AMERICAblog: Frank Rich on Obama: "You’re Likable Enough, Gay People"
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 11 months ago
Rich is always right on the money. I read this earlier and it made me even more pissed off at Obama. Just throw the fags under the bus for political use.
Bush Bites
· 11 months ago
He makes a good point, but he loses me with that "likable enough" stuff.
I didn't think he was being arrogant when he said that and I still don't.
devlzadvocate
· 11 months ago
I take it that we are likable enough, just not important enough.
Smitty
· 11 months ago
Obama has taken many of his supporters for granted in an attempt to reach a hand out to the right. He might want to check that hand to see if there's anything left once the right takes a bite out of it. He's making the exact same mistakes that Clinton made in 1992. I honestly thought that he was smarter than that.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Me too, Smitty. And I think a lot of people are wondering, judging from a lot of recent comments in which a lot of people wonder what Obama's plan or scheme is regarding his choice of Warren. Some refuse to see Obama in a bad light and insist that there must be a noble or rational motive that makes the selection of Warren ok. But the rationale Obama himself has given just doesn't cut it. Like you, I see it as a mistake - a more serious version of the Donny McClurkin blunder - and I gave him more credit. It may be indicative of something deeper and more intentional. If so, I have a feeling we'll find out in time.
Mark in Florida
· 11 months ago
I agree w/ you. But I am going to hang on...for about a year at most to see if ENDA gets signed, or DADT get's repealed. If this happens, I will come back to the Obama camp. But something dramatic better happen, soon. I want action. Throw us a bone for gods sake.
If they repealed don't ask don't tell, the right would have a hissy fit for about an hour, and that would be the end of it. I am trying to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.....mainly because I feel I have invested blood sweat and tears....and I am not eager to just dump that investment just yet.
I have thought about this Warren thing from a political standpoint ten chess moves or so, and I still get check mated....It confounds me.
willnyc
· 11 months ago
Agreed, Ritorna. I think it was an arrogant blunder, not some big political move. I have to believe Obama really thought he could bring a bigot like Warren over to the side of fairness and equality, and for me that's still a better scenario than Dems simply trolling for evangelical votes. After my initial anger and hurt, the best thing I could say is that Obama is pretty tone deaf when it comes to GLBT issues. I hope that all the bad press he's gotten about Warren has enlightened him. Like Mark in the post below, I'll give him a year. If he does nothing for us, then I'm done with him.
Freddie
· 11 months ago
Arrogance is it's own form of ignorance.
Butch1
· 11 months ago
Good article and a nice take on Obama's comments to Hilliary Clinton when debating in New Hampshire. Obama was being glip during that debate and as a result, he lost New Hampshire. It didn't happen again during any of his debates afterwards. A lesson well learned. His weak responses for inviting Warren to speak underestimate the gay community and where it will go from here. Another point brought up in Rich's article was will Obama become a Bill Clinton and throw us under the bus when it is politically expedient? Time will tell.
devlzadvocate
· 11 months ago
The smaller numbered groups are always throw aways for the larger, monied, leveraged groups. Depending on who we come up against at any given time will determine if we go under the bus.
If we have tire tracks on us in four years, we will be back for more because we love the drama - unless we choose to do something else.
Butch1
· 11 months ago
Yes, I never quite bought in to the premise that he wasn't going to ever listen to the lobbyists or be influenced by them. There are more fundamentalists than gays I would imagine and if he could only influence them and get their vote.
Fool me once . . .(Bill Clinton), shame on you. Fool me twice (Barack Obama) . . .
Joel
· 11 months ago
I guess I am willing to cut Bill Clinton a bit more slack. The fundamentalist movement was very strong back in 1992 and if Bush Sr. wasn't such an uninspiring out of touch leader Clinton wouldn't have made it to the White House, and Clinton really barely did. Bill Clinton simply promised more than he could deliver given the political situation, yes that is a mistake.
Right now, the fundamentalist movement is at its weakest since it began, there is more support for Gays serving in the military than ever before, a majority of Americans. Yet, Barack Obama has, before taking office, stated he will not consider this until at least 2010, some saying Obama will not address this at all during his first term. Obama has simply promised more than he is willing to do, that is cold calculation.
AdmNaismith
· 11 months ago
Bill Clinton went to bat for Gays just as soon as he landed in office. He honestly seemed to want to do things to help, at least early on. But, just chickened out on the follow-through.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I give him a bit more slack than that. While we look back at DADT in horror, for example, Clinton wanted to simply lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military, but was forced to compromise. Did he fight like a lion for us? No. But we have to look at what he was up against and include that into the equation.
Butch1
· 11 months ago
If Obama thinks our civil-rights can wait in his tenure for a better time to address it, he might as well forget it. There is never a more appropriate or a better time to correct the injustices of civil-rights abuse issues and bring us par with the heterosexual citizens of this country. If the fundies are at their weakest, then I would think this would be the best time to push. If the pressure is off Obama regarding our rights, then, "shame on me . . ." for being fooled again by sweet talking candidates promising you your rights if you will only vote them into office. I expect more empathy from a man who has experienced discrimination at least one time or more in his life. I can say with certainty that I won't be fooled again and I can only hope that he understands this and doesn't miss an opportunity to advance civil-rights for gays and lesbians and for being on the correct side of history. He hasn't learned that you can't please everyone and ruling from the center generally waters down any legislation with teeth in it and ends up pissing off everyone. What a breath of fresh air he could be if he started sounding like the way democrats used to sound. I'm hopeful, but I'm also realistic that he may be "more of the same". I never heard him say it would have to wait until 2010. That year was for the withdrawal of troops in Iraq. If this time table for our rights has been attached after the election now that he is safely the president-elect, I must say I do not like the "bate & switch" technique played on me.
Joel
· 11 months ago
President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.
Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.
In an interview with Mark Segal of the Philadelphia Gay News, Barack Obama indicated that he would not proceed unilaterally in fulfilling his promise to do away with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military. Instead, the Democratic presidential candidate said that he would work through a step-by-step process with the military brass.
"The reason," Obama said, "is because I want to make sure that when we revert 'don't ask, don't tell,' it's gone through a process and we've built a consensus or at least a clarity of that, of what my expectations are, so that it works."
Thanks for the links. I guess those are his loopholes to not push this through. I really had high hopes he would actually lead and not play the consensus game. The only Generals and comparable rank officers that are for the repeal of DADT are retired!! The ones still in uniform are still homophobic about it so we shouldn't expect anything to happen, period. I didn't play their games, I was drafted, served in Vietnam and finished my time back in the states. My sexual life was and is none of their business. When will they get it through their heads?
Webster
· 11 months ago
The experiences of most of the European nations and Israel aren't enough proof? Yep. Obama is dissembling.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 11 months ago
Bill Clinton's victory was due to Ross Perot. Just as Bush's was due to Nader's.
Freddie
· 11 months ago
A lot of us voted for him, not because we thought he would keep his promises and fix the world, but because we were horrified at the alternative.
Butch1
· 11 months ago
That's a good point as well. Of course, the democrats knew that we had no other place to go during the election that could actually change anything save, the democrats, and they were right. The only problem this time is if we are ignored again and taken for granted this time around, many of us are going to look into other party's that promise us civil-rights and are more progressively liberal. Enough people leaving the Dinosaur Democrats would definitely influence the next election. I know we will be called "spoiler" and other names but the democrats need to realize that they are on notice to actually do something about our rights and forgetting about us for more important things will jeopardize our voting for them in the future. Not having democrats working toward our civil-rights in the democratically run Congress and Executive Branch is not unlike having the republicans doing the very same thing these past eight years. No results = no results. If they really are not concerned about us and continue to put our issues on the back burner, I will have no choice but start voting for other party's more progressive than the democrats. I have voted democratic all my life but I can not continue to do so if they take us for granted. This insult to our community tells me they do not consider us important enough to worry about our feelings, and at this point it is all about their political agenda. I'm having de ja vous Clinton feelings again and I do not like it.
