Political Punch

Kudos to the Democrats for their new draft! It's a step towards equality under the law for all families.

Kat: if you expect others to respect your identity as "pansexual," please respect the fact that not everyone in a same-sex relationship sees their relationship as "gay" or "lesbian."

I'm glad the Dems are using inclusive language--I mean, why wouldn't they? It's a great step forward in terms of how people think of GLBT issues. The personal is more bearably political.

What less informed members of the public may not realize is that language describing "same-sex couples" and "all families" is actually a step *forward* for the Democratic Party platform. It's more inclusive, not less. Not every same-sex couple, or LGBT family, is "gay or lesbian". Bisexuals and transgendered people are all too often excluded from the debate over same-sex marriage. But anyone in a same-sex relationship is subject to the same discrimination, whether they identify as gay, lesbian, or something else entirely.

Yes, let's include all families and same-sex couples, not just the gay and lesbian ones.

Cheers to the Democrats for realizing, and expressing verbally, that all families, especially those in which people love each other and take care of each other, deserve our support. Using this language not only allows that bisexuals who are involved with people of the same sex are included (where "gay and lesbian couples" leaves them out), it acknowledges that families come in other configurations, as well.

I think people are making a big fuss over nothing. I identify as pansexual (which isn't even included in LGBT). However, I am in a lesbian relationship. Because I'm with a girl. Just like my male bisexual friend is in a gay relationship because he's with another man. The only truly bisexual relationship would be a polyamourous one, which would be called that, and not bisexual.

I like the re-wording. When they just say "gay and lesbian couples," this excludes, for example, bisexual people, and also is not linguistically correct-- *people* are gay or lesbian or straight or bisexual; couples are same-sex, opposite-sex, or something else (transgendered?).

I heard there were other people besides gays and lesbians in the LGBT movement who also wanted equal rights. I guess they should have been content to be included under the term "gay" or "gay and lesbian." God forbid we flip the coin and use language about marriage and families that actually includes everyone else besides gays and lesbians, and as a bonus includes other non-traditional families (such as single-parent households) as well. If it's not worded with gay and lesbian specifically it must be a step backwards, right? Get over yourselves and think twice next time before you go talking about ducks and getting all offended.
P.S. Senator Clinton is no better, she didn't even want to repeal all of DOMA. Were you actually paying attention?

Way to go Democratic Party!! Anyone who is at all politically savvy knows that what the Democratic Party is actually doing is finally acknowledging that the Entire Spectrum of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community encompass a whole lot of folks who define themselves in a whole lot of ways. Being Inclusive - It's a Good Thing.

It is about time the platform language was written in a way that acknowledges that LGBT means LGBT and not just LG...b....t. If all families matter then that doesn't just include straight, gay and lesbian headed families it includes bisexuals and transfolk also. Way to go Dems. Finally something that includes everyone and is not just simple pandering to one or two special interests.

Using "same-sex" instead of "gay and lesbian" makes a statement of inclusion towards bisexual people, many of whom are in same-sex relationships. I applaud the Democratic Party for being inclusive of bisexual people!

Actually, the Democratic Party just became MORE inclusive by using the phrase "same-sex couples" rather than just "gays and lesbians". Unlike some of the LGBT community's own institutions, they aren't leaving bisexuals and transgender folks in the cold.

And yes, while being inclusive in substance is most important, the words DO matter.

How sad that in America identity politics has become so engrained in peoples minds that every group in America now(i.e. gays, blacks, women, seniors, hispanics, asians, native americans, white working class voters, etc.) has to actually be named specifically or they will not feel that they are included. Really, does the average American voter now only have the IQ of an eighth grader? Simply saying all families or all Americans is apparently not inclusive sounding enough? This is getting really silly now.....

Wake up LGBT community!

In thirty years what,of any substance, has the Democratic party done for our community? Practically nothing!

Obama campaign has surfaced the longstanding and deep rift between AA's and GLBT's and his actions over the last year and a half suggest this rift will only grow even wider.

GLBT people have said to me what other choice do we have? It is Obama or McCain.

