New Draft Democratic Platform Omits Mention of Gays and Lesbians

[ruggerson]

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 "Gay and lesbian families" has now been replaced by "all families."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-draft-democ.html

[glowing]

1. cool.. I like the inclussion rather than seperation.. It says to me each family

is a family and stfu repigs!!!!

[ruggerson]

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?

[glowing]

12. Well if its under this section, why wouldn't you want to say families?

[ruggerson]

15. because the paragraph in this section is about gay and lesbian families

DOMA affects gay and lesbian families. ENDA affects gay and lesbian families.

Are we so weak at this point we can't even mention our own constituencies in our platform?

(I agree about identity politics. But then omit references to women, latinos, african americans, indian americans, etc - none of which they did. They only omitted gays and lesbians.)

[glowing]

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]

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.

[glowing]

28. ok, but there are families of "single" parents, families made up of grandparents

or uncles/ aunts.. there are all types of families.. Including gay/ lesbian families into the fold is nicer than sticking them out on a limb and telling them your part of the tree, but if a big wind comes along, we might decide to help you from blowing off..

[maseman]

38. My two best friends happen to be gay men

I don't think of them as two gay guys living together but a family as they have been together for 15 years and very happy. I like this new draft.

[JoFerret]

24. Because gays and lesbians

don't have families. So we certainly don't want to upset anyone by suggesting they do.

[Lost-in-FL]

2. "all families"

To me that includes gay-families, minority-families, dysfunctional-families, Christian-families, ______-families.

But then it is just me. It is the realization that gays are included and welcomed as families and that is healthy IMO.

[ixion]

3. yep, I agree... I think it widens the scope, rather than diminishing it

so, given that they support ALL families... can we end the 'war' on drugs? Since that is an attack on a particular type of "family".

[ruggerson]

11. So now in our platform we support polygamous families?

It says we support "all" families now.

[Zhade]

32. Why not? I've known such families (who aren't part of a religious cult).

There's nothing wrong with consensual polygamy.

[humbled_opinion]

34. 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.

[Lost-in-FL]

44. Some people would never be pleased with anything.

[humbled_opinion]

46. And others....

Will be persuaded by and fall for anything....

Who is the more stupid person the one that is blindly led, or the one that questions the motives of those with whom he aligns politically?

(rhetorical, No response required or desired)

[Lost-in-FL]

47. I refused to live in paranoia.

and I feel very sorry for you if you do.

[Newsjock]

4. Up yours, ABC News

If anything, it's a deft move to avoid any criticism that other families (such as those headed by bisexual or transgender people) weren't mentioned also. And the platform is completely unambiguous in its opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act.

But then Tapper throws in this little gem: The love that once dare not speak its name is not having its name spoken by the Democratic party platform!"

ABC News is yet again trying to create a story to harm Democrats when there is no story.

[ruggerson]

10. I think a number of gay people might feel differently

certainly, it seems, a lot of the gay press does:

Gay Groups Lament Weak Support In Democratic Platform


Draft Dem Platform Opposes DOMA, But Weakens Language on LGBT Families

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

6. note enacting employment non-discrimination

and the possibility that we're moving marriage and family protections to the federal level.

[xchrom]

8. nice way for the reader to see what they want. nt

[Politicub]

9. Not surprised at this

Since support for GLBT americans and our families has been sorely lacking during the primary process. It saddens me, but there's not a lot we can do about it.

[Caution]

13. This is CLEARLY a MORE inclusive statement. By removing the distinction the party is indicating

that homosexual led families are no different than heterosexual led families. The next two sentences affirm this quite clearly.

[closeupready]

23. That's a reasonable interpretation. I certainly

don't see anything malicious in the fact that the language was deleted.

[DainBramaged]

30. Yup, I agree. A family is a family, and no one should be able to label them as anything else.

[humbled_opinion]

35. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

You have to extrapolate that conclusion. It is not inclusive on its face value because Gays are not inclusive in the family unit at this point in our History....

It would be a fair statement if the point was moot but its not so the statement is a rejection of gays not an endorsement or an inclusion.

