What is Dean's stance on gay marriage?

[George_Bonanza]

On MTP and Larry King, he keeps referring to state rights and religious institutions, etc. He doesn't give a clear stand on his beliefs. This is not a smear job. I really want to know what his opinion is. But from those two shows, one cannot get a clear, confident stance. I know Dean has explicitly stated once that gay marriage makes him uncomfortable. Kerry has made it more clear that he does not endorse gay marriage, while he has and will support every gay and lesbian right other than that. He got some hisses and boos for that. I think Kerry and Dean have the same stances. But maybe Dean is afraid of losing his liberal drive (because IMHO, his civil unions/gay advocate stance is his only serious liberal stance, which is a major driving force for him), while equally afraid of appearing too radical.

Personally, I can't make up my mind on gay marriage. On one hand, why should we be able to arbitrarily say that a man-made concept to a loving relationship should only be restricted to a man and a woman? Who made this up? On the other hand, religious institutions have a right to oppose gay marriage if it has been their traditional throughout. I think the Catholics have never performed one gay marriage, same with Muslims or Russian Orthodoxes, etc. But then again, some churches won't perform interfaith or inter-ethnic marriages, which is obviously not wrong. But then again on the other hand, I sure as hell wouldn't want incestual marriages recognized, yet a philosophy of laissez-faire on marriage could very well lead to that. My primary beef with gay marriage is that I don't want to approve of it because I'm swayed by the belief we should just let everything happen, because I want a more solid stance than that.

[La_Serpiente]

1. I think

just to reach a compromise on the issue, it would be better just to not insert marriage into a bill for civil unions.

He basically says that marriage is up to the states. But he would support some kind of federal law that says the states should provide at least some sort of benefits to GLBT.

[OrAnarch]

14. rather...

"He basically says that marriage is up to the states."

From my take of what Ive heard him say, marriage is actually something that has to do with churches and religion, and to write a government law upholding them would force religious institutions to recognize gay marriage, and hence, would be an infringment on the rights of those religous authorities. OTOH, a civil unions bill grants gays all the rights they would otherwise obtain without forcing a church, by the government, to recognize gay mariage.


Correct me Dean supporters if Ive misinterpretted his views on this matter. I thought it was more of an argument of Church and State rather than federalism.


In the end though, its all a matter of semantics. His stance, is actually the safest and I belive has the largest appeal over a wide range of demographics, including those self rightous right-wingers.

[tedoll78]

2. Pretty much..

.. separate-but-equal (civil unions). Like most other candidates.

And we all know the Supreme Court precedent on separate-but-equal. The Constitution gives no exception to "equal protection of the law" guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It doesn't say "equal protection.. unless it makes you feel icky", or "equal protection of the law - except for homosexuals", or "equal protection of the law - except for marriage law." If people want such an exception to be the rule of the land, they should do it the right way and amend such an exception into the Constitution, rather than depending on a panel of judges to pretend that such an exception already exists. Conservatives hate it when judges legislate from the bench, but they don't seem to mind in this case..

[Demobrat]

3. His stance on gay marriage

is that it's not the government's business to tell the churches what to do. In other words, a samesex couple can go to city hall, or to Vegas, or in front of a judge, and get hitched just like straight couples do. That's a civil union. If they want to get married in a church it's up to the church.

[Sean Reynolds]

4. He isn't against it.

IF a state makes gay marriage legal it is their right. Unlike a few candidates that have stated they do not support gay marriage. Him, Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton (I believe) are the only candidates that would support gay marriage.

[George_Bonanza]

5. But he isn't for it either

http://www.gaypasg.org/Press%20Clippings/August%202003/Dean%20would%20not%20push%20for%20law%20on%20gay%20marriage.htm

Remember that Kerry voted against the DoMA, a dangerous political move. Would that make him sitting on the fence on the gay marriage issue, like Dean? I'm not too clear on Kerry's stance either. It's obvious he's just as much a GLBT advocate as Dean, but both are cloudy on the gay marriage issue. It's obviously a multi-faceted issue that nobody seems to want to touch.

