NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Guess everybody panders, eh? Tsk! Film at eleven. :)


Dean: We Oppose Gay Marriage Too (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/11/94300.shtml?s=et)


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.”

Jesus Christ. Bush's approval rating is at its lowest ever, the Republicans have been wrecked with constant scandals...and still the Dems manage to pander to the extremists and screw it up. Jesus. I swear the Republicans control them...

This surprises anyone? The US doesn't have a socially liberal party among its large two.

Well hasn't Dr Dean always been kind of a conservative Democrat? Back when he ran Vermont wasn't he the guy who balanced the budget and opposed gun control? Those two issues were part of the reason I really liked him. I disagree with his gay marriage policy, but I think he was always a bit of a conservative Democrat.

The Democratic party has always supported that point of view as an entity. Does anyone remember who got the Defense of Marriage Act passed?

This surprises anyone? The US doesn't have a socially liberal party among its large two.
Libertarians for the win. I love how my dad is such an ignorant dumbfuck as to say that Libertarians don't care about people...*shakes head*

Dean was on "The 700 Club"?

That's reason enough to not like him.

This surprises anyone? The US doesn't have a socially liberal party among its large two.

That's not really true. Strip away the bs and recent attempts to grab the center-right, and the Democratic Party is pretty firmly socially liberal. It's just that they wouldn't know sound political strategy if it bit them in the ass, have no discipline or organization whatsoever, are burdened by a few idiots like Dean, and have also apparently been voodoo-whammied by Karl Rove. They just can't do anything right.

HEADLINE: DEMOCRATS SCREW UP ANOTHER GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY

Dean is an asshole.

And the hilarity continues.

That's not really true. Strip away the bs and recent attempts to grab the center-right, and the Democratic Party is pretty firmly socially liberal.

Not even close, by Swedish standards.

Not even close, by Swedish standards.

Hmm. I don't know a lot about Swedish politics, but I know that most European countries call center right what we call middle-left, so....that makes sense to me. Not to mention that you have a multiparty system, and thus more room to have niche candidates and organizations focusing on stronger and more varied versions of social liberalism.

Opposition? What's an opposition party?

It's going to be a long and painful lifetime.

Hey Eutrusca--I know accuracy isn't exactly your forte, but you might try not putting words in Dean's mouth in your title. You also might want to try linking to his statement this morning explaining his words yesterday.
wrong link--I'm working on it

“I misstated the Democratic Party’s platform, which does not say that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, but says the Party is committed to full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and leaves the issue to the states to decide. The Democratic Party remains committed to equal protection under the law for all Americans. How we achieve that goal continues to be the subject of a contentious debate, but our Party continues to oppose constitutional amendments that seek to short circuit the debate on how to achieve equality for all Americans.”

EDIT: And by the way, Eutrusca--everyone here knows how much you despise Howard Dean--even more than you despise the Democratic party and leftists. So why the sad face on the thread? I'd think that if you thought Dean had actually done or said something horrible, you'd be jumping for joy at the thought of the Democrats' imminent demise.

This is the latest in a long string of questionable actions by Howard Dean on this subject.

In reverse chronological order:
Dean ousts gay outreach head (http://washingtonblade.com/2006/5-5/news/national/dnc.cfm)
Prominent Dem slams party on gay rights (http://washblade.com/2006/4-27/news/national/dnc.cfm)
Dean seeks to reassure gay Democrats (scroll down to "Anger over grassroots report") (http://washingtonblade.com/2006/2-24/news/national/plan.cfm)
Dems abolish gay outreach post (http://washingtonblade.com/2006/2-3/news/national/dems.cfm)

I should add that the Democratic Party leadership has never been willing to explicitly support gay marriage; the important players have always advocated civil unions instead, in the typical meek servility to the Right.

EDIT: And by the way, Eutrusca--everyone here knows how much you despise Howard Dean--even more than you despise the Democratic party and leftists. So why the sad face on the thread? I'd think that if you thought Dean had actually done or said something horrible, you'd be jumping for joy at the thought of the Democrats' imminent demise.

He likes to pretend he cares about equal rights, now and then.

This totally blew my suspension of disbelief that Howard Dean wasn't a dumbass crackpot out of the water.

Libertarians for the win. I love how my dad is such an ignorant dumbfuck as to say that Libertarians don't care about people...*shakes head*

Actually all the ones I know; don't.

Their attitude is basically if your not of the same mindset; fuck off.....

