But, but, but...I bet Warren has many, many Jewish friends. And has eaten in many, many Jewish homes. He doesn't hate Jewish people, he just hates their sin of denial and must command them to hell.
Because he loves lil baby jesus soooo much.
existenz
· 1 year ago
Damn John, you are really hardcore on this. I hate Rick Warren too, but I'm not going to pretend that Obama suddenly hates gays.
I do hope that the outrage from the left, which has "surprised" the Obama folks according to CNN, will lead Obama to be even more aggressive about repealing DOMA or DADT in his first six months. He needs to do something to win back the trust of not only the gay community, but the much larger gay-friendly straight community who are also upset by this.
pdxprobert
· 1 year ago
I wonder if the Jewish chat rooms are as obsessed on the Warren pick as this website is? All conversations have to start somewhere... It appears to me that Warren is extending his hand to begin that conversation... Who's coming off as the bigger person? The following quote is from a prior story posting on this website...
"You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand," said Warren.
The gay community should be careful not to come off as a bunch of prissy bitches...
Cuneiformed
· 1 year ago
"I wonder if the Jewish chat rooms are as obsessed on the Warren pick as this website is?"
Probably not. Warren hasn't been trying to revoke Jewish civil rights.
That being said, I do hate Obama's tacit endorsement of Warren, but I think this blog is beginning to go a little over the top on this.
That being said, thanks for the Hanuka wishes. Too bad they're just a ploy to voice your disgust over Warren instead of actually being heartfelt.
pdxprobert
· 1 year ago
Thank you for validating my case and point... especially my last sentence...
Cuneiformed
· 1 year ago
Well, I wasn't trying to dispute you, merely nuance your statement. So, you're welcome.
pdxprobert
· 1 year ago
Ok... take care..
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
Would either of you be criticizing the outrage at Obama's elevation of Warren if, using the bible, Warren had worked to invalidate interracial marriages? Would you be saying that it is time to be respectful and form a dialogue with him on this issue? You are both showing your complicity in discrimination against gay people.
Cuneiformed
· 1 year ago
What? I state that I despise Obama's pick but also resent John's co-opting of my culture's holiday to suit his political needs and I'm complicit in discrimination against gay people? You didn't actually read what I wrote did you.
aliasalias
· 1 year ago
I dont know where 'jewish chat rooms' discussing this fits in, but Rick Warren is NOT reaching out (at least not in the sense of acceding him coming off of ANY of his current views), give that disinformation a rest, he does not allow gays in his church..cured ones..yeah, and that hand is on a man that openly links homosexuality with incest and pedophilia. How about letting the conversation (as you suggest happens) happen on morning TV, have him explain those 'links'..why he thinks consensual relationships by same sex persons are the same as pedophilia? Hit Good Morning America, and all the other parts of that circuit, and explain those two views..just for starters..maybe throw in some questions about his opposition to stem cell research, timeline of the earth..put some sunshine on this bozo..tell us more, explain the dif between your hero ,J.C, and yourself over 'the rich',or about those praying so publicly, the list propagates itself.
pdxprobert
· 1 year ago
It sounds like a good idea to me.. do you think the anchor person will have the guts to challenge him on the issues you noted? I don't think they have the guts.. they don't want all the calls and threats that would ensue... We really need to have a conversation about all the subjects you noted and bigger yet, we need to move our society as a whole beyond these archaic belief systems... And Im tired of hearing my elected reps coddle this group... Hell, I bet everyone of the thiefs on Wall Street will tell you their a Christian and the ones that don't are from some other sect of organized religion....I think Sam Harris does a damn good job of calling out the religious community as a whole for all the issues you mention.. Have you ever read any of his books?
Indigo
· 1 year ago
gay is the new black prissy is the new uppity.
Thanks for the validation, hon.
pdxprobert
· 1 year ago
I thought flamboyant was...
Indigo
· 1 year ago
ya think . . . ?
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
You do remember that Warren worked to invalidate 18,000 marriages in California. You are aware that to call someone a pedophile is a very serious thing. Being outraged that the man who does this and much more is being honored before the entire world at the inauguration just doesn't seem prissy to me. Not being outraged - now that would be prissy.
beltman713
· 1 year ago
What, people are suddenly discovering that southern baptists believe Jews are the devil. That's ancient history.
cay
· 1 year ago
A'la Britney youtube: Leave Obama Aloooooooooone. Let's measure his presidency with his policy, not his tokenism.
Pixie
· 1 year ago
Damn John, I love you but you are being such a brat about this whole thing.
foxy
· 1 year ago
I think there may be a bit of Xmas "cheer" as well....the liquid kind.
sherifffruitfly
· 1 year ago
He doesn't care! He's gonna stick out his lower lip and pout ALL DAY! He'll show us!
lol!
SkippyFlipjack
· 1 year ago
You know, it wasn't just any Jewish woman who was told she was going to hell -- it was super-rich "Pom" pomegranate juice maven Lynda Resnick.
davidi92260
· 1 year ago
Warren reminds us of Boss Hogg from "Dukes of Hazard".
Fireblazes(cheetohsandcatfood)
· 1 year ago
No Boss Hawg was a better actor and way more gay.
Fireblazes(cheetohsandcatfood)
· 1 year ago
Obamaphobia!
sherifffruitfly
· 1 year ago
Obama hates EVERYBODY.
There - that should about cover it.
bargal20
· 1 year ago
John Aravosis = PUMA-crazy. Ask the average Greek Orthodox priest if he thinks unconverted Jews and "unrepentant" gays are going to heaven.
Delusional Christians think Jews and gays are hellbound! OMG1!1!!
Ben Dover
· 1 year ago
From StopDrLaura to JeffyLube to Ford to Microsoft, I think John's track record of succesful results with applied pressure speaks for itself. This is one of the ways that works.
Sit back, enjoy, because sometimes it takes awhile to win.
Fireblazes(cheetohsandcatfood)
· 1 year ago
Not when he is wrong.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
Invalidating 18,000 marriages because you don't like the couples is wrong. Calling gay people pedophiles is wrong. Believing that only those who subscribe to your religion will avoid eternal torture is wrong. Using Christ to cast stones is wrong. Honoring bigotry at the inauguration is wrong. John is not wrong.
Fireblazes(cheetohsandcatfood)
· 1 year ago
His strategy and tactics are wrong. Believing those things you mentioned is immoral. There is a difference.
pdxprobert
· 1 year ago
We need to begin a conversation with those that oppose us... Being called all those names youve mentioned is nothing new and as a whole, the GLBT community has done alot to get past those old stereotypes... I suggest you read this blog I found on huffingtonpost...Warren has said alot of hurtful things but he's also said things that are signs he may be open to some things.. which is a start... You need to realize why the politicians pander to the far right. Its because theyre organized.. they are the new unions... gay people and the people who support us arent organized, not in a way the evangelicals and the religious subsets are...sometimes being a better person begins with helping someone else overcome their unjustified fears and prejudices... that message can't happen if you don't want to become that vehicle... Warren has been elevated to exactly where Obama wants him to be... because in the world of Evangelicals, he's the most moderate and like I said, they are the new unions... If you want the gay movement to become recognized as a powerful and legitimate voting block, learn from the Evangelicals.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/why-...