[Sean Reynolds]

7. Dean has stated he'd repeal DOMA

He isn't for it, but isn't against it. Meaning it needs to be left up to the states. But Kerry HAS come out and stated he is against gay marriage.

[George_Bonanza]

9. What IS Dean's stance?

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/corvino/corvino7.html

"I don't mean to pick on Kerry here. He's been a solid supporter of gay rights, even voting against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act in an election year. (It passed anyway, and President Clinton signed it into law.)

Moreover, every other Democratic presidential hopeful goes through the same verbal contortions when pressed on the issue of gay marriage. Even Howard Dean, who went to bat for us on civil unions in Vermont, is officially opposed to “gay marriage."

I think Dean is personally against gay marriages, but not enough so that he feels like it's his personal crusade to repress gay marriages federally. He said on Larry King that he did not feel that gay marriages were needed in Vermont to allow gays to achieve equal status. Obviously, a lot of gays would object to that statement. I think Kerry is the same way as well. He has said it's his opinion that he does not believe in gay marriages, but one cannot be sure that he'd be Bush-like in trying to suppress. I think Dean's trying a bit too hard to be ambiguous on this issue, although I can't blame him. From what I gather, he doesn't approve of it, which is why he opted to have civil unions instead of gay marriage in Vermont.

[Sean Reynolds]

13. He may be against it, but that is different than imposing it.

Gephardt, Edwards, Graham (when he was in the race), Clark, Lieberman have ALL come out against the thought of gay marriage. While Dean may not agree with the notion, that doesn't mean he'd impose DOMA - as I've stated he's said many times he'd repeal it. Moreover, if the state were to draft a gay marriage legislation, Dean would not have any problems with it - as some other candidates would.

[AP]

16. Edwards said less on this issue than Dean said on Larry King, but it's...

...pretty clear that it's along the same lines: separate church and state. The church can do with marriage what it pleases, and the government should have some certification which grants all the same rights.

It's my understanding that ALL the candidates are in pretty much the exact same place on this issue.

[Sean Reynolds]

19. You're right.

But a few have stated they DO NOT support gay marriage, Edwards was one. Dean DOES support gay marriage if the state wants to do it.

But yes, all candidates are in the same boat on this issue because the president doesn't have the right to even make gay marriage legal.

[sandnsea]

6. 1960 & States Rights

I'm sure glad John Kennedy was President in the 60's instead of someone like Howard Dean. Would he have had the courage to order the Alabama National Guard to enforce integration at the
University of Alabama? Or would Howard have just said 'states rights' and let segregation go on for another generation or two?

States rights is a fine idea as long as states uphold the equal rights of every citizen under the Constitution. We know that states don't. It is amazing to me that it has taken so long for adults to have the right to have any kind of sex they choose. How much longer for gay people to have the right to legalize their relationships? Don't we want a leader on this issue, not someone who just pulls out 'states rights' and then lets it drop?

I prefer someone who takes a position and is willing to lead. Senator Kerry has said that he would like to achieve what we can and right now civil unions is what can pass. If we've progressed further in a few years, there may be a different understanding and the time for gay marriage to be passed. He would also like to pass other legislation, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and would prefer to get as much accomplished as possible without creating unhelpful division in the process. He is absolutely clear on his beliefs and is willing to stand behind his beliefs with action, not pass it off as states rights to avoid the issue. This is why I'm for John Kerry. It's the way he is on every single issue and it's why I trust him to do what's right for this country.

[Sean Reynolds]

8. Sounds a lot like Dean's belief.

You do realize the president does not have the power to just say every state must accept 'civil unions' right? The only way that would happen is if the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for states to NOT give gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

Dean's plan isn't just leaving it to the states and ignoring the problem nationally. It's almost identical to that of Kerry's, let states progress into civil unions and in the future possibly move to gay marriage. Remember the riots we had in the south during Kennedy's administration and when he sent down the National Guard? Well imagine that times 50 because that is EXACTLY what you'd get.