That is what the Obama and McCain camps want you to think.

Senator Hillary Clinton!
18 millions voices march

And what precisely does the Democratic Party Platform Committed expect to gain by back-tracking on a very visible human rights issue?

Don't they realize, after eight years of dealing with this wimp, George Bush, that courage and clarity matter?

Haven't they learned anything from the Republican machine about securing the base?

Those are all political questions. On the side of the real, don't they stand for ANYTHING?

How does the Democratic Party respond to calls to prosecute the mayors and councils of cities that have passed sanctuary laws?

Well I tell you I'm not surprised this is another empty promise from Obama.

This Democrat is voting for McCain.

I dream of Hillary 2012

Jake - Perhaps your update should have read simply: "never mind."

Trajan -

"gays/lesbians" are not a single entity. There are men and women in every demographic group, every religious viewpoint, every political Party, pro-choice or pro-life, who just happen to also be gay.

Mike,
That's a good one LOL@ "McCain Leaves GOP Hate Platform Intact".

This part of the platform would be a good place to insert some strong anti-terrorism language. Maybe something referring to Jim David Adkisson? In Rwanda, the talk show hosts that advocated these types of killings were prosecuted for crimes against humanity. I wonder ...

Trajan, its because rights are rights. The same reason most of America supports gay and lesbian rights.

An injury to one is an injury to all.

Do gays/lesbians have any strong
feelings about abortion rights legislation? And if so, why?

Hey! GBLT..... words...JUST WORDS!
We know we're included....RIGHT?

As a long time gay supporter of Hillary Clinton I do agree that we have to put aside these petty differences and make sure JM does not win in November. Let's go Obama - but I would be happier if you had a Clinton on the ticket.

As usual the republicans are criticizing something NOT done that they would have criticized if it HAD been done. Hypocrite neo-cons.

I agree with this. It shows that the Democratic Party understands that this is a basic civil rights struggle. Makes alot of sense.

Most Americans agree - this affects rights like hospital visitation, insurance, wills, etc. It is about time we stopped denying basic rights to some people because of who they fell in love with.

All families mean whatever the definition of all families is. Just like the definition of marriage. ....between one woman and one man. What we ain't being told WILL hurt us!

be smart hello

It's rather obvious that "All Families" includes gay and lesbian families.

What a non-issue.

@dl: "it is a small semantic tweak in my opinion..."

It's an acknowledgement that segments of their target demographics separate on the issue of homosexuality regardless of the marriage issue. Obama needs the black vote to remain solidly in his corner. If you watch the televised church sermons on cable in the South, you will find out that homosexuality is broadly and openly condemmed in many of these congregations. Obama has been pulling to the center and his coalitions weaken visibly as he does that.

Given the blue collar vote that he has to wrest from the Clinton's, this issue is a divisive one for his base. Best to reword it, wink and nudge, and hope the LGBT community is realistic about the need to win given the paucity of support they would receive from the other party where evangelicals are a dominating force.

Again, the danger to Obama is not from the right but from within his own camp.

first of all obama is trying to win so the loons from the right wont take office and take more than gay privalage from us

Reverend Obama has just engineered the crafting of the platform into a sermon.

Let's have Donnie McClurkin sing the national anthem, too!

No, the good Reverend Obama will not be getting this Democrat's vote.

Keep up the good work, Jake. Anytime that the press begins to expose the foibles and flip-flops of the Obama team, as Obama now exercises his exclusive direction over the Democratic Party, his backers begin to whine and bear their teeth. Anything he does or says is defended by rote, by party members that have thrown thought to the wind.

This headline could be 'McCain leaves GOP hate platform intact', but it isn't. I wonder why?

As "one of those people" I am not concerned with the words but with the deeds. I am not happy about either of these men on this issue. I am beginning to see a pattern develope with the "change" guy though, win at all cost. I am not cynical, paroniod, or stupid, but now I think all the Clinton supporters that feel distrustfull of Obama and party leadership may have a valid point. McCain is not any better, but at least I'll see the train coming at me instead of being blind-sided.