Freddie
· 11 months ago
I would passionately like to see progressives peel off from the Democrat Party and form their own Progressive Party. It would probably never win an election in its early stages, possibly never, but it could scare the Dem leadership enough to perhaps give us and our issues a serious place at the table. Corporatist Dem leaders should know they can't depend of the votes of the progressives in the party as they have in the past.
Butch1
· 11 months ago
My thoughts exactly!
devlzadvocate
· 11 months ago
Use my Facebook info in profile to discuss where, if anywhere this can go.
Butch1
· 11 months ago
Thanks.
devlzadvocate
· 11 months ago
Got it?
Butch1
· 11 months ago
You bet. I sent you a message.
red_dwarf
· 11 months ago
I agree Freddie. If Obama fails by forfeiting liberal principals for political gain - which now appears likely, better to spoil an election, turn the gov't over to the capitalist pigs, let them further erode our democracy, and maybe, just maybe, the spineless Dems will fall back into their progressive lines.
Freddie
· 11 months ago
One "Capitalist Party" - two wings. Progressives have no place in such a charade.
gary
· 11 months ago
Fool me once . . . Rick Warren = Donnie McClurkin 2.0
Butch1
· 11 months ago
Yep, begun to see a pattern here.
ComradeRutherford
· 11 months ago
"President-elect Obama to start acting on the promises he made to the LGBT community during his campaign"
Why on earth would anyone think for one second that Obama would ever do that?
The Democratic Leadership has proven by their actions over the last 30 years that they are controlled by the Republican agenda. Obama will NEVER do anything to upset his GOP overlords. Obama invited Rick Warren SPECIFICALLY to assuage the fears of his masters that he was actually going to do something good for we LGBT. Obama NEVER will because he's another Republican pretending to be a Democrat (just like Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, etc). The actions of the Democratic Leadership since 1980 prove this to be the case: Never once fighting against the far-right agenda (oh sure they talk big, but when they take the vote that really counts, the Dems always vote GOP).
Even now, with a near super-majority and a mandate from the voters to undo the damage from the Bush Legacy, the Dems are still rolling over so the GOP minority will scratch their belly. Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. Complicity is doing the same thing over again for 30 years and claiming you are in opposition to the other party.
Obama will NOT change a damned thing, his cabinet choices bear that out. LGBT have NO place in his administration, neither do liberals or progressives. Only sell-out Dems that tightly controlled by their GOP masters, like Rahm Emmanuel, have any role in the White House. Example: Howard Dean. His 50 State Strategy is sole the reason Obama won. Emmanuel hates Dean and hated the very strategy that got Obama over the top. Therefore Dean has no place in Obama's White House, because he's one Democrat that isn't in thrall to the GOP.
Expecting Obama to do anything good for the LGBT is nothing more than a feverish fantasy. That's why I didn't vote for Obama, because I knew he was full of it.
Reason0Politics1
· 11 months ago
SOOO Right on, well said.
Politics today are nothing but an Illusion of participation. nothing more. Why keep Lieberman? Why not hold treason accountable? because dems = repugs. Sad but true
Joel
· 11 months ago
I agree, I didn't vote for Obama either, nor will I ever. Obama owes his election in no small part to people who do not see gays as a legitimate civil rights movement, and do not consider marriage a right that should be held by gay men and women. Obama is not about to disappoint him.
Obama's support of Gay Rights on the campaign trail was flimsy at best, just enough to cinche the gay and liberal vote, now that he's officiating from "The Office of the President Elect" he's done with us.
AdmNaismith
· 11 months ago
I voted for the black woman here in CA. I never understood why Obama was seen as some sparkling pony by Kos and all the rest when all I saw was the same centrist line. I'm not entirely surprised by his cabinet picks (where is Thomas Krugman?) and I won't be at all shocked when he reneges an all of his (vague, whispered) promises to the gay community that supported his so fervently.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I voted for Hillary in the Primary, and Obama in the General. I understand completely those who questioned Obama while others saw him through a rose filter. I was doing the same, especially on gay issues ever since the McClurkin flap. But within a few weeks of Hillary's defeat I let go and opened myself up to Obama. And that's when I became a genuinely wowed, enthusiastic supporter. So of course the Warren selection hit me like a ton of bricks. I'm still an Obama supporter. I no longer look forward to the Inauguration. I expect it's going to be bitter-sweet. I can still hear the resounding slap echoing from the Warren choice, and I'm very leery about what to expect next from Obama on gay equality. We're going to have to fight him on Warren, and unless he changes his tune it looks like we're going to have to fight him on gay rights in general. What a shame. At least I never saw the "new kind of politics" as anything but a campaign slogan, so I'm not disillusioned on that front as well.
Freddie
· 11 months ago
One party -- the Capitalist Party -- with two wings -- Dems and Rethugs. Power shifts left and right, according to the will of the Capitalist Party bosses -- the uber-rich, depending on shifts in the winds of opportunity.
red_dwarf
· 11 months ago
You're def in the ballpark.
Daigan
· 11 months ago
Now Now, Just be good homosexuals and quiet down. Do our bidding, and put on a nice show for us, then maybe we will like you enough to treat you fairly.
Fuck that. I won't be quiet, and I won't shut up.
Dieuberfrau
· 11 months ago
I feel for you but as a pot smoking atheist I LIVE under the freakin bus.
Butch1
· 11 months ago
Ha! Don't be paranoid, come out and play in the sun.
You must know where to stay under that bus, I didn't hear you mention bus tire tracks on your clothes. Perhaps, you could point out where the best places under there are. ;-)
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Have you noticed a slow thaw in the societal chill toward atheists? Is it just me, or are we starting to be a bit better received since the Religious Right erased the line between religion and politics?
James McConnell
· 11 months ago
My perception is that there are a hell of a lot of athiests, especially among the college educated, but that they are very much in the closet, and that they are coming out in larger numbers, and largely because the Republicans have given religion such a bad reputation.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Good point. I think more atheists are coming out of the closet. I also think we're gaining acceptance. Certainly it's not like back in the 50's and 60's when we were widely seen as god-haters and un-American.
red_dwarf
· 11 months ago
I hear ya. Atheism means only that you are "without theism". I don't buy any theology, its nothing, IMO, but BS and lies. If there is a God, we can't know it. If there is a creator, then who created the creator? Etc. Right now the extent of our knowlege goes to the big bang and sub-atomic physics and a strong hunch that there are many yet to be discovered dimensions. We've come a long way in understanding our Universe, but we have a very very long way to go yet.
Actually, being an atheist imports the connotation that if there is no God then you can live a murderous, lying, bigoted, homophobic, insane life with no consequences (sounds like the GOP is already there). It's like Christmas - anyone with half a brain knowns that this time of year has been celebrated for thousands of years as the "middle of winter" - but Christians think its all about Jesus, Jews, Hannaka, etc, etc.
We've been dumbed-down since the introduction of TV - maybe it'll take another 60 years to get back to something resembling normalcy.