The president DOES NOT have the power to enact such laws, so even if Kerry were elected it'd have to be left up to the states or the Supreme Court.

[sandnsea]

11. Not exactly

The President certainly has the power to suggest legislation to the House or Senate, push to get it passed and sign the legislation that would acknowledge civil unions from state to state. He can't force states to create laws, but how he approaches an issue can certainly influence what states do. It's a President's job to move the country forward.

And that's why Kerry's position is not identical to Dean's. Kerry would work for legal civil unions and equal rights for gays as he has for almost 20 years. Howard Dean would do nothing, as he had for almost 20 years, until the Vermont Supreme Court forced him to deal with it. Dean was in the Legislature in Vermont and had years to advocate civil unions. He didn't and he wouldn't as President either.

[Sean Reynolds]

12. Really?

Show me the links where it states Dean would not DO anything? I've heard him many times speak about how he'd try and get EVERY state to try and sign some sort of legislation (civil unions OR gay marriage).

Also, I'm not even going to go into your thoughtless remarks about Dean being forced to sign the civil unions bill. You know thats false, go pull up that thread about Dean and all he's done for the Vermont gay community. You'll see he wasn't forced into anything.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. I'll read your reply tomorrow and I'll respond to that (if someone hasn't already).

[sandnsea]

21. Here's what he said

Meet the Press, July 2002:

MR. RUSSERT: Would you be in favor of a national law approving of civil unions of gay couples?

GOV. DEAN: Absolutely not. One of the things that I deeply oppose in this president’s agenda is the federalization of things like our school system, the taking over of our welfare systems. I believe each state has to come to grips with civil rights. I think that gay and lesbian people are entitled to the same legal and civil rights that everybody else has but I think that every state has to come to grips with that in their own way.

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2002_08_25_dean2004_archive.html

[Sean Reynolds]

23. Where in there does he state he'd not help the movement?

He only stated that he would oppose a national law approving civil unions, which he has to because a president does NOT have the power to do so. He never once stated he'd sit back and just let the states handle it. I've heard him many times say that as president he'd try and get EVERY state to accept at least civil union.

Not far from Kerry's position, is it?

[sandnsea]

25. "Each state has to come to grips with civil rights"

If you think this means he'd advocate civil unions and pass federal legislation making civil unions recognized from one state to another, I guess you're entitled. Sure doesn't sound that way to me. By the way, is it his policy to create same-sex partnership benefits in the federal government? If so, has he said that somewhere besides in front of a gay/lesbian forum?

[Sean Reynolds]

26. They do.

BUT Do you really believe a state like, oh I don't know UTAH, would pass civil unions JUST because John Kerry was elected president?

I've HEARD Dean state he'd advocate for civil unions, of course it's going to be hard to get 49 states to accept such a change.

Also what about this quote?

"I think civil unions will continue to sweep across the country . . . . As president, I would recognize civil unions federally, because equal rights under the law doesn't just mean equal rights under state law. It means equal rights under federal law." (Carla Marinucci, "Democrats Go West To Get To White House," The San Francisco Chronicle, October 19, 2002)

[sandnsea]

28. So which position does he have today?

The one where he wants to recognize civil unions under federal law or the one where the federal government has nothing to do with it and states come to grips with it on their own?

[Sean Reynolds]

29. You're twisting his words.

THERE is a difference between the president MAKING a law in which allows civil unions (something that can't happen) and a president supporting civil unions as law IF presented by lets say the Supreme Court. Dean has stated that he COULD NOT draft up legislation for a nationwide civil unions bill. He doesn't support it because it can't happen. BUT if the Supreme Court were to rule that gay marriage WAS justified under the constitution, Dean would support it. Also Dean has stated he'd repeal DOMA which basically makes it possible FOR gay marriage to sweep nationally.

Also here is another quote from Dean:

MR. RUSSERT: Would you, as president, seek the same kind of legislation that now has passed in Canada, allowing formally gays to marry?

