Settling the "Dean did nothing for gays" canard

[Brian_Expat]

All of you people who insist that Dean was "forced" by the Supreme Court of Vermont to support civil unions obviously aren't too familiar with the situation there. You're also ignoring the Massachusetts situation, where the State Supreme Court ruled for equality, and the opponents (from both parties) are fighting it tooth and nail.

In Vermont, when the CU ruling was handed down four years ago, the concept of civil unions was LESS popular than full blown marriage is in Massachusetts today. Despite this opposition, Howard Dean decided to do the right thing, campaign for the law, and risked death threats to do so.

Contrast this to the Republican governor of MA, who is threatening to simply ignore the court, and the Democratic Speaker of the Assembly, who is trying to ram through laws to overturn the court's decision. Or even the reaction of John Kerry, who supports an anti-gay constitutional amendment (as long as it's a state one).

Then figure who the courageous one was.

[Uzybone]

1. how about some links

to buttress your argument. All you have is opinion. Not very convincing.

[Brian_Expat]

2. I was there in Vermont when it went on. . .

. . . as for the events in Vermont and Massachusetts, they're public knowledge. I cannot do ALL your work for you. Do a quick Google search on "Mitt Romney" and "Tom Finneran" and "gay marriage," and examine their reaction versus the MA court ruling.

If Dean was as opposed to gay equality as you argue, he'd have at least put up as much of a fight as Finneran and Romney are. The fact of the matter is, he embraced the ruling and campaigned on it. If only Kerry had that sort of courage, alas, it's not to be. . .

[Nicholas_J]

5. Correct

The Vt Supreme Court gave Dean two choices. One to allow marraige laws to apply to gays. Two, to create a parallel set of law creating civil unions. Dean made the courageous stance to turn right or left when there was no other direction to turn. Civil Unions were not Deans idea. While the case was in the courts, and Dean was asked what he supported, he would not answer. But other democrats in Vermont openly supported the case that the plaintiffs were making, including the Lt Governor, Doug Racine, who stated that he supoprted the gay right to marriage before the case was decided.

VERMONT VOTERS SHORT-CIRCUIT THE NEW 'THIRD RAIL'
Opponents of Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Unions Take a Drubbing


The latest act of courage and leadership in pursuit of tolerance started last December, when the Vermont Supreme Court ordered equal marriage rights and benefits for gay Vermonters. Both houses of the Vermont Legislature responded quickly and by mid-April the governor signed the civil unions bill -- in private, of course. Reporters and cameras were not allowed in. But the secrecy of the signing didn't keep the controversy down.

For incumbent Governor Howard Brush Dean III, it was a fight he never asked for. The four-term governor (two-year terms in Vermont), had refused for years to publicly state his position on gay marriage. Dean is a Yale graduate (1971) and a medical doctor. Fiscal conservatism and universal health care are his issues. Dr. Dean describes his seat on the mandala of politics as that of a "passionate centrist." Again and again he told the public he would not comment on the same-sex marriage issue because it was a matter before the court.

Then, within one hour of the Vermont Supreme Court decision that declared gay marriage constitutional, Dean clumsily told reporters that when it comes to homosexual marriage, he was "uncomfortable about it, just like anybody else."

At least he was honest. Gay marriage simply was not his issue. It dropped into his lap like piping hot tomato soup. He was clearly relieved the Supreme Court had offered an out -- creation of a parallel system that would grant the rights and benefits without the "marriage" title. "Civil union" was born.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867

These are the fact in a nutshell, Dean took one of the two choices he was given by the courts.And while the case was before the courts Dean would not discuss the issue, or state his position on same sex marriage.

[Brian_Expat]

8. Hilarious

The Vt Supreme Court gave Dean two choices. One to allow marraige laws to apply to gays. Two, to create a parallel set of law creating civil unions. Dean made the courageous stance to turn right or left when there was no other direction to turn.

The MA SJC hasn't given Finneran or Romney anywhere to turn under your theory, yet they're still trying to turn anyway, aren't they? If Dean was the big homophobe you keep suggesting, he'd have done this.

Also, the fact that Dean was the FIRST to recognize gay relationships legally and take political flack, is pretty important. Today, even four years later, John Kerry won't take the same stand for gays that Dean took in 2000. That's pretty telling.

[sangha]

22. Gross distortion

If Dean was the big homophobe you keep suggesting, he'd have done this.

No is suggesting that Dean is a homophobe. Your straw man is meant to distract from the fact that like JE and JK, Dean opposes gay marriages.

Also, the fact that Dean was the FIRST to recognize gay relationships legally and take political flack, is pretty important

That's just more Deanie bs. NYC has recognized gay relationships for years. Even our Republican mayors recognize their relationships, and for a while, Giuliani LIVED with a gay couple. Dean has NOTHING to crow about on this score. Others were the first, and they've done more.