Rab
· 11 months ago
I'm not gay but as a married man I find Obama inviting Warren and the passing of prop 8 a slap in my face. I voted for Democrats to reverse the repug rule and not just the last 8 years. WTF, I'm pissed and I will NOT watch the swearing-in and look at that fat bastard (Warren) up there and the symbolism that shows. I'm pissed.
red_dwarf
· 11 months ago
Same here Rab. 8 years of right wing horse s*h*i*t shoved down our throats and Obama goes out of his way to kiss a*s*s. I wouldn't watch the inaugaration if it was the only thing on TV for a week. That's why I can't understand why the LGBT community is still going to participate in the inaugaration as if NOTHING is going on.
Obama must pay a price for this crass garbage - only the LGBT community can deliver it to him.
Diogenes
· 11 months ago
Plastic "police" whistles are very loud. I hope a lot of people at the inauguration don't blow whistles while Rick Glutton Warren is speaking or he might be drowned out. Wouldn't that be a shame?
Freddie
· 11 months ago
That would be a real shame, wouldn't it.
Freddie
· 11 months ago
They're recommended to be carried and blown when danger is sensed. Does Warren represent any kind of danger?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Honestly, if Warren says something outrageous, and he may not be able to repress himself enough to avoid it, I do hope there is loud and sustained booing. But if he plays the "good boy noble Christian" and delivers an invocation that isn't offensive, I'm not looking forward to gay people trying to drown him out. He'll just play the martyr and most Americans will say gays were being unreasonable and offensive. If the words of Warren's invocation aren't in themself offensive, any disruption will come across like gays marred the Inauguration, rather than Obama's outrageous choice of Warren.
red_dwarf
· 11 months ago
Warren is a phoney backward homophobic bigot. He is liable to say anything. How anyone can see anything in this uneducated fool is beyond my imagination.
The LGBT community better boycott the inaugaration - of course that takes courage - something a bit rare these days in the US.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I don't think it takes any particular courage to just stay away. And I hope you didn't get the impression that I see something in Warren other than what you described. And if people start booing and blowing whistles the minute the man steps up to the podium, a part of me will be more than a little pleased. But public opinion does matter, and if gay folks make a scene without Warren first actually saying something outrageous during the invocation, we'll lose that particular public relations battle big time. I like John's approach. I want to see the story continue to hit the media in every way possible with people exposing what an outrage it is, rather than gay people and supporters behaving at the inauguration in a way that will bring discredit on us and sympathy to him.
Freddie
· 11 months ago
Why plastic? Are there metal detectors everywhere?
offspring
· 11 months ago
ah the blanket murder of hundreds in gaza, and an invasion in the works where more arabs will be put in thier place and of course all quiet on our front.
Joel
· 11 months ago
What is your point?
AdmNaismith
· 11 months ago
Blatant bigotry is not part of the 'Cacophony of Voices'. Is the KKK part of his 'Cacophony...'? I don;t think so, and neither should that fat piece of shit Rick Warren.
Mark in Florida
· 11 months ago
Amen to that my friend.
Jeffrey
· 11 months ago
I love Frank Rich.
Pete
· 11 months ago
Ditto.
One that is just so offensive about the Rick Warren thing is that it was GRATUITOUS. He could have gotten some unknown apolitical pastor for that spot, and would have insulted no one.
On a related note, does anyone know why hell have Cleve Jones and Dustin Lance Black not followed through on their promising website sevenweekstoequality.com?
In any case, we have 3 weeks and 2 days left to inauguration. Let's use the time well.
Pete
· 11 months ago
One THING that is so offensive....
Mark in Florida
· 11 months ago
Glad to see this is till front and center. This story was still on most of the morning talk shows today. And Axelrod once again, repeated the same sad talking points. Which leads me to believe, they know they really, really screwed up. I just got that sense from listening to Axelrod. Whom I like.
And I have to say David Gregory actually go it right in the way he posed the issue. Not all the way, but better than normal main stream media.....but not nearly as good as my gal pal Rachael Maddow. I Heart Rachael. :-)
James McConnell
· 11 months ago
Yes, Axelrod was really scary, since he has been pretty much a straight (you should pardon the expression) shooter. Here is Obama flicking dog shit at us again. As if Axelrod is following in Rove's footsteps, Stonewalling and believing that if you tell the same lie over and over and over again, someone will believe it. It's beginning to follow a familiar trajectory, where Obama screws up and digs his heals in.
So is this just an ill considered screwup or is there some intentional scheme at work. Is it 1) I just didn't think about the gays because I am not gay and I don'[t know anyone who is so i'm not sensitive, or 2) Screw the gays, i'm president now and I can do whatever I damned well please, or 3) Rick Warren will generate a larger Inaugural audience, sepecially among the hicks and that would be good because I can try to persuade more people to my scheme with my speech which will be a real humdinger. I just don't feel like I know where Obama is coming from and that worries me because he may have several Supreme Court appointments and God only know what he will do. McCain may be no friend of gay marriage, but he has certrainly exhibited sensitivity on gay rights, and it would be tragic if he might have been the better choice. If there is not litmus test for Warren, where will there be a litmus test?
Freddie
· 11 months ago
Believe me when I say, MCCAIN WOULD HAVE BEEN A TOTAL DISASTER. Palin probably would have soon stepped into his shoes after the mysterious crash of his airplane and inaugurated the new United Theocratic States of America.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
And then we would be stuck with another embarrassment in the White House who can't put together a coherent sentence, much less see the world for what it actually is.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
EXACTLY! Plane crashes have a mysterious way of occurring when you get in the way of the Republican machine.
timncguy
· 11 months ago
Oh, have no doubt, it's not a mistake. He CLAIMED he didn't know during the primaries when he put Donnie McClurkin on the stage. There is no way he didn't know exactly what Warren's positions were this time.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
That worries me too. He offered the same excuse, though. Both times he said he was reaching out to the other side. If he's being honest about that, he's just not learning his lessons. But I can't believe that excuse is anything more than damage control. I've read some interesting theories as to what his actual motivations were/are, and I'm still wondering.
pdxprobert
· 11 months ago
for some reason, the evangelical base is still being pandered to... by both parties... they both stumble over each other to gain favor from them... is it because they are organized better than any other group.. I have a suspicion it is... because they are the new union members.. people must realize that we have gone through a paradigm shift here in America.. we are no longer the economy that every other aspiring country envies... when I worked in corporate America, it was a common saying when creating policy related to the workforce, to error on the side of the people/labor... What the american labor force doesnt realize is that they don't matter anymore... our wages outgrew our ability to be competitive... the new mega churches are the new union halls... In my past post Ive stated we as a group need to bring something to the table and I got beat up and demonized for saying that... but thats what it boils down to... the mega churches are the new unions... its that simple I think... Democrats as a party pride themselves as being like cats, un-herdable... well, I think politicians prefer people/minds they can herd... Its politics pure and simple...
Freddie
· 11 months ago
It's clear proof of Obama's cynical bargaining of gay equality for evangenital votes. No doubt whatsoever about it.
ChrisSF
· 11 months ago
It was either just a not very well thought out decision, or else a cold political calculation. The thinking might have been: There are a lot more evangelicals that LGBTs, so if we can win over a few, we'll be a lot better off. Where are the gays going to go, anyway? So we need to make all the noise we can. It is the only tool we have to prevent being thrown under the bus over and over again. But make no mistake: Obama is light years better than McCain
timncguy
· 11 months ago
"He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable...."
Finally someone in the main stream media who frames this the right way. When we say where is the racist on the stage or the anti-semite, this is what we are talking about.
timncguy
· 11 months ago
and I'm still waiting for someone in the media to expolore what Warren's position is on OTHER gay rights issues in addition to marriage. Where does Warren stand on
Civil Unions ENDA DADT DOMA Hate Crimes legislation
I would hazard a guess that he doesn't support any of these either.
