How Howard Dean made my and all gays and lesbians lives better

[dsc]

Since I am forbidden by the author to comment in his thread on how the Washington candidates have made our lives better I started this one. Howard Dean was one of the first governors to sign a civil rights bill for gays and lesbians. He signed it a few months after becoming governor. At the time only Minnesota, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Vermont had this kind of law (I will look this up to be completely sure). He went on to give gay and lesbian couples the right to jointly adopt children. He joined New Jersey in doing that. Finally he signed the civil unions bill which gave gay and lesbian couples the state marriage rights that straights take for granted on a daily basis.

When the history of the obtaining of gay and lesbian rights in this country is written Dean will have played a huge part in it. He struck the first US blow for these rights and still has the only statewide system in place (despite there having been three decisions saying this had to be done). Gay and lesbian couples in Vermont are no longer legal strangers. They can sue for wrongful death, control their partner's medical care, automaticly inherit pensions and property, jointly adopt children, get benefits from their workplaces, and a whole host of rights you all take for granted every hour of every day.

I know a lot of straight Dean bashers on this board say this was a compromise, that he only did this reluctantly, that he signed it without camera. I say so the heck what. Before April 2000 there was no state in the US which would treat my relationship like a real adult relationship. After April 2000, there was one. Before April 2000, I was not a real live citizen in any state. Now I am one in Vermont. Had he done nothing else as governor for this alone he would be a giant.

I will let others tell you what he did in Vermont. There are plenty of Vermonters here to speak to that.

[mitchtv]

1. Gov Gray Davis, has done the same for many many, more

I for one will support him against all odds. California now among that group.

[dsc]

2. His gay rights record

is the one and only reason he would have had a shot at my vote in 2002 had Rierdon run and I been a Californian. To me gay rights is the one and only area in which Davis has been a standout. But the recall is another matter. That needs to be stopped outright no matter what Davis' record is or isn't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. Good for Howard

he did the right thing in signing the legislation that was put before him.

[virtualobserver]

4. "that was put before him"

excellent minimizing spin disguised as praise

[Sean Reynolds]

5. You do know he didn't have to sign it?

He could have gone against it and held the thing up in the courts until well after the election. You also know Dean campaigned for the legislation before it was passed by the Vermont Courts, right? Face it, the bash on Dean is trite at best. Dean could have very well opposed the bill - he could have also taken it to the Supreme Court. He did not.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. LIke I said, he did the right thing in signing

the legislation that was put before him. And he deserves the credit for signing it.

To imply that he was instrumental in bringing it to his desk, however, would be disingenuous.

[BushGone04]

6. Well put

And I agree that Dean is to be commended for signing the legislation, and that the fact that he did so somewhat reluctancly and without cameras is more or less irrelevant compared to the fact that he actually DID it. Thus, I will not say a negative word about Dean on this subject, as he did Vermont and all gays and lesbians a great service by signing this bill.

However, I do think it should be pointed out that Dean is not the only major candidate with an impressive record on this particular issue. Kerry has supported civil unions since the 1980's, when the idea seemed absolutely ridiculous to most mainstream Americans, was one of the first and loudest voices supporting the right of gays to serve in the military, loudly supported expanding Hate Crimes legislation to include violence against gays and lesbians, and hired an openly gay campaign treasurer. For more Kerry's record on gay rights, go http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/glbt.html">here; to read his speech at the candlelight vigil for Matthew Shepard (absolutely beautiful speech), go http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_1998_1014.html">here.

Folks, I think we may have just done something pretty earth-shattering. We may have just found something that Dean and Kerry supporters can entirely agree upon: that this is an important issue, and that both of our candidates have done very good things on it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. "something that Dean and Kerry supporters can entirely agree upon"

"and that both of our candidates have done very good things on it."

yippee! I like that.