[dsc]

56. People who post garbage like this

Would you have them go bavk to medieval methods, Seaching to contraception and burning those caught at the stake. By the way burning of witches at the stake or those posessed by demons(which is how pedophilia was described before the 18th century) was far more often done by protestants than Catholics. For th most part, the church has tried to deal with these human problems humanely. They have tried to deal with the issue of GAY pedophelia(as most of those accused have been gay) in as humane a fashion as possible. trying to get the sick priest away from a situation in which he would engage in pedophilia again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=107867#108746

end of quote

don't get to lecture anyone, anywhere, at any time, on gay rights. It is that simple.

[janx]

6. Here is another post of Brian's on the subject

from back in December. It's very thorough.

Setting the record straight on Dean and Vermont civil unions


The spin about civil unions and Dean "going along with them" is filling up the forum, and I think, as someone who was there, it's time to set the record straight once and for all on this issue. This is a repost from another forum.

A bit of background about me -- in 2000 I didn't know who Howard Dean was, but I campaigned for him and learned about him in 2000 during his election after he signed the civil union bill. I know the situation on the ground and it wasn't a simple case of "he was forced." I spent every weekend for months commuting from Boston to Vermont to campaign and organize for Dean as the symbolic candidate representing civil unions.

Dean had many options in dealing with the bill other than signing it and campaigning for it:

Firstly, he had the option of not signing the CU bill until after the election, refusing to address the issue or even lying.

Secondly, he had the option of agreeing with Ruth Dweyer, his conservative opponent, and launching an impeachment of the Supreme Court justices who made the ruling and get it overturned immediately.

Thirdly, he could have pushed for an amendment to the Constitution (which would have taken some time), and then revoked the law after two years and run on that.

Fourth, he could have complained he was "forced" and pledged to overturn the bill after he got re-elected.

His choice to run with civil unions and make them the centrepiece of his campaign took tremendous guts.

For all the people who pooh-pooh him on this front, I have to ask if you were there and saw all the "TAKE BACK VERMONT" signs. Did you sit in on the town hall meetings where the Christian Coalition showed gay porn videos and said that this is what gays want to do to kids?

Were you there when Dean had to wear a bulletproof vest? Or when old ladies came up to him in the middle of the campaign and spat "you fucking queer-loving son of a bitch" at him?

Did you read the letters to the editor calling for violence against homosexuals? Did you listen to radio shows calling for the state logo to be changed to "two men kissing and cornholing each other," as one state legislator (and senior DEMOCRAT) said?

I was. I gained tremendous respect for the man in Vermont based on how he acted in this incredible situation, and that definitely influenced my present opinion of him today, no question about it. When I heard he was running for President, I wasn't sure at first, but ended up moving to his campaign after a few disappointments from Kerry.

Did Dean go out and initiate the civil unions debate? No -- but it was thrust upon him, he picked up with it, and navigated the state through an incredibly difficult time AND educated voters on the bill to the point where a majority by the end of the campaign supported the bill. He helped bring pro and anti people together and converted a lot of "antis" to "pros."

Howard Dean is a man to whom gay and lesbian families owe a great deal, as an articulate mainstream voice for tolerance and equality in what was one of the most divisive civil rights battles of the latest 20th century. Whether or not he's the nominee, he should NOT be tarred as someone who "went with a court decision."

That's an insult to him and to gay people everywhere, like insisting that John Kerry took the "easy route" by supporting non-discrimination legislation because he was from a "safe state."

Whatever else you might think of Dean, his record on standing up for gay people in civil unions is clear, and those civil unions made huge strides possible, including California's recently-signed DP registry and the gay marriage rulings in Canada. And he's the only presidential candidate to put on a bulletproof vest and brave death threats against himself and his family for gay people. That ain't chopped liver.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=38811

[sangha]

26. More distortions

Dean had many options in dealing with the bill other than signing it and campaigning for it:

Firstly, he had the option of not signing the CU bill until after the election, refusing to address the issue or even lying.

Secondly, he had the option of agreeing with Ruth Dweyer, his conservative opponent, and launching an impeachment of the Supreme Court justices who made the ruling and get it overturned immediately.

Thirdly, he could have pushed for an amendment to the Constitution (which would have taken some time), and then revoked the law after two years and run on that.

Fourth, he could have complained he was "forced" and pledged to overturn the bill after he got re-elected.

1) That would;ve have forced VT to allow gay marriages, something Dean has said he opposes.

2) Impeachments don't just happen. They take time and efffort. Also, Dean can't overturn anything. Another judge has to rehear it and rule. That also takes time, and in the meantime something had to be done, and Dean made sure it wasn't gay marriage

3) He couldve pushed which would have taken years. In the meantime, something had to be done, and Dean made sure it wasn't gay marriage

4) He could have lied?

His choice to run with civil unions and make them the centrepiece of his campaign took tremendous guts.

More Dean bs. Dean did not make it a centerpiece of his campaign. His opponents made it a centerpiece of their campaign.

and navigated the state through an incredibly difficult time AND educated voters on the bill to the point where a majority by the end of the campaign

Misleading. Dean didn't due this during the campaign for gay rights. He did it during HIS OWN RE-ELECTION campaign. Others fought to have the bill passed, while Dean wouldn't even say if he would sign it.

Some support!

And he's the only presidential candidate to put on a bulletproof vest and brave death threats against himself and his family for gay people.