Hey Eutrusca--I know accuracy isn't exactly your forte, but you might try not putting words in Dean's mouth in your title. You also might want to try linking to his statement this morning explaining his words yesterday.
*snip*

So basically they are for it but not really.

"States rights" is a convenient way not to take a stance.....

:rolleyes:

I do wish that the Dems in power would step down and let their supporters take over. It always seems like the grassroots Dems are the ones who actually have a clue.

I guess that Howard the Coward is finally showing his true colors though: He's willing to sell out to any audience.

I guess that Howard the Coward is finally showing his true colors though: He's willing to sell out to any audience.

As Chairman he's mostly been a disappointment to me; I had a few hopes. But I suppose we can't really tell until the results of the 2006 elections come in.

If the Democrats want to get Evangelical votes, they should think of other issues that someone could religiously vote on, other than the dead horses of abortion and gay marriage.

Film at eleven.
My bet is you don't deliver on this one. I make it ten past Ten.

Clock is ticking.

For the record, I am not generally happy with EITHER party on the equality issue.

The Democrats in general are just too damn timid for my taste. That party is SUPPOSED to be the one with the history of civil rights. I will say one thing about the Republican party and their cronies, they have thoroughly succeeded in getting the Democrats to run headlong away from anything that even looks and smells remotely liberal or progressive. Yes, it's bloody marvelous that the Democrats oppose the FMA, that is a positive step in the right direction.

You know, LIBERAL would not be a bad word if the party had stood up and said, "Damn right we're liberal. How come you aren't you heartless bastards?" But no, the chicken hearted idiots ran away from the word because heaven forfend no one likes name calling. Stupid gits. By running from the word, they gave the Republican's efforts legitimacy.

Dr. Dean needs to inject some spine into the party.

The Republican's have run with a hard-on and a package of lube straight into the arms of the reactionaries on the extreme right fringe of their party. What does this do for political discourse? It shifts the middle of the playing field from moderate to conservative, leaving reactionaries the "so-called" normal right and the conservatives the "so-called" middle, and the moderates the left of the American political discussion. Anything to the left of that is "kooky liberal." Any wonder being liberal or progressive in the United States is hard?

The political discussion needs to move back toward the left so the neocons and reactionists are recognized for what they are. Extremists.

I seriously doubt that the guy who signed the first Civil Union bill into law opposes gay marriage, I'm not happy with Dr. Dean but I am a heck of a lot more satisfied with him that that toad Terry McAuliffe...bloody bastard. I hope he rots in retirement.

So basically they are for it but not really.

"States rights" is a convenient way not to take a stance.....
I agree, it's a shitty position to take, but it's still a far cry from "we oppose it too."

Actually all the ones I know; don't.

Their attitude is basically if your not of the same mindset; fuck off.....
And this is different from anyone of any other political party...how?

Seriously, you get that with everyone. Me, I'm somewhat of a moderate Libertarian. I think, if I were to get involved heavily enough, I could reform it to the point where it truly fits its mandate and is thus acceptable to all Americans.

And this is different from anyone of any other political party...how?

Seriously, you get that with everyone. Me, I'm somewhat of a moderate Libertarian. I think, if I were to get involved heavily enough, I could reform it to the point where it truly fits its mandate and is thus acceptable to all Americans.
Nah, it's hard enough getting five people to decide on where to go for lunch--never mind getting them to decide on anything resembling national policy. There are lots of issues where I don't like the Democratic party stance, where I feel it doesn't go far enough, like this one for instance--but what's the alternative? More of the same hateful shit?

Here's the cold hard of it on this issue--30 years ago, you could murder a gay person and walk away clean. Today, that happens rarely. The situation for gays has improved measurably. It's not where it ought to be, but it's better, and the alliance between the LBGT community and the Democratic party has been a large part of that. And the time is coming when same sex couples will be able to marry anywhere in the US, but we're not there yet. In the places where we are there, public perception has become overwhelmingly positive, and that bodes well for the future, but it's going to take time, and groups taking Dean to task simply for not coming out and saying "gay marriage now" and who are talking about leaving the only major party to support them are doing themselves and their cause no favors.

Dean is also on record saying that the democratic party has "no stance" on the torture going on at guantanamo bay. Why? Well, he says that five issues is more than enough, and that the democrats probably won't be able to do even that. Quite a vote of confidence from the Democratic chairman, isn't it?

