(h/t – Instapundit)
As reported last night by the Washington Blade…
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.”
And gay rights groups are furious. Log Cabin Kommander, Patrick Guerriero leads the charge:
“Howard Dean puts his foot in his mouth so often that he should open a pedicure wing in the DNC during his tenure,” Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Guerriero said Wednesday. “Howard Dean’s positions on LGBT issues have changed more often than the weather in New England, where he’s from.”
Look at you, Patrick! Going for the gay and metrosexual crowds with the “pedicure” slam. Nice one. Patrick must have been reading Dan’s post earlier this week. I guess this was his answer. Bravo, Log Cabin. It is about time you remember who you are.
GPW adds:”Kudos, Patrick. You dun good and wittily so.”
The Dean outrage is echoed by the Stonewall Dems…
“Democrats do not believe that the federal government should forcefully dictate family policy for individual states, as championed by congressional Republicans and the Bush administration,” she said in a statement. “Therefore, we strongly point out that Governor Dean incorrectly spoke when stating that the 2004 Democratic Party platform defines marriage as between a man and a woman.”
… National Gay & Lesbian (Socialist) Task Force….
“Disturbingly, this is not the first time he has misrepresented this important and affirming plank [of the Democratic Party platform], and he has been asked before to correct the record and to cease making these misleading statements,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the Task Force.
Foreman said in response to Dean’s “pandering and insulting interview” with the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Task Force would return a $5,000 donation it received from the DNC.
“We do so with great sadness, knowing that the Democratic Party has long been a champion of our rights,” he said.
Yes, Matt… the Dems have been really great when in power — providing us with DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Awesome grasp of history, dude!
Man, and here I thought I would be in a foul mood today due to having to fly United Airlines across the country.
*doing happy dance*
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I blogged this also. Deans motivation, me thinks, is to try to make inroads into the traditional religious demographic and siphon of some votes, especially in the South, from disenchanted republican voters, without whom the Dems would have a very hard time winning the presidency in 2008. I’m not sure if my though came out as clear as I would like (it’s a morning thing). But I have to go work now so it will have to do.
As if the republicans have done anything to help the gay community, now just who is it that is pushing a Federal Admendment to the Constitution to ban same sex marriages? You seem to have a close mind to your own partys actions.
As far as Howard Dean goes, what he does not seem to understand is that Christian Fundementalist will never vote for a democrat, sucking up to these 700 frauds won’t do any good.
There is a good argument to be made that while in power the Republicans have done NOTHING (legislation becoming law) about gays.
I’d settle for nothing rather than DOMA and DADT.
Bruce, good post.
I love the GayLeft defenders of Democrats-as-usual… “but, but, IF the GOP one day tries to do something adverse to us, it’ll be really really really bad. Really. Like concentration camps. Like RR allowing gays to die at the curb while he consorted with Nancy’s astrologist on what to do about gay cancer.”
Facts make a pesky soulmate for opinions from the GayLeft.
Who is using gay rights as a wedge issue these days? Why it’s HowieDean, JohnKerry, JohnEdwards, NancyPelosi and others. Did they hire Karl Rove when we weren’t watching?
Republicans have done nothing? Are you kidding me. Over 20 states have past measures in past 6 years to ban Same Sex Marriages, and these measures were supported by Republican leadership, and now you have Bill Frist proposing a Federal Admendment. Republicans have always used these Wedge issues, even Rudy Guiliani admits that, and he said its wrong.
Because… Dean is lying, he’s a Democrat so we know he’s really *for* gays no matter what he says and to whom. Republicans, OTOH, lie too, only in the other direction because we *know* that they are really against gays (even if they claim to be concerned about marriage… NO ONE is concerned about marriage, why would they be?)
Gee, rob22lee, in Michigan it was a group of blue-collar (read behanioral Democrats that HowieDean is pursuing at our expense) fundamentalist type preachers from metro Detroit who spearheaded the Marriage Amendment in 2002 in Michigan… three of the leaders of the initiative were Democrats. Go figure? In fact, all the big Catholic bureaucrats are Democrats.