[dsc]

19. Kerry has a good record here

I have never said he didn't. You frankly will be hard pressed to find any negative stuff about Kerry authored by me. I will admit I find his latest games on the tax cut to be dishonest and have said so but until this you would be hard pressed to find me uttering negative things about Kerry.

[BushGone04]

28. Indeed

I've always been impressed with the positive focus of your posts, and I wasn't accusing you of trashing Kerry or any other candidate with your post. I was simply pointing out that Kerry has a very good record on gay rights as well (100% grade from the Human Rights Campaign), and that perhaps this is one issue- and it sometimes seems like the only one- that supporters of both candidates can agree on, and offer some kind words to the other on, as you just did. :)

[gottaB]

9. Straight Dean basher checking in

So move to Vermont. The progressivism you ascribe to Dean properly belongs to Vermont. Unfortunately, Vermont isn't a candidate for president.

It really strikes me that you're putting your advocacy of Dean ahead of your advocacy for gay rights. You know Braun, Kucinich and Sharpton are more progressive. Why not vote for one of them?

If you're argument is that you're excluding more progressive platforms out of pragmatic concerns, then why choose Dean above the others?

You've had some harsh things to say about Gephardt. Yes, he voted for DOMA. That was wrong. But people change, and I believe Gephardt's current positions on civil unions and civil rights are substantially similar to Dean's.

You've also been critical of some of Kerry's votes. But truthfully I don't see a lot of daylight between his positions and Dean's.

So I have to ask, what makes Howard Dean uniquely qualified to represent gay voters? I'm sorry if this is redundant to you, but your statement here doesn't answer it for me.

If you respond, please account for the argument that Dean believes these issues are matters of states' rights. Because originally that argument was used to defend the states' right to maintain slavery; later it became a justification for resisting the Civil Rights Act and similar moves towards desegregation; and in the present debate it seems to be an argument that states should have the right to discriminate against gays in their marriage laws. Sidestep the strawman if you see it that way, but don't miss the point: The platform Dean is running on is not progressive.

[MercutioATC]

10. Re: the "state issue" position...

I misunderstood this at first, too. Dean wants the states to be REQUIRED to provide a legal mechanism whereby GLBT couples have the same rights as straight couples. He's simply leaving the METHOD up to the individual states (civil union, marriage rights, etc.).

[CoffeePlease1947]

11. States already can decide that

So he is not going to change much. He is not going to force Alabama to recognize gay men as being married. Only the courts will be able to do that.

Mike

[indigo32]

12. No he's not going to force them to recognize them as being married

but he will advocate them having some sort of mechanism to assure equal rights as couples.... which is what he did in Vermont. It IS a change... it's just not making them accept "Marriage" per se

[dsc]

14. I live in Ohio

and I will tell you hear and now that Ohio doesn't recognize my relationship and won't unless the feds make them and under Dean the feds will.

[MercutioATC]

20. Yes, states CAN. If Dean prevails, they MUST.

..and that's exactly what my post said. That IS a change.

[gottaB]

25. Okay, that's nuanced

I'll look into it some more. Thanks.

[dsc]

17. I usually don't say these kinds of things but you did ask

I don't trust Gephardt. Sorry but it is that simple. I watched him trash Simon in 88 and now he is doing the same to Dean. He voted for DOMA and now hides behind his daughter. He used to be pro life, he voted for Reagan's cuts. And now he does the opposite. Frankly, he is very unimpressive.

Kucinich, and I heard this with my own ears, said that there was no need to repeal DOMA when he ran for Congress in 96. Now he is talking gay marriage. Sorry but that doesn't work. He should have been there in the first place.

Kerry, I will give you. He has a good record. I like Dean better but Kerry has a good record here. I don't like the AIDS votes but anyone gets a mulligan or two.

CMB is wonderful but she wasn't ready for prime time as a Senator. He got into a lot of trouble with easily avoidable mistakes and just can't win. I wish she could but she just can't.

