PDA

View Full Version : Dean: We Oppose Gay Marriage Too


SBK
05-11-2006, 02:59 PM
ROFLhttp://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/11/94300.shtml?s=lhThursday, May 11, 2006 9:40 a.m. EDT Dean: We Oppose Gay Marriage Too
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has angered supporters in the gay and lesbian community by stating that his party opposes gay marriage. Appearing on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s program "The 700 Club” on Wednesday, Dean declared: "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.” Dean, however, "misrepresented” the party platform, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which has returned a $5,000 contribution from the Democratic Party in a protest over Dean’s remarks. According to the blog PageOneQ, the Democratic Party’s actual platform reads: "We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits and protection 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.’” The Task Force’s executive director Matt Foreman said in a statement: "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.” In an effort to drum up support in the Christian community before the 2006 midterm elections, Dean also stated on the show: "One of the misconceptions about the Democratic Party is that we're godless and that we don't have any values. "The truth is, we have an enormous amount in common with the Christian community, and particularly with the evangelical Christian community. "One of the biggest things that Democrats worry about is the materialism of our country, what's on television that our kids are seeing, and the lack of spirituality. And that's something we have in common." Dean even tried to downplay the Democratic Party’s traditional strong pro-choice stance, saying: "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.” Asked if it is important for Democrats to tap into the evangelical community to win in 2006, he responded: "I think it's important, and I think it's a good idea for the Democratic Party.” But if Dean’s comments were designed to garner support from evangelicals, they no doubt alienated many in the gay and lesbian community. In his statement, Foreman said: "Governor Dean’s record on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues since becoming DNC chair has been sorely and sadly lacking. "In light of Governor Dean’s pandering and insulting interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, we have decided to return the DNC’s recent $5,000 contribution to us.”

Mr. Kotter
05-11-2006, 09:48 PM
heh. ROFL

Mohammed
05-11-2006, 09:50 PM
My acolytes are everywhere.

SBK
05-11-2006, 10:53 PM
I figured that this would be a thread that got no response cause it's not talking about Bush being da debil.

Looks like Kotter and that guy with a bomb in his turban proved me wrong.

Nightwish
05-11-2006, 11:30 PM
I figured that this would be a thread that got no response cause it's not talking about Bush being da debil.

Looks like Kotter and that guy with a bomb in his turban proved me wrong.Were you under the mistaken impression that this board is chock full of Dean supporters? I suppose your OP is worth responding to if you either love Dean or hate him. But for those of us who couldn't give two shits less about him, it wasn't worth commenting on.

jAZ
05-11-2006, 11:33 PM
What's news worthy about Dean referencing the Dems 2004 party platform? And why should there be a good deal of feedback on thread covering a 2+ year old topic?

I have to say, this doesn't reflect well on the quality of Newsmax to be able to rush the latest news stories to our attention.

WoodDraw
05-11-2006, 11:41 PM
What's news worthy about Dean referencing the Dems 2004 party platform? And why should there be a good deal of feedback on thread covering a 2+ year old topic?

I have to say, this doesn't reflect well on the quality of Newsmax to be able to rush the latest news stories to our attention.

Dean was the one who brought the subject back up. He was trying to appeal to Christian groups by lying about the Democrat's stance on marriage (brilliant strategy btw). The Democratic base called him on it, so he had to backtrack. Stupid mistake.

Nightwish
05-11-2006, 11:46 PM
Dean was the one who brought the subject back up. He was trying to appeal to Christian groups by lying about the Democrat's stance on marriage (brilliant strategy btw). The Democratic base called him on it, so he had to backtrack. Stupid mistake.Did he lie about it? He claimed that it was how it read in 2004, and the Gay/Lesbian group countered with text from how it supposedly reads in 2006. Has the statement changed over the past two years? Does anyone know? I don't feel like googling for it?

WoodDraw
05-11-2006, 11:49 PM
Did he lie about it? He claimed that it was how it read in 2004, and the Gay/Lesbian group countered with text from how it supposedly reads in 2006. Has the statement changed over the past two years?

I was just going by the first article I found:

Dean told Christian Broadcasting Network News that the 2004 Democratic platform declares "marriage is between a man and a woman" - just one of the points he made in reaching out to religious conservatives who are largely hostile to the party.

But the platform does not define marriage that way, and his remarks prompted the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to return a $5,000 donation from the Democratic National Committee.


- http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Democrats_Gays.html

Regardless of the word you use to define his "misstatement", he was trying to pander to a group of people I'd rather not have the Democratic party - or any party - pander to.

Taco John
05-11-2006, 11:50 PM
My acolytes are everywhere.



Shut up Tom.

