Read the bottom of that article!
Sherry Wolf is a founding member of Equal Marriage NOW! in Chicago and a member of the editorial board of the International Socialist Review. She claims to be a senior member of a gay marriage lobby group. But little old me, who is NOT the founder of a gay marriage lobby group, but who IS friends with one of the Goodridge couples, found these embarrassments in her document:
When the Vermont Supreme Court unanimously ruled that gay couples were due the same legal rights of marriage as heterosexuals and ordered the legislature to pass a law to that effect in 1999, Dean made it clear that he would not sign gay marriage into law and pushed instead for civil unions.
Civil unions do not carry with them any of the 1,049 federal rights and benefits of marriage. Neither do Massachusetts marriages. Regardless of what Dean did, he could not make those 1,049 federal rights available because as a GOVERNOR he had no authority over the Defence of Marriage Act. If that's a lie of omission on her part, it's pretty scummy. If it's an "oversight," that's even scarier -- this person is throwing around concepts willy-nilly without even understanding BASIC demarcations of the issue -- while serving as a FOUNDING MEMBER of a gay marriage lobby group!
At the time of signing, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Dean "was going around the state telling folks he was only doing it because the Vermont Supreme Court made him." The Chicago Sun-Times article was written by Mark Steyn. You can read all about him here.
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/03917098.aspA pithy quote from the Phoenix piece on him: "A native of Canada who divides his time among New Hampshire, Quebec, and London, Steyn is a self-described right-wing warmonger. . . Steyn may have more depth and range than Limbaugh and Coulter, but he shares their shrill moral certainty and willingness to distort facts to advance his argument."
So the Nader apologist is quoting an article written by a conservative right-wing columnist who is a self-described "war monger." Pathetic, isn't it, and even more proof of their love of the Republicans.
She doesn't mention, either, that Dean risked his career over the Civil Unions vote, which was a FIRST in the country, and he had the option to bail on the vote or bemoan it and run against being "forced." As opposed to Nader, the millionaire who has never risked his career in his life for gays and NEVER will.
Kerry voted against Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996--though 118 Democrats voted for it--but since then he has come out strongly against same-sex marriage and has repeatedly condemned the Massachusetts legislature for granting marriages to gay and lesbian couples. There are only 100 total Senators!
Ahhhh, she's mixing up the Senate and House. Clueless or deceptive? You decide, I know where I am leaning. . .
As for the Massachusetts legislature, it was the Supreme Judicial Court that made gay marriage legal in the Goodridge ruling, not the legislature. The legislature passed one of two votes to introduce a referendum amending the constitution of the commonwealth to ban gay marriage and replace it with civil unions.
ANYONE who claims to be a founding and active member of a gay marriage lobby who doesn't know that should FUCKING RESIGN.
And John Kerry isn't Howard Dean.
According to the Washington Post, Bill Clinton held a closed-door meeting in 1997 with advocates of ENDA Bill Clinton isn't Howard Dean (or John Kerry) either.
The Dean-Nader debate was aired on the very day when Republicans in the Senate were pushing to write discrimination against gays and lesbians into the Constitution via the Federal Marriage Amendment. An Amendment that every Democratic presidential candidate this year opposed without reservation, and which was voted against by every Democrat but Zell Miller.
While Dean worked himself into a lather trying to slam Nader and prove his party's credentials as fighters for equal rights, neither Senators Kerry nor Edwards made an issue of this first attempt since slavery to include a denial of rights in the Constitution. That's an out-and-out lie, plain and simple. Both slammed the Amendment and Kerry even called Bush on it during the convention.
Those concerned with gay issues should remember the lessons from the Clinton years when deciding whom to vote for in November. She sounds like a Republican. She quotes Republican conservative columnists. She even has the same Clinton fascination when talking about Howard Dean -- a different person with a much different history! Conflating Democrats with Clinton is no longer a trick left to the Gingrich operatives who morphed a Congressman's face into Bill Clinton's mug in a 1996 ad in the South.
The only real substance to Howard Dean's charges against Nader was in his attack on the endorsement Nader has received from the right-wing Reform Party. That was hardly the only legitimate criticism of his campaign. He received money and, in many states, a majority of his campaign support from the state Republican parties and key Republican power players. Oh, and need I mention his "I avoid gonadal politics" line in response to a question about gay marriage in his last political campaign?
Nader's clumsy handling so far of the Reform Party's endorsement should be challenged by his supporters, but taking heat from the likes of Democrats who have helped shape anti-gay policies such as "don't ask, don't tell" and DOMA is simply nauseating. Dean opposed DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. She's smearing him like Karl Rove would by conflating Dean with Clinton when he was an outspoken critic of Clinton in several areas (including gay rights).
The strategy of electing Democrats to deliver civil rights for lesbians and gays has been a dismal failure. So by attacking the DLC's history in the Democratic party, she seeks to indict Howard Dean, who was the most successful anti-DLC candidate in the Democratic party.
So she's clueless, a documented liar, leaning on right-wing sources for all her anti-Dean material, and clueless about the actual mechanics of gay marriage -- including simple things like the DOMA which prevents state actions on gay marriage from being recognized by the federal government, and on the fact that the SJC and NOT the legislature made gay marriage legal in Massachusetts.
And she's on OUR side when it comes to gay rights? Give me a break.
I am thinking of writing a retort from a gay perspective and submitting it to Counterpunch for publication. This Republican-lovin' Naderite spin needs to be stomped out.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