DR. DEAN: No, because I don't think that is the right of the federal government. I was very much opposed, unlike some of the folks I'm running against, to the Defense of Marriage Act. I did not support the Defense of Marriage Act, because I do not think it's the federal government's business to get involved in what has traditionally been the matter for the states to deal with. But by the same token, I would not tell other states that they had to have a civil union statute or that they had to have a marriage statute. That is the not the province of the federal government. What I will go as president of the United States is insist that every state find a way to recognize the same legal rights for gay couples as they do for everybody else. Equal rights under the law is a fundamental tenet of America, and that's where we need to be.

Equal rights, whether it's in the form of civil unions or gay marriage. Also he'd repeal DOMA, which basically makes it easier for states to deal with gay marriage. So no Dean didn't state he was against a federal law mandating equal treatment for gays. JUST against a federal law mandating GAY marriage for gays. Which everyone knows can only pass IF the Supreme Court rules that it's unconstitutional that gays do not have the rights to marry.

[sandnsea]

32. He then says "Each state has to come to grips with civil rights"

This is just typical Howard Dean. He tries to say he'd insist states recognize legal rights for gay couples then turns around and says each state has to come to grips with civil rights in their own way. He gets to use whatever sound byte he wants to whatever audience he wants. It's disgusting. I'm not buying.

By the way, how come Howard Dean didn't do anything about GLBT rights back in the 80's when he was in the Vermont legislature? And how come the day the Supreme Court decision came down he said he was uncomfortable around gays like everybody else? I gotta tell ya, I met my 'first gay person' back in 1978 and haven't been uncomfortable around them since. Howard Dean is older than I am. How is it that he didn't know enough gays to become comfortable around them until after this Supreme Court decision? I lived in Montana for chrissake and knew gay people. What the hell is Howard's problem?

[Sean Reynolds]

33. Total BS

He's stated that it's the STATES right to accept GAY MARRIAGE. To believe that every state would be willing to accept gay marriage is like believing every state will go 100% to Dean in the general election. IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN. That said, Dean has stated many times that he would work hard to get EVERY state to accept either civil unions OR gay marriage, so what is so wrong with that?

Finally Dean NEVER once stated he was uncomfortable around gays. He only said he was uncomfortable about the issue of gay marriage. So what if he is? MOST of this country is as well, are they horrible humans too? Hell my grandma and I (my grandma is a VERY liberal lady) had the chat about gay marriage before and she too told me the issue made her uncomfortable, you gonna dog on her too?

Don't continue to twist Howard's words. Or at least show me PROOF he said being around gays made him uncomfortable.

[sandnsea]

35. You're right

That is what he said, to be exact. Still, I've known gay couples all my life too and find Howard's response as being uncomfortable about it a bit surprising.

I just disagree with you on Howard's support of gays to have civil unions or marriage. I think his statement that 'each state will have to come to grips with civil rights' is more telling about his position than you think it is. The proof is in Vermont. He took the same position on guns and Vermont has some of the most lenient gun laws in the country. I really don't see him strongly advocating gay rights any more than he did in Vermont since he considers it a states' rights issue, just like guns.

[Sean Reynolds]

24. Also here is quote I found:

"I think civil unions will continue to sweep across the country . . . . As president, I would recognize civil unions federally, because equal rights under the law doesn't just mean equal rights under state law. It means equal rights under federal law." (Carla Marinucci, "Democrats Go West To Get To White House," The San Francisco Chronicle, October 19, 2002)

BUT as president he does not have the power to delegate such acts. Though if like the Surpreme Court ruled in favor of it, Dean would NOT have a problem with it at all.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. "It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said

“It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said of gay marriage. “The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect. I think there are a lot of people in this state who are uncomfortable about the concept of gay marriage.”
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm

[killbotfactory]

15. The same as Kerry's

Only Dean's been in the position to do something about it.

[AP]

17. I presume this is tersely worded red meat because you know...

...Kerry has been in a position to do something about this, and he's always voted on the side of good on this issue, without have to be told by the VT Supreme Court what to do.

