Dean Says Faith Swayed Decision on Gay Unions

[Khephra]

Dean Says Faith Swayed Decision on Gay Unions

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 8, 2004; Page A01


MUSCATINE, Iowa, Jan. 7 -- Democratic front-runner Howard Dean said Wednesday that his decision as governor to sign the bill legalizing civil unions for gays in Vermont was influenced by his Christian views, as he waded deeper into the growing political, religious and cultural debate over homosexuality and the Bible's view of it.

"The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it," Dean said in an interview Wednesday. "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."

Dean's comments come as gay marriage is emerging as a defining social issue of the 2004 elections, and one that is dividing the Episcopal Church in the United States and many other Christians and non-Christians. Driving the debate is a theological dispute over the Bible's view on homosexuality and a political one over the secular and spiritual wisdom of allowing gays to marry.

Dean said he does not often turn to his faith when making policy decisions but cited the civil union bill as a time he did. "My view of Christianity . . . is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind," he told reporters Tuesday. "So I think there was a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions."

more.......................

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63152-2004Jan7.html

[David__77]

1. I appreciate his comments.

...

[dusty64]

2. Well, I'm sure the Pravda press

will twist this out of context, but I'm kinda glad he said this. The extreme right has somehow achieved a stranglehold over religion with their interpretation of it representing hate, judgement, and intolerance. That certainly is not my view of it at all and the many who do NOT agree with the American Taliban had better speak out and take it back.

[jpgray]

3. Ask your favorite fundie nut about bonobos

They have same-sex relationships as well.

[noonwitch]

4. My cat is a lesbian

Not only that, she prefers girl dogs.

I'm only partially kidding, but I won't get into the distgusting specifics.

I agree with Dean about God obviously can't hate something he created, but I'll bet the fundies are going nuts over his statement.

[TeeYiYi]

84. That was an eye opener . . .

. . . of course I had to google it. I've heard of same sex animals, birds, etc. but those bonobos . . . holy hoka hoka.

http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/

TYY

[BenFranklinUSA]

5. I keep hoping for an end to federal recog. of marriage alltogether.

What business is it of govt's anyway, gay or straight.

[MysticMind]

7. otherwise divorce law would be even more confusing...

Government recognition of marriage is necessary to protect women and children in my opinion.

[MysticMind]

6. this makes no sense

The Bible clearly says homosexual acts are a sin so how can Dean's faith lead him to support gay unions. My support of seperation of church and state is why I support them but in no way does my religious faith support it.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

8. You're confusing faith with fundamentalism.

Belief in your god, and dedication to the founding principles of your faith, does not automatically translate into blind adherence to every scrap of dogma that gets thrown at you.

[Atlant]

9. I think it had to do with the guy who said...

> This makes no sense; The Bible clearly says homosexual acts are a sin
> so how can Dean's faith lead him to support gay unions. My support of
> seperation of church and state is why I support them but in no way
> does my religious faith support it.

I think it had to do with the guy who said something about being
"the new covenant" and replacing much of the Old Testament fire-and-
brimstone and no-cotton/polyester fabrics stuff with "Love". Of
course, a lot of Christians don't pay much atttention to that
part of the Bible, preferring instead the old fire-and-brimstone
God of the OT.

Hopefully you're not one of those sorts of Christians.

Atlant

[MysticMind]

11. no..

I'm Catholic.

[kysrsoze]

16. Oh, that explains it.

Do you practice birth control? It's a sin, you know.

[MysticMind]

21. no I don't

However I never said I have never sinned.

[kysrsoze]

24. My Church (Lutheran) has a number of 'out' homosexuals

and I am proud of that. They are never lectured on their 'sins.' In fact, my Pastor (a woman) attends conferences to address goals of acceptance of gays in the Church. There are no scriptures to back up your assertion.

[MysticMind]

27. I'm in favor of tolerance for gay people

Homosexuals shouldn't be hated.