We should have gotten Clark in office. He's no liberal, but at least he's not a sh*t-head.

Here's the cold hard of it on this issue--30 years ago, you could murder a gay person and walk away clean. Today, that happens rarely. The situation for gays has improved measurably. It's not where it ought to be, but it's better, and the alliance between the LBGT community and the Democratic party has been a large part of that.

On a few issues - civil unions, hate crime laws, employment discrimination - yes, there has been some progress through the Democratic Party. Still, though, most of the work has been done by the LGBT rights organizations.

And the time is coming when same sex couples will be able to marry anywhere in the US, but we're not there yet. In the places where we are there, public perception has become overwhelmingly positive, and that bodes well for the future, but it's going to take time, and groups taking Dean to task simply for not coming out and saying "gay marriage now" and who are talking about leaving the only major party to support them are doing themselves and their cause no favors.

They are doing exactly what they should be doing. The Democratic Party takes them for granted, the same way they take everybody this side of big business; they are convinced that next election, the LGBT rights organizations will come like faithful sheep and line up in support of the marginally preferable alternative. Accepting that sort of "take it or leave it" attitude will, in the long term, severely hurt the capability of the LGBT rights movement to have political influence.

For the record, I am not generally happy with EITHER party on the equality issue.

The Democrats in general are just too damn timid for my taste. That party is SUPPOSED to be the one with the history of civil rights. I will say one thing about the Republican party and their cronies, they have thoroughly succeeded in getting the Democrats to run headlong away from anything that even looks and smells remotely liberal or progressive. Yes, it's bloody marvelous that the Democrats oppose the FMA, that is a positive step in the right direction.

You know, LIBERAL would not be a bad word if the party had stood up and said, "Damn right we're liberal. How come you aren't you heartless bastards?" But no, the chicken hearted idiots ran away from the word because heaven forfend no one likes name calling. Stupid gits. By running from the word, they gave the Republican's efforts legitimacy.

Dr. Dean needs to inject some spine into the party.

The Republican's have run with a hard-on and a package of lube straight into the arms of the reactionaries on the extreme right fringe of their party. What does this do for political discourse? It shifts the middle of the playing field from moderate to conservative, leaving reactionaries the "so-called" normal right and the conservatives the "so-called" middle, and the moderates the left of the American political discussion. Anything to the left of that is "kooky liberal." Any wonder being liberal or progressive in the United States is hard?

The political discussion needs to move back toward the left so the neocons and reactionists are recognized for what they are. Extremists.

I seriously doubt that the guy who signed the first Civil Union bill into law opposes gay marriage, I'm not happy with Dr. Dean but I am a heck of a lot more satisfied with him that that toad Terry McAuliffe...bloody bastard. I hope he rots in retirement.

I voted for Clinton in '92 all excited about his promises to lift the ban on gays in the military and generally fight for the rights of the gay community. Then he put don't ask don't tell into effect. And soon after signed DOMA into law. Bastard!

Dems always come to the gay community seeking support (if not just taking it for granted) but then quickly desert us when they win. I will never trust them again becaus of this. I don't know why the community continues to support them. We need to pull out in mass and refuse to vote for any of them untill they actually start delivering on their promsies. Personally, I have vowed never to vote for another candidate of any party again unless the support full marrage rights for the gay community. And I tell them so (it's extremely important to let them know why you aren't voting for them). If they loose enough voters and elections, they will start to take us seriously and move back towards the left. And if they don't, there is always the truly progressive Green Party. If enough of us abandon the dems for the greens, it will become a viable party.

Here's the cold hard of it on this issue--30 years ago, you could murder a gay person and walk away clean.

come again? :confused:

I voted for Clinton in '92 all excited about his promises to lift the ban on gays in the military and generally fight for the rights of the gay community. Then he put don't ask don't tell into effect. And soon after signed DOMA into law. Bastard!

Dems always come to the gay community seeking support (if not just taking it for granted) but then quickly desert us when they win. I will never trust them again becaus of this. I don't know why the community continues to support them. We need to pull out in mass and refuse to vote for any of them untill they actually start delivering on their promsies. Personally, I have vowed never to vote for another candidate of any party again unless the support full marrage rights for the gay community. And I tell them so (it's extremely important to let them know why you aren't voting for them). If they loose enough voters and elections, they will start to take us seriously and move back towards the left. And if they don't, there is always the truly progressive Green Party. If enough of us abandon the dems for the greens, it will become a viable party.
Even if you got every gay person in the US to agree to this, that would raise the Green Party's stature from 1% to what, 11%? What good does that do you?