[Baby Snooks]

14. Reaching out to Republicans...

This has become an issue in several states, particularly in Texas, with Democrats believing if they "tone it down" they will attract dissatisfied Republicans at the polls.

There are quite a few, growing in number, dissatisfied Republicans in this country but reality is if they are hesitant to vote for Republicans, why would they vote for Democrats who appeal to Republicans?

That may sound contradictory but it's the party platform that many Republicans have tired of. And this is yet another example of how some Democrats are trying to mirror the platform of the Republicans.

This "all families" may sound nice to some but in reality in many states the all-inclusive "family" found in many statutes is not really so all-inclusive.

The Republicrats, it seems, have finally managed to hijack the Democratic Party.

[beyurslf]

16. I am gay and I would prefer we say "all families" than gay. lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered,

polyamorous, gender-identity expressing, and whatever else "my" community makes us all include. I would imagine they had a long discussion about that. It seems you can't just say gay and lesbian anymore. There are all of these other tags that come along with it so it just becomes easier to say, "Hey we accept everyone, really, just everyone."

[ruggerson]

17. So now we stand for polygamy? And incest?

they're families too and they fall under "all families."

[beyurslf]

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]

40. 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.

[humbled_opinion]

36. Don't forget me and my dog....

We are a family too... does that count... can I marry my dog legally?

[Zhade]

39. 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.

[ckramer]

21. Did they also miss mentioning "one man many wives?"

or vice versa.

LOL

[ruggerson]

22. no they're included in "all families" apparently

we now officially stand for protections for polygamy.

[Zhade]

41. That's bigamy, not polygamy.

NT!

[rasputin1952]

25. Just to add another perspective to this...

"all" families appears to be just fine, and as for the arguments that polygamists, child/spousal abusers, those that would sacrifice a child etc...those are all covered under state laws, (occasionally superseded by Federal Law), and while I might not agree w/a state's law, if I'm not in that state, the best I can do is add peripheral pressure to help change the law.

Being straight, and being a very serious advocate of Rights for everyone, but no direct input to the GLBT community, I can still understand the frustration in this. However, it is a fact that this is an issue that is as divisive as abortion rights. Division over such things is the last thing the D party needs right now.

GLBT rights are extremely important in my view, these are people, not commodities, and as such, they deserve the same rights and privileges as every other person. I also understand the reasoning behind the change. There are times when political expediency trumps political courage. This is a fact, as unfortunate as it is.



edited for typo

[ruggerson]

26. Well at least you called it what it is

political expediency.

It's also cowardice.

They didn't remove the word "abortion" by the way.

[rasputin1952]

29. Like I said...political expediency trumps political courage...

it has always been that way.

TR once had a black member of the 10th Cav, (Buffalo Soldiers), to the WH to honor him w./a dinner because the 10th saved his butt on Kettle Hill in PR. The outcry was such, he never invited another black to the WH. Again, political expediency trumped political courage, and if there was one thing TR was, he was indeed courageous...but he had a limit...:(

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. Self delete

[frebrd]

31. It also omits reference to....

the separation between religion and government, without which this country will never be able to reduce discrimination against GLBT's.

Edited to add:
The very fact that this platform omits mention of Gays and Lesbians shows the effect that radical religion (or the fear of it) is having on our own party.

[humbled_opinion]

37. BINGO... You pegged it.

and I thought the Democratic party of Progressives was beyond that....all this retro-progressivism is starting to make me feel like this is the 60's and instead of sexual preference we are talking about skin color and well we all know NOW 40 plus years later what a mistake that was then...

LOL...

[Critters2]

33. The DNC playing it safe. Sadly, I'm not surprised. nt

[dsc]

42. there is plus and minus here

On the plus side DOMA is opposed on the minus we aren't mentioned.

[ruggerson]

43. UPDATE - THE GOOD GUYS WON THIS ONE

Numerous groups objected to draft and it has been changed.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/new-draft-democ.html

"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," with 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."

[David Zephyr]

45. Thanks for the original article and the update, ruggerson.

Both are news worthy and I appreciate you bringing both stories here.