Comments on: Democratic platform gay-positive without saying ‘gay’

By: Trace

Trace — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:55:33 +0000

Not sure to be happy or insulted? Let me say that you should not be surprised. As I’ve said, the Dems and the Republicans show very little difference. The difference is that the Dems will pander for your vote and for your money. They will put up “lofty” goals and then when they fail to achieve them they will say that they “did their best.”

DOMA and DODT have a Democratic President’s signature on it. We should never forget this.

By: William

William — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:33:29 +0000

If I’m not very wrong here, ‘gender identity’ is not the same as sexual preference/orientation. I thought the word was only used for transsexuals. And yes, it’s ‘only a word’, but considered in a legislative context this one word could mean a lot.
And on the issue of Democrats being more in sync with what the LGBT community needs: duh! However, I fully agree with Ross that our party system is a bit on the lean side when compared to other countries. A two party system has, after all, only one more party than a one party system. Living in Belgium, I never had any problems making up my mind for which of the 4 (major) parties I was going to vote (the Greens, as they were a driving force in passing the gay marriage bill).

By: Britt

Britt — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:07:12 +0000

I like the fact that it puts focus on all families, and instead of going “Look, Look we used your community lingo to make you feel special now go away,” I feel like by being inclusive and not going there I am finally starting to become seen as a whole citizen and not something that needs to be given a cookie and told to go away.

By: John

John — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:20:57 +0000

Come on, folks. You’re getting pissy at the Democrats for writing in the formal prose that everyone else utilizes. It is hardly unusual for official documents to use the same language that legislators do. What political party would use the words “gay and lesbian” in their election manifesto? Even vehemently pro-equality parties like the Spanish Socialists and the African National Congress don’t do that. It is simply considered low brow (and borderline slang). The correct terminology is “sexual orientation.”

By: Kari

Kari — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:55:13 +0000

If the dems did their best to pass such legislation now and Bush vetoed it, it’d only give their voters a reason to come to the polls for Sen. Obama this November.

But they won’t because all the dems do is pay lip service to us since they lack the political courage do do what’s right.

Alternatively, there’s a big disconnect between the dems actually in office and actual DNC leadership.

Probably a bit of both.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:08:44 +0000

The Democrats continue to refuse to grow a pair! No wonder the Repugnicans have been steamrolling them for so long now….

By: mikefromoakville

mikefromoakville — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:50:59 +0000

While I can certainly understand the knee jerk reaction from you who are dumping on the Dems for the wording of their platform I think you are missing the reality of the situation. The gay rights issue is still an iffy question within your culture. Look what happened the last time gay rights were an issue in a Presidential race. The issue was so contentious that it caused a lot of votes to go to the Republicans that would have gone to the Democrats. I think the wording is exactly what the American gay community needs right now. Why try to jam it down the throat of the right? America is just now starting to accept the concept of gay rights. Gay America needs to worry about getting the Democrats elected. Using buzz words like gay will only work against you right now. You’re on the brink of getting what you want. The Democrats are your only hope now and in the foreseeable future. Using too strong of language will only turn people away. Relax, don’t stir the pot, get the Dems elected then push for your rights. Don’t blow it now by shooting off your mouths and turning people against you.

By: Theo

Theo — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:39:22 +0000

Keri is either very naive or is a troll. Why waste time passing bills that will get vetoed by Bush? Bush will not sign any pro-gay legislation, or anything seen that may be considered pro-gay legislation this late in his term.

And as for the platform-much ado about nothing; talk is cheap and I believe that the Democrats with an increased majority in the next Congress and President Obama in the White House will bring about real change to this country and our community will be included.

By: Kari

Kari — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:25:29 +0000

The Democrats are already in control of Congress… If the party truly supports any of the above things, why aren’t they doing any of them?

By: Wes

Wes — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:42:46 +0000

Would the philosophy of “hope for the best but plan for the worst” be too far out of the question? Like many members of our community, I listen closely to the way other people describe us. What is not entirely clear is the Dems reason for using this kind of ambiguous language. I agree with the integrity that goes with use of visible language. As a Gay man, I can certainly respect it more that a closeted approach to politics. I like “in your face” over playing games. You know where everyone stands, for better and worse. In the best case scenario, the Dems could be using a back-door approach to supporting the GLBT Community. There is the expression that “the Devil’s in the details.” Right-wing, Bible-thumping, Republicans have been playing with these kinds of details for some time. Is the Dems closeted approach to politics a gesture at playing the same kind of game? Whether this is some kind of “game” or not it is hard to not feel like a pawn.