The gay community has a huge effect on the Democratic party platform--perhaps the party isn't supporting you the way you'd like to be supported. Guess what? They're not supporting anyone the way they'd like to be supported. And you want to know something? The Republicans are the same way. Evangelicals are bitching because we're not hanging abortion doctors on the street corners yet. The Democratic party has long been a party of disparate interests that comes together in a coalition--that means no one gets everything they want. Ever.

But by all means, go join the Greens--and when the American Taliban makes homosexuality a crime and puts gays in jail for being who they are, then ask yourself how much good that stand did you.

Damn Dems and Repubs. What, pray tell, is so wicked about gay marriage? :mad:

The Democratic Party takes them for granted, the same way they take everybody this side of big business; they are convinced that next election, the LGBT rights organizations will come like faithful sheep and line up in support of the marginally preferable alternative. Accepting that sort of "take it or leave it" attitude will, in the long term, severely hurt the capability of the LGBT rights movement to have political influence.

Well put. I will no longer be a sheep and take it or leave it. And the numbers of those who won't is growing.

come again? :confused:
Sure. In most of the country, killing a gay person got about the same level of police concern as that of a white man killing a black man in the south--that is to say, none.

Nah, it's hard enough getting five people to decide on where to go for lunch--never mind getting them to decide on anything resembling national policy. There are lots of issues where I don't like the Democratic party stance, where I feel it doesn't go far enough, like this one for instance--but what's the alternative? More of the same hateful shit?

Here's the cold hard of it on this issue--30 years ago, you could murder a gay person and walk away clean. Today, that happens rarely. The situation for gays has improved measurably. It's not where it ought to be, but it's better, and the alliance between the LBGT community and the Democratic party has been a large part of that. And the time is coming when same sex couples will be able to marry anywhere in the US, but we're not there yet. In the places where we are there, public perception has become overwhelmingly positive, and that bodes well for the future, but it's going to take time, and groups taking Dean to task simply for not coming out and saying "gay marriage now" and who are talking about leaving the only major party to support them are doing themselves and their cause no favors.
My beef with the Dems has always been their economic and foreign policies. Typically they are somewhat wasteful when they could be streamlined and made efficient. I am mainly a social liberal, however. While I definitely prefer the free-market system, I also recognize that welfare--of sorts--is still useful, so long as we design it to where it is intended purely to allow unemployed folks to get a new job. Those that are attempting to abuse it lose any benifits. Of course, you still gotta support those who are disabled and can't work. We could streamline the welfare program to where we're spending ~10% of what we are now yet accomplishing more. As for foreign aid, we should nix that for the most part. It does not help most of the time; it is constantly embezzled by greedy dictators and warlords and what-have-you. Of course, aiding in disaster relief is an absolute must and I would never allow anyone to remove any funding for that.

In fact, a lot of our spending could be streamlined. I do not favor large or small government. I favor efficient government. If the right policies are implimented, we could see dramatic improvements in all areas while managing to simultaneously lower taxes and improve the economy via everyone being able to spend more of their money and what have you. I know, it seems odd--believe me, just a few years ago I was a socialist and have been warming up to what makes sense only over the past year and a half--but it can work.

Thing is, most Libertarians go too far on some/all of these issues. It's reforming that position that I spoke of earlier. Obviously, this wouldn't be perfect. Nothing is. But I do think it would serve everyone a lot better than the Republican or Democratic agenda. Both have some decent ideas, but they're both bogged down by problems, be it the Republicans tendency to be rather harsh on social issues or the Democrats tendency to be harsh towards business.

See, no true party in the United States fits me. The Libertarian party comes the closest however, and, I hope, I can turn it into a true moderate party that at least many more will agree with. You certainly will have fringe Dems and Repubs attracted to this, I think.

But, this may just be me being hopeful. We shall see how things turn out, yah?

Damn Dems and Repubs. What, pray tell, is so wicked about gay marriage? :mad:
Well, we Canadians have had it for a while. Yet, no armageddon in sight... no rains of fire, no anarchy, no confused teenagers "converting" to homosexuality en masse and no children being abused.

No planes running into buildings, and no huge hurricanes, either. I guess that pretty much disproves the nutjobs' claims that those happened to the USA because of "teh evil gays!!!1!!11!"