And, so, once again, the platform-writers have clearly and unistakably shown that language is indeed a sword that cuts both ways. Are the Dems attempting to neutralize a divisive issue by silencing the "love that dare not speak its name," or are they taking the LGBT community for granted, assuming that only policy wonks read the platform? Either interpretation leaves the impression that the Dems would rather face "more important" issues and leave loyal supporters out in the cold, once again.

Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth! Will the real B0 / Dem Party stand up? And what do you really stand for? Hopefully, we don't have to find out after it is too late!

"I don't think the use of "all families" is vague at all -- it says what it says."
-----
Anybody who thinks that all "gay" sex -- or any other kind -- is an act of family formation is woefully misinformed about prevailing "gay" practices: one need look no further than the outing of Larry Craig.

Besides, having decreed an Ozzie-and-Harriett scenario for the black underclass -- for whom the collection of "gay" spousal-benefits from corporate and government employments is not such a concern -- it's hardly surprising that the "Democrats", under the new Noah's Ark decree threateningly underlined by the unlikely "he strayed" destruction of the Edwardses, should adopt don't-ask/don't-tell/don't-mention-it as its new view of, er, sex.

"Removing gay and lesbian from this, is not right."
-----
JUST WORDS: making political people mouth "gay-lesbian-transgender-whatever-community" was getting unwieldy.

How do you like "change", SO far?

So much for the \'big tent\' myth the democrats try to promote.

Removing gay and lesbian from this, is not right.

If they do that then they need to remove all wording referring to any group, any where.

They need to state things are for Americans.

Remove the words Minority, remove the words poor. low income. Hyphenated-Americans. etc etc

Everything in the law, and reference and platform or programs should be fair to all. Not discriminate against or divide any American by wording. Since all are equal under the law.

They should also make English the National Language.

I don't think the use of "all families" is vague at all -- it says what it says.

As it pertains to this discussion, Webster (1981) defines a family as: "5. the basic unit in society having as its nucleus two or more adults living together and cooperating in the care and rearing of their own or adopted children."

If this definition has not changed since then, it actually is pretty limiting because what it says is that if the two adults don't have kids, whatever the their origin and regardless of the orientation of the adults, then the two adults don't comprise a family unit.

I realize that Webster does not define our laws and I don't know what the law defines a family as; it probably varies from state to state.

Perhaps more modern dictionaries define it differently, but in the end the law and political expediency will be the final determinant.

They don't want to acknowledge Lesbian or Gay rights in their platform? They are trying to become pro-lifers? What is this...............next they will be waving the American flag. Anything to be elected.

I cannot see what is wrong with this as its intent seems clear. I still think people can get a civil union -- courthouse wedding vs. church wedding -- marriage.

I don't know if marriage evolved out of a religious context or not-- and don't care-- but what is wrong with these people trying to be more "normal"?

The only basis for the argument is about "marriage" being a religious word. You know that some church will adopt gay marriage as acceptable and we will have it.

it is a small semantic tweak in my opinion...

good job this morning jake

Jake,

I thought you did an awesome job hosting This Week today. "This Week with Jake Tapper" is a show I'd Tivo. Please host again soon!

What's the problem with full inclusion of ALL families? To single out one group for inclusion is discriminatory.

rhys
as i said earlier make all individual rights the same--no extra benifit for marriage--and the gay rights issue will go away as there would be nothing to gain.

This is pretty clear: "We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us."
... government should stay out of people's personal lives.

Marty, you're equating incest with sexual assault or molestation. There's a good reason why these are different words: they do NOT mean the same thing.

Incest CAN be violent or "non-consensual" if committed on a child. But between two adults, incest becomes merely a legal description, which varies from state to state.

You are obviously a "super-straight", who believes anything which varies from "the norm" should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

The government does NOT belong in the bedrooms of CONSENTING adults. Period.

rhys
i referred to religion as an example --not as what i believe should be-----i have you beat on the marriage thing---near 50 years for me-----i have friends and a few neighbors that are gay----if there is any problem it is theirs and not mine as i really dont care.i am noneones judge

marty
you need to look up the meaning of these two words------------incest-----assult

Rodney, the issues you have brought up are ALL about religion. It is religion which dictates (or attempts to) that humans MUST produce as many babies as possible, and to H*** with the future of our planet.