Older_Wiser
· 11 months ago
Obama needs to slow down this "inclusion" and "bipartisan" baloney. By "including" those who do not understand what human beings are all about, he loses more than just the "gay" constituency, because the rightwing dolts do not understand the first thing about the most basic of concepts of being alive. This is true not only of the religious right, but of the entire rightwing itself.
Of course I'm an atheist, so what do I know? People who don't have a god are about the same percentage as the LGBT community, and I daresay for myself and plenty of other people I've known, we've been on the side of justice far more often than those who presumed to tell us we're going to hell for our way of life. And then there are the supporters...and damn it, all of us are the ones who voted for Obama, not the Rick Warrens and other rightwing poseurs who would eat babies for lunch if that is what "god" told them to do...look at Bush, for instance, as an egregious example. Didn't "god" tell him to invade Iraq, to kill, maim and dispossess an entire country? Even if he was being cynical, it impressed those who think that way. And by dog, we don't want to encourage them, do we? Obama? Please answer the question.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
I do believe in G-d, but I would respect your right to NOT believe in G-d to the death. My G-d would want me to support your journey of life wherever it leads. That said, I have the SAME PROBLEM with all those Talibangelical fools who claimed G-d was speaking directly to Dubya, and NOW would have you believe he got "bad advice" from some unnamed "bad apples" in his administration. Otherwise, those same fools would have you believe Dubya is just misunderstood and will his reputation will be resurrected by their version of "American Rambo Jesus!"
"When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable."
Also:
"Milk reminds us that hope has to mean action, not just words...."
YES!
Older_Wiser
· 11 months ago
I believe in the First Amendment. But I also believe that a starving person, facing death, would opt for a sandwich rather than a sermon...
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Yes, action or something concrete versus words.
Freddie
· 11 months ago
Warren's church recruits based on that real hunger for real food.
PissedSissy
· 11 months ago
Rich's article seemed to be going in the right direction, until you get to this one line:
"By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction."
TINY INFRACTION?!?!?
Sorry, but that negates everything else he said - and if you read the majority of the NYT comments from straight people on this column, it just proves EVERYTHING I've been saying about these people - THEY ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS.
Want another example? MoveOn is ALSO throwing the LGBT community under the bus so they can play nice with Obama.
Here's my full response to Rich's "tiny infraction" snark (NYT comment #175):
"By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction."
THIS is a "tiny infraction"? That's VERY easy for you, a straight, white male, to say! If this is indeed how you feel, Mr. Rich, then you are no better - or no more compassionate - than Obama on this issue.
Let me tell how "tiny" this infraction is, Mr. Rich. My partner just lost his job, and because we are not a straight couple, I cannot include him on my health insurance coverage as my spouse. Not only are we FORCED to pay TWICE what you do for health coverage in the first place, anything other than a common cold could see us having to choose between going to the doctor and losing our HOME.
And NOW the man that promised us "change" from this sort of nightmare tells us to "sit down and be quiet" while one of the RINGLEADERS of the mob who wants to take EVERYTHING from us ascends the stage at the inauguration?
Do you REALLY think this is "tiny"? How DARE you.
You straight "progressives" keep promising us that you'll help us if only we give you our votes, our money, our time, and our talents. Well, there's enough of us that have finally seen this for what it is - false "friendship".
You obviously have forgotten that we've had "friends" like you all our lives - "friends" that quickly abandon us when it's no longer safe for convenient to stand by us. If you were really "friends" with us, you'd HARDLY see this as tiny - you'd be screaming from the rooftops to have this bigot Warren removed from the ceremony - or else.
Instead, straight "progressives" are proving themselves to be little more than playing the abuse husband, with us playing the codependent battered wife. Guess what? There are a great many of us "battered wives" that have taken our last punch - and we are seeking shelter ELSEWHERE.
You've underestimated how "tiny" this is, Mr. Rich; let's see you win your precious "progressive" agenda without us. Yes, the Republicans are our arch enemies - but at least they ADMIT it; we know who they are and what they are, and can defend ourselves accordingly. We can't tell from minute to the next whether the Democrats are friend or foe - and many of us are tired of wasting time figuring it out.
Sling Shot
· 11 months ago
My New Testament makes no such comparison. I've read the whole thing more than once and must have missed it every time. Where does Mr. Warren's proclamation come from?
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 11 months ago
Oh puhleez...these fundy pastors are hardly educated theologians. Most of the better Protestant seminaries require eight semesters of Hebrew, four of Aramaic, four of Classical Greek and Latin. Thus ensuring that they read the Torah, Tanakh and Gospels in original languages. Ricky "cute gay goatee white trash megachurch" Warren probably has never even read the King James Bible which in itself is full of errata. Ricky is just another asshole who is tithing other ignorant assholes into building him a nice Rolls Royce kingdom on earth while he gluttons himself into cardio vascular Hell. They all cling to the laws in Leviticus which are absurd: eating shrimp, stoning unruly kids to death; stoning to death a woman who enters the temple during her period; stoning to death a man for planting the wrong crops in a field.
Fundy pastors are nothing more than live speaking TV advertising. The low functioning sheep lap it up. Because the idea of gay sex is icky, we make a very convenient fund raising scapegoat.
davidinchelseama
· 11 months ago
The issue about Leviticus having a bunch of silly laws in it is generally countered by most fundies in the following manner:
They cite that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross did away with harsh punishment for those "sins" in Leviticus. They are still sins but no longer require such draconian penalties. Others say that his sacrifice destroyed the levitical laws completely. And then, in the new testament, they cite Paul stating that gay sex is wrong, so that's how they can state that shrimp is fine, but gay sex isn't.
Mind you, I don't believe in god, nor one word of that ancient bronze-era book, but that is how they get around the whole "leviticus has crazy shit in it" critique.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 11 months ago
Yup...fine...but fundamentalists also say every word is true.
davidinchelseama
· 11 months ago
Good point. That's the ultimate way to impeach a fundie "witness."
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
You want to trip up the fundies and biblical literalists? Ask them if the father of Joseph, Mary's husband, was Jacob or Heli. Ask them which God created first - Adam or the animals. Ask them if Jesus was crucified in the third hour or the sixth hour. Ask them how many angels were at the tomb of Jesus. Ask them if Jesus ascended into heaven from Mount Olivet or Bethany.
Freddie
· 11 months ago
A chery picking we will go.
davidinchelseama
· 11 months ago
Agreed. Just don't shoot the messenger. I don't agree with the fundies. I'm just telling you what the talibangelicals would say.
ComradeRutherford
· 11 months ago
There's a great blog that has been dissecting that horrible book series "Left Behind" His name is Fred Clark and the website is called Slackitivist. One of the most important points he has made there is that the peculiar brand of 'christianity' that started here in America in Kansas in the 1830s and grew directly into the 'fundamentalist' and 'evangelical' versions of what is known as 'christianity' has nothing to do with the teachings of the historical figure we call 'Christ'. Indeed they are obsessed not with the Christ, or his teachings or values, but only of his arch-nemesis the 'anti-Christ'. I like to call these kinds 'Anti-Christians', since they revile everything that the Christ said or did.
For example, the Sermon on the Mount is avoided like a plague amongst these Mega-Churches, as is the beatitudes. If they do mention them at all it is NOT to exhort their followers to do what Christ demands of them, to tend to the most downtrodden segments of society, but as a threat, do what we leaders tell you or you'll end up as one of the downtrodden'.