The Democratic Party takes them for granted, the same way they take everybody this side of big business; they are convinced that next election, the LGBT rights organizations will come like faithful sheep and line up in support of the marginally preferable alternative. Accepting that sort of "take it or leave it" attitude will, in the long term, severely hurt the capability of the LGBT rights movement to have political influence.

Democrats do the same to black Americans.

Even if you got every gay person in the US to agree to this, that would raise the Green Party's stature from 1% to what, 11%? What good does that do you?

Not just the gay community, but progresives in general.

The gay community has a huge effect on the Democratic party platform--perhaps the party isn't supporting you the way you'd like to be supported. Guess what? They're not supporting anyone the way they'd like to be supported. And you want to know something? The Republicans are the same way. Evangelicals are bitching because we're not hanging abortion doctors on the street corners yet. The Democratic party has long been a party of disparate interests that comes together in a coalition--that means no one gets everything they want. Ever.

Where I live in 2004 both the Dems and Repubs running for office were activly fighting over who hated gays the most and who was the most conservative and Christian. I can't support a Democtratic party that would allow members running in their name to do that. The lesser of two evils is still evil. I'm willing to compromise on many issues, but not on basic civil rights.

But by all means, go join the Greens--and when the American Taliban makes homosexuality a crime and puts gays in jail for being who they are, then ask yourself how much good that stand did you.

Fear mongering is just as slimy, tacky, and wrong comming from liberals as from conservatives. I don't take well to people trying to get me to do what they want me to out of fear.

Sure. In most of the country, killing a gay person got about the same level of police concern as that of a white man killing a black man in the south--that is to say, none.

Where are the sources to back this up?

I've never heard this before.

And, unless I'm proven by your source otherwise, I call bullshit.

Well, we Canadians have had it for a while. Yet, no armageddon in sight... no rains of fire, no anarchy, no confused teenagers "converting" to homosexuality en masse and no children being abused.

No planes running into buildings, and no huge hurricanes, either. I guess that pretty much disproves the nutjobs' claims that those happened to the USA because of "teh evil gays!!!1!!11!"

Exactly. I consider myself a devout Christian, but I am pro-gay marriage.

Democrats do the same to black Americans.

Yes, they do. And to organized labor, the environmental movement, and the anti-war movement.

Change does not come and never has come from above until it is demanded from below; expecting our allegedly benevolent leaders to care about our interests - unless we make them do so - is unwise.

Fear mongering is just as slimy, tacky, and wrong comming from liberals as from conservatives. I don't take well to people trying to get me to do what they want me to out of fear.
I'm not trying to fear monger--I'm simply noting that a coalition is only as successful as long as it holds together. I support same sex rights because it's the right thing to do, but I also support free trader Democrats, even though I don't always agree with them, because without them, we're 42% instead of 49-50%. Progressives make up, I would estimate, less than half of the Democratic party. Assuming half the country is Democratic, if all progressives left and joined the Greens, that gives you two very weakened parties and one stronger American Taliban. Ben Franklin said it best: "We must all hang together or we shall surely hang separately."

Sure. In most of the country, killing a gay person got about the same level of police concern as that of a white man killing a black man in the south--that is to say, none.

Where are the sources to back this up?

I've never heard this before.

And, unless I'm proven by your source otherwise, I call bullshit.

Where are the sources to back this up?

I've never heard this before.

And, unless I'm proven by your source otherwise, I call bullshit.
Here's a little history for you. In 1969, there was a gay bar in Greenwich Village--one of the few, because gays were often legally precluded from being seen together in public (sodomy laws and all that)--and a riot broke out. The gays in the bar and the police fought to a standstill for days. Homophobia was the norm, not the exception. The first gay bar in San Francisco to have glass windows on the street--you know, so passersby could see in--was Twin Peaks, which opened in the 60s. But even in San Francisco in the 70s, arguably the most gay friendly city in the US, gay activist and City Supervisor Harvey Milk was murdered in cold blood by Supervisor Dan White. White used the now infamous "Twinkie defense," and got a sentence of 7 years, 8 months.

All of this stuff is easy to discover if you pull your head out of your ass. Gays have been mistreated as a group longer than any other minority, and at times, the police have been complicit in their treatment.

