There was a report by Alegre earlier today that language referring to gays and lesbians appeared to have been removed from the DNC platform and then reworded to say "same-sex couples" with reference to the Defense of Marriage Act. I've written before that the push for gay rights is looked at resentfully in some "liberal" quarters as being too, ahem, presumptuous, too pushy, making too many people uncomfortable. Kind of like every form of civil rights since, oh, forever.
I'm disturbed by the langauge that replaced "gay and lesbian". Why? Because it talks about a particular condition for receiving rights, being a couple. I don't like or trust the retreat from defending individual rights, the inherent rights of human beings, independent of a particular institution or social construct besides that of citizen.
I want to know which people decided to change this language. Was it a compromise? Was the original removal just an interim draft while new language was crafted or was it an actual attempt to remove defense of non-heterosexuals from the platform? The attachment of rights to marriage for anyone, not just same-sex couples (And where are bisexuals and transgendered citizens positioned in this rather rigid construct?) also leaves me suspicious.
I am watching the retreat of the Democrats from civil rights as such. Women of all socio-economic statuses are having their reproductive control bargained away. GLBT rights are being rejected as "politically unviable" even as individual states push forward. The rights of working class and poor men and women, regardless of color, religion, sexual orentation, etc., such as a right to health care or Social Security, are treated as "bi-partisan" bargaining chips. Privacy rights? Fuhgeddaboudit...
What I see in the Deaniac crusade is a failure to address fundamental protections while pursuing a feel-good approach that caters to those who have already made it (or who fantacize that they belong in that group), the Whole Foods Nation crowd.
It is as profound a change in this party as the Republican abondonment of its abolitionist roots.