Again untrue. I guess that's why it's undocumented

[Brian_Expat]

45. Get back to me when you have testimony from Vermont

and not talking points from Kerry HQ.

[sangha]

90. Actually, I live in the area

and I was in VT for a good deal of that time. It's small state, but you're not the only one who has spent time there. Don't let it go to your head.

You sound like Dean in the final week of IA. Instead of responding to the substance, you try to discredit the person for having the nerve to bring it up. Too bad. Unless you're Dean's bodygaurd, I don't care where you lived.

[KaraokeKarlton]

72. I live in Vermont, and Brian is right

Howard Dean went through far worse than anything you could even imagine to support Civil Unions. Anyone who claims otherwise is clueless about what really happened up here. It was the ugliest election cycle imaginable. Dean made his entire campaign in 2000 about dignity, tolerance, equality, civil and human rights and acceptance. He approached extremely hostile crowds to talk about Civil Unions and he worked his ass off and won over a lot of people. School kids were being harassed, national religious right wing nutjobs congregated onto Vermont and caused all kinds of hate and discontent and Dean showed true leadership and character in how he dealt with it.

[janx]

88. It's nice to see you around again, KK!

:hi:

[youngred]

3. Not really true

and you're a few weeks late

[Brian_Expat]

4. It's never "late" to debunk a lie

As for the accuracy of my post, it's completely accurate. Most of the people bashing Dean over gay issues were nowhere to be found, and probably in opposition, to the civil unions bill back in 2000.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brian_Expat]

9. Way to win support!

But just keep pitching your anti-gay state amendment whilst insisting that Dean is actually a homophobe. It's sure to win you endless accolades for Kerry from our community and bolster him in the primaries!

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[janx]

12. Well it's always a good thing to be able to hear this

from somebody who was actually there--I'll say that much.

[youngred]

85. Wrong

He supported it after he'd made the decision

but until his hand was forced he was adamantly opposed.

[janx]

10. What's "not really true" ?

?

[blm]

13. You think Kerry wasn't getting death threats when he advocated for gays

to serve openly in the military in 93? When he submitted anti-discrimination legislation for gays in 1985?

The whole marriage issue is complicated because it happens to be a SACRAMENT in many religions. The problem lies in the word marriage, itself. How best do we as a nation handle the separation of church and state issue that is so tangled up with the act of marriage?

I have every confidence that Kerry will do the right thing as president. He knows that these decisions will never and SHOULD never be made in a politically charged environment.

[janx]

14. The problem with that is that sometimes decisions have

to be made in politically charged environments. Choosing the most politically convenient or the most popular decision, in these cases, isn't ultimately the best way to go.

[blm]

16. If it further divides the nation in ways that sets the movement BACK?

I'd prefer certain progress sooner rather than later. The religious SACRAMENT of marriage isn't going to go away by November.

Hopefully within a couple years, however, ALL marriages will be civil unions performed by the state with MARRIAGES an additional option chosen by religious believers.

[janx]

18. Sorry, but I'm just not that scared, blm.

I'm really not. It's important to take a stand. People appreciate that, believe it or not. The only ones who will mewl and puke are the fundies anyway.

[blm]

21. It's not a matter of fear. It's a matter of good sense.

It's the difference between the approach of a MLK or Black Panthers. Both had their appeal, but, MLK's way was the smarter, more effective approach longterm.

[janx]

23. The Black Panthers?

Um, no...

[blm]

27. As an example of different approaches, janx.

That's all.

I personally am more of a Black Panthers personality, but my head and my greater pacifist self would have signed on with MLK if given that choice, because the goal was more important than personal outrage.

[janx]

38. There was no personal outrage. He quietly signed

the bill behind closed doors.

You can't get much gentler than that. So to be fair, I don't think the Black Panthers analogy works very well.

But again, I have to stress that I don't think any of us should shy away so much from gay marriage or laws like this in general. It's a matter of the Constitution, after all, and I don't think there will be the great opposition that some seem to worry about.

[blm]

41. Actually, I am not against Dean's stand...I was speaking generally

in reference to Kerry's stand for all those who think he is wrong in his approach. I think Dean's approach is in the same category as Kerry's.

None of them want this as an "in your face" issue. It should be cultivated civilly, and crafted with tight, legal language. It was the sloppiness of the language in affirmative action legislation that allowed the right to take it to court so often.

[sangha]

28. Take a stand? Like “I’m against gay marriage.” - Dean 1/4/2000

That's a stand! Some stand!

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/feb2000/news_centerstage.htm

" Marriage Issue Takes Center Stage at the Statehouse


"Early assumptions following the Court’s December 20 decision were that domestic partnership is the only real plan of action. Governor Howard Dean has said on several occasions that he would support domestic partnership legislation, but is uncomfortable with the idea of actual gay marriage. Dean has recently clarified his position, declaring in a radio interview, “I’m against gay marriage."

[janx]

86. This is taken completely out of context. n/t

[jansu]

87. That's what we already have! You have to get a Marriage License

from the state, so that makes all marriages Civil. You can not marry in a church without that License from the State. What other license can you forbid a person from obtaining based on sex or sexual orientation? What about those people who are neither female or male, can they marry?