Just go into one of these evangelical churches and look at the dirt along the edges of their bibles. This shows you where their preacher focuses their attention and the clean parts shows you what they avoid...
Anyway... The key part of this anti-Christian religion is the cutting and pasting of biblical text. Their leaders take a word from the Old Testament and a word from the New Testament and create a whole new passage that they then claim is Scripture. The Evangelicals add disparate sentences of Old and New together to make up entire new passages.
I like to say that Paul was a double agent. Paul started out as Saul, a spy for the Romans who supposedly converted to the new religion. I say he was under cover and working for the Romans the whole time. Look at his teachings after Jesus' death, he is taking the church in a different direction than Jesus was heading.
One of the effects of all this is that we see a great reliance by these fungelicals on the Old Testament Jewish laws in Leviticus that ban same sex relations, but they totally ignore the other bans in the same book, such as the one against eating shellfish and other laws. The basic idea is that Jesus wiped out the old rules and wrote new ones, so things like a glatt kosher kitchen no longer had to be followed. Yet the Fungelicals fervently cling to this old rule against homosexuality, disregarding that the New Testament. There is one passage in the New Testament against homosexuality, but it was written by the double agent Paul. so I don't believe it for a second.
Indigo
· 11 months ago
. . . so that he doesn’t go down in history as another Bill Clinton, a sweet-talking swindler who would throw us under the bus for the sake of political expediency.” Oops, too late!
Webster
· 11 months ago
And for those upset about daring to compare this to the civil rights struggle, Coretta Scott King said this: "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. "
"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."
kladinvt
· 11 months ago
I for one am grateful that Frank Rich decided to write this article, since from what I've seen over the past week, most in the MSM have moved on from the Warren controversy & have basically told us to collectively, "suck it up", by their silence on the issue. So however imperfect you might feel Rich's op-ed, he's helping to keep the Warren fiasco near the forefront & I think the more Obama's very bad decision is discussed, the more Obama feels the heat & isn't that what we want? I've 'suspended' my enthusiasm toward Obama & my hope that he'll be any different than other politicians who have come before him, but the one difference in Obama from the rest, is that I believe him to be intelligent. You could never say that of Bush, right! And so, an intelligent person does have the capacity to learn from their mistakes & that is where the last vestige of my hope lies.
Ohio_Dem
· 11 months ago
Is there ANY organized kind of protest being planned to occur at the inauguration during warren's bullshit? Or is it all just in print, talk shows, and on line? Is there a website for a protest or a LGBT group who is planning something? I hope there is.
Pete
· 11 months ago
Amy Balliett's Join the Impact (jointheimpact.com) would be a logical place. I hope she's willing to take that on.
sevenweekstoequality.comwould have been a logical place, but the creators have not been following through on what had sounded like a great idea. (So disappointing...)
Another idea would be to make this website, americablog.com, the central information/organizing site. John A. has serious, serious cred, at the least for helping Dr. Laura lose her TV show, and for highlighting Mary Cheney's silence on LGBT issues. With John's consent and participation, of course! ;)
Ohio_Dem
· 11 months ago
Also why isn't the MSM or someone grilling warren about his position on every single GLBT issue? America deserves to know exactly who is giving the invocation and what he represents.
AdamBlast
· 11 months ago
Bravo to Frank Rich. It's pretty clear that Obama doesn't consider gay rights a fundamental civil rights issue, instead we're just another social group he's willing to triangulate around, like the Clintons did. We're certainly not part of the citizenry that was created equal in his eyes.
I had reasonably high hopes for the guy. I still do on some issues. But in light of Arkansas and Prop 8, many of us are feeling like this isn't our America—and before taking office Obama has already proved how little we matter to him. He's fine with the further stripping of our rights.
Right now, Obama could take decisive action in California that would strongly help ensure our equality in the long run. He could vocally support the Attorney General's attempts to have Prop 8 thrown out—without even having to say he's for gay marriage. His voice would mean that the CA Supreme Court wouldn't have to fear recall if they sided with us. Will he even consider it? Not for an instant. Our second-class citizenship is not a priority.
I already knew I was going to have to avoid the invocation. Now I guess I'll have to avoid the whole Inauguration. Rick Warren's god doesn't include me. It's really looking now like Obama's constitution won't either.
I no longer have any expectation that he's going to do us any substantive good while in office. You were supposed to give us hope, Obama, not dash more of it.
Mr Sippi
· 11 months ago
What everybody attending the inauguration should do in turn their back on Pastor Pigwhistle when he gives the invocation.
mark
· 11 months ago
Turn your back on Warren, and kiss the partner of your choice, through the entire invocation.
erip
· 11 months ago
Why don't we all just wear white hoods and robes to the inauguration, afterall everyone knows we're not racist, we just like the outfits.... Once again the gay community gets used, thrown under the bus, then told to suck it up. Obama clearly could have made a better choice but didn't even consider the ramifications. Clearly he and his team knew that using "gay and lesbian" in his speeches would raise money and garner votes. Delivering on his promises is another story..Evidently gay is the new black. and the obama team want's to keep the seat at the back of the bus nice and warm..
I like most of the other posters here now see the next four years as certainly better than ANY republican, but left out of the hope for change...
Indigo
· 11 months ago
I got my name taken off the Obama mailing lists. I didn't do it on purpose, I just wrote a "reply" letter to a recent letter requesting donations and in the reply I detailed my concern about the emerging homophobia in the Obama camp and my revulsion at his choice of minister to bless his inauguration. I haven't received any mailings from any part of the Obama machine since then.
As a retired teacher, I can only say "Little Barack does not take criticism gladly." In the social diversity column, I'll have to mark "Needs work."
warbler
· 11 months ago
John: Why would you leave off the very next sentence of Frank Rich's article?
"And “for LGBT folks to choose their battles wisely, to judge Obama on the content of his policy-making, not on the character of his ministers.”
Because the Obama hate brings more traffic to your site and doesn't suit your rabble-rousing paradigm?
Webster
· 11 months ago
Read Pragmatist's take on that sentence below. Got a good life under that troll-bridge there, do ya?
fredndallas
· 11 months ago
What Barack Obama lacks in character, he makes up for in arrogance. That will be a theme that gets lots of mileage over the next few years. The more visibility can be brought to it sooner, the less oppressive and exploitative things may be later. This is not a new trend with BO. Carefully study his behavioral history.
On a positive note, it is truly exciting and heartening that a leading columnist at America's "leading newspaper" forcefully laid out the truth of Obama's manipulation, abuse, neglect, cynicism plus lack of sincerity and honesty about gay equality that resoundingly screams from his choice of Bigot Warren. Thank you for your courage and your candor, Frank Rich.
Beyond the meat of what Rich writes, IF we will take advantage of it, he also provides another gift: A NEW NEWS CYCLE.
The Obama operatives are counting on selection of Bigot Warren to be falling into "yesterday's news" about now. Frank Rich re-birthed it. And David Axelrod lit a big, new fire under it this morning on Meet The Press when he defiantly proclaimed Bigot Warren's selection as a good thing for America and dismissively derided the GLBT community for being upset about Warren's gay-bashing. NOTICE that he also attempted to frame this issue as being about same sex marriage. It is NOT. It is about humanity. (Unfortunately far too much of the media, even blogs, are missing that point and swallowing that framing which totally distorts the issue.)
Bottom line, in my opinion:
1.) We need to do any and everything we can do to push BO's selection of Bigot Warren into another news cycle. (I really hope John is gearing up for another big push to give this thing legs.)
2.) We need to effectively make the point that there is far more unsavory content about Warren The Evangelical beyond his opposition to same sex marriage. He is a humanity denier. You can't get much less Godly than that.