Ugh
· 1 year ago
John - I think you are over-the-top. You're no better than the people who said Obama was a terrorist because he knew (but disagreed with) Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright. How do we ever change minds if we insist on calling everyone a bigot rather than taking the opportunity to find common ground and educate people? It's been us (the gay community) against the world for far too long - we have an opportunity to do good here. Instead, you're falsely accusing Obama of discriminating in his hiring practices,e tc and have totally turned on him. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water over something frankly that's a little ridiculous. Give the man a chance to pass some laws before you criticize him.
pdxprobert
· 1 year ago
I second that...
skteoievtehr
· 1 year ago
d'accord
SkippyFlipjack
· 1 year ago
I have disagreed with John on a number of occasions but think he's right to hammer on the Warren thing. The invocation at the inauguration is not the time for finding "common ground" or educating anyone. It's a symbolic moment that's part of a symbolic event, and picking such a divisive figure for the occasion was a really poor choice. Obama's usually pitch-perfect political ear failed him this time, and he needs to know it.
that melissa etheridge post above was interesting though.
Moderation
· 1 year ago
I'm more pissed that there IS a PRAYER INVOCATION at the inauguration of the leader of a SECULAR nation, than who is giving it. I do think Warren is a bigoted prick, and people should boo him, turn their back at him, wave a pink triangle or yellow Star of David at him, and otherwise let him know that his views are not welcome. But we should also have a real, open, frank conversation with him as a whole, all of those to whom he's expressed bigoted, hateful remarks. Otherwise, divisiveness will continue, and is more likely to increase, rather than decrease.
I DO think letting Obama know how you feel is also acceptable and appropriate. But every other post? A lot of them rather out of line? Calling gays the ONLY MAJOR MINORITY not welcome, in overblown hyperbole, while (as seems to ALWAYS be the case) ignoring the (higher percentage of the populace) major minority of non-believers, who essentially have no real representation in government AT ALL, especially at the federal level? Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
I agree with Ugh. This appears to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Obama hasn't had the chance to put into motion a single piece of actual policy, including actual LGBT-oriented policy, and people are already willing to turn on him, and engage in divisive politics? Extremely short-sighted, narcissistic, and rather counterproductive.
I also agree with timncguy above. One of the major problems here is that the word "marriage" has been utilized by the state to acknowledge a wholly secular contract, and set of specific contract laws. Take the word "marriage" out of the hands of government COMPLETELY. Ahh, but see, the die-hard fundies, if (hopefully WHEN) such a move occurs, will realize that gay marriage is STILL inevitable. Why? Because, as Tim points out, there ARE churches out there, entire religious organizations, who wish to acknowledge and join in holy matrimony same-sex couples in the eyes of THEIR God. Oops. Right. That. Suddenly, it will be up to each individual church/temple/synagogue to decide. And decide they shall. Some will embrace love, some will embrace fear. Some will join any members of their congregation who wish to wed, others will deny based on their prejudices. LGBT couples everywhere will be joined in the same civil unions as their hetero fellow citizens, and some will also be married, in the eyes of their God, by a person they give religious authority over those matters. They will have their cake, and eat it too, being part of a union, AND being married. Some, of course, will not, and many non-believers will likewise not be "married" but rather joined in a "civil union". And they will still get to call one another husband and wife, husband and husband, or wife and wife.
There ain't a damned thing the bigots can do to stop it, when all is said and done and the dust has settled. So, yeah, get the word "marriage" out of government, to stop this cockamamie "leverage" these bigoted fools keep using as a wedge to divide. Take their power to institute THEIR dogmatic thought as law away from them, take their power to divide away from them, with reasoned discourse, with rational thought, with thoughtfully inclusive solutions. They want to institute Biblical law, much like some sects of Islam wish to institute Sharia law. They don't WANT many others to have civil rights at all. Call their bluff, and shove it in their face. But do so with grace, humility, and intelligence.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
Again, if Warren worked to end racially mixed marriages, everyone would be outraged that Obama chose to honor and elevate him. But because he slanders, preaches against, and works to defeat the marriages of gays, it's not that big a deal. And creating civil unions for gays is exactly like creating separate but equal water fountains. The problem is not with gay people wanting to honor and embrace the institution of marriage. The problem is with people whose values are so twisted that they feel the very presence of married gay couples is an affront.
Moderation
· 1 year ago
You obviously didn't read what was posted. Civil unions for ALL, state-acknowledge marriage for NONE. I am completely against separate but equal. The word "marriage", however, has distinct religious connotations, and should NEVER have been a part of government to begin with. What part don't you get? If the word marriage is left purely to the churches, any LGBT or straight can get...wait for it...MARRIED. It WOULDN'T be anything like "separate but equal". Rather, it would leave the contract law portion of it secular, and the religious portion of it sectarian. What, precisely, is the problem with that, and how, precisely, does that create a separate but equal anything?
What the hell makes you think I have a problem with LGBTs wishing to get married? I have none. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. I WANT them to have that right, fully. However, take the power of the wedge away from those who use it AND take everybody's bleedin' RELIGION out of our SECULAR government at the same frakkin' time.
timncguy
· 1 year ago
your comparision to the situations with Ayers and Wright are not even close. Obama ditched Wright and said his comments were totally unacceptable. Obama claimed Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood.
But, Obama claims Warren as a "friend" and has said although he disagrees with him on SOME gay issues, those social issues (not civil rights issues) are open for discussion and compromise.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
obviously there is a lot of anti-gay prejudice out there, even among liberals, that can be eroded through outreach or whatever. but you're blurring important distinctions. not just the one with Wright, which timncguy deals with below, but also the distinction between the casually prejudiced who can be re-programmed and mega-church pastors who make tons of money off of hate. by not repudiating Warren the way he did Wright, Obama has made it much harder to make the case that anti-gay prejudice is wrong. outreach to ordinary people will get easier once the mega-churches and the mormons are marginalized. i don' believe for a minute that obama had this in mind by elevating rick warren. if it was his intention, he needs to stop practicing voodoo sociology and simply lead on the issue.
Shannon
· 1 year ago
Finding excuses for O has become the passtime of the "compromisers"..............who totally ignore the fact that o is nothing but a pretender, a chameleon, and soon to be a big fraud bent on serving BuSh's third term, just another warmonger who promises an end to war then supports a "surge" in afghanistan. When are Americans going to connect the dots that the 8 Trillion dollar wars are what is sinking the economy.......spending our way out of debt is the thinking of complete idiots who have gotten us where we are now...........the same idiots that are now going to be in O's cabinet...................fool me once, fool me twice, keep on fooling me cause it is like taking candy from a baby.