[killbotfactory]

22. What other state has civil unions?

Kerry has a good record on gay rights. No arguement from me there.

But the crap about Dean being forced to sign civil unions is obnoxious.

[dpbrown]

31. The Vermont Supreme Court gets most of the credit for VT Civil Unions Law

The Vermont Supreme Court unanimously ruled that gay couples were being unconstitutionally denied the rights and benefits of marriage. The court gave the Legislature time to decide whether to let gays marry or to create some kind of domestic partnership. Lawmakers opted for a parallel system for homosexuals, creating what they called civil unions.

The law in Vermont gives gay couples the rights and responsibilities available to married couples in Vermont in such areas as taxes, inheritance and medical decision-making. Gay couples do not receive any of the benefits available to married couples under federal law in areas such as taxes and immigration.

Dean is still against a federal law on the issue of gay civil unions, and in fact recently reiterated his opposition to a federal law, isn't that correct?

Kucinich supports a federal law - therefore he's better than Dean on this issue.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[killbotfactory]

34. Dean didn't have to sign the bill.

Learn about the "take back vermont" movement. Or the other states in the US who went through the same court ruling with different results.

[genius]

18. On "Meet the Press" he clearly said he was opposed to gay marriage.

He also stated his opposition ot a federal civil union bill. So far, he is the most conservative of the candidates on gay rights. That is why it's utterly amazing that gays are supporting him.

[Sean Reynolds]

20. Link?

I remember him only stating he was opposed to a federal civil union bill (because it'd never happen). He NEVER once said he was against gay marriage, just that he didn't do it in Vermont. Check out the Larry King interview, in fact I'll post a snip here:

KING: Let's talk about other issues. The president said he wants to codify a law that secures the fact that there will be no gay marriage. Vermont has what, gay union?

DEAN: We have civil unions, which gives equal rights -- doesn't give marriage, but it gives equal rights in terms of insurance, employment rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, to every single Vermonter, no matter who they are.

You know, interestingly enough, Dick Cheney took a position in 2000 in the debates that is not very different than mine. He said, this is not a federal issue. I really am inclined to leave this matter to the states, and I think we ought to let states figure out how to give equal rights to everybody in the way that they do it. So I think this is kind of a political issue at the federal level, but the power to decide these things really belongs to the state level.

KING: All right. On your own state level, if it were a referendum, would you vote for gay marriage?

DEAN: If what were -- we don't have a referendum in my state, and we have civil unions, and we deliberate chose civil unions, because we didn't think marriage was necessary in order to give equal rights to all people.

Marriage is a religious institution, the way I see it. And we're not in the business of telling churches who they can and cannot marry. But in terms of civil rights and equal rights under the law for all Americans, that is the state's business, and that's why we started civil unions.

KING: So you would be opposed to a gay marriage?

DEAN: If other states want to do it, that's their business. We didn't choose to do that in our state.

KING: And you personally would oppose it?

DEAN: I don't know, I never thought about that very much, because we didn't do it in our state for that reason. The body politic agreed in our state that it wasn't the thing to do, so we didn't do it.

I'll tell you what I will do, though. If Massachusetts decides that they're going to do gay marriage, I believe there is a federal involvement, and the federal involvement is not to recognize marriage or civil unions but it is to recognize equal rights under the law. So that if a couple enters into a domestic partnership, or a gay marriage in Canada, or a civil union in Vermont, I think those couples are entitled to federal benefits.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. I wouldn't agree that Dean 'clearly' states that on mtp...

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to an issue that you've been very identified with and that's gay rights. Here you are on the cover of Advocate magazine, put out by the National Gay and Lesbian Newsmagazine. Canada--and this was the way the papers reported it this week: "The Canadian cabinet approved a new national policy today to open marriage to gay couples, paving the way for Canada to become the third country to allow same-sex unions. ...The policy opens the way for same-sex couples from the United States and around the world to travel here to marry, since Canada has no marriage residency requirements. Canadian marriage licenses have always been accepted in the United States."