3.) Above all else we need to RAISE THE POLITICAL (and especially EGO) PRICE that our new President pays for this cynical manipulative ploy. Don't doubt for one second, this was another trial balloon or canary in the mine shaft. The die is being cast at this very moment. Are equality rights of the GLBT people going to be left up to the "generosity of strangers" or not.
Finally, lest we as a community become tempted with the same arrogance President Elect Obama is showing toward us, if you feel there are risks and dangers in the approach I suggest that make it imprudent, please share your thoughts.
Pete
· 11 months ago
These are superb comments. Worth reading and discussing, broadly/widely. I particularly appreciate your last paragraph, Fred: You are inviting true productive (productive as in getting somewhere useful) dialogue.
Fred, I hope you'll keep contributing to this and other blogs... + letters to the editor (how about USA Today?).
Also, Amy Balliett and co. ("Join the Impact") could be extremely valuable regarding the Rick Warren matter. I hope she's reading! She's done fantastic, heroic work so far, and I hope she's willing to continue. (While I'm profoundly disappointed that Cleve Jones and Dustin Lance Black's "sevenweekstoequality" appears to have been abandoned.)
We have 3 weeks and 2 days until the inauguration. Let's spend the time extremely well.
Has anybody been working on thoughtful, tasteful, serious graphics about Rick Warren? Such graphics should go for gravitas -- e.g., fair comparisons to Rosa Parks being forced to sit at the back of the bus -- and avoid making fun of Warren for being fat and that kind of stuff (even though an argument can be made for his sugar and flour indulgences being hypocritical). Use of actual Warren quotes would be good.
I hate to say it, but the media would probably love to cover a story about dissent or protest at/of the inauguration. And we've got one, entirely legit -- and about a matter that isn't going away.
timncguy
· 11 months ago
what needs to be done is to start highlighting Warren's positions on OTHER gay rights issues and not solely talk about his opposition to marriage. Let's let it be known that Rick Warren doesn't support ANY rights for gays.
What are his positions on DADT, DOMA, ENDA, Hate Crimes legislation, gay adoption rights. Does Warren support any LGBT rights at all, or does he think gays don't deserve ANY rights at all?
Dieuberfrau
· 11 months ago
“I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” he told The Times, but “we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most-watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”-V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop. Talk about cherry picking! Yeah let's have an adult conversation about whose imaginary friend is nicer! No, in a perfect world Rick Warren would be in a loony bin and Obama wouldn't have to pretend to be a Christian. His mother (a compassionate freethinking humanist) taught him right but she's probably rolling in her grave right now.
AdamBlast
· 11 months ago
I'm an athiest as well, but Gene Robinson's quote is great--the proper way to frame the debate among Christian liberals. And make no mistake, turning Christians more liberal is what will pave the way for the social changes we need, whether they come before or after the legal rights that we deserve like anyone else.
Jay
· 11 months ago
You're likable enough was a joke.
houbear
· 11 months ago
i think as many as possible SHOULD attend. when it's time for warren to talk, sing loudly, "and they'll know we are christians by our love, by our love, yes, they'll know we are christians by our love..." whole song "we will work side by side, we will walk hand in hand, etc. also, "this land is your land" would do.
Bill
· 11 months ago
scary thought: maybe obama really agrees with warren. he did run a presidential campaign that was not supportive of marriage rights for same couples. maybe this was not political positioning... i'm still holding out hope though that we can swing the democratic party to be marriage equality advocates. it's going to take work though. please participate in the One Million Letters for Marriage Equality Project. http://onemillionlettersformarriageequality.blo... we cannot let a near democratic supermajority senate, a democrat majority house, and a democratic president get away with ignoring fundamental rights of lgbt people. in the past, democrats could say that they were too vulnerable. that is simply no longer true.
paulbe
· 11 months ago
It really is sad how many of you fell for the Obama sting. You wanted change so badly, but you actually thought that voting for some guy picked for you by other, faceless, guys would deliver you that change. The same powers that picked Bush to play-act President work both sides of the Party divide. I thought you'd have all seen that by now. Too much TV. That's your problem. Too much media glitz, bobble heads telling you what to think, 70's rock songs at campaign stops etc etc. The spectacle always succeeds in hiding the inconvenient truths. Obama is not your saviour, he is there to ensure that as things change they really stay the same.
Gbennett
· 11 months ago
"By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history."
This may be a "tiny infraction" to Rich and other well-meaning, straight liberals, but to me as a gay man, it is a huge kick in the stomach. That some Democrats feel compelled to placate, cater to, and legitimize elements of the far-right, whose core values do not include defense of human rights, speaks to the shallowness of their own beliefs. Some may argue that Obama represents a new "post-modern" type of politician, to whom bridging differences takes priority over every thing else, core values and core constituencies be damned. Time will tell, but leadership that lacks a moral compass won't take us very far. Maybe the silver lining is that the LGBT community will become more unified and determined that our human rights will be recognized, acknowledged, and affirmed, presidential leadership be damned.
All Comments
I didn't think he was being arrogant when he said that and I still don't.
If they repealed don't ask don't tell, the right would have a hissy fit for about an hour, and that would be the end of it. I am trying to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.....mainly because I feel I have invested blood sweat and tears....and I am not eager to just dump that investment just yet.
I have thought about this Warren thing from a political standpoint ten chess moves or so, and I still get check mated....It confounds me.
Like Mark in the post below, I'll give him a year. If he does nothing for us, then I'm done with him.
If we have tire tracks on us in four years, we will be back for more because we love the drama - unless we choose to do something else.
Fool me once . . .(Bill Clinton), shame on you. Fool me twice (Barack Obama) . . .
Right now, the fundamentalist movement is at its weakest since it began, there is more support for Gays serving in the military than ever before, a majority of Americans. Yet, Barack Obama has, before taking office, stated he will not consider this until at least 2010, some saying Obama will not address this at all during his first term. Obama has simply promised more than he is willing to do, that is cold calculation.
"shame on me . . ." for being fooled again by sweet talking candidates promising you your rights if you will only vote them into office. I expect more empathy from a man who has experienced discrimination at least one time or more in his life. I can say with certainty that I won't be fooled again and I can only hope that he understands this and doesn't miss an opportunity to advance civil-rights for gays and lesbians and for being on the correct side of history. He hasn't learned that you can't please everyone and ruling from the center generally waters down any legislation with teeth in it and ends up pissing off everyone. What a breath of fresh air he could be if he started sounding like the way democrats used to sound. I'm hopeful, but I'm also realistic that he may be "more of the same". I never heard him say it would have to wait until 2010. That year was for the withdrawal of troops in Iraq. If this time table for our rights has been attached after the election now that he is safely the president-elect, I must say I do not like the "bate & switch" technique played on me.
Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21...
In an interview with Mark Segal of the Philadelphia Gay News, Barack Obama indicated that he would not proceed unilaterally in fulfilling his promise to do away with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military.
Instead, the Democratic presidential candidate said that he would work through a step-by-step process with the military brass.
"The reason," Obama said, "is because I want to make sure that when we revert 'don't ask, don't tell,' it's gone through a process and we've built a consensus or at least a clarity of that, of what my expectations are, so that it works."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/2008091...
Why on earth would anyone think for one second that Obama would ever do that?
The Democratic Leadership has proven by their actions over the last 30 years that they are controlled by the Republican agenda. Obama will NEVER do anything to upset his GOP overlords. Obama invited Rick Warren SPECIFICALLY to assuage the fears of his masters that he was actually going to do something good for we LGBT. Obama NEVER will because he's another Republican pretending to be a Democrat (just like Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, etc). The actions of the Democratic Leadership since 1980 prove this to be the case: Never once fighting against the far-right agenda (oh sure they talk big, but when they take the vote that really counts, the Dems always vote GOP).
