(no subject)

[novapsyche]

You know, I was just remarking to lameautarch some grudging compliments about the job Howard Dean was doing as chair of the DNC, and then he goes and does something like misstate the party's platform on gay rights.

Comments

[brendand.livejournal.com]

Well, I beg to differ. It's more of a tongue in cheek thing. Anyone who outright says "Gays should marry" is throwing out the chance of acquiring many republican votes. He said that the official party platform is that marriage is a man and a woman. Which is probably true. If we want Republicans to stay in power, we should keep bringing this argument up as if it should be a national debate. In order to get rid of the idiots, we need to not give the single-issue voters a reason to vote against us.

This is bigger than any one issue.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

He said that the official party platform is that marriage is a man and a woman. Which is probably true.

But that's not the Democratic party's platform on marriage, and as chair of the DNC he should know this. He was waffling because of the venue, and that I find to be terribly disappointing.

I'm not disagreeing that we who advocate for equal rights should, shall I say, antagonize the idiots. At the same time, we shouldn't be afraid to actually state what we stand for.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I'm not disagreeing that we who advocate for equal rights should, shall I say, antagonize the idiots.

That should be, "should ... refrain from antagonizing."

[brendand.livejournal.com]

surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre it should. ;)

[brendand.livejournal.com]

You're right. We shouldn't be afraid to state what we stand for. So show me where the DNC states the official position as something other than what he said.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections 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." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.

--, page 38

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Erm, that should be Strong at Home,
Respected in the World: The 2004 Democratic National Platform for America, page 38.

[brendand.livejournal.com]

In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years
Well, I still think it's arguable that the state's position is almost unanimous that gays should not be allowed to marry, or more plainly that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Although, as much as I hate to admit it, I think France is going the right way about it. The government doesn't allow marriage. The church does. The government allows (I believe the word is) Pax. Basically, the government will give a union license to any two adult, willing persons.

Technically, I don't think gays should be married. At least not through the government. But then, I don't think anybody should be married through the government.