[kysrsoze]

31. They also should not be treated ANY differently than other people

There is scientific, factual research stating there are true biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. If this is 'hard-wired' into someone's brain, how is it a sin?

If you don't believe this, how do you explain creationism when there is scientific fact that the creation of the earth took billions of years, rather than 7 days. The Bible was meant to be a guide for peoples' faith, behavior toward others, etc., not something to be taken literally in the first place.

[MysticMind]

32. I disagree

We can agree to disagree.

[kysrsoze]

39. So rather than respond with logic, you just 'disagree?'

You disagree with scientific research? Or are these questions too much to handle?

[MysticMind]

44. I simply disagree because answerinng would appear like I'm isolating one

Group of sinners.

[TrogL]

53. but you already are

What other group of sinners have you mentioned?

What other scripture have you mentioned?

[MysticMind]

57. the subject of the post

Is homosexuality.

[TrogL]

67. but you already mentioned divorce

Where's the biblical reference for that?

Did you know Moses did divorces?

[MysticMind]

71. I refered to divorce in the legal context

Not religious.

[TrogL]

89. Isn't that hypocritical

Jesus spoke of divorce at length.

Why then do you consider divorce a civil matter and marriage a religious one?

[Atlant]

50. Thank you for not being "that kind".

(I'm saying this sincerely, BTW, just in case you
had any doubts.)

Atlant

[MysticMind]

15. love didn't mean..

Nothing is a sin.

[Puglover]

10. Oh brother.....yeah and

The Bible also clearly states that you should put your neighbor to death if they work on the Sabbath....out there with an axe on Sundays are you?


correct spelling on edit

[MysticMind]

12. that's an OT law

Fulfilled by Christ.

[kysrsoze]

13. Actually, the Bible doesn't say that

I'm so tired of seeing people twist that book to back up their fears, prejudices, etc. I suppose it's also true that everyone in this world who is not a Christian, no matter what religion or how good a person they are, is going to hell.

Soooo....should a homosexual not be allowed to go to Church if he/she is 'out?' Should people who commit adultery be banned? How about those who have sex for pleasure, with no intention to procreate?

[MysticMind]

19. banned? of course not

But those things are still sins, according to my faith that is.

[TrogL]

17. How's your Greek?

The sacred scriptures in their original language (Greek and Hebrew) do not support the homophobic slant that fundamentalists have put on them.

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/bibquote.html

[MysticMind]

20. I don't believe in personal interpretation of the Bible

And I'm not a fundamentalist.

[kysrsoze]

23. Hmmmm...well I don't believe the Bible said anything about

bowing down to a papal figure, selling of indulgences, moving priests suspected of molestation to new dioceses, not allowing for marriage of priests, etc. The Catholic Church has made up may of its own rules on the way. Who's to say what the Pope dictates is the 'absolute' truth?

[MysticMind]

25. nice way to trash Catholicism

Actually I can show you the exact parts of the Bible every aspect of the Catholic faith comes from but do you really want to debate religion?

[MysticMind]

29. you obviously lack understanding of Catholicism..

I haven't resorted to attacking your faith. I believe in papal infallibility, otherwise I'd be protestant.

[kysrsoze]

34. I'm merely pointing out one of the many hypocrisies in the Catholic Church

I don't think Catholics are bad people. It's the institution I have a problem with. The institution itself preaches what it deems to be correct, leaves no room for interpretation, even though the Bible itself is a product of interpretation.

[MysticMind]

41. you're pointing out your ignorance of Catholicism...

Tolerance only for views that mimic yours isn't tolerance.

[kysrsoze]

48. I just don't tolerate the notion that gays are sinners b/c they're gay

You're standing by a flawed argument.

[MysticMind]

51. me either

They aren't sinners just because they're gay.

[kysrsoze]

52. So then...

Why do you not support gay marriage? Is it because of their homosexual acts, rather than their homosexual state of being?

[MysticMind]

58. I said I support civil unions for gay people

Re-read my original post.

