New Draft Democratic Platform Omits Mention of Gays and Lesbians

[dutch508]

GLTDWKTHY-ers are up in arms about no gays and lez on DEM platform.

ruggerson  (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-10-08 11:04 AM
Original message http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3432518
New Draft Democratic Platform Omits Mention of Gays and Lesbians
 Advertisements [?]Source: ABC News

The 2004 Democratic Party platform, page 42:

"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."

The 2008 draft Democratic Party platform, page 50:

"We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us."

Notice the editor's red pen? "Gay and lesbian families" has now been replaced by "all families."

Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/new-dra...

glowing  (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-10-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. cool.. I like the inclussion rather than seperation.. It says to me each family 
 is a family and stfu repigs!!!!

 

glowing sounds...uh...

ruggerson  (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-10-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. The paragraph is about gay and lesbian families
 so why not just say it?

It's not more inclusive, it's just less specific now and subject to broad interpretation.

Does this mean we now stand for polygamous families? One man with twenty wives should have full protections from the federal government? Incestuous families?

Of course DUmmies get mad at everything.

glowing  (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-10-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Is somehow a gay or lesbian family different than someone else's family?
 If you believe that, you fall into a republican clap-trap. Most people don't care about their gay neighbors.. its when the right-wing tools come out of the woodwork calling it a sin and going nuts.. and then people, esp. men, go nutsy. I normally have to calm down my husband when the spin cycle comes around with that rinse/ lather/ repeat meme... I frankly don't think someone else's family is something I have any business interferring with... and it doesn't determine who I vote for.

ruggerson  (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-10-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Well, yes, they are headed by people of the same gender
 I wouldn't have a problem with this if they had gotten rid of EVERY mention of other minority groups.

But they didn't.

Just gays and lesbians.

It's not post-partisan, it's not trying to transcend identity politics, it's just getting rid of words they think will alienate independents.

In other words, it's cowardly and not very respectful of a very large Democratic constituency.

It's because you are a nutcase.

ruggerson  (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-10-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. So now in our platform we support polygamous families?
 It says we support "all" families now

  wait for it....someone will claim polygamous families should be part of the umbrella.

Zhade  (1000+ posts)      Sun Aug-10-08 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
36. Why not? I've known such families (who aren't part of a religious cult).
 There's nothing wrong with consensual polygamy.

of course.

humbled_opinion (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-10-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
38. Hmmm 
 Interesting so you have no objection to me marrying my pug dog whom I love very much and want to share the rest of my life with as a family unit.....

This is a blatant attempt by the Democrats to obscure the gay culture and try not to "red flag" the issue with conservative minded folks..... Hypocrisy at best and flat out bias and rejection of the gay community at worst...

Anyway you slice it... this stinks.

That's the dem party for you.

dropkickpa  (1000+ posts)      Sun Aug-10-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. I was waiting for this one to show up
 The gays lost us the election in 2004!   

Uh-Oh...

dbackjon (1000+ posts)      Sun Aug-10-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
33. **** YOU - HOMOPHOBIC ASSHOLE
 I can't believe how many homophobic ASSHOLES are still in DU - including a number on this thread.

Stuckinthebush  (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-10-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. It is pathetic
 Homophobes are everywhere. Even on "progressive" discussion boards.

This heterosexual progressive stands firmly with his gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in support. Screw the homophobes.

humbled_opinion (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-10-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. WOW... 
 Just apply your equation to skin color instead of sexual preference and we are right back in the 1950's again.... and I thought we were the party of Progressives?

ruggerson  (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-10-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. So now we stand for polygamy? And incest?
 they're families too and they fall under "all families."

beyurslf  (1000+ posts)      Sun Aug-10-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. It says we support full inclusion and protections. 
 If the raids in TX showed us anything, it is that even those groups deserve protections.

I don't know how we should word it. I do know I get tired of having to include every possible sexual identity or orientation when we used to just gay and lesbian. How is a man who thinks he is a woman anything like me?