[TeacherCreature]

15. They know it Brian

they are just being spiteful because Kerry is so unappealing that they have to try and justify their support of "Mr Electability" by trying to make Dean look bad.

[janx]

17. Well this is one aspect of Gov. Dean that they shouldn't even

attempt to distort.

His support for the rights of Americans is legendary because of what he chose to do--in a very politically charged atmosphere. It sure as heck was not popular, but he did it anyway.

[blm]

19. Kerry and all he stands for is appealing to many of us liberals for 30+yrs

Check your history books.

[sangha]

20. You're the one with the canard

It's not that "Dean did nothing for gays". It's that "Dean did nothing for gay marriage"

ALL of the candidates have fought for gay rights. None of them, excepting DK, supports gay marriage, including Dean

Try again

[KaraokeKarlton]

74. Dean is a far cry different than Kerry on this

While Kerry supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Dean has clearly stated that although he personally doesn't support gay marriage he would recognize them in any state where they passed. Dean doesn't favor them personally, but wouldn't try to prevent them. Kerry clearly opposes them politically as well as personally since he's willing to fight against gay marriage. That's a HUGE difference.

[wyldwolf]

75. Not so big of a difference...

So far, I have not seen a shred of evidence that Kerry would support a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

On the other hand, of the two, Dean was the only one with the opportunity to legalize gay marriage and he didn't do it.

[KaraokeKarlton]

77. He didn't do it because Vermonters didn't even want Civil Unions

As it was, he went against what Vermont wanted to sign and support Civil Unions. Then he went out after the fact and busted his butt to sell Vermonters on the bill. It wasn't easy, either. If Vermont had of wanted gay marriage, they would have gotten it. Since the state DIDN'T want it, we got Civil Unions forced upon us against the will of the majority of the state. People were VERY angry over it, too. Dean really won people over and did a great job explaining to people why we had to accept Civil Unions. He also made Vermont the first and only state in the country that allows gay couples to adopt children. Anyone who claims that Dean doesn't genuinely support the rights of gays doesn't know what they're talking about, period.

[wyldwolf]

80. No one is implying Dean did anything less than good...

... however, the original poster is mischaracterizing posters at DU - no one has ever said, to my knowledge, that "Dean did nothing for gays."

That being said, he did have the option to legalize gay marriage and did not do so. His reasons could have been personal (he said he was not comfortable with gay marriage and that he was against it) or political (he compromised to best serve Vermont.)

However, to criticize another candidate taking the exact same stand (saying he will back civil unions and not gay marriage) for the same reasons Dean did is hypocritical.

He also made Vermont the first and only state in the country that allows gay couples to adopt children.

No.

New Jersey Becomes First State to Allow Joint Adoption by Lesbian and Gay Couples

NEWARK, N.J. -- In a landmark judgment for gay families, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union today reached an agreement with New Jersey to allow lesbian and gay couples to adopt children on equal footing with married couples.

With today's agreement, New Jersey became the first state in the nation to specify that gay and unmarried couples will be measured by the same adoption standards as married couples, and that no couple will be barred from adopting because of their sexual orientation or marital status.



http://archive.aclu.org/news/n121797a.html

[Tesha]

78. He appears to support a Mass const. amendment calling for just that.

Isn't that "a sign"?

[wyldwolf]

82. calling for just what?

To repeat this from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=410080&mesg_id=410852&page=

Kerry does not support denying any rights whatsoever to same sex couples, ergo, he would not support Finneran's amendment as written.

Do you have any evidence of Kerry endorsing Finneran's amendment?

Do you have any evidence of Kerry endorsing any particular amendment?

[sangha]

92. No, it's not a sign

Kerry has explicitely stated that he will NOT support an amendment ot the US Constitution. He said that it's divisive, and Bush* is supporting it to draw attention away from the terrible job he's doing on the economy, health care, jobs, etc...

[Duder]

89. Perhaps you should try again..

"ALL of the candidates have fought for gay rights. None of them, excepting DK, supports gay marriage, including Dean."

'...But when the issue of gay marriage arose, the candidates' differences became apparent.

Only three candidates were firmly in support of federal law protection for same-sex marriages: Al Sharpton, former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley Braun and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut were booed off the stage when they said marriage is a right reserved in America for men and women only. "Marriage has a special status in our culture, our society, our history," Lieberman said.

"I think the federal government should conform its laws as quickly as we can to recognize whatever relationship...and put into law in states or foreign countries," Howard Dean and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri responded on June’s Meet the Press when asked if he would recognize marriages performed in Canada (or Belgium and the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage is legal) if couples immigrated to the United States.'

Edit: link

Democratic Candidates Meet to Discuss Gay Rights

[sangha]

93. That's no difference

The states are already required, by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, to recognize marriages from other states.

[wyldwolf]

24. This again?

In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." The court instructed the legislature to grant gays "inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative."