And hundreds of American gay couples are now going to Canada to be married. When they return to the United States, married in Canada legally, should that marriage be recognized?

DR. DEAN: You know what we do in this country? We focus so much on gay marriage that I think we've missed the real point of what this debate is about, which is equal rights. As you know, in our state we have a civil unions statute which says that gay couples, while they can't get married, have the same rights as everybody else, exactly the same rights--inheritance rights, insurance rights, hospital rights--that's what this is all about. So the answer is, "Will I recognize the equal rights of people who get united in Canada, whether it's married or anything else?" Yes. I think that it...

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah, but will you recognize them as a married couple, as President Dean? A couple is married in Canada, comes in the United States, legally married in Canada, are they legally married in the United States?

DR. DEAN: I can't answer that question because it's a legal question, but I can tell you what I will definitely do. I will definitely make sure they have exactly the same rights as married people, which is what we've done in Vermont. I can't tell you about the marriage question. I think the answer probably is they are legally entitled to be recognized, but I don't without--I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the answer to that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you--do you think they should be?

DR. DEAN: Well, that's a very difficult issue. The position I've always taken is that it's the church's business to decide who they can marry and who they can't marry.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, there's civil marriage. A judge marries people in the United States.

DR. DEAN: We have civil unions in Vermont. I will recognize the legal--it's the federal government's and the states' business to recognize the fact that everybody has the same legal rights as everybody else. That's why we did civil unions. Marriage is also a way of getting those exact same legal rights, so the question is, "Is a marriage in another country recognized in this country here?" My guess is the answer is yes. I don't know the answer, but I can tell you what I stand for. I stand for equal rights for every single American.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you seek...

DR. DEAN: And so the legal parts I would definitely support, then I've got to get some opinions about, you know, what we're doing to the Catholic Church and other churches that oppose this kind of stuff. But I definitely believe that you have to recognize equal rights. So if a couple goes to Canada and gets married, when they come back, they should have exactly the same legal rights as every other American.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you, as president, seek the same kind of legislation that now has passed in Canada, allowing formally gays to marry?

DR. DEAN: No, because I don't think that is the right of the federal government. I was very much opposed, unlike some of the folks I'm running against, to the Defense of Marriage Act. I did not support the Defense of Marriage Act, because I do not think it's the federal government's business to get involved in what has traditionally been the matter for the states to deal with. But by the same token, I would not tell other states that they had to have a civil union statute or that they had to have a marriage statute. That is the not the province of the federal government. What I will go as president of the United States is insist that every state find a way to recognize the same legal rights for gay couples as they do for everybody else. Equal rights under the law is a fundamental tenet of America, and that's where we need to be.
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001560.php

[Sean Reynolds]

30. He states that he'll go with whatever the state decides.

Which if California accepts gay marriage, he'd support it. But if a more conservative state like Utah wanted civil unions he'd support that too. But the last paragraph is telling, in which he states:

DR. DEAN: No, because I don't think that is the right of the federal government. I was very much opposed, unlike some of the folks I'm running against, to the Defense of Marriage Act. I did not support the Defense of Marriage Act, because I do not think it's the federal government's business to get involved in what has traditionally been the matter for the states to deal with. But by the same token, I would not tell other states that they had to have a civil union statute or that they had to have a marriage statute. That is the not the province of the federal government. What I will go as president of the United States is insist that every state find a way to recognize the same legal rights for gay couples as they do for everybody else. Equal rights under the law is a fundamental tenet of America, and that's where we need to be.

Equal rights, whether it's in the form of civil unions or gay marriage. Also he'd repeal DOMA, which basically makes it easier for states to deal with gay marriage. So no Dean didn't state he was against a federal law mandating equal treatment for gays. JUST against a federal law mandating GAY marriage for gays. Which everyone knows can only pass IF the Supreme Court rules that it's unconstitutional that gays do not have the rights to marry.