What’s worse for me was that the state Democrat leadership and the national HRC sat on their assets while the proposal went forward… nary an ounce of effective effort to defeat it. GovenorGoodSmile and Sen StupidCow and Sen CarlLaughin’ just stood by in the wings tsking and huffing. With friends like that, do we even need those evil GOPers you dream and scheme about?
Um, Rob22lee, Bruce was referring to Democrats at the national level. Bill Frist may have proposed the FMA, but it won’t muster the 67 votes a consitiutional amendment needs.
I don’t thing the GOP is evil, but i will call a spade a spade, and i’m sure am not blinded by what either party is doing when it comes it gay rights, the reality is they both use the gay wedge issue, Republicans use it to gather Evangelical Support, and Democrats use it to get GLBT support. Just seems on this blog, i hear a lot about how evil the Democrats and Liberals are, but not much talk about what Republicans are doing, almost as if you guys turn a blind eye to it, but if Democrats say one thing out of whack, you guys are all over it, that makes little sense to me, your either for gay rights or your not, your either either going to expose the homophobic bigots in our leadership or your not.
I will not give republicans a free pass, and neither will i give Democrats a free pass.
As far as Michigan goes, i do not know who proposed the bill, so you may be right on that end, i will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. But i do assoicate with many Republicans and Democrats, and my democrat friends are usually Pro-Gay rights, while some of the republicans i know (not all), support a Federal Admendment, in fact i can’t name one democrat i personally know that supports the Federal Ademendment, but i can name one republican i know who does, so for me, that tells me where the Anti-Gay rights is coming from, furthermore we know anti-Gay rights usually come from Christian Fundementalists (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson), who also by their own admission are republicans and vote republican, so that once again affirms to me what side contains the Anti-Gay vote. Turning a blind eye to what your party is doing does not help things, me personally i’m a independent Liberal, i believe in true individual freedom, would i ever vote for a Republican? Sure i would, people like Rudy i like a lot, but i will never turn a blind eye to what Republicans are doing to hinder gay rights, and neither will i turn a blind eye to lack of actions democrats are doing.
#5 In case you haven’t noticed, the Marriage Ammendments are passing with strong bi-partisan support and no opposition from the DNC. As the Stonewall Dem leader quoted in the article states, the Dem Platform says “Democrats do not believe that the federal government should forcefully dictate family policy for individual states”. Now that it’s happening you should be thrilled that the Dem Platform is being implemented across the country.
BTW, Dr. Dean must be confused by all of the fuss because all he did was repeat John Kerry’s 2004 position on marriage which was enthusiastically supported by HRC, Stonewall, and, I would bet, yourself.
rob22lee, I’m not so certain it’s a wedge issue when “values” as an issue tied with “unemployment” as the 4th issue of importance to voters in the 2004 election… behind the WOT and Iraq, terrorism and national security, the economy. And “values” as the important issue for voters has been dropping ever since 1996 –when it peaked because of Clinton’s immoral escapades and the seeming attack on Christian and religious values by the courts.
I don’t think it is a wedge issue for the GOP… but if HowieDean wants to try on that coat and use it as a wedge issue, he’s more than welcome to it.
#5 – You think the State measures against SSM weren’t supported by Democrats? And didn’t REQUIRE the support of Democrats for their passage? And that Democrats like Clinton and Kerry haven’t been loudly saying “We are against same-sex marriage” for years now, when they weren’t busy writing and passing the ONLY federal anti-gay laws of recent memory? Take your head out of the blender, rob.
As for the tired “wedge issue issue”, see my comment here.
Now, what I really came to say:
– Nice to see LCR criticize a Democrat for once, I agree.
– Like Instapundit, I guess Howie Dean and all the Democrats are “Christianists” too now? So for example, Gryph, we’ll be seeing comments from you (or maybe columns from Andrew Sullivan) on their “Christianism” now, right? Right?
