The Democrats sure are good at lackluster apologies!

Homo-journo Bil Browning raised a justifiable stink this week after Indiana's Democratic party funded state Represenative Andy Schemenaur's anti-gay flier, which touted the politico's commitment to "traditional" family values.

CONTINUED »

We're gagging!

Indiana's Democratic party has been taking a page from the right. While most of this electoral season's anti-gay rhetoric has come from the Republicans, the Hoosier State's Democrats decided to get nasty with a mailer sent out for state Representative Andy Schemenaur.

The flier, which reads ""Faith & Family: A Hoosier Way of Life," touts Schemnaur's commitment to defending to so-called "sanctity of marriage." You know what that means: no nuptials for same-sex lovers. What a disgrace.

[via Bilerico]

Need some pre-sleep reading? Well, you're in luck, because the Democratic Party this week hammered out the rough draft of their party platform. Entitled "Renewing America's Promise," the 56-page document outlines everything from national security to rebuilding New Orleans.

The Party's done a good job addressing - but never explicitly - the ever-evolving face of the nation. For example, their section on "empowering families for a new era," the platform committee write, "The face of America's families is also changing, and so are the challenges they confront."

While gay activists were hoping for explicitly inclusive language, this rough draft touches only briefly on issues close to queer people…

CONTINUED »

Kansas-based Democrat Gail Finney's not into her party's ideological big tent. Or at least not if it's going to cost her an election.

Early this week, as the state was preparing to go to the primary polls, Finney surrogate Dr. Peggy Elliott launched a mail and phone campaign smearing Finney rival Inga Taylor, pictured, who could have become the state's first lesbian, black lawmaker.

CONTINUED »

The Democratic Party claims to have the gays' backs. Why, then, are they not actively pushing against Don't Ask Don't Tell. Well, there are a few reasons, according to the Associated Press.

One, they don't want rile the right-wing during this crucial election season. Two, they're afraid of botching the job a la Bill Clinton. And, perhaps mostly importantly, the party's not entirely sure they can get it done, but that doesn't mean they're not committed to the cause:

The party's reluctance to champion the cause also is a matter of political reality: Democrats lack a veto-proof majority in Congress.

"We know this is an issue that would not be met with a lot of enthusiasm on the part of the administration. That's a big reality," said Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., chairwoman of the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee. "You want to spend time on the things you can move."

Davis and other Democrats now say opportunity is on the horizon, especially if Obama is elected president. (Whereas Obama supports allowing gays to serve openly, the GOP presumptive nominee John McCain backs the current policy.)

Davis said she plans to convene a hearing on the issue by the end of the year. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she supports the creation of a panel of military experts to study the issue.

While a number of military analysts have come out against the discriminatory policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen thinks it's up to Congress to decide the matter.

The Democratic party's gay delegate drama has spread to the Sunshine State:

…Florida Democrats have internal problems which must be solved. The final meeting to choose Florida delegates left bruised feelings when leaders of the Gay/Lesbian alliance — representatives of a huge voting bloc in South Florida — complained that they were only given half of the promised slots despite "affirmative action standards."

We're sure Floridian gays won't be the only ones upset over the so-called "standards."

Could California's gay marriage mean the end of the Culture War?

We think it began ending after Larry Craig's arrest, but The Nation's Richard Kim thinks the big bang came last week. And, despite what the right wing says, California's Supreme Court merely upheld legislative will, rather than legislating on their own accord:

In 2005 and 2007 the California State Legislature passed bills granting gays and lesbians the right to marry; on both occasions, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills. But by directly expressing their support for gay marriage through the democratic process, the State Legislature undercut the right-wing claim that gay marriage is something "activist judges" foist onto an unwilling public. Indeed, the majority on the state's Supreme Court, comprising three Republicans and one Democrat, weren't "legislating from the bench"; they were reaffirming legislative will. And despite his vetoes, Schwarzenegger has said that he respects the court's opinion and opposes an amendment to the California Constitution, something he calls "a waste of time."

The same-sex shift in California, Kim argues, can only bring good things to the Democrats. That's an understandable argument, but it would be even more true if the Democrats and the Republicans differed on gay marriage, which they don't.

The decision is even better because social conservatives are calling on McCain to take a tougher stand against gay marriage, but he can't, which means this voting bloc may give up on him entirely. And that's what would be good for the Democrats come November.