[kysrsoze]

59. Yes, but according to your religion, you believe it is wrong

[MysticMind]

61. yes but I believe in seperation of church and state

Which is why I support gay civil unions.

[kysrsoze]

64. Good point. You're right about that. We will disagree then.

[TrogL]

46. Do you own a car?

Does it have square wheels?

Round wheels that don't leak are in contradition of the Bible, don't ya know.

Any attempt to reconcile this is an "interpretation".

Where did you want to begin?

[0007]

36. Does the bible say anything about lesbians?

A preacher was in front of the congregation one Sunday morning. After the fine inspirational music stopped. He began his sermon saying that everyone was possessed by sex, and he would prove it. All the folks he exposed would have to leave but could come back next Sunday.

The preacher shouted out to the pew that all the folks that were he'n and a she'n leave the church until next Sunday. 49% of the flock left. Then he said all those that have been he'n and a he'n leave. 25% got up and left. Then he said all those that have been she'n and a she'n leave. 25% got up and left. The remaining one percent were still seated. The preacher said to the remaining few, "why is it that your still her?" A little old ugly man wearing thick eye glasses, rose to his feet and said, "Sir, you didn't say anything about a me'n and a me'n."

Bad, huh?

[Norquist Nemesis]

37. It's a perfectly logical statement

The trouble is, the Bible was written by human beings and their interpretations and translations down through the years. Just because a human said it or believes "God told him" does not make it a fact of being God's words.

I believe in God. But I make my own decisions based on logic. I have faith that God will guide and support me, but I don't expect (nor do I) hear his voice telling me what to do. And anyone who says God told me, I'd be seriously picking up the 10 foot pole.

[Le Taz Hot]

70. OK, I can't stand it

I have to speak up.

First, the "homesexual sin" in the OT is located in Leviticus which, btw, also prohibits the use of mixed fabrics, religious leaders with any physical flaws and women going out in public while they are unclean (generally accepted to mean while she is menstruating), just to name a few.

Second, that particular section of Leviticus was written specifically for the Corinthian Jews. They were specific instructions on how to avoid pagan practices. Remember, male on male sexual activity was not uncommon in Roman culture.

Now, if those who adhere to the instructions in Leviticus in terms of "homosexual sin," one must also refrain from wearing mixed fabric, (females) going out in public while menstruating or entering the clergy with any physical flaws.

I could go on, but we'll start with those.

[kysrsoze]

77. Thank you

I'd say that's quite enough to end the 'discussion.'

[Terran]

85. The Bible clearly says no such thing

Some people like to interpret it that way; it doesn't mean they're right. Any bibilical scholar can show you where they're wrong.

[patcox2]

14. Not just a pander, but an inept pander.

yeesh, why does he think he has to pander to those who look for religiosity in their public officials? Makes him look like a fool, twice over, first for trying to come off the big christian, second for doing it so badly, and then he looks like the fool for trying at all when the people he is trying to impress with this bullshit ain't gonna buy it noway anyhow.

[kysrsoze]

18. I thought it was a rather bold stance and one that points out hypocrisy

It's time that Christianity went back to its original intentions - love and acceptance of all. What about all those 'whores' who Jesus hung out with?

[MysticMind]

22. again that doesn't mean he condoned their sins

...

[Puglover]

26. I think Mysticmind

that you picked a very apt handle for yourself. :)

[MysticMind]

28. how so?

....

[Puglover]

30. well, at least to me...

it certainly is a mystery how your mind must work. You seem to cherry pick what you like out of the Bible and state it as absolute fact. Convienantly you don't bother with the rest. I never understand how that sort of thinking can form a bedrock of faith. But hey...each to his own.

[MysticMind]

35. its not picking and choosing

I'm not a Bible literalist.

[kysrsoze]

43. If you are not a Bible literalist....

why are you so sure you're right about this particular belief?

[MysticMind]

49. because it isn't based on my interpretation of the Bible...

And most fundies use the Bible to excuse a pre-conceived revulsion to homosexuality. I'm not really revulsed by it.