Calarato, but how do you really feel? Good points.
The only wedge I want to see is the one created in HowieDean’s pants by two muscle marys pulling up the back of his boxers. Serves him right. It won’t affect him though since he lost his balls a long time ago.
“the Dems have been really great when in power — providing us with DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Perhaps you don’t recall but DOMA was legislation enacted in 1996 when Repubs controlled BOTH the House and Senate. Damn Clinton for signing it but the Repubs proposed it. In hindsight, DOMA has been a blessing in disguise as it has been used by many as a reason the FMA is not needed. In the absence of DOMA, I am certain that the FMA would have passed through Congress by now and be rolling through the states.
As for DADT, the ONLY reason it came to be was because Clinton proposed lifting the military ban entirely. It was only when faced with open revolt by the military brass led by Powell and aided by conservatives in Congress, that Clinton was forced to come up with DADT.
As for Dean’s remarks, I am OUTRAGED by them. He needs to immediately issue an abject apology for this lie.
#14 First, why the outrage? It’s exactly what the Kerry/Edwards position was in 2004. I don’t get it unless you refused to vote for them because of their lying bigotry.
Second, you left out the part about DADT being enacted when Dems controlled Congress and because of an open revolt by senior Dem legislators.
Finally, this is just another example of what happens when politicians know that they’ll get your vote and money no matter what they do.
Howard Dean has said he was wrong for what he said, 365gay.com has a report on that.
#14 – No Ian – Clinton proposed DOMA and (or, at any rate) eagerly and loudly endorsed it.
Oh, and Clinton also said he would support an FMA if/when that became necessary.
Remember, when Clinton proposed and signed DOMA in 1996, an FMA wasn’t necessary yet because Massachusetts hadn’t yet done gay marriage.
I have to jump in here. In Indiana, SJR7, the bill to ban gay marriage in Indiana by amending the state’s constitution, despite gay marriage already being illegal in Indiana, was widely supported by both sides of the aisle. Few Democrats came to the defense of the growing LGBT community in Indiana. That being said, a new Human Rights Ordinance in Indianapolis was passed this year thanks to the efforts of Republicans who recognized that it was a fair expectation that Hoosiers be judged on their work performance, not who they sleep with or what sex they claim to be.
Both major parties deserve scrutiny when it comes to these matters.
#19 – Agree 100%.
#18 continued – And in 2004, according to media reports, Clinton pointedly advised Kerry to endorse the FMA and State anti-marriage amendments.
To his slight credit, Kerry didn’t endorse any amendments. But not because he likes gay marriage. In one of the debates with Bush, Kerry pointedly said, with emphasis, “President Bush and I have the exact same position on this.”
So, call Kerry a “Christianist” too!
Actually, Kerry said that he would have voted for the MO Marriage Amendment if he could during the campaign. The difference between voting for but not endorsing an amendment is great example how full of nuance Kerry was and still is. Thank God he’s still the junior Senator from MA
One more fact for liberal apologists to wrap their minds around:
Bush has increased AIDS spending to 3 times (last I heard – exact number may have changed) over Clinton.
So – Clinton and Bush are the same, precisely, on DOMA / FMA type of issues. And then we have Bush doing BETTER for gay men (at least) on some other stuff.
Bush more anti-gay than Clinton? Nuh-uh… maybe even less…
Ian S writes :”…only when faced with open revolt by the military brass led by Powell and aided by conservatives in Congress, that Clinton was forced to come up with DADT.”
It’s a tired old canard that isn’t substantiated by the facts, Ian S. You have that strong pro-gay Clinton shrinking like a violet in the face of big-o-bad Colin Powell –when everyone inside and outside Washington know that Powell as CJCOS was as toothless and ineffective as an opponent of lifting the ban as he was as Secy of State. Right, Clinton wanted to help out gays but he just couldn’t ’cause of Colin. Right.