One of the main reasons religion is against homosexuality is because it fails to produce the "desired" results!

I don't know if you're gay, and it doesn't matter; you CANNOT argue against religionists. You're wasting your time.

But I will say this: my wife and I have been married for 46 years, and the fact that some gays can now marry has NOT made us any LESS married. It has NOT "weakened" our marriage, as religious fanatics claim; that argument is pure baloney.

Rhys, apparently you believe that incest only counts if it is between a male and a female -- I know victims of same-sex incest assaults that would very much disagree with you. Incest is a violation, an act of dominance and never consensual. This does not describe GLBT relationships and if you think it does you need to become more aware of the world around you. A marriage is between two consenting adults, at least in this culture and generation.

marty
no need to attack me as i have put forward the arswer-----and the incest would apply to relatives of a different sex---it really is that simple---but i feel that this is an attempt by gays to have political power and not sinply equality issues.

Rodney, if you honestly think there is no harm in incest, and if you believe the sole reason for marriage is reproduction, you are chin deep in your prejudice and I just feel sorry for you.

The right burned the left with this issue in 2004 by putting it on state ballots at the last minute. The use of the word 'all' means all. Not being more explicit is an inclusive strategy. Singling out gay families is exclusive somewhat like the race card. This is another opportunity for Obama's supporters to decide if unity or self-interest is their primary motivation. This will be a close election and small defections will be critical.

BTW, for what it's worth, good job, this morning, Jake. That was strong, even handed and took it to the weak or hypocritical moves by both camps. The Roundtable was moderated expertly with attention to getting all the points out in the time allotted. A little slip on the room in breath and concentration, but otherwise a solid A.

MPCT, don't you think this is what ALL politicians do? They say what they think the people want to hear, sometimes altering their message daily, depending on the venue.

This year, especially, we are seeing "double-think" from BOTH parties and their presumptive (or presumptuous) candidates.

It's anybody's guess what will happen in January, regardless of who "wins". In this election, most of us are simply deciding who to vote AGAINST.

rhys
i am just trying to make a point--that if all the benifits were the same to every individual and marriage was of no extra benifit---who would really care what others do---perhaps religion--???????

The 2008 statement is more, well, political. It's vagueness could be construed as either more inclusive or more of a cop out. It leaves room for all kinds of back peddling while paying lip service to those who want to believe they are supported. Political double-think.

When the Democratic Platform is ready they can show it to Obama.
In Sacramento Obama gave a hasty press conference on his way to Hawaii, after some American Flags were found for the backdrop and said “this is a volatile situation”, referring to the invaded Georgia---a statement had to be made to show that he is interested and in touch. Nothing more from Obama he has left others to talk and resolve---he shows great tenacity for taking his 9 days of vacation in Hawaii.

Although this is somewhat off-topic, Rodney HAS raised an interesting question, even if mainly philosophical. I never thought about it before, but he has a point about a man marrying a brother. It really COULDN'T be incest, even though it SOUNDS like it.

It WOULD be pretty weird, though!

all tax breaks and benifits should be based on INDIVIDUAL PERSONS--and whatever anyone wants to do is their decision --with no extra benifits---this would put an end to all the nonsence--no more political posturing.

marty
incest what would be the harm since they cannot reproduce---i still dont get it

We're accustomed to seeing a CANDIDATE flip-flop, but an entire PARTY?!?!

Rodney, marrying your brother would be called "incest" which differs greatly from GLBT relationships -- your puzzlement is what keeps prejudices alive

i dont get all of this----is marrying your brother also ok----what would that be called----why not give everyone all the same tax breaks and put an end to the nonsense.

I think it's progress that gays and lesbians aren't singled out in this statement. Maybe we should look at it like "all" means just that - ALL - and that gays and lesbians (and hopefully the transgendered too) are part of ALL families.