Given that choice, Dean took the more conservative option. According to the Associated Press, Vermont's lieutenant governor and House speaker supported gay marriage, but Dean didn't. Gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean said at the time. He did encourage the legislature to pass a civil unions bill. But the alternative he averted was legalizing gay marriage, not preventing gay domestic partnerships.

Many supporters of the bill criticized Dean for signing it "in the closet," in private and without a ceremony.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086952

That action has prompted a few reporters to ask Dean about his support for such a law at the national level. His answer has been virtually the same in all cases -- he is opposed. Why would he oppose a national law that he felt justified in endorsing for his state? Because he apparently believes that the federal government has no right to intervene in state decision-making.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8387

[janx]

25. Well, you can either cut and paste snippets you select

from reporters who talked to people who may have been there, OR--you can talk to someone who was there...namely, Brian.

[sangha]

29. Brian isn't the only one

I was there too, and Dean did NOT fight for gay marriages OR civil unions. Until Dean actually signed the bill (in a closed meeting) no one knew if he was going to sign it because Dean refused to say he would sign a civil unions bill.

[janx]

32. Good for him!

!

[wyldwolf]

30. two points to make...

1. I noticed in many Dean discussions that some Dean supporters tend to wave off sourced material as "cut and paste snippets" - especially when they work against them - instead of rebutting with facts.

Research is a myriad of cutting and pasting from various sources to arrive at a final conclusion.

2. I'm so happy I don't have to rely on people who happen to live in a certain area who were NOT involved in the process for my facts. That would be hearsay.

Why doesn't Brian rebut my post? Why doesn't he say, "I was with Dean the whole time, so I know it didn't happen that way"?

Because he can't because he wasn't. Despite living there, he has no more insider's info than the rest of us - less so if he can only express an opinion with no supporting sources.

Plus, the tone of his post is arrogant - as if he would have to final say and settle anything.

[janx]

34. People do tend to cherry pick sometimes...

;-) ...and no "side" is immune from it.

As for Brian, I believe he was involved somewhat in the process, but you'd have to speak to him about that.

If his post sounds very sure of itself, maybe it's because he cares very deeply about what happened and saw first hand what Dean went through.

Can you imagine being gay or lesbian and watching that happen?

[mzmolly]

33. Read the links in post 31

;)

[mzmolly]

31. Here here...I've linked some articles on this below.

Profile in courage ~

Gov. Howard Dean stands on principle rather than popularity in his push to make Vermont the most forward-thinking state in the nation By Mubarak Dahir From The Advocate, May 23, 2000

Vermont’s governor, Howard Dean, has been steadfast in his support of state-sanctioned gay and lesbian unions ever since the state supreme court decision late last year. Now, in an interview with The Advocate, the Democrat—running for his fifth term this year—underscores his support and explains why Vermont is the right state to ignite a nationwide debate on the issue."

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/812/812_howarddean.asp

Profile in Courage Essay Contest Prize Winning Essay

Stephanie Dziczek, Holmes High School, Covington, Kentucky


"In his campaign for reelection to a fifth gubernatorial term, an ambitious Dean would have focused on health care, taxes, or any of a number of "safe" political platforms. However, disturbed by Vermont’s reaction toward gay civil unions, Dean made the "extension of the rights and benefits of the constitution to all Vermonters, regardless of their sexual orientation" (Dean) the heart of his campaign for acceptance and understanding. Over the next six months, Dean fought harder for open-mindedness than for votes. He spoke against the "Take Back Vermont" movement, his most serious Election Day threat, stating that he never wanted to take Vermont back to "a time when it was okay to discriminate against people" (Goldberg). Dean effectively avoided the homophobic trends in political campaigning, but burdened himself with the political plague in popularity polls."

http://www.jfklibrary.org/pica_essay_winner_2001_dziczek.html

[wyldwolf]

35. These are great, but they're after the fact...

Each one tells of Dean's position on civil unions AFTER the decision was made.

No one denies he is for civil unions and gay rights.

No one denies it took a bit of courage to even back the civil unions law.

However, he was given a choice between two things - gay marriage or civil unions. He chose civil unions.

He said gay marriage made him uncomfortable.

Under the situation, he did what he did.

Kerry would have.
Edwards would have.
Clinton would have.

[Brian_Expat]

36. Dean was the first to move forward with gay relationships in the USA

And four years later, Kerry still cannot bring himself to support gay relationships in any meaningful way. I think that's pretty telling, and it's one reason I supported Dean for the nomination.

[wyldwolf]

37. This is a far cry from the point of your original post

and, if I might add, Kerry supports gay relationships in the exact same way Dean does - civil unions.

[Brian_Expat]

42. Kerry supports anti-gay laws

that ban gays from getting married.

[wyldwolf]

47. for example?

... with links, please.

[wyldwolf]

49. for example?

..with links, please?

[wyldwolf]

51. for example?

...with links, please?

[mzmolly]

54. He said he would support a constitutional ammendment banning Gay Marriage

*depending on how it's worded*

Dont tell me your not familiar?

[wyldwolf]

55. This is supposition

Supporting a hypothetical constitutional amendment based on more hypotheticals hardly qualifies as "supporting anti-gay laws."