Winning was my first filter. I think that any of Graham, Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Dean can win under the circumstances we are most likely to have in 2004 (crappy economy, decent war news). Of those I rank Dean first, Edwards second, Kerry third, Graham fourth, Lieberman and Gephardt tied for fifth in preference. Both Kerry and Gephardt lost ranking with me due to their campaigns. I hope that explains it. I apologize for the harsh words on Gephardt but you did ask and I felt I had to be honest.

[DemDogs]

13. Not Dean -- the Vermont Supreme Court

Before the Vermont Supreme Court ruled, "Gov. Howard Dean has declined to state a position on same sex marriages, saying that he was awaiting the decision of the court. But the lieutenant governor, Douglas Racine, and the speaker of the Vermont House, Michael Obuchowski, have said they favor same sex marriages."
<http://www.grasshopperdesign.com/gay_marriage/news/vermont_new.htm> Racine and Obuchowski should be your first heroes. Dean was no profile in courage.

And it was the Vermont Supreme Court you should have been thanking. The Vermont Supreme Court had already ruled -- either gay marriage would be mandated unless an acceptable civil unions bill was enacted. They ruled that the state had either to allow formal gay marriage or a system of domestic partnerships. "We hold that the state is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law," the justices said. "Whatever system is chosen, however, must conform with the constitutional imperative to afford all Vermonters the common benefit, protection, and security of the law," the court said.

And whether you like it or not, Dean -- who had his finger to the wind -- still did not embrace it when the Supreme Court ruled and when the Legislature acted. So he signed the bill in private at night.

Vote for who you want -- but Dean supporters need to be honest about this, and frankly, he needs to be honest about it, too. He talks about it in a way that is not completely candid. Straight talk? Looks like "straight" talk.

[dsc]

15. The Constitution could have been changed

it was in both Hawaii (first time in history) and Alaska. Dean did come out for civil unions one hour after the decision. Finally, the reason the governor didn't speak out before is that gay groups told him not to. It was part of our strategy. If you don't believe me google for Hawaii's governor and for Knowles (Alaska's governor). You won't find statement one by either person.

[DemDogs]

16. Gay groups asked not to be supported?

I really find this impossible to believe. Not imposssible to believe that some politicians played their cards carefully, but absolutely impossible to think this was a strategy. If so, I guess gays were mightily disappointed when other Vermont officeholders did speak out.
Listen, you are just seeing what you want to see here. Maybe we all see our candidates that way. But your life as a gay or lesbian was not made easier by any act of courage by Howard Dean. You need to look for the real heroes, because there were some. Just not named Dean.

[dsc]

18. Gay groups wanted to present

a completed decision to the electorate. The wanted to avoid a religious right backlash until the decision was handed down. We had just lost at the ballot box a gay rights law in Maine. No one in the gay rights community thinks that gay marriage will be won at the ballot box which is why the suits have been filed in the first place. Before DOMA the plan was to use federal courts after getting a foothold. Now it is to use state courts state by friendly state. Again I know first hand that this was the strategy. You may not like it but that is what the strategy was. I think both Racince and the Speaker spoke out after the decision was handed down.

[DemDogs]

21. Perhaps you missed this part of my post

Before the Vermont Supreme Court ruled, "Gov. Howard Dean has declined to state a position on same sex marriages, saying that he was awaiting the decision of the court. But the lieutenant governor, Douglas Racine, and the speaker of the Vermont House, Michael Obuchowski, have said they favor same sex marriages."
<http://www.grasshopperdesign.com/gay_marriage/news/vermont_new.htm>

Before the decision, Racine and Obuchowski spoke out. Before. But not Dean.

As for the rest of your post, am I to understand that despite the fact that Racine and Obuchowski spoke out, the gay community thought that if Dean spoke out there would then be a Christian right backlash that would have successfully amended the State Constitution, over the objection of the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Speaker of the House, pre-empting a decision by the Vermont Supreme Court? I think that is the way the Dean camp peddles it today, and it is an insult to the political savvy of the gay community.