Nice try, but revisionism doesn’t count as fact. It was Sam Nunn’s opposition (a Democrat Senator from Georgia) to lifting the ban that did it in… and Clinton folded faster than a dealing whore from Hope.
Clinton had Les Aspin (D-then SecDef) craft the language and monitor its legislative activity on the Hill. Democrats can claim full and complete credit for DADTDHDP… their apologists have a hard time laying the blame elsewhere but where the Presidential pen allowed it to become law.
#16 rob22lee, Dean made an apology? Is that how you read it????
Wow, I bet the servers at 365gay care going to topple when all those 700 Club viewers start checking out the 365gay website for the Dean-sort-of-kind-of-retraction while trying to hook-up tonight. Not.
LOL. I love it; that’s an apology? I guess it is for the lackies padding his kneeler.
How about Dean goes back on the 700 Club and begins with “I’m back ’cause I tried to mislead you in my earlier attempt to find common ground with Christianists. We Democrats stand for the right of gays to marry. I have sinned, but I still haven’t had sex with that woman –does that count for anything or will I still have to do penance?”
I don’t believe i said he apologized, he said he was wrong, and that’s what i said:
Howard Dean has said he was wrong for what he said, 365gay.com has a report on that.
Or let me further Clearify, he said he “mis-stated the Democratic Position”. He went on to make a statement concerning where Democrats are on this issue.
#15 “why the outrage?”
Because it’s an inaccurate representation of the Dem platform which says the matter should be left to the states. Currently, because Massachusetts allows SSM, and the Dem platform endorses what each state decides, therefore the Dem platform endorses SSM in Massachusetts. Therefore Dean cannot make the blanket statement he did about the Dem platform and marriage.
“an open revolt by senior Dem legislators.”
Like Sam Nunn, a conservative Dem. As I stated, Clinton was done in on the issue “by conservatives in Congress.” You’ll notice I did not single out Repubs.
#17: “Clinton proposed DOMA.”
No, he signed it. Congress proposed and passed it because Hawaii was close to legalizing SSM.
As for Kerry, he opposes the FMA and supported the Massachusetts amendment ONLY if it provided for civil unions with all the rights of marriage. But let’s look ahead to 2008. What does McCain think about SSM? Well, he’s come out strongly in support of the Arizona initiative that would not only ban SSM but also civil uniuons, domestic partnerships or any legal recognition of gay relationships whatsoever. He has also stated that he will support the FMA if DOMA is ever struck down. As for other potential GOP nominees, it’s all downhill from McCain.
#27 Why did you say conservatives when it was Dems who led the crusade for DADT? Why not use the term conservatives in the previous sentence when you used Repubs?
Also, it appears that you are outraged by Dem “misstating” the Dem Platform but not the fact the vast majority of Dem leadership believes, like Kerry & Edwards, that marriage is only between a man and woman. Contrary to what the Platform say in a vauge, weasely sort of way. Is misstating the Platform a more serious offence that opposing gay marriage equality?
Finally, what was your reaction to Kerry when he stated that he would have voted for the MO amendment that banned gay marriage and made no provision for civil unions, etc.? Was it another case of he was for it before he was against it? If so, how do we really know where he stands? If not, where is the outrage?
#28 “the vast majority of Dem leadership believes, like Kerry & Edwards, that marriage is only between a man and woman.”
What they believe is less important to me than what they are prepared to legislate. Most of the GOP in Congress supported passage of the FMA; most of the Dems did not. Regardless, I renew my pledge NEVER to support nor vote for any politician of whatever party if that politician signs onto or supports legislation that would amend the US Constitution to ban gay marriage. Will you join me in such a pledge?
Why limit it to the FMA? How about expanding it to state & local anti-marriage measures as well? They are what is actually getting passed right now as opposed to the FMA which can’t get a majority in either House, much less a 2/3 vote as required.
I’m still interested in your reaction to Kerry’s support of a draconian MO amemdment while simultaniuosly opposing the FMA.