Here's a little history for you. In 1969, there was a gay bar in Greenwich Village--one of the few, because gays were often legally precluded from being seen together in public (sodomy laws and all that)--and a riot broke out. The gays in the bar and the police fought to a standstill for days. Homophobia was the norm, not the exception. The first gay bar in San Francisco to have glass windows on the street--you know, so passersby could see in--was Twin Peaks, which opened in the 60s. But even in San Francisco in the 70s, arguably the most gay friendly city in the US, gay activist and City Supervisor Harvey Milk was murdered in cold blood by Supervisor Dan White. White used the now infamous "Twinkie defense," and got a sentence of 7 years, 8 months.

First of all...this is ONLY one case...second of all, what the hell is the Twinkie defense?

All of this stuff is easy to discover if you pull your head out of your ass. Gays have been mistreated as a group longer than any other minority, and at times, the police have been complicit in their treatment.

I think your taking this a little to far.

Mistreated longer than any other group?

Even Blacks?

Even Jews?

Come on, dont you think your blowing this out of proportion?

Here's a little history for you. In 1969, there was a gay bar in Greenwich Village--one of the few, because gays were often legally precluded from being seen together in public (sodomy laws and all that)--and a riot broke out. The gays in the bar and the police fought to a standstill for days. Homophobia was the norm, not the exception. The first gay bar in San Francisco to have glass windows on the street--you know, so passersby could see in--was Twin Peaks, which opened in the 60s. But even in San Francisco in the 70s, arguably the most gay friendly city in the US, gay activist and City Supervisor Harvey Milk was murdered in cold blood by Supervisor Dan White. White used the now infamous "Twinkie defense," and got a sentence of 7 years, 8 months.

All of this stuff is easy to discover if you pull your head out of your ass. Gays have been mistreated as a group longer than any other minority, and at times, the police have been complicit in their treatment.
And I just don't understand it. I don't understand hatred towards any group for any such stupid reason as race, sexual orientation, religion, gender, or any other unimportant issue you can think of. It's stupid and disgraceful, and I honestly cannot comprehend it. I wish more people were raised like I was, to accept all, and--to quote MLK Jr.--judge based on the content of their character alone.

And I just don't understand it. I don't understand hatred towards any group for any such stupid reason as race, sexual orientation, religion, gender, or any other unimportant issue you can think of. It's stupid and disgraceful, and I honestly cannot comprehend it. I wish more people were raised like I was, to accept all, and--to quote MLK Jr.--judge based on the content of their character alone.
I'm right there with you. I like the way Dennis Miller said it--he was talking about race, but it applies to any of these situations. He said "why should I hate you for being black when I can get to know you and have much better reasons?"

First of all...this is ONLY one case...second of all, what the hell is the Twinkie defense?Actually, it was three cases I mentioned--cases of societal norms being challenged, that is. As to the Twinkie defense, I suggest you look it up.

I think your taking this a little to far.

Mistreated longer than any other group?

Even Blacks?

Even Jews?

Come on, dont you think your blowing this out of proportion?
Nope--it's only been relatively recently that gays have had any sort of societal acceptance whatsoever. Even the ancient Greeks felt that homosexual love was only appropriate in certain circumstances, and gays were often mocked in their plays and other writings.

And it's because they exist across societal boundaries that they are more easily oppressed. It's not like they have it branded on their foreheads or something. And the gay subgroups inside those larger groups were chastised not only by outsiders, but by members of their own communities. No one gives a black gay man more shit than black straight men do--so the black gay man not only gets it from outside, but from inside as well. About the most isolated you can be in society is a gay person of color.

Twinkie defense:

Here's a San Francisco article about the case and denouncing "twinkie defense" as an unfair characterization of the case and the verdict, saying that it was a just a phrase that caught on from a very minor point raised "in passing" in expert psychiatric testimony for the defense and complaining at how ubiquitous the phrase has become, even appearing in law dictionaries:

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2177


And here it is in a law dictionary:

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2177

Enjoy. :)

Twinkie defense:

Here's a San Francisco article about the case and denouncing "twinkie defense" as an unfair characterization of the case and the verdict, saying that it was a just a phrase that caught on from a very minor point raised "in passing" in expert psychiatric testimony for the defense and complaining at how ubiquitous the phrase has become, even appearing in law dictionaries:

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2177


And here it is in a law dictionary:

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2177

Enjoy. :)
I'm guessing it's via this named defense of a hate crime that twink/twinkie became a slang term for cute gay men?

Nope--it's only been relatively recently that gays have had any sort of societal acceptance whatsoever.

