Because he is the party chair and can't seem to remember his own platform. Rather strange dontcha think??

You were engaging far too much in enjoying yourself to make it worth much trouble other then to call it bs.

Which I did.

Lucas- on both counts.

There is a difference between being a man or woman of God, and endorsing discrimination. This is a lesson that the Southern apologists had to learn in the Democratic Party, and sadly, I think it is one that they will have to learn here. Many of the arguments for slavery, and Jim Crow, although it is not talked about now, were based on Biblical interpretations that said the inequality under the law was 'okay.' Indeed, many of the arguments against gay marriage are exactly the same as the laws against people of color- ie, in 1910 or so- a Congressman actually wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment against marriage between blacks and whites. Indeed, much of the reasoning was that it was against God to have mixing. It's funny how all of this history has been forgotten. Which is how I am in part viewing all of this. That Americans fundamentally don't understand how history has repeated itself on these sorts of issues of equality. As for being Christian- now,  like then, you will find many of faith who are not all of one voice as the Christian right would have you believe. I am actually gay- but some of my friends are Evangelicals who are okay with the idea of a civil union which according to the polarized logic here- isn't suppose to happen. Indeed, someone I disagree with often- Andrew Sullivan- had an excellent essay over at Time.com about how people confused the Christian right with Christians. They aren't one and the same. If Dean wanted to talk to Christians- then he should have talked to Christians- and not confused it with the Christian right. It's funny for a guy who seemed to get soem of this in 2004, he seems to have forgotten this here.