[dsc]

22. In a word yes

In both Hawaii and Alaska we had court decision victories taken from us. Vermont's Constitution wasn't that hard to amend. You can look up the link but this is what they would have had to do. In 1999 they would have had to get 2/3 of the Senate and 1/2 + 1 of the House to propose the amendment. The people would have had to agree. Then, in 2001, 1/2 of the House and 1/2 of the Senate would have had to ratify. That doesn't seem like much of an obsticle to me. I won't claim it would have happened for sure but gay marriage was at 35% and civil unions never got above 45% in any poll. Only one step took more than a majority and it would have been very easy for the religious right to spin it as "let the people decide". I don't know how well known either the Lt Governor or the Speaker of the House are in VT but I have to admit I can only name one of those for my state. My Speaker is Larry Householder and I think the Lt Governor is Tavares but I may be mistaken. In short, they are not the A team of politics here and I wonder if they are in VT.

[DemDogs]

23. You admit then

that a Governor keeping quiet before a court decision did not mean that there would not be a Christian right effort to overturn the decision.
What you have described as the gay community's strategy and "straight-talking", "nothing-can-make-me-be-quiet-when-I-am-outraged" Dean's cooperation with that strategy is completely non-sensical and unbelievable. Dean's verbal support would not have affected the Supreme Court's decision (even you don't suggest that) and if the Christian right wanted to change the constitution, they were MOST likely to be motivated by a Supreme Court decision not by a Governor's position.

By the way, I think in every state if the Lt. Governor or Speaker of the House came out in favor of gay marriage, it would make news (and according to the article I mentioned, it did). They were courageous, and you just brush past them like they were insignificant, so you can praise the least praise-worthy participant in the enactment.

[dsc]

24. The fact is that Vermont

gave them less time. In Hawaii there was a remand to a lower court (to see if there was some reason that same sex marriage could be banned constitutionally) and in Alaska there was also a rehearing (I honestly don't remember why). So in both those cases the forces of darkness had time to mobalize. Massacusetts is providing yet another example of the wisdom of this strategy. There the SC is taking forever and we are already seeing initiatives to take away the right to marriage. Dean got the legislature to act fast (4 months is amazing) and thus the forces of darkness couldn't act. Most people fear change but if a change happens and the sky doesn't fall in they get used to it. The sky didn't fall in on Vermont. Had Dean dithered, and that is what he would have done if he really didn't want civil unions, the constitution would have been amended just like in Alaska and Hawaii. The only way we could win this is to make the status quo civil unions which is what Vermont did. Dean did this brilliantly which is why it happened there and not in Alaska and Hawaii and mark my words it won't happen in Massachusetts too. I hope I am wrong but I pretty sure I am right.

[DemDogs]

26. Fact: Dean chose the less broad rights for gays and lesbians

Based on the Supreme Court opinion, quoted in a post before, Dean had to choose between gay marriage legislation and civil unions legislation. He had NO OTHER CHOICE. He chose the less broad civil unions legislation. The fact that he was threatened afterward says bad things about extremists in Vermont, but it does not mean that he was courageous on this issue. Read all about it.
<http://slate.msn.com/id/2086952/>

[dsc]

37. The constitution could have been changed

which I have posted several times including in this thread. It was changed in Alaska, it was changed in Hawaii, it is in the process of possibly being changed in Massachusetts.

[clar]

27. Guess

who appointed Vermont Supreme Court CJ Amestoy? Amestoy wrote the very moving groundbreaking decision. That's right HD appointed him. Speaks pretty well to his judgement when it comes to appointing judges, doesn't it?