That is just not true. Societal acceptance of the "hear nothing, see nothing" sort was relatively common for a very long time. That was so even in the pre-Stonewall United States, though, in general as far as Western society goes, the first half of the twentieth century had some backlashes against the moves towards tolerance that had occurred in the nineteenth (most clearly expressed in Nazi Germany.)

Throughout the nineteenth century there were gay communities in pretty much every major European and American society, and there probably have always been in major cities everywhere. State repression of homosexuality just doesn't work. You can't get rid of it, so eventually you stop trying.

So a sort of tolerance has existed for a very long time. Equal treatment, full respect - those have been longer in coming, and we are still quite far from them.

Dean is also on record saying that the democratic party has "no stance" on the torture going on at guantanamo bay. Why? Well, he says that five issues is more than enough, and that the democrats probably won't be able to do even that. Quite a vote of confidence from the Democratic chairman, isn't it?

We should have gotten Clark in office. He's no liberal, but at least he's not a sh*t-head.
Clark is too smart to be a US politician, and apparently -- and this is the real surprise -- Dean isn't smart enough. I didn't think that was possible.

That is just not true. Societal acceptance of the "hear nothing, see nothing" sort was relatively common for a very long time. That was so even in the pre-Stonewall United States, though, in general as far as Western society goes, the first half of the twentieth century had some backlashes against the moves towards tolerance that had occurred in the nineteenth (most clearly expressed in Nazi Germany.)

Throughout the nineteenth century there were gay communities in pretty much every major European and American society, and there probably have always been in major cities everywhere. State repression of homosexuality just doesn't work. You can't get rid of it, so eventually you stop trying.

So a sort of tolerance has existed for a very long time. Equal treatment, full respect - those have been longer in coming, and we are still quite far from them.That's precisely what I was talking about--the lack of ability for gay couples to live openly as couples.

I'm guessing it's via this named defense of a hate crime that twink/twinkie became a slang term for cute gay men?
I wouldn't know, but I'm guessing not. It's more likely --- on second thought, ask Fass.

I wouldn't know, but I'm guessing not. It's more likely --- on second thought, ask Fass.
Aye, a good idea that would be.

I voted for Clinton in '92 all excited about his promises to lift the ban on gays in the military and generally fight for the rights of the gay community. Then he put don't ask don't tell into effect. And soon after signed DOMA into law. Bastard!

Dems always come to the gay community seeking support (if not just taking it for granted) but then quickly desert us when they win. I will never trust them again becaus of this. I don't know why the community continues to support them. We need to pull out in mass and refuse to vote for any of them untill they actually start delivering on their promsies. Personally, I have vowed never to vote for another candidate of any party again unless the support full marrage rights for the gay community. And I tell them so (it's extremely important to let them know why you aren't voting for them). If they loose enough voters and elections, they will start to take us seriously and move back towards the left. And if they don't, there is always the truly progressive Green Party. If enough of us abandon the dems for the greens, it will become a viable party.
This is all very true, but the gay community is between a rock and a hard place in the US at the moment. There is no viable alternative party (hard place), and your only voting choice right now is between the Dems who will probably backpedal from you later, and the Republicans who would like to outlaw your very existence (rock, coming down hard).

If you start boycotting elections now, you might as well leave the country all together, because if the religiously driven Republican right stays in power, you can look forward to losing rights, not just not getting more rights.

Remember how well boycotting the election worked for the opposition in Venezuela.

Even if you got every gay person in the US to agree to this, that would raise the Green Party's stature from 1% to what, 11%? What good does that do you?

The gay community has a huge effect on the Democratic party platform--perhaps the party isn't supporting you the way you'd like to be supported. Guess what? They're not supporting anyone the way they'd like to be supported. And you want to know something? The Republicans are the same way. Evangelicals are bitching because we're not hanging abortion doctors on the street corners yet. The Democratic party has long been a party of disparate interests that comes together in a coalition--that means no one gets everything they want. Ever.

But by all means, go join the Greens--and when the American Taliban makes homosexuality a crime and puts gays in jail for being who they are, then ask yourself how much good that stand did you.
The Democrats can't just ignore all the people who would move to the Greens if that happened. Losing a substantial amount of support would force them into a position as a liberal party. If it takes another 4 years of a Republican President to bitch slap the Democrats back into line, so be it. As they are, they're not going to be doing much help supporting gay rights, or really many things liberal.

Remember how well boycotting the election worked for the opposition in Venezuela.