[TrogL]

65. That's not what you said a few minutes ago

6. this makes no sense

The Bible clearly says homosexual acts are a sin

[Khephra]

33. People here will remember that I was worried

when it was said that Dean was going to use religion more in his campaign, well...

I was wrong to be worried. I was afraid we'd see more conservative religion. I should have known better.

What better way to fight off religious fundamentalism than with progressive religious values?

Religion does not always equal bigotry and exclusion. It's nice to see that there's at least one politician who remembers that.

[MysticMind]

38. no it's just proving he's not religious

He appears to misunderstand religion.

[kysrsoze]

40. He only misunderstands your interpretation of religion

Isn't that the real truth?

[MysticMind]

56. not really

I totally disagree with Al Sharpton's interpretation of religion but believe he's sincere. I don't buy it from Dean.

[Khephra]

47. You are totally 100% wrong

Do you realize that there's more to Christianity than just your Catholic opinion of what makes up "religion"? Talk to a Quaker, Mormon, Church of England, etc... members sometime. You'll find that within the body of Christianity itself there's very little agreement on the details of religion.

Just because you don't think that it's a religious viewpoint, please don't insult the rest of us who see forgiveness and understanding as the center of our religious views. There's a lot of Christians (and members of other faiths) here who will totally disagree with you.

Remember "Do unto others as you would have them to unto you"?

[kysrsoze]

55. Precisely - look at the huge rift in the Anglican Church

n/t

[MysticMind]

60. it has nothing to do with his religious

It's the fact he's all the sudden talking about religion when it'll win him votes.

[kysrsoze]

62. OK, I'm alright with that argument. It's quite possibly true

Unfortunately, the way Bush has injected religion into politics, I don't think anybody has a choice. Though it's nice to see that he doesn't stand behind right-wing bigotry.

[Khephra]

63. Ah, so your real opinion comes out now

It has nothing to do with what you see as being a religious view or not, but whether you think he's saying this to get votes.

Ok, I've wasted enough time on you then. I know where this one is going.

[MysticMind]

69. I just think it looks very phoney...

Christians don't want to see politicians pretend to be Christian anymore than African-Americans want them to "act" black.

[Sideways]

76. This Is A New Tact MM

Now it is not about flaws in dogma or an ignorant belief system it is now about appearing phony. Gee those are very different arguments.

What are you really arguing about? Dean isn't a Christian or Dean is a phony? You spent a good deal of time telling us he isn't a Christian why change tact?

[Sideways]

68. Dean Isn't Religious Because He Doesn't Espouse Your Views?

Whoa Nelly that is a pants load. And that leads to your next leap of logic that says he misunderstands religion. Once again IS THIS because his views are different then yours?

Have you ever heard of the word myopia? You should check it out.

[MysticMind]

79. I never said that...

I never said he wasn't religious because he disagrees with me.

[TrogL]

42. Interesting bias in the article

It quoted Leviticus directly but couldn't be bothered to explain the non-literalist position.

Oh well, at least it mentioned it.

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/bibquote.html

[Lestat de Lioncourt]

45. In your face you right-wing bible thumpers!

"My view of Christianity . . . is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind...So I think there was a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions."

Eat those words you "religious" right-winger a-holes!

[Fleshdancer]

54. It's about damn time someone said it!

I'm tired of the Christian Coalition initiating every conversation relating to religion in politics in this country!

There are millions of Christians here who don't agree that the bible should be used in order to promote bigotry. Jesus Christ, to me, was about understanding, peace, and love. Not about hate.

[MysticMind]

66. the problem is this is telling people like me we must conform our religiou

Views to be real Democrats.

[kysrsoze]

72. It's not that. You espoused your personal beliefs to make a point

People are going to be all over that. When you say the Bible clearly says homosexuality is a sin, you will naturally get a lot of arguments from people with liberal beliefs and different interpretations of the Bible.

Edit: You also placed your interpretation of the Bible on Dean's faith - precisely what you complained about re: Democrats.