Nightwish
05-11-2006, 11:54 PM
Regardless of the word you use to define his "misstatement", he was trying to pander to a group of people I'd rather not have the Democratic party - or any party - pander to.
I agree with you 100% there. I'm just curious whether he was deliberately misrepresenting the current position of the Dem platform, whether he simply misunderstood the position of the platform, or whether the platform actually has changed since 2004.

jAZ
05-12-2006, 08:02 AM
Dean was the one who brought the subject back up. He was trying to appeal to Christian groups by lying about the Democrat's stance on marriage (brilliant strategy btw). The Democratic base called him on it, so he had to backtrack. Stupid mistake.
Who's the one lying here? If it was in their party platform, for better or worse, it was in fact "the Democrat's stance" (at least as a party in 2004).

Stupid on his part or not... stupid choice by the party or not, the fact is that it was the platform of the Dem party in 2004.

jAZ
05-12-2006, 08:05 AM
Shut up Tom.
Seriously, is Tom bright enough to know the term "acolytes"? Kotter is.

jAZ
05-12-2006, 08:09 AM
Regardless of the word you use to define his "misstatement", he was trying to pander to a group of people I'd rather not have the Democratic party - or any party - pander to.
I can agree with that to a limited extent. Some of those people would be satisfied with civil unions for all people (and leaving the concept of marriage for each church or other non gov't institution to defne ans narrowly as they'd like. I'd be open to them joining this party, in a big way.

banyon
05-12-2006, 08:38 AM
heh. ROFL

Why are you laughing? You should be applauding. After all, it's your whole mantra that Dems return to "traditional values" before you'll support them again.

Unless you just made that stuff up too...

Mr. Kotter
05-12-2006, 02:14 PM
Seriously, is Tom bright enough to know the term "acolytes"? Kotter is.

It's not me; and it's not Tom.....heh.

Mr. Kotter
05-12-2006, 02:15 PM
Why are you laughing? You should be applauding. After all, it's your whole mantra that Dems return to "traditional values" before you'll support them again.

Unless you just made that stuff up too...

You'd be right, if Dean had been honest and correct....but he wasn't.

Baby Lee
05-12-2006, 02:20 PM
Howard Dean earned a very good reputation among gay people when he supported civil unions in Vermont. But those who have dealt with him face-to-face know his aversion to marriage equality for gay people. He outmaneuvered marriage advocates in Vermont skillfully and adeptly. His position is that his party's interests come first, and so I'm not surprised to see him going on Christianist Pat Robertson's show and misrepresenting the Democrats' position. There's a fascinating battle going in within Democratic ranks on the marriage issue right now. I can see Hillary attacking gay couples' equality in the future as a way to score short-term political points. She learned such tactics from her husband.

For me, the deeper lesson is now and always has been the following: the gay rights movement is a moral movement. It is about education, and persuasion, and moral witnessing to the truth about our lives. We should engage members of both parties as much as we can. But we should never become a wing of one party. It tarnishes the movement and leads to such gut-wrenching betrayals as the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the two most significant anti-gay events of the last decade - both signed by a Democratic president. Engage, but don't trust. And whetever you do, don't trust Howard Dean.

banyon
05-12-2006, 02:25 PM
You'd be right, if Dean had been honest and correct....but he wasn't.

but putting his error aside, he seems to think that the party was heading in the wrong direction on this issue.

Unless you'd rather nitpick about the accuracy of his statement, I would think that having a DNC Chair with that attitude would be encouraging to you.

CHIEF4EVER
05-12-2006, 02:26 PM
Wait, wait, wait. You mean Howard Dean and the Dems are *gasp* FLIP FLOPPING LIARS? Whodathunkit.....(see J. Kerry).

Mr. Kotter
05-12-2006, 02:28 PM
but putting his error aside, he seems to think that the party was heading in the wrong direction on this issue.

Unless you'd rather nitpick about the accuracy of his statement, I would think that having a DNC Chair with that attitude would be encouraging to you.

Dean is a political opportunist who'll say whatever he thinks his audience at a particular point in time wants to hear (not any different from most politicians, I suppose)....that doesn't change the position of the party he represents. It's that position which is most important, not Dean's "words."

banyon
05-12-2006, 02:49 PM
Dean is a political opportunist who'll say whatever he thinks his audience at a particular point in time wants to hear (not any different from most politicians, I suppose)....that doesn't change the position of the party he represents. It's that position which is most important, not Dean's "words."

certainly he did not create this talking point ex nihilo. DNC ops obviously think that this is the right strategy to take. You should rejoice.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/96/Tv_sesame_street_oscar.jpg/250px-Tv_sesame_street_oscar.jpg

Mr. Kotter
05-12-2006, 03:04 PM
certainly he did not create this talking point ex nihilo. DNC ops obviously think that this is the right strategy to take. You should rejoice.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/96/Tv_sesame_street_oscar.jpg/250px-Tv_sesame_street_oscar.jpg

Why would I rejoice, when I recognize this for what it is: political pandering which doesn't change the partys position?

banyon
05-12-2006, 03:13 PM
Why would I rejoice, when I recognize this for what it is: political pandering which doesn't change the partys position?

Well, at least I chose an appropriate image for you then. :p