Zhade  (1000+ posts)      Sun Aug-10-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
47. Your being tired of it is irrelevant - there ARE more identities than just gay/lesbian.
 Me, for example - I'm pansexual. Gender is meaningless to me when it comes to attraction and affection.

OK, a little help here?

Zhade  (1000+ posts)      Sun Aug-10-08 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
46. That's the second time you've dissed poly families. Why compare poly to incest?
 I mean, yes, polygamy (actually bigamy) as found in, say, Mormon cults is not consensual, but I've actually been friends with people who lived in a poly family, and they were well-adjusted happy people.

When compared to you, they prob'ly were.

[Chris_]

That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanence of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.

From the 1848 Democratic platform.

[franksolich]

Has it ever occurred to the gay primitives that maybe they're not being specifically mentioned because.....

.....they and their "causes" are.....incredibly stale and boring?

[dutch508]

 


The whole damn platform just flip flopped.

ruggerson  (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-10-08 09:53 PM
Original message
Democratic platform draft changed again - now includes the phrase "same sex couples'
 

Platform committee took suggestions from gay organizations and strengthened the draft. Kudos to the NSD and others for speaking out.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/new-dra...

"UPDATE: I'm told that language has now been changed, so it reads: "We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections."

Jon Hoadley, the Executive Director for the National Stonewall Democrats, says that at the suggestion of his organization and other LGBT organizations, "a couple of tweaks were made, mainly, making it clear that same sex couples are a part of all families."

Hoadley goes on to say that "the LGBT Community thought this was the strongest platform ever for inclusion and substance over symbolism," wih clear statements made opposing the Defense of Marriage Act, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, expressions of support for "the implementation of policies that allow qualified men and women to serve openly (in the military" regardless of sexual orientation, a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act, a National AIDS Strategy, ending discrimination based on a number of matters including sexual orientation and gender identity."
 

[Vagabond]

Pansexual - I'll **** anything that moves, and a more than a few things that don't.  (I hate to be crude, but sometimes you find yourself dealing with an incredibly stupid term that begs a resort to crudeness.)

[delilahmused]

Pansexual - I'll **** anything that moves, and a more than a few things that don't.  (I hate to be crude, but sometimes you find yourself dealing with an incredibly stupid term that begs a resort to crudeness.)

It used to be we could just be plain old bisexual..."whatever organ you've got, I'll hit it". Now, it's not just your average run of the mill dick or ***** anymore...transgendered...pre-or-post-operative, those who have yet to choose a gender, etc. How desperate do you have to be when you have to expand the range of potential partners to "anything that doesn't bark and have fur" (why do I keep hearing that Almond Joy song..."sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't" running through my head)?

Cindie

[DumbAss Tanker]

Gee, it omits gays and lesbians?  Really?  My, my, whatever were they thinking?

 

[Chris_]

How desperate do you have to be when you have to expand the range of potential partners to "anything that doesn't bark and have fur"

What are you, some kind of Bigot?

[JohnnyReb]

Pansexual - I'll **** anything that moves, and a more than a few things that don't.  (I hate to be crude, but sometimes you find yourself dealing with an incredibly stupid term that begs a resort to crudeness.)

It used to be we could just be plain old bisexual..."whatever organ you've got, I'll hit it". Now, it's not just your average run of the mill dick or ***** anymore...transgendered...pre-or-post-operative, those who have yet to choose a gender, etc. How desperate do you have to be when you have to expand the range of potential partners to "anything that doesn't bark and have fur"   (why do I keep hearing that Almond Joy song..."sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't" running through my head)?

Cindie

Some even go that way...........

[Lord Undies]

The DUmmie heart is divided.  Half of the heart wants it written down in black and white so it can be shoved in the fundies' face.  The other half wants to assume queers are so mainstream that there is no need for the queers to be singled out.  It's hell being a DUmpmonkey.