[Puglover]

73. Noone has said that....

If you are going to espouse your personal beliefs, in this case that marriage is exclusively an institution for heterosexuals and then insinuate that somewhere the bible backs it up I would think you should be ready to defend your stand. You keep crying that people are attacking your faith. Cmon....if you're going to make such a comment please back it up with something other than..."its my faith" Oh wait...never mind....the pope sez so. Papal infallibility.

[kysrsoze]

75. Dang, that was rough!

He he.

[Fleshdancer]

74. He's telling you to conform your religious views?

I don't think that's the intended message at all. He's explaining how his religious beliefs led him to his conclusion regarding civil unions. He has every right to his interpretation of religion than you or anyone else.

Love the sinner, hate the sin if you must. Just remember that homosexuality is much more than just sex and that denying a portion of our population equal rights is not loving the "sinner".

on edit: adding " " to the word sinner because I can not find it in me to believe that two consenting adults who love and care for one another could be sinners.

[TrogL]

78. I do wish he would do his research or stick strictly to the truth

very significant, substantial genetic component to it

They still haven't found a "gay gene" per se, which is what I would call "signficant". The rest is buried in stats that the layman doesn't understand.

The fundies will use this start another "[insert Dem candidate] lies" meme.

[msmcghee]

80. What I find absurd about Dean's statement . .

. . is that by putting it into a religious context he implies that if there was no genetic component then homosexuality would be bad, a sin of choice, possibly to be sanctioned legally - because Xtians don't like it.

The principle I would like my leaders to hold dear is that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they wish as long as they hurt no-one else by their actions . .

. . and that if society wishes to deny legal protections to some citizens that are granted to other citizens . . then society better have a pretty damned good reason.

[MysticMind]

81. ok...

consenting adults should be free to do whatever they wish as long as they hurt no-one else by their actions

Define harm. Can I own an AK-47 as long as I harm no one else?

[pacifictiger]

82. I think it was through the interfaith alliance website

that I came across a very well written article about homosexuality and the bible. Written by a well respected theologin, it said that the most direct reference against homosexuality is in the old testatment laws referenced in Leviticus. But he also went on to question why we are so selective in what we pick and choose from the bible - we no longer uphold most of the strict behavioural rules and regs in Leviticus, while homeosexuality is about the only thing still contentious. Jesus himself never addressed the issue, but preached one should be loving and compassionate to all. If I find the link, I'll post. How any loving, long term & committed relationship between two people, regardless of intimate details, can be considered harmful to others in society is beyond my comprehension.

[kysrsoze]

86. OMG! Let's tone it down a bit

You can infer from the post that 'consenting adults' refers to sexual activities. So you're now lumping being a gun-freak with being homosexual? Very nice.

[msmcghee]

88. A typical tactic. But I'm not falling for it.

We have a constitution, courts and laws that can determine what activities legally cause harm to others. It's not always easy because life is not black or white. But as long as the process is fair and objective, I'm generally willing to comply with whatever our system comes up with.

[ProfessorGAC]

83. I Think This Is Brilliant

I'm not a vocal Dean supporter or anything, but this is the stuff rhetorical brilliance.

He is taking back the terms of the debate by making it clear that his faith REQUIRED him to be christian toward all people. Now any support of gay unions is not the product of secular humanism, but of a Christ-like interpreation of faith.

This is smart stuff. It may or may not work, i don't know. But, it's clever to make the debate shift to one of interpretation of faith rather than faith vs. secularism.

The Professor

[robbedvoter]

87. Some argue it was an afterthought....

Dean Didn't Mention Faith in 2000 Speech

2 hours, 53 minutes ago
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040108/ap_on_el_pr/dean_religion

By ROSS SNEYD, Associated Press Writer

MONTPELIER, Vt. - When Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites) delivered an impassioned speech April 26, 2000, on why he was signing a civil unions law granting marriage rights to gay couples, he never mentioned religion as a reason.