Even now, with a near super-majority and a mandate from the voters to undo the damage from the Bush Legacy, the Dems are still rolling over so the GOP minority will scratch their belly. Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. Complicity is doing the same thing over again for 30 years and claiming you are in opposition to the other party.
Obama will NOT change a damned thing, his cabinet choices bear that out. LGBT have NO place in his administration, neither do liberals or progressives. Only sell-out Dems that tightly controlled by their GOP masters, like Rahm Emmanuel, have any role in the White House. Example: Howard Dean. His 50 State Strategy is sole the reason Obama won. Emmanuel hates Dean and hated the very strategy that got Obama over the top. Therefore Dean has no place in Obama's White House, because he's one Democrat that isn't in thrall to the GOP.
Expecting Obama to do anything good for the LGBT is nothing more than a feverish fantasy. That's why I didn't vote for Obama, because I knew he was full of it.
Politics today are nothing but an Illusion of participation. nothing more. Why keep Lieberman? Why not hold treason accountable? because dems = repugs. Sad but true
Obama's support of Gay Rights on the campaign trail was flimsy at best, just enough to cinche the gay and liberal vote, now that he's officiating from "The Office of the President Elect" he's done with us.
Fuck that. I won't be quiet, and I won't shut up.
You must know where to stay under that bus, I didn't hear you mention bus tire tracks on your clothes. Perhaps, you could point out where the best places under there are. ;-)
Actually, being an atheist imports the connotation that if there is no God then you can live a murderous, lying, bigoted, homophobic, insane life with no consequences (sounds like the GOP is already there). It's like Christmas - anyone with half a brain knowns that this time of year has been celebrated for thousands of years as the "middle of winter" - but Christians think its all about Jesus, Jews, Hannaka, etc, etc.
We've been dumbed-down since the introduction of TV - maybe it'll take another 60 years to get back to something resembling normalcy.
Obama must pay a price for this crass garbage - only the LGBT community can deliver it to him.
The LGBT community better boycott the inaugaration - of course that takes courage - something a bit rare these days in the US.
One that is just so offensive about the Rick Warren thing is that it was GRATUITOUS. He could have gotten some unknown apolitical pastor for that spot, and would have insulted no one.
On a related note, does anyone know why hell have Cleve Jones and Dustin Lance Black not followed through on their promising website sevenweekstoequality.com?
In any case, we have 3 weeks and 2 days left to inauguration. Let's use the time well.
And I have to say David Gregory actually go it right in the way he posed the issue. Not all the way, but better than normal main stream media.....but not nearly as good as my gal pal Rachael Maddow. I Heart Rachael. :-)
So is this just an ill considered screwup or is there some intentional scheme at work. Is it 1) I just didn't think about the gays because I am not gay and I don'[t know anyone who is so i'm not sensitive, or 2) Screw the gays, i'm president now and I can do whatever I damned well please, or 3) Rick Warren will generate a larger Inaugural audience, sepecially among the hicks and that would be good because I can try to persuade more people to my scheme with my speech which will be a real humdinger. I just don't feel like I know where Obama is coming from and that worries me because he may have several Supreme Court appointments and God only know what he will do. McCain may be no friend of gay marriage, but he has certrainly exhibited sensitivity on gay rights, and it would be tragic if he might have been the better choice. If there is not litmus test for Warren, where will there be a litmus test?
Finally someone in the main stream media who frames this the right way. When we say where is the racist on the stage or the anti-semite, this is what we are talking about.
Civil Unions
ENDA
DADT
DOMA
Hate Crimes legislation
I would hazard a guess that he doesn't support any of these either.
Of course I'm an atheist, so what do I know? People who don't have a god are about the same percentage as the LGBT community, and I daresay for myself and plenty of other people I've known, we've been on the side of justice far more often than those who presumed to tell us we're going to hell for our way of life. And then there are the supporters...and damn it, all of us are the ones who voted for Obama, not the Rick Warrens and other rightwing poseurs who would eat babies for lunch if that is what "god" told them to do...look at Bush, for instance, as an egregious example. Didn't "god" tell him to invade Iraq, to kill, maim and dispossess an entire country? Even if he was being cynical, it impressed those who think that way. And by dog, we don't want to encourage them, do we? Obama? Please answer the question.
http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell?ob=1
"When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable."
Also:
"Milk reminds us that hope has to mean action, not just words...."
YES!
"By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction."
TINY INFRACTION?!?!?
Sorry, but that negates everything else he said - and if you read the majority of the NYT comments from straight people on this column, it just proves EVERYTHING I've been saying about these people - THEY ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS.
Want another example? MoveOn is ALSO throwing the LGBT community under the bus so they can play nice with Obama.
Here's my full response to Rich's "tiny infraction" snark (NYT comment #175):
"By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction."
THIS is a "tiny infraction"? That's VERY easy for you, a straight, white male, to say! If this is indeed how you feel, Mr. Rich, then you are no better - or no more compassionate - than Obama on this issue.
Let me tell how "tiny" this infraction is, Mr. Rich. My partner just lost his job, and because we are not a straight couple, I cannot include him on my health insurance coverage as my spouse. Not only are we FORCED to pay TWICE what you do for health coverage in the first place, anything other than a common cold could see us having to choose between going to the doctor and losing our HOME.
And NOW the man that promised us "change" from this sort of nightmare tells us to "sit down and be quiet" while one of the RINGLEADERS of the mob who wants to take EVERYTHING from us ascends the stage at the inauguration?
Do you REALLY think this is "tiny"? How DARE you.
You straight "progressives" keep promising us that you'll help us if only we give you our votes, our money, our time, and our talents. Well, there's enough of us that have finally seen this for what it is - false "friendship".
You obviously have forgotten that we've had "friends" like you all our lives - "friends" that quickly abandon us when it's no longer safe for convenient to stand by us. If you were really "friends" with us, you'd HARDLY see this as tiny - you'd be screaming from the rooftops to have this bigot Warren removed from the ceremony - or else.
Instead, straight "progressives" are proving themselves to be little more than playing the abuse husband, with us playing the codependent battered wife. Guess what? There are a great many of us "battered wives" that have taken our last punch - and we are seeking shelter ELSEWHERE.
You've underestimated how "tiny" this is, Mr. Rich; let's see you win your precious "progressive" agenda without us. Yes, the Republicans are our arch enemies - but at least they ADMIT it; we know who they are and what they are, and can defend ourselves accordingly. We can't tell from minute to the next whether the Democrats are friend or foe - and many of us are tired of wasting time figuring it out.
Fundy pastors are nothing more than live speaking TV advertising. The low functioning sheep lap it up. Because the idea of gay sex is icky, we make a very convenient fund raising scapegoat.
They cite that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross did away with harsh punishment for those "sins" in Leviticus. They are still sins but no longer require such draconian penalties. Others say that his sacrifice destroyed the levitical laws completely. And then, in the new testament, they cite Paul stating that gay sex is wrong, so that's how they can state that shrimp is fine, but gay sex isn't.
Mind you, I don't believe in god, nor one word of that ancient bronze-era book, but that is how they get around the whole "leviticus has crazy shit in it" critique.
For example, the Sermon on the Mount is avoided like a plague amongst these Mega-Churches, as is the beatitudes. If they do mention them at all it is NOT to exhort their followers to do what Christ demands of them, to tend to the most downtrodden segments of society, but as a threat, do what we leaders tell you or you'll end up as one of the downtrodden'.