#30: “How about expanding it to state & local anti-marriage measures as well?”
Fine I’ll extend it to state and local politicians as well. However, I’m less concerned about what individual states do. With the exception of Massachusetts, such measures have no real effect on the status quo. And most of these being passed are not nearly as hard to undo in the future as an amendment to the US Constitution. And a change to the latter would eliminate the foothold we have in Massachusetts. Time is on our side and ironically, DOMA may provide the delay necessary for minds to change such that a few more states will endorse SSM. If we can hang on long enough, eventually it will become a non-issue. However, a change to the US Constitution would ensure that we would not see SSM in the US in my lifetime and probably not in yours.
“I’m still interested in your reaction to Kerry’s support of a draconian MO amemdment”
I deplored it and even though he has stood against the FMA, unless he changes his mind on gay marriage, I can’t see myself EVER voting for him again. Still, the FMA is my main beef and my line in the sand.
Howard Dean Sells Out Gays
Sooooo….why am I supposed to vote for these traitorous ass clowns, again?
#6 Because… Dean is lying, he’s a Democrat so we know he’s really *for* gays no matter what he says and to whom.
I was actually *for* gay marriage before I was against it, right?
So the libs have shat on Christians, shat on the blacks, shat on gays, shat on the military, etc. One has to ask who the hell is left to vote for them? Do they think there’s enough illegals, felons, fictional characters and dead people to fill in?
#33 TGC, the answer is Yes. Plus all those folks like GrampaGryph and raj who have the Bush Derangement Syndrome problem –they hate him just because he is Geo Bush #43.
They’re going to have real problems when Jeb Bush wins… or in 15 years, when the 4th generation of the Bush political dynasty start running for office. Yeow.
Every such ordinance in Indiana has been stricken down by the state Supreme Court when challenged. It is therefore a well-established precedent that “human rights” laws on the local level that go beyond state law are not constitutional, and therefore, not valid.
#34
I’d like to see JEB run. Not only because I think he’d be cool, but it would drive the liberal fucktards like Kevin, Raj, Gryph etc. ’round the bend. Not to mention that it would be the final nail in their coffin.
I haven’t paid attention to local politics in so long. Last I heard he adamantly denied interest in running. Have you heard otherwise or are you just sayin’?
#35. We’ll see since the Governor and many state business leaders pushed for it. It may indeed be struck down. However, that wasn’t the point I was making. The point was that there was a bipartison effort to pass the ordinance.
TCG, oh… he’s in it; at least hip deep right now. He’s literally heir to a $675m political organization that will disband and scatter to different players in 2008 unless Gov Bush continues to do the ground work necessary to keep the organization operational fo rhis interest(s).
Not talking, he’s doing and wsiely keeping the options open.
sorry TGC on the reversal of initials
I know Mitch. He’s one of the most genuinely nice men I’ve met. That doesn’t surprise me. But similar ordinances in Bloomington, Lafayette, Muncie, and Indianapolis over the last thirty years have been slapped down by the Indiana court.
I realize that. Speaking of Indiana, we’re heading back from Indiana home to Pennsylvania more or less now.
DADT, while falling short of giving gay people what they wanted under Clinton’s administration…is still an improvement over the previous policy. So while the Democrats “gave” us DADT (which is bullshit and you know it), it is still a better policy than what was in place before DADT. And if DADT is ever overturned and the ban lifted altogether, it won’t be because a Republican lifted it. That’s what you fail to ever pay attention to. While democrats continue to fall short of giving gays everything they want, what gays have been given in the way of any sort of equality, has not been given by Republicans. While the Democratic Party will continue to disappoint I’m sure in many ways, they do not use gays as a tool to win votes like the Republicans do. I dont’ think most republicans in power care much about gay marriage or sodomy…but they are convenient talking points when rallying your base aren’t they?
While the Democratic Party will continue to disappoint I’m sure in many ways, they do not use gays as a tool to win votes like the Republicans do.