[veganwitch]

29. i think otherwise

Signed a civil union (not gay marriage) bill (source: DeanforAmerica.com), a move that required actual courage -- for a time, he was actually forced to wear a bulletproof vest (source: U.S. News & World Report); however, has long opposed any similar national law, considering it a states' rights issue (source: TomPaine.com), although now sometimes supports a federal measure (source: Human Rights Campaign) or opposes it (source: Larry King Live); does not support gay marriage because politically "it wouldn't be possible" (source: Advocate.com) and dodges simple, direct questions on his personal opinion of gay marriage (source: Larry King Live)


from bobharris.com on dean's gay rights record.

his "states rights" stance on gay marriage shows that he is wishy-washy on this issue and assures that gays and lesbians living in southern/conservative states will get no reprieve in his presidency.

edit: found this i womo yesterday. http://www.womo.com/editor.shtml

<snip>
And yes, I know Vermont has civil unions. Those are very nice, but it's only one state, it doesn't do anything about federal rights, and it gives me a creepy separate, but equal feeling. Plus after hearing Vermont Governor and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean speak on this issue, I am uninterested in his handouts.
<snip>

[Sean Reynolds]

30. He says it's a state right because realistically it isn't possible.

Why? Because a president doesn't have the power to create such a law. He would need the support of both the house and senate, and right now it aint gonna happen. You can't force every state in the union to change over to civil unions/gay marriage without their support and their elected official support. So don't blame Dean for this; blame the members of the house and senate.

[veganwitch]

32. so hes not going to even try.

that definately shows he is committed. a good healthy debate in both houses might actually stir up more support then what we think is there. maybe not but atleast the dialog would start.

instead dean says "look what i did in vermont! aint it great?!" he does not show that he wants to "do for america what he did for vermont" on this issue.

[Sean Reynolds]

33. Wait, Dean has always said he'll push for the rights.

But that is all he can do. I have no doubt in my mind Dean would push for all 50 states to at least form some union law, whether it be civil unions or gay marriage. Of course he himself said it takes time because there are many states that aren't ready yet.

[veganwitch]

34. why civil unions over marriage is a cop-out

http://www.marriageequalityny.org/index.php?page=http://www.marriageequalityny.org/facts_template.php?page=civilunions

http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/OP7-marriagevcu.shtml

im at work so i really dont have the time right now to go into great detail but here are a few links comparing the two issues.

[dsc]

38. This paragraph (from link 2) says it all

Would any of this change immediately with marriage of same-sex couples? Probably not, because married same-sex couples will face other layers of discrimination against their marriages. Right now, a federal law denies recognition of same-sex unions conferred by any state for purposes of all federal programs and requirements and over 30 state laws do the same. Ending discrimination in marriage does not mean the end of all discrimination, but using the term “marriage” rather than “civil union” is an essential first step to opening the door and addressing whether continued governmental discrimination against civil marriages of gay and lesbian people makes sense.

Dean couldn't have under DOMA done any of what these people legitimately complain about. He couldn't have made them portable. Indeed over 30 states, including California, have mini DOMAs. In addition he could have done nothing toward federal rights.

[MercutioATC]

31. Southern GLBT Americans WILL get equal rights.

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=44989#45054

[dsc]

39. Both of your sources are sloppy

Tom Paine somehow either didn't know or purposely left out Dean's statement at the press conference in support of Civil Unions. He did mention the "uncomfortable with gay marriage" statement at the same conference. He does favor forcing the states (including southern ones) to recognize gay and lesbian relationships. He doesn't favor calling them civil unions.

[genius]

35. Dean didn't have a choice

And he only went as far as he had too. The legislature was prepared to override his veto if he vetoed the bill. The Vermont Supreme Court had already order the changes required by the law. Dean is more conservative than some candidates on gay rights. He refuses to sign a national civil unions bill and the other candidates have expressed a willingness to do this. This is an old thread. Go back and read some of the other discussions on this topic.

[dsc]

36. flat out false

first it passed by 2 votes in the House. Which is not overide margin. Second, the constitution could have been changed. Either get your facts straight or stop posting.