Just go into one of these evangelical churches and look at the dirt along the edges of their bibles. This shows you where their preacher focuses their attention and the clean parts shows you what they avoid...
Anyway... The key part of this anti-Christian religion is the cutting and pasting of biblical text. Their leaders take a word from the Old Testament and a word from the New Testament and create a whole new passage that they then claim is Scripture. The Evangelicals add disparate sentences of Old and New together to make up entire new passages.
I like to say that Paul was a double agent. Paul started out as Saul, a spy for the Romans who supposedly converted to the new religion. I say he was under cover and working for the Romans the whole time. Look at his teachings after Jesus' death, he is taking the church in a different direction than Jesus was heading.
One of the effects of all this is that we see a great reliance by these fungelicals on the Old Testament Jewish laws in Leviticus that ban same sex relations, but they totally ignore the other bans in the same book, such as the one against eating shellfish and other laws. The basic idea is that Jesus wiped out the old rules and wrote new ones, so things like a glatt kosher kitchen no longer had to be followed. Yet the Fungelicals fervently cling to this old rule against homosexuality, disregarding that the New Testament. There is one passage in the New Testament against homosexuality, but it was written by the double agent Paul. so I don't believe it for a second.
Oops, too late!
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. "
"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."
So however imperfect you might feel Rich's op-ed, he's helping to keep the Warren fiasco near the forefront & I think the more Obama's very bad decision is discussed, the more Obama feels the heat & isn't that what we want?
I've 'suspended' my enthusiasm toward Obama & my hope that he'll be any different than other politicians who have come before him, but the one difference in Obama from the rest, is that I believe him to be intelligent. You could never say that of Bush, right!
And so, an intelligent person does have the capacity to learn from their mistakes & that is where the last vestige of my hope lies.
sevenweekstoequality.com would have been a logical place, but the creators have not been following through on what had sounded like a great idea. (So disappointing...)
Another idea would be to make this website, americablog.com, the central information/organizing site. John A. has serious, serious cred, at the least for helping Dr. Laura lose her TV show, and for highlighting Mary Cheney's silence on LGBT issues. With John's consent and participation, of course! ;)
I had reasonably high hopes for the guy. I still do on some issues. But in light of Arkansas and Prop 8, many of us are feeling like this isn't our America—and before taking office Obama has already proved how little we matter to him. He's fine with the further stripping of our rights.
Right now, Obama could take decisive action in California that would strongly help ensure our equality in the long run. He could vocally support the Attorney General's attempts to have Prop 8 thrown out—without even having to say he's for gay marriage. His voice would mean that the CA Supreme Court wouldn't have to fear recall if they sided with us. Will he even consider it? Not for an instant. Our second-class citizenship is not a priority.
I already knew I was going to have to avoid the invocation. Now I guess I'll have to avoid the whole Inauguration. Rick Warren's god doesn't include me. It's really looking now like Obama's constitution won't either.
I no longer have any expectation that he's going to do us any substantive good while in office. You were supposed to give us hope, Obama, not dash more of it.
Once again the gay community gets used, thrown under the bus, then told to suck it up. Obama clearly could have made a better choice but didn't even consider the ramifications. Clearly he and his team knew that using "gay and lesbian" in his speeches would raise money and garner votes. Delivering on his promises is another story..Evidently gay is the new black. and the obama team want's to keep the seat at the back of the bus nice and warm..
I like most of the other posters here now see the next four years as certainly better than ANY republican, but left out of the hope for change...
As a retired teacher, I can only say "Little Barack does not take criticism gladly." In the social diversity column, I'll have to mark "Needs work."
"And “for LGBT folks to choose their battles wisely, to judge Obama on the content of his policy-making, not on the character of his ministers.”
Because the Obama hate brings more traffic to your site and doesn't suit your rabble-rousing paradigm?
On a positive note, it is truly exciting and heartening that a leading columnist at America's "leading newspaper" forcefully laid out the truth of Obama's manipulation, abuse, neglect, cynicism plus lack of sincerity and honesty about gay equality that resoundingly screams from his choice of Bigot Warren. Thank you for your courage and your candor, Frank Rich.
Beyond the meat of what Rich writes, IF we will take advantage of it, he also provides another gift: A NEW NEWS CYCLE.
The Obama operatives are counting on selection of Bigot Warren to be falling into "yesterday's news" about now. Frank Rich re-birthed it. And David Axelrod lit a big, new fire under it this morning on Meet The Press when he defiantly proclaimed Bigot Warren's selection as a good thing for America and dismissively derided the GLBT community for being upset about Warren's gay-bashing. NOTICE that he also attempted to frame this issue as being about same sex marriage. It is NOT. It is about humanity. (Unfortunately far too much of the media, even blogs, are missing that point and swallowing that framing which totally distorts the issue.)
Bottom line, in my opinion:
1.) We need to do any and everything we can do to push BO's selection of Bigot Warren into another news cycle. (I really hope John is gearing up for another big push to give this thing legs.)
2.) We need to effectively make the point that there is far more unsavory content about Warren The Evangelical beyond his opposition to same sex marriage. He is a humanity denier. You can't get much less Godly than that.
3.) Above all else we need to RAISE THE POLITICAL (and especially EGO) PRICE that our new President pays for this cynical manipulative ploy. Don't doubt for one second, this was another trial balloon or canary in the mine shaft. The die is being cast at this very moment. Are equality rights of the GLBT people going to be left up to the "generosity of strangers" or not.
Finally, lest we as a community become tempted with the same arrogance President Elect Obama is showing toward us, if you feel there are risks and dangers in the approach I suggest that make it imprudent, please share your thoughts.
Fred, I hope you'll keep contributing to this and other blogs... + letters to the editor (how about USA Today?).
Also, Amy Balliett and co. ("Join the Impact") could be extremely valuable regarding the Rick Warren matter. I hope she's reading! She's done fantastic, heroic work so far, and I hope she's willing to continue. (While I'm profoundly disappointed that Cleve Jones and Dustin Lance Black's "sevenweekstoequality" appears to have been abandoned.)
We have 3 weeks and 2 days until the inauguration. Let's spend the time extremely well.
Has anybody been working on thoughtful, tasteful, serious graphics about Rick Warren? Such graphics should go for gravitas -- e.g., fair comparisons to Rosa Parks being forced to sit at the back of the bus -- and avoid making fun of Warren for being fat and that kind of stuff (even though an argument can be made for his sugar and flour indulgences being hypocritical). Use of actual Warren quotes would be good.
I hate to say it, but the media would probably love to cover a story about dissent or protest at/of the inauguration. And we've got one, entirely legit -- and about a matter that isn't going away.
What are his positions on DADT, DOMA, ENDA, Hate Crimes legislation, gay adoption rights. Does Warren support any LGBT rights at all, or does he think gays don't deserve ANY rights at all?
also, "this land is your land" would do.
This may be a "tiny infraction" to Rich and other well-meaning, straight liberals, but to me as a gay man, it is a huge kick in the stomach. That some Democrats feel compelled to placate, cater to, and legitimize elements of the far-right, whose core values do not include defense of human rights, speaks to the shallowness of their own beliefs. Some may argue that Obama represents a new "post-modern" type of politician, to whom bridging differences takes priority over every thing else, core values and core constituencies be damned. Time will tell, but leadership that lacks a moral compass won't take us very far. Maybe the silver lining is that the LGBT community will become more unified and determined that our human rights will be recognized, acknowledged, and affirmed, presidential leadership be damned.