Where are these "laws" Kerry supports?

Has Kerry supported an existing anti-gay law or has he lended theoretical support to a hypothetical law that would hinge on how it is worded?

Has Howard Dean gave a definitive "Yes" that he supports gay marriage?

[dsc]

57. No it isn't

and one that does that does indeed exist. Finninan's amendment does exactly what Kerry wants.

[wyldwolf]

59. Yes it is. Currently, there is no constitutional amendment...

...banning gay marriage and probably will never be.

There is a proposed amendment. But it is not a law so it can't be considered an "anti-gay law" that Kerry supports.

So hypothetically supporting a hypothetical amendment based on words that may or may not be included in such a hypothetical amendment is supposition at it's best.

[dsc]

62. what planet are you on

the thing lost by 2 votes. And it is scheduled to be voted on again. This amendment exists, it is in consideration, and it meets the criteria Kerry stated (it applies only to MA, bans gay marriage, and requires civil unions). To say an amendment which lost by two votes before one of the leading state wide politicians endorsed it is somehow a non issue is absurd.

[wyldwolf]

65. What planet are YOU on? When did Congress vote on this Amendment?

?

[dsc]

66. You need to read more carefully

What is being discussed here is a Massachusetts state amendment. And that is exactly and precisely what Brian says Kerry supports, and that Kerry says Kerry supports and what I sited. In short, Kerry supports a real live amendment to the state constitution of Massachusetts.

[wyldwolf]

69. No, actually, you do...

A federal amendment is the amendment making the headlines now.

In post #42, Brian said, "Kerry supports anti-gay laws."

In post #54, mzmolly clarifies for him:

"He said he would support a constitutional ammendment banning Gay Marriage."

So even if both mzmolly were referring to a state constitutional amendment, no indication was given.

Even so, there is still NO constitutional amendment - Massachusetts or federal - banning gay marriage. It doesn't exist.

So, again, where are these anti-gay laws Kerry supports?

[gottaB]

Finneran's amendment explicitly denies rights to same-sex couples

Kerry does not support denying any rights whatsoever to same sex couples, ergo, he would not support Finneran's amendment as written.

Do you have any evidence of Kerry endorsing Finneran's amendment?

Do you have any evidence of Kerry endorsing any particular amendment?

The facts do not agree with your assertions.

[dsc]

91. You are right I mistyped

It isn't Fineran but Travalgni who introduced this one. This is sections one and two quoted below.

Section 1. It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts.

Section 2. The people of the Commonwealth adopt this Article to protect the unique relationship of marriage. The people also wish to establish civil unions to provide to same-sex couples all the benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities under state law as are granted to spouses in a marriage, while recognizing that under present federal law same-sex couples in civil unions will be denied federal benefits available to married couples.

end of quote

By any reasonable reading the above text fits Mr. Kerry's bill. I can't quote Kerry saying I endorse this particular amendment but there is literally no interpretation of the words Kerry uttered which doesn't have him endorsing this amendment. He uttered them after this amendment failed by two votes.

http://veecee.typepad.com/marriage/

[gottaB]

96. Thank you for taking this seriously

Now we need to keep Kerry's words in mind, and see if they indeed match Travalgni's amendment. If they do, I will concede your argument, at least to the extent that's it represents a reasonable conjecture.

The statement that hrc's Cheryl Jacques found deeply disappointing, that was repeated in the Advocate, came originally from the Globe, byline by Patrick Healy and Frank Phillips. They reported from Ohio:

In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

"If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," the senator said yesterday, stressing that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal, Constitution. He has said he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position," he said Tuesday.

Kerry's remarks angered supporters of gay marriage in Massachusetts, but could help stalled efforts by state legislative leaders to win support for their amendment. The amendment written by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and Senate minority leader Brian Lees would restrict marriage to heterosexuals but create a same-sex civil union system that would provide all the benefits and protections of marriage.

My position is that these two reporters don't have their facts straight, or are presenting them in a less than straightforward, overly sensationalized way.

For instance, they assert that the Travaglini/Lees amendment would provide "all the benefits and protections of marriage." Yet, by the very language you cited, that can't be entirely true, because the amendment specifically denies protection of federal rights and benefits. It's discriminatory, and would fall short of granting same-sex couples in civil unions "all the legal rights" of different-sex couples.

The juxtaposition of these assertions creates the impression that Kerry would endorse this amendment, but since it can't logically be true, owing to the contradiction between "access to all legal rights" and "denied federal benefits" and since there is no direct quote attributed to Kerry saying "I support the Travaglini amendment," and since we know that the reporters misreported at least one fact regarding the substance of the Travaligni amendment, it would therefore be unreasonable to conclude that Kerry does in fact back, support or back that particular amendment.