Well, firstly, you're comparing apples and oranges. The opposition was never a part of Chávez's coalition; they were not trying to make their power show, they were trying to delegitimize the elections.

Secondly, it worked very well; it successfully made Chávez look like an autocrat without yet another electoral humiliation on their part.

This is all very true, but the gay community is between a rock and a hard place in the US at the moment. There is no viable alternative party (hard place), and your only voting choice right now is between the Dems who will probably backpedal from you later, and the Republicans who would like to outlaw your very existence (rock, coming down hard).


Outlaw gays' existence? There are several American states that are solidly Republican - for example, Utah and Texas - yet those state governments have no plans to outlaw homosexuality (even if they did at some point in the past).
Furthermore, a Republican-appointee dominated United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that states could not prohibit sodomy. Among the 3 dissenters

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33277
Justice Thomas, in a separate dissenting opinion, said the Texas law before the court is "uncommonly silly" but as a judge he has no power to change it.

"If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal it," Thomas wrote. "Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to decide cases agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer said the White House should take notice that four of the six justices making the decision were appointed by Republican presidents.

I voted for Clinton in '92 all excited about his promises to lift the ban on gays in the military and generally fight for the rights of the gay community. Then he put don't ask don't tell into effect. And soon after signed DOMA into law. Bastard!

Dems always come to the gay community seeking support (if not just taking it for granted) but then quickly desert us when they win. I will never trust them again becaus of this. I don't know why the community continues to support them. We need to pull out in mass and refuse to vote for any of them untill they actually start delivering on their promsies. Personally, I have vowed never to vote for another candidate of any party again unless the support full marrage rights for the gay community. And I tell them so (it's extremely important to let them know why you aren't voting for them). If they loose enough voters and elections, they will start to take us seriously and move back towards the left. And if they don't, there is always the truly progressive Green Party. If enough of us abandon the dems for the greens, it will become a viable party.

Alas, if only that were true. There will not be a viable third party until the Electoral College is dumped. You notice Ross Perot in 1992 got nearly 20% of the Popular Vote and got ZERO votes in the Electoral College. He did nearly as well Theodore Roosevelt did running as an Independent from the "Bull Moose" Party (22%, ZERO electoral votes).

My instinct is the same as yours, I would prefer not to vote for anybody...but the lines have been drawn and I can't NOT vote for someone. That is except for Senator Dianne Feinstein, talk about your traitor to the Democratic Party. She's been a stealth Republican since she got elected to the Senate. I won't touch her with a ten foot cattle prod.

But then again, Texans have that fine pair Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn...yeesh.

Alas, if only that were true. There will not be a viable third party until the Electoral College is dumped. You notice Ross Perot in 1992 got nearly 20% of the Popular Vote and got ZERO votes in the Electoral College. He did nearly as well Theodore Roosevelt did running as an Independent from the "Bull Moose" Party (22%, ZERO electoral votes).

My instinct is the same as yours, I would prefer not to vote for anybody...but the lines have been drawn and I can't NOT vote for someone. That is except for Senator Dianne Feinstein, talk about your traitor to the Democratic Party. She's been a stealth Republican since she got elected to the Senate. I won't touch her with a ten foot cattle prod.

But then again, Texans have that fine pair Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn...yeesh.

Isn't Feinstein the bitch who wants to take our guns?

:upyours: to gun control!

Jesus Christ. Bush's approval rating is at its lowest ever, the Republicans have been wrecked with constant scandals...and still the Dems manage to pander to the extremists and screw it up. Jesus. I swear the Republicans control them...

Well, I have a new phrase... "It takes an idiot to be President".

In this case, I see who could replace Bush as Head Idiot.

For those who thought that Dean had a shred of credibility or intelligence, I rest my case that he's just as incredible and stupid as anyone who ever served as President.

Jesus Christ. Bush's approval rating is at its lowest ever, the Republicans have been wrecked with constant scandals...and still the Dems manage to pander to the extremists and screw it up. Jesus. I swear the Republicans control them...
Pretty much, yeah.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of American reject religious right-wing beliefs on gay marriage, abortion, women's rights, health care, education, and pretty much everything else, our "leaders" still feel it is important to pander to a bunch of superstitious homophobic racist jackasses.

For those who thought that Dean had a shred of credibility or intelligence, I rest my case that he's just as incredible and stupid as anyone who ever served as President.Indeed. I was rather disappointed by his letter the Democrats Abroad sent me.