More and more Obama convinces me that the "Wrinkley Dude" is far better, far more honest. I'd rather know what to expect than a surprise at every turn.

You know, I've heard this before.....
Really it depends on what the definition of "all" is. Just like a lawyer. Reminds me of Bush saying all they would leave in ANWAR is "footprints", more accurately JUNK, If you don't know the definition, it could mean ANYTHING. With Obama...who knows, only Obama, and what ever answer is beneficial at the time. flippty-floppity.

Looks like the "Big Tent" is turning into "a small world, after all!"

Think some of you are seeing bogey men where they don't exist. LGBT's are included in "all families" and the comprehensive employment non-discrimination act. The plank also rejects the preposterous "Defense of Marriage Act."

I'm a gay male but I'm also an
American. I am sick of the self-serving divisiveness generated by "identity politics." The right uses it to increase voter turn out among the intolerant. The left uses it to bicker over ideological purity and which group can claim to be most aggrieved.

To me, it's a sign of progress that LGBT issues are on a par with everyone else's in the platform. Discrimination's discrimination no matter where it's coming from or who it's directed at. Good job, Platform Committee. Thanks.

No gays and lesbians? Stop the presses!

So, if I choose to marry my sister, and call it a family .... that's OK.
Great. That's what I'm gonna do. At the very least I (and my sister) will now be able to avoid separate income taxes.
Heck, we might even get out of paying inheritance taxes if we have a three-way marriage with my mother too.

Obama is pro civil union but anti gay marriages. McCain is anti civil union, gay marriages, and gay parents adopting (but then he flip-flopped).

I agree with a previous poster that "all" means just that,all.Is it also politic not to mention gays by name?Certainly-we still have a long way to go towards in this country,as evidenced by some of the negative ,anti-gay comments posted.Obama and the Dems may not be perfect but whether it's gay rights or progress period,they are far superior to McCain & the GOP!

Another attempt by the Dems to cover their hypocrisy since The One was outed by Sinclair. Snap!

All families means all women, men, and children. Not men, men, and kids or women, women, and children. It does NOT include the perversion of gay marriage.
Maybe Obama and the dems have been reading the Bible. Who would have ever thunk?

If you really look at both Obama's and McCain's history there is little difference between these two on gay/lesbian issues. There is a difference between the parties but between the two candidates if you read between the lines it's pretty moot.

Exactly who would "all families" leave out? No one, of course. Perthps the platform should list all citizens by name to make sure no one feels left out.

That's it, I'm voting for Bush.

By the time this is over there will be so many people thrown under the bus to smoothe the nervousness of working class white voters that Dem's will have only that constituency left.

First it was women, then Latinos, then blacks, now gays. The Obama campaign is betting that these constituencies have no where else to go.

Once white voters are comfortable with Him, he will have won the White House... then after inauguration we'll all be thrown under the bus 'cause he has no clue how to be Commander in Chief... change we can believe in... oh yeah!

Editor's red pen? You mean 0bama's red pen.

Look who 0bama is foolin now.

You mean to tell that the gays and lesbians thought they were safe from the rolling wheels of Obama's bus? Oh the naivete!

I don't think that Michelle Obama is safe from the wheels of Obama's bus. So anyone who thinks they have special privileges better start paying attention. Obama's ambitions are bigger than anything. Bigger than convictions. Bigger than values. Bigger than keeping his word. Bigger than friendship. Well you get the idea.

... and Obama throws LGBTs under the bus.

They "will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act." They seem to purpose to enact only what some large number of Republicans will enact along with them. Oh, well, it's not as if those unions were going to produce any children, anyway.

I noticed the omission as well. Obama does not like to use the words "gay" or "lesbian". In other statements he consistently talks around them hoping they will assume they are included anyway. Compare his language to HRC's in response statements to the gay marriage decision in California.

The new language is more concise and readable. Mention of an employment non-discrimination act and repeal of DOMA is supportive, too. It is open to interpretation, however if 'comprehensive' means 'fully-inclusive', then I would call it stronger on GLBT rights than the old phrasing.