Really, if the reporters wanted to clear this up, they should have asked Kerry explicitly about the Travaglini amendment, and reported his exact reply. There is precious little indication that they in fact did so.

dsc, I know that it seems to you that Kerry is dancing all around this issue. Obviously you don't trust him to keep his word. I do. I trust him more than I trust a newspaper story. I trust him to represent his own views more than I trust you or any of his erstwhile opponents to represent his views. But if you can prove to me that Kerry "backs an anti-gay amendment," and I would consider the language you cited to be anti-gay on its face, then I will admit that I was wrong, acknowledge your superior acumen on this matter, put a freedom to marry bumper sticker on the car, and donate a small amount (I'm really broke) to the Kucinich and Sharpton campaigns as a token of my concern for the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

[sangha]

39. more untruths

Dean was NOT the first to do something for gay rights. Ever hear of Stonewall? Harvey Milk?

Your post is disgusting. And Deanies wonder why they're not respected.

[Brian_Expat]

43. Dean was the first politician to stand up for gay partnership rights

under the law.

And don't lecture me about Stonewall, dear. I'm quite aware of Stonewall (which had absolutely nothing to do with politicians).

[janx]

46. I'm not aware of Stonewall.

Who is Stonewall? :shrug:

[oxymoron]

50. The Stonewall Riots

The birth of the Gay Pride movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

[janx]

52. Thank you. I was probably 11 or 12 years old then.

I do remember the weird Anita Bryant stuff in the seventies, because there was all kinds of anti-Anita graffiti in Iowa City where I was going to school.

It's interesting now to contemplate that by the time I was old enough to visit any clubs and bars, the gay bars were perfectly legal, and I visited some of them (some intentionally with gay friends, others unintentionally). What things we take for granted and don't even think about, eh?

Thanks for the link. I especially appreciated the hyperlinks: "drag queen" and "butch lesbian"...!

[sangha]

94. You need a lesson on Stonewell, luscious

if you think Dean was the first to fight for GLBT's, and Stonewall did involve politicians. Why do you think the police harrassed the gay patrons in the first place?

I also noticed you skipped right over Harvey Milk. Is it because you don't know who he is, or is it because you realized you were wrong (because Milk beats Dean by decades) and don't want to admit it?

[blm]

48. Wrong. Gays were being denied HOUSING and Kerry advocated for their rights

in 1985. YOU think that was nothing?

Do you honestly think Kerry's progay battles he took on throughout the 80s and 90s didn't HELP push the ball forward to make it EASIER for the Vermont Supreme Court and the legislature to put forth the legislation for civil unions that Dean signed in 2000?

You think civil unions just HAPPENED in 2000? Geez. That ball was carried for over a decade by OTHERS, and most often in the Senate by John Kerry, who you seem to disparage at every opportunity, even though his position on gay marriage is not different than Dean's.

[mzmolly]

53. Wrong. He chose Civil Unions because he is in favor of the seperation

of Church and State.

He has said that time and again. He NEVER said he chose civil unions *because* he was uncomfortable with Gay Marriage. You are conveniently taking two (seperate) quotes out of context to make a bogus assertion.

As for what Clinton/Edwards/Kerry would have done, YOU don't know what they would have done ...

[wyldwolf]

58. Perhaps that is what he thought, but it doesn't hold water,

No, he never said he supported the civil unions bill over gay marriage *because* he was uncomfortable with it, but he did say he was uncomfortable with gay marriage *while* he was working on the civil unions bill.

Since the legal aspects of gay marriage and civil unions are virtually the same, why would he choose civil unions over gay marriage UNLESS he had some problem with gay marriage, or as he termed it, it made him "uncomfortable?"

He may also have had some concern of church/state seperation, but in making gay marriage legal the government could not force churches to marry gays. Churches would have the legal option without government interference or retribution if gay marriage was legal. So, actually, legalizing gay marriage would be a better preservation of church/state seperation because the government would no longer restrict a religious act.

Dean's opposition to gay marriage is documented several times:

“I think that’s up to the people of each state. We did not do gay marriage inVermont. When I had the chance, we chose not to do it."

San Francisco Chronicle reporter Marc Sandalow recently wrote about Dean: “Hesupports full equality on matters including filing joint tax returns, Social Security benefits, immigration and hospital visits. But he does not give a simple answer onwhether he supports, or opposes, gay marriage.”

Sandalow, M. (2003, December 2). Dean supports gay unions but wavers on saying ‘I do’; Presidential hopeful stresses equal rightsover choice of words. San Francisco Chronicle. p. A1.

With regard to marriage equality for same-sex couples, Dean said, “Civil unionshave the legal impact we need to achieve under the law. I don’t think same-sexmarriage is necessary.”

Bull, C. (2003, April 1). Pro-Peace, Pro-Health Care, Pro-Gay. Advocate. p. 32.

"Early assumptions following the Court’s December 20 decision were that domestic partnership is the only real plan of action. Governor Howard Dean has said on several occasions that he would support domestic partnership legislation, but is uncomfortable with the idea of actual gay marriage. Dean has recently clarified his position, declaring in a radio interview, “I’m against gay marriage."

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/feb2000/news_centerstage.htm

[janx]

60. Why? Because he was a governor, not a cleric. n/t

[wyldwolf]

63. True, but removing goverment restrictions on a religious act...

...is a perfect example of preserving the seperation of church and state, which should be the role of a governor.

