It's a pretty meaningless statement whatever way you look at it. Apply the inversion technique:

We do not support full inclusion of families in the life of our nation and do not seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.

No-one would ever say that - or even consider it for an instant. Saying the opposite is just filler.

The sentence no longer makes sense. They should change it to:
We support full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for all families.
Of course, single-parent and extended families wouldn't get the benefits and protections that they're talking about, since they're still linked to marriage.
But if they're going to be vague and non-inclusive, they might as well at least try to make sense.

Side note: I got an Obama sticker, with a rainbow where that corn-field-looking thing in the O usually is, at Baltimore Pride this summer. He better not be leading us on like Clinton did.

I agree with Brottlet and Ithika-the sentence does not make sense. I think it is too vague to have any real impact.

I think that needs to be taken in context with the whole platform. According to this Blade article, the platform is the "strongest ever" on gay rights: http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=20266

in rereading that article, I realize that it doesn't say exactly what I thought it did. However, I still think it's important to look at the platform as a whole.

As for the grammatical issue, I think there is a reading under which the new sentence makes sense, albeit sort of a strange one: "full" here could apply to the *scope* of the inclusion, as opposed to the *degree*, as it does on the natural reading of the previous version. On this reading the sentence just says that all families (including, one presumes, families of gay and lesbian couples) should be included, get equal rights and responsibilities, etc. In short, "full" would mean "all" as opposed to "in the highest degree." That shift in meaning from the previous version could account in part for why the new version sounds confusing.

Admittedly, that's probably kind of a stretch. The more natural reading of the new version (if you read it without knowing the context of the previous version) would oppose families to non-families, which is borderline vacuous as a policy position given that there is in this country no precedent of families as such being marginalized. So at minimum I'd agree that the new version is poorly formulated.

But getting to Ann's question, I think that whether the new language counts as progressive or regressive depends on context. If, say, we had actually progressed to the point where it was accepted as relatively uncontroversial that gay and lesbian families are families as such, then ceasing to single them out could be construed as a sign of progress (somewhat as a full success of affirmative actions policies would logically lead to their discontinuation.) But given that we aren't there yet, I think it would have been more helpful and appropriate to retain the language expressing explicit support.

There's still room, maybe, for a generous interpretation according to which this is an attempt to promote the (as-yet-not-fully-accepted) more inclusive definition of family, but again, when you eliminate the context of the previous version, it doesn't quite read that way to me. So if it is optimisim, I'd have to say it's of a rather botched sort.

That is what you get without Hillary

When I look at "gay and lesbian" statements, as a bisexual I feel utterly invisible. I feel that my trans friends (and I have many of them) are invisible. I prefer language that includes everyone, not just gays and lesbians -- all families, not just gay and lesbian families, not just "traditional" two-parent straight families, should be supported fully.

I agree with Erynn. Using language like "same-sex couples" is more inclusive of the many who don't fit the categories of "gay" or "lesbian." See also this article from Bay Windows citing trans activist and DNC committee member Diego Sanchez: "He [Sanchez] said he pushed for the term 'same-sex couples' both because it was more inclusive and because it used the language used by lawmakers at the policy level to grant rights to same-sex couples."

I wish they would use more inclusive "same sex couples" language or something to that effect as well.

However, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that they have just dropped me from their platform. This isn't just a game of semantics or a more inclusive platform. Statements that try to justify this change with that excuse are just that- excuses. Do any of us REALLY believe that?

The Democratic party has been edging out the LGBT community for quite awhile now with their meaningless references and promises about issues they don't really support. Just because they do a better job than the Republican party does [well... duh!] doesn't mean I feel warm and fuzzy with the Democrats' policies.

It's just one more way for them to distance themselves from a group of people they're afraid to associate with for fear of political retaliation; we've become the unspoken "untouchables" of the political world, in a way, and that's disappointing to me.

I checked out that Blade article, and apparently it has been been updated to say "all families, including same-sex couples." I guess there is also explicit opposition to DOMA and DADT.

Quotes on that change, from The Blade:

The earlier draft of the 2008 platform stated, “We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections.”

Baldwin said she and other gay members of the platform committee proposed amendments to add “more specificity” to the gay family provision. She said the Obama campaign and the Platform Committee agreed to include the gay amendments in an omnibus “manager’s amendment” that the full committee approved on Aug. 9. The text of that amendment was not available Monday.

But in a telephone briefing held for reporters, Baldwin said the revised provision notes that “all families, including same-sex couples” should receive rights and benefits."

I think they should still specify LGBT families.
It should say something along the lines of

"We support full inclusion of families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families, INCLUDING LGBT families."

I agree with the people who said "all" should be included. There are many different types of families, not just gay and straight ones. I just started working at a place that supervises visits between foster kids and their birth parents. Some are in foster care, some live in drug rehab programs with one of their parents, some might be adopted by other family members, some might be adopted by their foster parents, and some might be adopted by someone else. A lot of children in this country have two families (birth and foster) or are between families. I think conservatives are too busy thinking about who's gay and neglecting the needs of all of the unique families that live in the US, so I think it's important for the Democratic Party to stress that they unconditionally support all families.

My guess is that they hoped it would be read through the ideological lens of whichever reader was reading it at the time, rather than intending to make a single proclamation. That's politics for you, I guess.

I agree that adding "all" would make it a more significant and inclusive pronouncement.

"I think conservatives are too busy thinking about who's gay and neglecting the needs of all "

Nope, most likely busy working hard for their traditional family. I don't mean working hard politically.

I agree with a couple of you, this is simple politics. If you come out explicitly in support of anything, it's going to divide people and you're going to lose votes. (I'll always stand by John Edwards for having the guts to explicitly support gay people in the South. He wasn't for marriage, but he was against banning it because that wasn't our right to decide people's lives for them).

I think this is the Democrats way of attempting to make the gay thing a non-issue in this election, since it was such a hot-button topic back in '04. They're going to have a much easier time selling an energy plan and an Iraq withdrawal plan than they are a marriage equality platform.

i knew they'd sell us down the river eventually.

Some of you are taking this too personal. No one in the party is throwing LGBT under the bus.

It's that kind of bullshit that makes me glad to be a Libertarian. The Democratic party is really disappointing.