Dean would not push for law on gay marriage

[Freddie Stubbs]

MONTPELIER — While former Gov. Howard Dean opposes efforts to ban gay marriages — such as those suggested this week by President Bush — the presidential hopeful won’t push for a federal law making them legal, his campaign said Thursday.

According to campaign manager Joe Trippi, Dean believes that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law, but the question of what constitutes marriage is a matter for the states to sort out.

In the end, Trippi said, the five-term governor would do nothing to prevent states from granting the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex partners, but he does not think the federal government should dictate what marriage is.

“What we’d try to do is make sure every American has the same rights under the law,” Trippi said. “Yes, the governor would oppose the kind of law the president talked about. But the last time he checked, you don’t go to the federal government for your marriage license.”

The position is akin to the often tenuous one Dean took during the wrenching debates over Vermont’s landmark civil unions law. Shortly after the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples must be granted the same rights and responsibilities as their heterosexual counterparts, Dean told reporters that while the decision was a correct one, gay marriages made him “uncomfortable, the same as anyone else.”

more: http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69474.html

[RevolutionStartsNow]

1. Neither would Kerry, Lieberman, or Gephardt

Only Congressman Dennis Kucinich, former Senator Carol Mosely Braun and Reverend Al Sharpton support legalizing same-sex marriage. However, Braun insisted it's a state rather than a federal issue.

Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, Congressman Dick Gephardt and former Governor Howard Dean endorsed civil unions but not marriage. Kerry and Dean cited religious reasons. It was Dean, who as governor of Vermont pressed for that state's groundbreaking partnership union law.

(Best part):
The audience hissed when Lieberman said marriage is a right reserved in America for men and women.

http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/690625

[shance]

2. THANK YOU!***

n/t

[blm]

14. I thought Dean was NOT religious.

Why would he cite religious reasons?

[dsc]

16. He didn't

the quote is wrong. At the press conference he cited tradition and personal discomfort. Oh and BTW Dean is religioun he belongs to the United Church of Christ which last I checked was a form of Christianity.

[gottaB]

15. Clarification on Braun's Position

Check out the full transcript. Donaldson grilled Braun on this issue, and got her nailed down to this position:

MS. MOSELEY BRAUN: Again, the federal role has to be that it is constitutionally impermissible to deny a person the right to marry who they want to.

MR. DONALDSON: In that case it wouldn't be up to the states, would it? I mean, if the Constitution requires something. States cannot override that, as we have proved over and over again.

MS. MOSELEY BRAUN: Yes, you are correct. And it is as a matter of law in terms of the constitutional rights of individuals. That is something that is the same wherever you go in the United States, and that ought to be a precedent. That ought to be the law. And I believe it is the law. I believe that the proper interpretation of the Constitution. You see, part of my problem in answering your questions I think is the fact that I served in state and local governments as well, and it is states that issue wedding certificates. In that regard it is up to the clerks to do, actually do the mechanics, the administrative work. In that regard I think it is up to the states to do the work. But I think it is up to the national government to provide the leadership so that there is consistency in the constitutional rights that are accorded all people.

[Dhalgren]

3. Sorry, but that "states rights" bullshit

is exactly what was used by segregationists in the 50's and 60's. There is no reason why the federal government can't issue marriage licenses. If the states are consistently abridging citizens' rights, then the federal government must take over to ensure that our rights are upheld.

States rights is a huge cop-out. Make it the law that every couple (mf,mm,ff) who wishes to be married must first obtain a civil union. Then, if they choose to get a religious "marriage", it's their business. But the religious "marriage would hold no legal standing whatsoever - only the civil union would be legal.

[w13rd0]

5. Nonsense...

...the stated position is that the fed would protect rights nationwide. It is up to the individual states HOW they want to comply with federal dictates. The government shouldn't be in the business of marriage, period.

[Dhalgren]

7. How many states do you think will grant same sex marriage

licenses unless they are compelled to by the fed. gov.? Not damned many. So, if you are saying "it's a state matter", but at the same time saying that the federal gov. will have to force it, then what are you saying?

[w4rma]

9. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

The support must come bottom-up not top-down.

[Dhalgren]

8. And here's "nonsense" for you.

Individuals have no rights as couples except in legal marriages. Now how is the fed. gov. supposed to "protect rights nationwide" when those rights don't exist? The federal gov. has every business in mariage if the states consistently deny or abuse the rights of citizens. Anyone who is "uncomfortable" with same sex marriages needs to grow up and get a clue - maybe take some time off and get to know the world a little.

[dsc]

10. That isn't necessarily true

In many countries, cities, and the state of Vermont couples have been given rights outside of legal marriages. There is no reason the feds can't honor those rights too. The main federal rights of marriage are survivors benefits, joint tax returns, inheritance taxes, and immigration. Counted seperately one can get to the 1000+ rights that have been mentioned but they fall pretty much under those broad categories. There is no reason that the feds can't extend those rights to civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever else states come up with.

[dsc]

11. That isn't necessarily true

In many countries, cities, and the state of Vermont couples have been given rights outside of legal marriages. There is no reason the feds can't honor those rights too. The main federal rights of marriage are survivors benefits, joint tax returns, inheritance taxes, and immigration. Counted seperately one can get to the 1000+ rights that have been mentioned but they fall pretty much under those broad categories. There is no reason that the feds can't extend those rights to civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever else states come up with.

[Duder]

4. The last part of the article was good...

Angell also supports the Vatican’s insistence that politicians work to squelch any further efforts at legalizing same-sex relationships, Gibson said. Of the nine Democratic candidates for president, three support the notion of gay marriage — Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton. Of the remaining six, Dean is considered to be among the most friendly to gay rights, according to Winnie Stachelberg, the political director of the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington D.C.-based gay rights advocacy group.

“Gov. Dean has been very clear that he supports legal protections,” Stachelberg said, hinting that he and other candidates are finding themselves tripped up by the semantics.

“What we’re finding here is a real discomfort with the word ‘marriage.’ But what we’re looking for is civil marriage, not religious marriage. I mean, the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize divorce, but Catholics can get divorced and go and have a legally recognized marriage. The country is truly divided on this issue, but all the gay and lesbian community is seeking is the same civil protection afforded to heterosexual marriages.”

[SEAburb]

6. Dodgy Dean does it again

He has to be the third Nicholas brother. Man, can he tap dance!

[genius]

12. An excellent posting

I am kind of concerned at all the people who think Dean is more liberal than he is on this issue. I'm glad you posted this.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

13. The only people who think Dean is "more liberal"

...are the ones not paying attention.

As posted earlier, Dean/Kerry/Gephardt/Lieberman are about the same on this, supporting civil unions but not gay marriage. Kerry, Gep and Lieberman all say they would support the kind of civil union law for the states that Dean signed into law in Vermont.

Kucinich/Braun/Sharpton are the only ones who are in favor of gay marriages.

But after reading an article today about what the Pope said, and after Bush's press conference, I find myself more and more angry and baffled by this issue. Dean or Kerry would be a huge improvement as far as gay rights, to be sure, but I hope the majority comes around on this one soon. I read a poll today (Gallop I think) that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriages, but by a lesser margin than in the past.