[janx]

70. No --he didn't want to impact the religious side of it at all,

because that would have been meddling in the affairs of church. He did what he could on the "state" aspect and said that the rest of it should be left to the churches or to individual states (kind of like what's going on right now!)

[wyldwolf]

71. You know this... how?

Not allowing gay marriage is a prime example of the state meddling in the affairs of church. Lifting any government say-so in who can get married and who can't better exemplifies church/state seperation.

And actually, Dean did NOT do what he could on the state aspect. He had a choice between civil unions and gay marriage. He chose civil unions.

Sure, he broke ground in VT, but don't imply he did all he could do.

[janx]

81. See my post #79, below.

If you follow the link, you'll have more information about all of this. (Maybe even more than you wanted to know, but...at least I searched!) ;-)

[wyldwolf]

83. I did, and it doesn't bolster your point

you said:

he didn't want to impact the religious side of it at all, because that would have been meddling in the affairs of church. He did what he could on the "state" aspect and said that the rest of it should be left to the churches or to individual states (kind of like what's going on right now!)

then, below, you quote Dean, from April of 2003! We don't know that the reasons you attribute to Dean, and those he claimed to have in 2003, were what motivated him in VT when he passed the civil unions bill.

Do you have links of Dean explaining this position at the time he was working on the bill?

We don’t tell churches who they can and can not marry. But we do say with civil unions that everybody is equal.

This isn't true. With gay marriage illegal, the state of VT DOES tell churches who they can and can not marry.

If the Catholic Church doesn’t want to marry gay people, I think that’s the Catholic Church’s right.

And it still would be if gay marriage was legalized. Whereas the Catholic Church has rules against marrying people who have been previously married and divorced, so, too, could they have a rule against marrying gay people. With gay marriage legal, the government would not be able to tell the church who they can and cannot marry. Churched could make that decision themselves.

[janx]

84. The government doesn't tell the churches whom they can

and cannot marry. Did you read the interview at the link?

Dean's church, for instance, marries gays and lesbians.

Dean did a courageous thing with the situation dealt to him. He saw how the court made the distinction between church and state in marriage, and he took advantage of it.

With a stroke of his pen, Vermont became the only state in our nation to afford equal rights to all re civil unions.
NOT ONE OTHER CANDIDATE who ran in this primary has ever done such a thing.

The article at the link is an interview in which he recounted the reasons for what he did when he did them. If that's not good enough for you, you're more than welcome to do your own search.

[blm]

61. Actually, it's Kerry who said it's a separation of church & state problem.

I haven't seen a report with Dean saying this.

[dsc]

64. He has stated that many times

One I know was publicly broadcast was the HRC forum, he also stated it in the Advocate interview he gave in April of 2003.

[blm]

67. I didn't recall seeing it.

But, I am definitely in agreement with both Kerry and Dean that the problem is a church-state problem.

I'm in the camp that ALL unions should be civil ceremonies with a religious marriage ceremony left as an ADDITIONAL option for believers.

[dsc]

68. I can't provide a link now

as I have to go help my dad with something. If you go to the advocate's website you can find his cover story in their archives. I have the hard copy and no scanner.

[janx]

79. blm, you probably didn't recall seeing it because he started

saying it a long time ago, before too many people even knew who he was. But here's an excerpt from the Advocate archives (April 2003):

"Do nongay audiences understand the difference between civil unions and marriage?
The Republicans keep blurring the distinction. What the bill says is that marriage is between a man and a woman but that same-sex couples have all the legal rights of marriage if they enter into a civil union. So it’s not gay marriage. The people who say it is are either malevolent—the right wing knows how poorly gay marriage tests in the polls—or they are ignorant of what the statute does. The difference is really about religion. It’s a complicated argument. Marriage was a religious institution until the evolution of civil law. What the legislature did, which I thought was very smart, was to divide the concept into civil and religious marriage. We don’t tell churches who they can and can not marry. But we do say with civil unions that everybody is equal.

Do you support allowing gay people to marry?
Civil unions have the legal impact we need to achieve equal rights under the law. I don’t think same-sex marriage is necessary.

A lot of gay people would beg to differ. They want marriages in church settings just like their opposite-sex counterparts. Many churches will perform those ceremonies, but the state won’t recognize them.
Yes, many churches will do that, including mine. It’s a difficult argument to grasp, but the state will recognize every legal right that a married person has for a gay person in a civil union. There is no right that I have as a married man that a gay person can’t have. So the issue for me is not marriage but equal rights under the law. If the Catholic Church doesn’t want to marry gay people, I think that’s the Catholic Church’s right. "

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/886/886_dean.asp

[corporatewhore]

40. i rember when this happened

i was in a fundie school and my fundie teacher hinted he would burn in hell along with homosexuals

[janx]

44. Where was the school? In what state?

Weird!

[corporatewhore]

73. texas

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

76. I agree, Dean could have did the easy thing

...and opposed the courts decision, and went the "amend the state consitution" process. It was politically risky for him to take the stand he did.

[Zomby Woof]

95. Dean's corpse

Still stinkin' up GD2004... phewwwwwwww. :hurts: