much of the 700 Club constituency a lot more than gay marriage does... while simulataneously resonating with the anticommercial sensibility of most progressives.)

However, he's a bit of a motormouth ( one of the many reasons I didn't support him in '04) and should have stopped there, but didn't. It's doubly embarrassing that our chairman doesn't seem to know what's in the party platform. On a hot button issue . Ouch. Plus even the evangelicals can now, with reason, feel manipulated.

An embarrassment all around; not exactly a 'disaster'. We knew what we were getting when we made Dean chairman. Talk now, think later. But give him credit for energy, enthusiasm and the willingness to reach out to whomever on the other side can be realistically reached.

It would be better if he understood the marriage issue better.