What in the hell do you think Howard Dean was doing with that appearance on The 700 Club?
#3 GayPatriot — May 11, 2006 @ 12:12 pm – May 11, 2006
There is a good argument to be made that while in power the Republicans have done NOTHING (legislation becoming law) about gays.
Um, not exactly. The Republicans have done something for gays. The Republicans have eliminated (or are eliminating) the federal estate tax. Although I’m sure that they did not intend that it would benefit gays, that is certainly one of the side effects of its elimination.
You see, given the current tax code (or at least as it was a few years ago), a married person could inherit a deceased spouse’s estate essentially free of federal estate taxes. Since gays would not marry–in the eyes of the federal government–they were discriminated against when they wanted to pass their estates to their partners or “significant others.” Eliminating the federal estate tax would, of course, reduce the discrimination.
I have little doubt that the Republicans would try to correct that oversight if it was pointed out to them, but it is far from clear how they might go about drafting legislation to do that.
#17 Calarato — May 11, 2006 @ 3:20 pm – May 11, 2006
Clinton proposed DOMA…
No, Calarato. Bob Barr, then Republican Representative from GA, initially proposed DOMA. (Actually, someone else in the House might have initially proposed it, but Barr became closely identified with it as a sponsor.) Bob Dull, then Republican Senator from Kansas, latched onto it because he believed that it would help his presidential ambitions. More than a few of us were wondering which of Bob Barr’s three marriages he was aiming to protect with DOMA, and which of Bob Dull’s two marriages he was aiming to protect with DOMA.
After the Republican-dominated Senate and House passed it (the only Senators who voted against it were Democrats) Clinton signed it and then crowed about it in re-election ads on right-wing Christian radio stations. As I’ve said, Clinton was nothing more than a snake-oil salesman. He could sell a used car to an eskimo on an ice flow.
The irony is that, after Barr left the House, the ACLU was hired by the ACLU–for some purpose, I don’t know. And that’s one reason that I refuse to contribute to the ACLU.
#41 Lucas — May 13, 2006 @ 1:50 pm – May 13, 2006
DADT, while falling short of giving gay people what they wanted under Clinton’s administration…is still an improvement over the previous policy. So while the Democrats “gave” us DADT (which is bullshit and you know it), it is still a better policy than what was in place before DADT.
Sigh. Apparently, you do not understand the issue. The issue is not whether DADT is better than the previous policy–that assertion is highly debatable, anyway. The issue is that Clinton initially came out in favor of a policy that would allow gay people to serve openly, that he (Clinton) was unwilling to even make a token effort to follow through on. See if you can find a copy of Andy Sullivan’s article “Sex, Lies And Us” in an Oct 1998 issue of the Advocate. He laid Clinton’s defalcations out quite succinctly–not only in regards DADT, but also DOMA.
#42 North Dallas Thirty — May 13, 2006 @ 8:28 pm – May 13, 2006
For once, we are in agreement. Apparently, Dean does not know that the job of the national party chairman is to raise money for the party. That’s all. Dean, who never seems to have been an advocate for equal rights for gay people (he only signed the civil unions bill in VT because the state SupCt left him with little option), obviously does not know that. If he wants to be an effective chairman, instead of run for office, he should shut up.
It’s amusing that Dean went on the Diamond Pat Robertson clap-trap show. People who watch that show won’t believe anything that he says, anyway.
What political party does take action to earn the allegiance of the gay community? I listen to or watch NPR, Fox News, Jim Lehrer, other network news shows. I just don’t see it. If ANY political party is stepping up to defend and carry us forward, who is it and where is the proof they deserve our support?
reilly, nice try at a shuffle and swing moment while you filled your dance card but if you go to BlogAmerica, AmericaBlog, Outsports, or half a dozen other blogs of the GayLeft you’ll see that the majority in our community think the Democrat Party is the ONLY place for gays in the political arena.
Did you really ask that question in sincerity or was that rhetorical?