Tyke
· 1 year ago
When more than half of the voters in freekin California vote to ban gay marriage it should be obvious that it is not a fringe opinion. A wrong opinion imo, but it does represent a huge % of the US population - quite possibly a majority. Engaging the leaders who espouse that position is a sound way to assure the possibility of educating and discussing instead of just screaming insults across a picket line.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
If the Rev. Warren had worked to prevent black people from marrying white people, you wouldn't be saying what you are saying. Set aside all the rest that he says and does. If he had done nothing more than work to prevent racially mixed marriage, that alone would be enough for you and the rest of America to be outraged that Obama would choose to honor such a man. But because he preaches against gays and worked to overturn gay marriage it is a different matter for you. You find the uproar "a little ridiculous". That says nothing about John. It says something about you.
cay
· 1 year ago
I will be happy to turn my back on Warren with fellow Americabloggers if they're in DC--he's also anti-evolution and I'm a biology teacher...
Tim
· 1 year ago
I have to be honest. I've liked this blog, I really have, but this obsession with this story is driving me away, I soon will take it off my blogroll. I get it if you show the story, things that matter. But calling Warren Obama's bff is absurd. I know it's a joke, but it's ridiculous. And on that note, here's Melissa Ethridges wife's blog entry about Warren, a lesbian, and it makes a lot of sense to me.
" the big rick's yamaka
OMG. when was the last time i had so many minutes to play with my blog? awesome.
so honey met rick warren last night. well, she spoke to him on the phone beforehand, giving us insight into the man the media has made our latest "HE HATES YOU!" target. if i sit real still and think about it.. it's almost like reverse smear-the-queer. remember that recess game in second grade (natalie? derek? karyn?), when one kid had the ball, and all the other kids had to chase and kick the shit out of said person, hence "smearing" him? well, at times, it seems that the media presents us with target after target to smear, as if to say to us, "THIS IS THE GUY HOLDING YOU BACK!! GO GIT 'IM!!!" and it does seem that my lovely gay family is so bruised and bettered and ready to fight back (myself included), that we attack and deem someone ANTI-GAY, and ready to SMEAR, simply when they don't want the word "marriage" brought into our gay ceremonies. now, if the person doesn't want gays AT ALL, then i'm gonna chase that one down. but, i'm starting to think that there are indeed some people... some well-meaning and loving people... who are not at all ANTI-GAY, that's not why they don't want the word marriage used... they are merely RELIGIOUS. and for religious (archaic) reasons, they want to stay safe and respectful to WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TAUGHT.
let me try to differentiate the two.
let's say i am wearing a baseball cap. now what if i want to call it a yamaka? you know- it's basically the same thing, but one is missing the sun visor. i don't call my caps yamakas... cuz that is a religious name for a hat that is worn by religious people. now if i apply that thinking to this situation.... i would like to think of it as.... if they afford us the EXACT SAME RIGHTS, then who cares what it's called? my friend joel can wear his yamaka. i can wear my hat. joel can light his menorah, i'll light my candle. joel can eat his matzo ball soup, and i can break crackers into my soup. joel and hanna can have a piece of paper with the word MARRIAGE on it, and all 1200 rights... and i can have a piece of paper with who-cares on it, and all 1200 rights. the word marriage is a religious, holy, word that people who go to church on sundays are told belongs to them. like yamaka, menorah, or matzo.
rick is not a televangelist. rick is not falwell. rick spoke of some "stupid" things he's said (his word, not mine), some missquotes that were given, and lots of ammunition from the media. all excellent points. (we're all war-minded right now, you know. it's easy for the media to distract us by throwing us into our own verbal wars here at home.) ) what to do, what to do.... the rest of the public is given an animation of rick warren... and then my wife meets the man behind the projections, the quotes, the "OTHER SIDE". and he is warm, caring, effusive, and LOVES gays. since he nearly swallowed honey when he hugged her, i tend to believe him. he wants our gay marriages to be just as respected and embraced as the straight marriages. he just wants to wear his yamaka, and me wear my hat.
anway. hath hell frozenth over? rick warren was humble and kind. honey and i are to go to his church sometime soon. and honey invited him to our house for an afternoon, to be with our family. (w.t.f.)
open minds hearts hands differences fade."
timncguy
· 1 year ago
OK, let's try it your way. Let's try a compromise and see how many of the Rick Warren's out there will sign on with me.
The opponents of Marriage Equality say they just want to protect the word “marriage”. They say that “marriage” is a religious institution. They talk about the sanctity of marriage. Many of them say that the LGBT community should be satisfied if given all the same legal protections and benefits of marriage under the term “civil union”.
During his campaign for the presidency Mr. Obama even espoused the idea of leaving the word “marriage” to the churches. And, in recent days we have heard much talk of bringing all sides of this issue to the table for discussion and compromise in the name of unity.
So, let us offer this compromise in the name of unity. Let’s propose that we get the government out of the marriage business and out of the various teachings of religion.
From this day forward all states will discontinue issuing “Civil Marriage” licenses and will begin issuing “Civil Union” licenses. There will be no change in the qualifications for obtaining a license except that there will no longer be a requirement regarding the gender of the two people involved. All other existing requirements will still apply. No one will be able to union with a minor. No one will be able to union with a sibling. No one will be able to union with more than one other person at a time. No one will be able to union with an animal or an inanimate object.
With this change ALL laws everywhere in the country at all levels of government will be amended changing the word marriage to union. All rights and responsibilities of a union will be conferred on all couples having a legal union.
With this change churches will have complete control of the word marriage. A marriage will carry no legal weight. This would be similar to the way churches control other religious ceremonies such as baptism. No church would be forced to perform a marriage for any couple. No church would be denied the ability to perform a marriage for any couple. No couple married in a church without also having a legal union would gain any legal benefit or be given any legal responsibilities as the result of their religious marriage. A couple’s marriage would be between themselves, their church and their god(s).
With this compromise, the sanctity of marriage and its religious meanings would be fully maintained. At the same time the civil and legal rights of all people will also be upheld.
I am sure that every member of the LGBT community would willingly sign on to this compromise.
How many of the opponents of marriage equality do you think would accept this compromise where they will be given exactly what they have asked for? They get full control of the word marriage. The sanctity of marriage and their individual religious beliefs are left fully intact. No one forces anyone to change his or her beliefs. No one meddles in anyone’s religious rites and at the same time no one meddles with anyone’s civil rights.
This sounds like exactly the compromise we have all been looking for.
I doubt you will find many takers for thic compromise from the right though. Because, by givin the word marriage to churches, you would also be giving it to gay friendly churches who would mary gay couples.
What they REALLY want is to give control of the word marrige to THEIR church alone.
Jim Olson
· 1 year ago
Brilliant, and correct.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
What they really want is maintain the monopoly on marriage as a way of confirming the notion that they are superior to gay people. They need to get over it.
Tom
· 1 year ago
If it was only the word "marriage" that the Christian Fascists cared about then the wording of their marriage bans would not include banning civil unions and domestic partnership, they do.
It would also not be legal to ban gay parents from adopting is most states. It's not the word at all, they want us to have no rights at all for our families.
Nick_the_Dog
· 1 year ago
You think you've been discriminated against? I'm an atheist, my father was an atheist, my grandfather was an atheist! Sundays are my favorite day of the week. Why do the stores, banks, schools, etc. close. Why am I only offered politicians that are christian to vote for? If you still believe in heaven and hell, you just might be a delusional kool aid drinker. I, personally, don't care if you want to worship, just leave me alone.
I trust that John A. knows what he is doing, even if I wince occasionally.
Ben
· 1 year ago
Hey John I am tired of hearing about Rick Warren, I dislike him also, but you just won't stop talking about him and how he is Obama's bff and now Obama, who is the first ever elected bi-racial president ever, is a bigot who hates all gays and jews. Who sound just as bad as the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and frankly I am saddened by it. I will now no longer read your blog due to its hate and anger towards a man who has done nothing wrong.
Gridlock
· 1 year ago
Done nothing wrong? He invited a prejudiced bigot up on stage to legitimize him.. someone who equated gtays with pedophiles, incest and god knows what else.
If you don't think that is wrong, then you need serious psychological help.
Ugh
· 1 year ago
John,
Sadly, I don't think that you would be in an uproar if the convocation was given by someone who was only anti-Jewish and not anti-gay. I don't really see you getting upset over any type of bigotry except homophobia. It's not the first time I've felt this way about this site...it's run by white gay men and it shows sometimes.
Calling someone a bigot is not going to do anything to change their minds.
timncguy
· 1 year ago
do you actually believe it would be possible for Obama to have invited an invocation speaker who was anti-jewish? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Oh, and this is a blog written from a gay perspective. What do you expect? If you are reading a blog about women's rights, do you expect them to explore issues from a gay right's perspective?
cool blue reason
· 1 year ago
Has Saddleback removed this language from its site? I can't find this paragraph anymore; it is not at this URL...
Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.
Tim
· 1 year ago
I also find it quite journalistically irresponsible to character his statement about the jewish woman he believes is going to hell as you do. The fact is a woman asked if she was going to hell because she is jewish, he answered yes. This isn't specifically because she is jewish, it is because she isn't christian. A basis tenet of christianity is you have to declare your faith or you don't get the benefits. Now I don't believe, but that isn't hateful, that's the belief. And he didn't literally say to her "you are going to hell!" in an angry manner that these posts make it seem. She specifically asked am I going to hell...and he said yes after some thought.
I also find it funny that the link you provide to that story is one out of the New Republic where the writer expressed positive thoughts about his honesty to that exact question and noted his expansion of the church to issues of social justice.
Honesty is nice sometimes....even on the left.
Tyke
· 1 year ago
I Agree
No Hope In Politics
· 1 year ago
God isn't real.
Prayer doesn't work.
Fight or keep being shat on.
Obama is lipstick on the fascist pig.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
I like the line about lipstick. I didn't want to think it was accurate but as things are working out, you're exactly on point.
cool blue reason
· 1 year ago
Here is the language about homosexuality. Not easy to find. It's a big URL below.
Someone needs to get in touch with Melissa Etheridge's wife and tell her that she's been punked. I don't find her contact information on her blog.
Mr. Obama's chief of staff is jewish, Rahm Emanuel. While I understand the insult and upset the Warren issue has wrought to many supporters of Obama I also believe he has good reasons for what he's doing. Chill out...and please refrain from implying Mr. Obama is an anti-semite, the right wing tried to cleave jews from Obama during the election...they don't need your help now.
Lester's Ghost
· 1 year ago
Mr. Obama's CoS is a PoS.
Marijuana gon' stay illegal w/ a Dem Prez/Congress?
Gays gotsta stay in the back of the underside of the bus?
Aw, HELL naw!
Reckanize, PrezO...
RECKANIZE!
David Bricka
· 1 year ago
Happy Chanukah to all! We just celebrated with amazing latkes and apple sauce in the snowing winter of the Pacific Northwest.
Things have really been shut down here in Mount Vernon Washington. We spent the day in watching Christmas shows (I'm Christian--Michael is Jewish). We then watched the amazing 2 hour documentary on the 70's.
The Gay movement and Stonewall was prominently discussed. SO amazing how far we've come in 40 years. Michael and I grew up with disco. He is 51, and I am 11 days into the 50 thing. It feels great!
We talked about Rick Warren. A lot of discussion and dialouge has taken place, and as the dust settles, I really think that while I think the choice was not good, Michael suggested that maybe Obama has a bigger mission and this first step of exposure of Saddleback, the Evangelical focus and Rick Warren is the first step.
Who would have known that gay people are not welcomed at Saddle back had it not been for the post here at AmericaBlog?! The right wing machine has essentially been shut down ad they have to credit and be complimentary to Obama for the selection as Warren has to quantify his bigotry.
Obama talks to me. I beleive that his goal of equal rights for all rings true.
Kos was great in his comments a couple of days ago. We must look at the bigger picture
The fact that he did not pick any gay people for his cabinet is a non issue for me.
Rick Warren and his slothful gluttonous ways ARE being exposed and people are taking notice thanks to the loud and proud voices of all of us.
We must fight, like Harriet Tubman. I loved Hillary when she ended her speech at the convention talking about the underground railroad. That is what we must do.
All of us.
cool blue reason
· 1 year ago
To clarify my earlier post, and then get the hell offline.
Melissa Etheridge's wife clearly thinks that the Warren thing is all about gay marriage. Someone needs to see that she is made aware that Saddleback thinks homosexuality is a sin, and does not accept "unrepentant" homosexuals. And don't forget Maddow's reporting about Saddleback's conversion program for gays. And I have trouble just finding that language about not accepting gays; had to Google +saddleback +"what does the bible say about homosexuality" to find a cached page. Here's Melissa Etheridge's wife's post:
now, if the person doesn't want gays AT ALL, then i'm gonna chase that one down. but, i'm starting to think that there are indeed some people... some well-meaning and loving people... who are not at all ANTI-GAY, that's not why they don't want the word marriage used... they are merely RELIGIOUS. and for religious (archaic) reasons, they want to stay safe and respectful to WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TAUGHT.
Tyke
· 1 year ago
Right. Lets totally discount the thoughts of someone who has actually met and talked with the man. Lets jump up and down and scream amd pull our hair like neocons instead! Woooo hoooo what fun!
Melissa Etheridge's wife Tammy writes:
"rick is not a televangelist. rick is not falwell. rick spoke of some "stupid" things he's said (his word, not mine), some missquotes that were given, and lots of ammunition from the media. all excellent points. (we're all war-minded right now, you know. it's easy for the media to distract us by throwing us into our own verbal wars here at home.) ) what to do, what to do.... the rest of the public is given an animation of rick warren... and then my wife meets the man behind the projections, the quotes, the "OTHER SIDE". and he is warm, caring, effusive, and LOVES gays. since he nearly swallowed honey when he hugged her, i tend to believe him. he wants our gay marriages to be just as respected and embraced as the straight marriages. he just wants to wear his yamaka, and me wear my hat.
anway. hath hell frozenth over? rick warren was humble and kind. honey and i are to go to his church sometime soon. and honey invited him to our house for an afternoon, to be with our family. (w.t.f.)"
I've watched Tammy Micheals say the stupidest things on TV about this issue. The woman is dumb as a post and you can tell she forgets what it is like to live in America where money doesn't buy you your equality. Life is much easier in a mansion and you have lawyers doing your bidding. She needs to shut up, she obviously has not done an ounce of research on the man.
I am an American in a binational relationship, which means I had a choice to make, my husband of my country, he won.
Tom
· 1 year ago
I mean.....my husband or my country, he won.
cool blue reason
· 1 year ago
Tammy Michaels wrote: "now, if the person doesn't want gays AT ALL, then i'm gonna chase that one down."
Let's hope she knows that Saddleback would not accept her as a member.
Tom
· 1 year ago
This is my problem with her. She wants civility yet isn't civilized enough to learn about the man she is defending.
Tyke
· 1 year ago
... and the hang out for gay teens in my town won't accept straight kids. See it's a private organization and that's their right.
Tom
· 1 year ago
What town, what organization?. I bet you don't have a link to back you up.
They are called Gay/Straight Alliances for a reason.
Tom
· 1 year ago
Also it's Yarmulke not Yamaka. Stupid cow.
Tyke
· 1 year ago
Ah yes - sexist insults will help make everyone more tolerant. How enlightened of you!
Tom
· 1 year ago
Your using one uninformed lesbian's opinion to make your point isn't enlightening at all.
Antonio
· 1 year ago
I always had this deep apprehension about Obama. Deep down I have this feeling he is a homophobe and you and Joe Sudby have gotten a rude awakening. If Rick Warren does the invocation I will not be part of the inaugural nor he will get my support next election.
I am so sick of zealots picking at every Obama decisions that ruffle their purist feathers so that the litmus test for the incoming administration is to conform to left/left idiology. Obama ran as a left centrist candidate whose goal was to unite this country, not to double down on Bush's partisan divisiveness evident for the past 8 years. Give him as chance. How can an intellectual approach to governing not trump the arrogance, dishonesty and hubris we've been subjected to these wasted, bulling, class warfare years. This isn't the big bang theory of government, but the excelerated evolution of honest, intelligent governance.
Butters
· 1 year ago
We gave O a chance. He flunked the test. Down in flames. Wonder Toast.
RainbowPhoenix
· 1 year ago
This is just one question on a 4 year test. He hasn't even begun.
Observer
· 1 year ago
Obama started Nov. 3. Thus far, Obama gets an 'F.' As in, "Fuck all y'all. I'm Bush 3. What ya gonna do? Ha ha!"
In reality he's Carter 2... or Kennedy 2.
Hmm.
RainbowPhoenix
· 1 year ago
Two months out of four years? A little soon for me to pass judgment. LIke I said in a previous post: if he signs the ENDA and the hate crimes expansion (the fully inclusive ones), he'll get my vote in 2012. Of course, consider who the republicans will give us.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
I know exactly what you're saying, Jim. I'm so sick of these picky purists who just want equality and justice, and hate it when somebody who has the courage to stand up for bigotry gets a little respect for his work. Obama's here to unite the country, not to listen to the people that live in it.
pdxprobert
· 1 year ago
You want Obama to listen to you, become a voting block that equals the well organized Evangelical movement and I guarantee you, he'll listen and elevate the movements leaders to similar places that Warren has been elevated to... Its politics... Obama's a politician first.. youre forgetting that... if you want his ear, the learn how to organize the gay community better than the current so called leadership has.. because I can't even tell you who the leaders are in our community...that's how unorganized the gay agenda is to many of us... Maybe this new MILK film will inspire people to understand the dynamics of the political system and how to effectively organize and lead...
Gary SF
· 1 year ago
Yeah, the thought of walking hand-in-hand with Klansmen and Nazi Skin-heads in Obama's big tent is something I am looking forward to.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
Well, what's wrong about telling a Jewish woman that she's going to hell? Rev. Warren was only being consistent. His faith tells him that only those who are saved by Jesus Christ can go to heaven. So that excludes all non-Christians, plus a lot of Christians too, like Catholics and Episcopalians and the like. But out of the 55 billion homo sapiens that are estimated to have lived on this earth, that leaves potentially millions of true Christians who don't have to spend eternity engulfed in flames. And since his faith rejects evolution and insists the world is only some 4 thousand years old, then there can't be all that many people enduring the tortures of the damned . It could only be a few billion souls in constant and unimaginable agony forever and ever. So what are all those people gasping about? I tell you, they'd better be respectful when Pastor Warren invokes the blessings of his loving God upon our nation.
postdamnit
· 1 year ago
From todays LATimes. Two different viewpoints of Prop 8
There's nobody here who actually believes the hell thing. It's just the rantings of a lunatic. The difficulty is that the rants are personal and the one speaking the rants has the confidence of the president-elect.
That's worrisome but, given the level of spiritual indifference and the commitment to bait-and-switch techniques that the president-elect has demonstrated since Election Day, there's no need to expect a loyal commitment to Rev. Warren. He's a tool to dazzle the right wing. Obama won't know his face by St. Patrick's Day. We won't know ourselves by Memorial Day. That might not be a good thing.
Perhaps this blog should've spent this much ink trying to get Prop 8 passed instead of Monday morning quarterbacking over this stupid ass issue. Instead of getting down in the mud with him, I wish you would've spent words in a constructive manner explaining why his positions are wrong. It's sad when the best case for the gay rights movement has been an showdown between John Stewart and Mike Huckabee. How does any of this help your cause? It seems like you sat idle waiting for the first time Obama didn't follow the AmericaBlog conception of what a Democrat is and decided to grab the pitchforks and torches. Not exactly the way to get supporters over to your side.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
Not my job to defend A-blog, but i'm curious what you mean by "sitting idle". A-blog sponsored an Actblue fundraiser for No on 8 -- you could check with JA to see how much was actually raised. There were also lots of individual posts about prop 8 -- as youi'd expect. have you checked through the archives? there were some lively discussions and some "interesting" trolls. I remember several threads that discussed the effectiveness of specific ads and tactics.
also not sure what you mean by "conception of what a democrat is". the recent posts are not about party platforms. they're about an avowed anti-gay bigot grabbing center stage at the inaugural in front of a billion people.
ruthlessgravity
· 1 year ago
You can't tell me that the effort for No on 8 here has been anywhere near the level of this Warren thing. There are multiple posts on Warren each day! My issue is that so much energy is being put behind attacking this guy who is essentially irrelevant. Going after him and Obama's decision to pick him doesn't repeal Prop 8, DADT, and shut up the idiots talking about a Constitutional amendment.
Eyes on the prize is the general jist of what I was trying to convey. Sorry if that didn't come through.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
as you can see, a lot of people don't think this issue is irrelevant. and i don't think you've made the case either. a good argument would have to answer the question, how does criticism of obama stop or impede the repeal of prop 8.
ruthlessgravity
· 1 year ago
Has social change ever been achieved through criticism? I'm asking because I can't think of an example of a movement that succeeded with criticism as a pillar.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
what is your plan for achieving social change? it is real easy to snipe form the sidelines, especially when you don't have a horse in the race. especially when you don't have a plan.
Ellen
· 1 year ago
Ruthlessgravity--I respectfully suggest that you read about womens suffrage and the process of women earning the right to vote. Women were not only "critical" but stood outside the whitehouse holding banners that very directly criticized President Wilson. Here is a link (it is for kids--im a teacher--but it gives you the idea) http://pbskids.org/wayback/civilrights/features... In response to the question "has social change ever been achieved thru criticism?" I would ask the question has social change ever been achieved without criticism? In fact, when women were fighting for the right to vote there were two large womens organizations fighting for change. The groups could not stand each other because one was a group of "ladies" who never wanted to make waves. The other was led by Alice Paul who the "ladies" considered to be impolite for criticizing the president and congress. Alice Paul eventually led both groups to victory using her decidedly critical and unladylike tactics .
ruthlessgravity
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the link. I was unaware of the criticism of Wilson. Would you consider that the factor that finally got him to declare his support?
Bush Bites
· 1 year ago
I'm straight, so maybe I'm missing something.
But I thought A-blog did plenty about Prop. 8.
I thought the gay community in California and especially Hollywood absolutely sucked tho, putting neither enough money or grassroots action into the effort to defeat Prop. 8.
I was frankly shocked by their piss-poor performance.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
Actually we put quite a bit of money and grassroots action. But the commercials sucked. And as you know, it's the commercials that mean the most, because most people aren't paying any attention to anything but the commercials. And I say that because you are a fine example.
ruthlessgravity
· 1 year ago
The stupid ass issue is the Rick Warren issue, and the response has not been standing up for gay rights!! It has the sense of a mob mentality response and is alienating a lot of your non-gay supporters.
I'm straight as well but some of my best friends are gay and it saddens me that they don't have the same rights under the law as I do. I think it reflects poorly upon our society. Don't confuse my questioning of the tactics being utilized with my beliefs on a particular issue.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
i think you need to get your ideas sorted out. this is obviously not your issue ("reflects poorly on society"? please). so just walk away and stop accusing people of mobbing.
dula
· 1 year ago
Yes, I'm sure if we did the magical outreach that people speak of we'd be able to change the brainwashed minds of millions of feaux-Christians. Just as I'm sure that if the Blacks had only canvassed the White Communities and begged for their rights, Whitey would have let them drink out of their water fountains. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you trot on down to your local Church and convince them that abortion should be legal. Their minds are made up.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
I think you showed your cards when you called standing up for gay rights "this stupid ass issue."
mirth
· 1 year ago
Warren opposes (and he has stated his opposition is non-negotiable):
Gay marriage
Abortion
Stem cell research
Human cloning
Euthanasia
I am a supporter for civil rights for all citizens and in this I will never falter.
But the arguments for Warren having no participation in the inauguration should not be limited to his fundie views on Gay marriage. We weaken ourselves when we confine ourselves. We up our volume and our effectiveness if we broaden the dialog to persuade those who may feel less passionately about Gay marriage but will not tolerate another four years of anti-science or threats to our personal freedoms.
The greater our number and the stronger our voices, the more likely that Warren will suddenly discover a scheduling conflict that prevents his participation in the inauguration.
Obama must hear our NO!
paulbe
· 1 year ago
Why are American christians always so obviously well fed? The feeding of the 5000 pounds perhaps?
banshiii
· 1 year ago
and all you unrepentant gay penguins are on the way to hell as well.
Kelly
· 1 year ago
John, you've crossed the line from anger about a perceived injustice into a hateful snit trying to drag down as many people as you can. Tim Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury is a Jew. He may not be a "cabinet" member, but to say that because Obama didn't chose any gays (although Napolitano is a question) doesn't mean he dislikes either group. I think you know full-well that that is not the case, but your insinuation that Obama is anti-semetic and homophobic is laughable but, more importantly, makes you sound like a petty, nasty little person who is spewing hate because an anti-gay pastor is giving a 3 minute prayer at the Inauguration. That makes you not a whole lot different that Rick Warren.
I have long respected you and your blog, but I'm done with both. I support gay rights 100% including marriage, and always will regardless of what I now think about you, but you've lost me on a personal level and if you've lost me, you've lost others. Not a good way to advance your cause.
We've all seen Rick Warren and are perfectly capable of making up our own minds about him without reading your hateful diatribe every day; and now implying Obama is anti-semetic.
Tom
· 1 year ago
So you disagree with John on one subject and are ready to throw him under the bus for it. That's exactly the irrational thinking we are fighting against. People who don't even consider civil rights for people because of one issue...they hapen to be gay.
aussiebrat
· 1 year ago
I'm a christian, but don't go to church, heaven won't have me and hell is afraid I will takeover LOL Don't you know, only the mormans are the ones going to heaven cough cough
halo08
· 1 year ago
John, I love this site, and I'll be racked over the coals for this one, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone when I say that your attitude about this situation has gotten out of control. Obama makes a mistake ( and indeed it was a mistake to invite Rick Warren) and suddenly you're ready to throw him to the wolves? Come on. If that's the case were you ever really for him, because he's going to do things we all disagree with at some point or another. He's human.
I'm sure you've already heard the argument that Obama is trying to show his willingess to interact with those whom have differing viewpoints, so I won't bore you with that, but why is it that you keep harping on the fact that Rick Warren is there, when Rev Lowery, who is pro-gay will also be there? Hillary and Biden will be there, does this mean Obama is suddenly pro-war too, since they voted for it?
This argument about a 2 to 3 minute speech is proving to divide us much more than unite us, and everyday that we sit here going back and forth, giving attention to Rick Warren, we give a victory to the Republicans. While I truly believe gay rights are civil rights, it's going to take some time, like with anything for people to get this, and for victories to be made. Let's not allow divisiveness to ruin what will truly be a blessed day in our nation. I plan to skip over the part with Rick Warren, and enjoy the rest of the ceremony. I hope that you can find it within yourself to do this as well so that we can move forward.
All Comments
Because he loves lil baby jesus soooo much.
I do hope that the outrage from the left, which has "surprised" the Obama folks according to CNN, will lead Obama to be even more aggressive about repealing DOMA or DADT in his first six months. He needs to do something to win back the trust of not only the gay community, but the much larger gay-friendly straight community who are also upset by this.
"You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand," said Warren.
The gay community should be careful not to come off as a bunch of prissy bitches...
Probably not. Warren hasn't been trying to revoke Jewish civil rights.
That being said, I do hate Obama's tacit endorsement of Warren, but I think this blog is beginning to go a little over the top on this.
That being said, thanks for the Hanuka wishes. Too bad they're just a ploy to voice your disgust over Warren instead of actually being heartfelt.
prissy is the new uppity.
Thanks for the validation, hon.
lol!
There - that should about cover it.
Ask the average Greek Orthodox priest if he thinks unconverted Jews and "unrepentant" gays are going to heaven.
Delusional Christians think Jews and gays are hellbound! OMG1!1!!
This is one of the ways that works.
Sit back, enjoy, because sometimes it takes awhile to win.
immoral. There is a difference.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/why-...
that melissa etheridge post above was interesting though.
I DO think letting Obama know how you feel is also acceptable and appropriate. But every other post? A lot of them rather out of line? Calling gays the ONLY MAJOR MINORITY not welcome, in overblown hyperbole, while (as seems to ALWAYS be the case) ignoring the (higher percentage of the populace) major minority of non-believers, who essentially have no real representation in government AT ALL, especially at the federal level? Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
I agree with Ugh. This appears to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Obama hasn't had the chance to put into motion a single piece of actual policy, including actual LGBT-oriented policy, and people are already willing to turn on him, and engage in divisive politics? Extremely short-sighted, narcissistic, and rather counterproductive.
I also agree with timncguy above. One of the major problems here is that the word "marriage" has been utilized by the state to acknowledge a wholly secular contract, and set of specific contract laws. Take the word "marriage" out of the hands of government COMPLETELY. Ahh, but see, the die-hard fundies, if (hopefully WHEN) such a move occurs, will realize that gay marriage is STILL inevitable. Why? Because, as Tim points out, there ARE churches out there, entire religious organizations, who wish to acknowledge and join in holy matrimony same-sex couples in the eyes of THEIR God. Oops. Right. That. Suddenly, it will be up to each individual church/temple/synagogue to decide. And decide they shall. Some will embrace love, some will embrace fear. Some will join any members of their congregation who wish to wed, others will deny based on their prejudices. LGBT couples everywhere will be joined in the same civil unions as their hetero fellow citizens, and some will also be married, in the eyes of their God, by a person they give religious authority over those matters. They will have their cake, and eat it too, being part of a union, AND being married. Some, of course, will not, and many non-believers will likewise not be "married" but rather joined in a "civil union". And they will still get to call one another husband and wife, husband and husband, or wife and wife.
There ain't a damned thing the bigots can do to stop it, when all is said and done and the dust has settled. So, yeah, get the word "marriage" out of government, to stop this cockamamie "leverage" these bigoted fools keep using as a wedge to divide. Take their power to institute THEIR dogmatic thought as law away from them, take their power to divide away from them, with reasoned discourse, with rational thought, with thoughtfully inclusive solutions. They want to institute Biblical law, much like some sects of Islam wish to institute Sharia law. They don't WANT many others to have civil rights at all. Call their bluff, and shove it in their face. But do so with grace, humility, and intelligence.
What the hell makes you think I have a problem with LGBTs wishing to get married? I have none. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. I WANT them to have that right, fully. However, take the power of the wedge away from those who use it AND take everybody's bleedin' RELIGION out of our SECULAR government at the same frakkin' time.
But, Obama claims Warren as a "friend" and has said although he disagrees with him on SOME gay issues, those social issues (not civil rights issues) are open for discussion and compromise.
" the big rick's yamaka
OMG. when was the last time i had so many minutes to play with my blog? awesome.
so honey met rick warren last night. well, she spoke to him on the phone beforehand, giving us insight into the man the media has made our latest "HE HATES YOU!" target. if i sit real still and think about it.. it's almost like reverse smear-the-queer. remember that recess game in second grade (natalie? derek? karyn?), when one kid had the ball, and all the other kids had to chase and kick the shit out of said person, hence "smearing" him? well, at times, it seems that the media presents us with target after target to smear, as if to say to us, "THIS IS THE GUY HOLDING YOU BACK!! GO GIT 'IM!!!" and it does seem that my lovely gay family is so bruised and bettered and ready to fight back (myself included), that we attack and deem someone ANTI-GAY, and ready to SMEAR, simply when they don't want the word "marriage" brought into our gay ceremonies. now, if the person doesn't want gays AT ALL, then i'm gonna chase that one down. but, i'm starting to think that there are indeed some people... some well-meaning and loving people... who are not at all ANTI-GAY, that's not why they don't want the word marriage used... they are merely RELIGIOUS. and for religious (archaic) reasons, they want to stay safe and respectful to WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TAUGHT.
let me try to differentiate the two.
let's say i am wearing a baseball cap. now what if i want to call it a yamaka? you know- it's basically the same thing, but one is missing the sun visor. i don't call my caps yamakas... cuz that is a religious name for a hat that is worn by religious people. now if i apply that thinking to this situation.... i would like to think of it as.... if they afford us the EXACT SAME RIGHTS, then who cares what it's called? my friend joel can wear his yamaka. i can wear my hat. joel can light his menorah, i'll light my candle. joel can eat his matzo ball soup, and i can break crackers into my soup. joel and hanna can have a piece of paper with the word MARRIAGE on it, and all 1200 rights... and i can have a piece of paper with who-cares on it, and all 1200 rights. the word marriage is a religious, holy, word that people who go to church on sundays are told belongs to them. like yamaka, menorah, or matzo.
rick is not a televangelist. rick is not falwell. rick spoke of some "stupid" things he's said (his word, not mine), some missquotes that were given, and lots of ammunition from the media. all excellent points. (we're all war-minded right now, you know. it's easy for the media to distract us by throwing us into our own verbal wars here at home.) ) what to do, what to do.... the rest of the public is given an animation of rick warren... and then my wife meets the man behind the projections, the quotes, the "OTHER SIDE". and he is warm, caring, effusive, and LOVES gays. since he nearly swallowed honey when he hugged her, i tend to believe him. he wants our gay marriages to be just as respected and embraced as the straight marriages. he just wants to wear his yamaka, and me wear my hat.
anway. hath hell frozenth over? rick warren was humble and kind. honey and i are to go to his church sometime soon. and honey invited him to our house for an afternoon, to be with our family. (w.t.f.)
open minds hearts hands
differences fade."
The opponents of Marriage Equality say they just want to protect the word “marriage”. They say that “marriage” is a religious institution. They talk about the sanctity of marriage. Many of them say that the LGBT community should be satisfied if given all the same legal protections and benefits of marriage under the term “civil union”.
During his campaign for the presidency Mr. Obama even espoused the idea of leaving the word “marriage” to the churches. And, in recent days we have heard much talk of bringing all sides of this issue to the table for discussion and compromise in the name of unity.
So, let us offer this compromise in the name of unity. Let’s propose that we get the government out of the marriage business and out of the various teachings of religion.
From this day forward all states will discontinue issuing “Civil Marriage” licenses and will begin issuing “Civil Union” licenses. There will be no change in the qualifications for obtaining a license except that there will no longer be a requirement regarding the gender of the two people involved. All other existing requirements will still apply. No one will be able to union with a minor. No one will be able to union with a sibling. No one will be able to union with more than one other person at a time. No one will be able to union with an animal or an inanimate object.
With this change ALL laws everywhere in the country at all levels of government will be amended changing the word marriage to union. All rights and responsibilities of a union will be conferred on all couples having a legal union.
With this change churches will have complete control of the word marriage. A marriage will carry no legal weight. This would be similar to the way churches control other religious ceremonies such as baptism. No church would be forced to perform a marriage for any couple. No church would be denied the ability to perform a marriage for any couple. No couple married in a church without also having a legal union would gain any legal benefit or be given any legal responsibilities as the result of their religious marriage. A couple’s marriage would be between themselves, their church and their god(s).
With this compromise, the sanctity of marriage and its religious meanings would be fully maintained. At the same time the civil and legal rights of all people will also be upheld.
I am sure that every member of the LGBT community would willingly sign on to this compromise.
How many of the opponents of marriage equality do you think would accept this compromise where they will be given exactly what they have asked for? They get full control of the word marriage. The sanctity of marriage and their individual religious beliefs are left fully intact. No one forces anyone to change his or her beliefs. No one meddles in anyone’s religious rites and at the same time no one meddles with anyone’s civil rights.
This sounds like exactly the compromise we have all been looking for.
I doubt you will find many takers for thic compromise from the right though. Because, by givin the word marriage to churches, you would also be giving it to gay friendly churches who would mary gay couples.
What they REALLY want is to give control of the word marrige to THEIR church alone.
It would also not be legal to ban gay parents from adopting is most states. It's not the word at all, they want us to have no rights at all for our families.
I trust that John A. knows what he is doing, even if I wince occasionally.
If you don't think that is wrong, then you need serious psychological help.
Sadly, I don't think that you would be in an uproar if the convocation was given by someone who was only anti-Jewish and not anti-gay. I don't really see you getting upset over any type of bigotry except homophobia. It's not the first time I've felt this way about this site...it's run by white gay men and it shows sometimes.
Calling someone a bigot is not going to do anything to change their minds.
Oh, and this is a blog written from a gay perspective. What do you expect? If you are reading a blog about women's rights, do you expect them to explore issues from a gay right's perspective?
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/whatwebeli...
Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.
I also find it funny that the link you provide to that story is one out of the New Republic where the writer expressed positive thoughts about his honesty to that exact question and noted his expansion of the church to issues of social justice.
Honesty is nice sometimes....even on the left.
Prayer doesn't work.
Fight or keep being shat on.
Obama is lipstick on the fascist pig.
Someone needs to get in touch with Melissa Etheridge's wife and tell her that she's been punked. I don't find her contact information on her blog.
http://hollywoodfarmgirl.blogspot.com/2008/12/b...
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:txu-oT9tBDI...
Marijuana gon' stay illegal w/ a Dem Prez/Congress?
Gays gotsta stay in the back of the underside of the bus?
Aw, HELL naw!
Reckanize, PrezO...
RECKANIZE!
Things have really been shut down here in Mount Vernon Washington. We spent the day in watching Christmas shows (I'm Christian--Michael is Jewish). We then watched the amazing 2 hour documentary on the 70's.
The Gay movement and Stonewall was prominently discussed. SO amazing how far we've come in 40 years. Michael and I grew up with disco. He is 51, and I am 11 days into the 50 thing. It feels great!
We talked about Rick Warren. A lot of discussion and dialouge has taken place, and as the dust settles, I really think that while I think the choice was not good, Michael suggested that maybe Obama has a bigger mission and this first step of exposure of Saddleback, the Evangelical focus and Rick Warren is the first step.
Who would have known that gay people are not welcomed at Saddle back had it not been for the post here at AmericaBlog?! The right wing machine has essentially been shut down ad they have to credit and be complimentary to Obama for the selection as Warren has to quantify his bigotry.
Obama talks to me. I beleive that his goal of equal rights for all rings true.
Kos was great in his comments a couple of days ago. We must look at the bigger picture
The fact that he did not pick any gay people for his cabinet is a non issue for me.
Rick Warren and his slothful gluttonous ways ARE being exposed and people are taking notice thanks to the loud and proud voices of all of us.
We must fight, like Harriet Tubman. I loved Hillary when she ended her speech at the convention talking about the underground railroad. That is what we must do.
All of us.
Melissa Etheridge's wife clearly thinks that the Warren thing is all about gay marriage. Someone needs to see that she is made aware that Saddleback thinks homosexuality is a sin, and does not accept "unrepentant" homosexuals. And don't forget Maddow's reporting about Saddleback's conversion program for gays. And I have trouble just finding that language about not accepting gays; had to Google +saddleback +"what does the bible say about homosexuality" to find a cached page. Here's Melissa Etheridge's wife's post:
http://hollywoodfarmgirl.blogspot.com/2008/12/b...
now, if the person doesn't want gays AT ALL, then i'm gonna chase that one down. but, i'm starting to think that there are indeed some people... some well-meaning and loving people... who are not at all ANTI-GAY, that's not why they don't want the word marriage used... they are merely RELIGIOUS. and for religious (archaic) reasons, they want to stay safe and respectful to WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TAUGHT.
Melissa Etheridge's wife Tammy writes:
"rick is not a televangelist. rick is not falwell. rick spoke of some "stupid" things he's said (his word, not mine), some missquotes that were given, and lots of ammunition from the media. all excellent points. (we're all war-minded right now, you know. it's easy for the media to distract us by throwing us into our own verbal wars here at home.) ) what to do, what to do.... the rest of the public is given an animation of rick warren... and then my wife meets the man behind the projections, the quotes, the "OTHER SIDE". and he is warm, caring, effusive, and LOVES gays. since he nearly swallowed honey when he hugged her, i tend to believe him. he wants our gay marriages to be just as respected and embraced as the straight marriages. he just wants to wear his yamaka, and me wear my hat.
anway. hath hell frozenth over? rick warren was humble and kind. honey and i are to go to his church sometime soon. and honey invited him to our house for an afternoon, to be with our family. (w.t.f.)"
http://hollywoodfarmgirl.blogspot.com/2008/12/b...
I am an American in a binational relationship, which means I had a choice to make, my husband of my country, he won.
Let's hope she knows that Saddleback would not accept her as a member.
They are called Gay/Straight Alliances for a reason.
He flunked the test.
Down in flames.
Wonder Toast.
In reality he's Carter 2... or Kennedy 2.
Hmm.
Worth the read:
This one made my blood boil.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ferreir...
This one made me smile.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest...
That's worrisome but, given the level of spiritual indifference and the commitment to bait-and-switch techniques that the president-elect has demonstrated since Election Day, there's no need to expect a loyal commitment to Rev. Warren. He's a tool to dazzle the right wing. Obama won't know his face by St. Patrick's Day. We won't know ourselves by Memorial Day. That might not be a good thing.
spaceweather.com
also not sure what you mean by "conception of what a democrat is". the recent posts are not about party platforms. they're about an avowed anti-gay bigot grabbing center stage at the inaugural in front of a billion people.
Eyes on the prize is the general jist of what I was trying to convey. Sorry if that didn't come through.
http://pbskids.org/wayback/civilrights/features...
In response to the question "has social change ever been achieved thru criticism?" I would ask the question has social change ever been achieved without criticism? In fact, when women were fighting for the right to vote there were two large womens organizations fighting for change. The groups could not stand each other because one was a group of "ladies" who never wanted to make waves. The other was led by Alice Paul who the "ladies" considered to be impolite for criticizing the president and congress. Alice Paul eventually led both groups to victory using her decidedly critical and unladylike tactics .
But I thought A-blog did plenty about Prop. 8.
I thought the gay community in California and especially Hollywood absolutely sucked tho, putting neither enough money or grassroots action into the effort to defeat Prop. 8.
I was frankly shocked by their piss-poor performance.
I'm straight as well but some of my best friends are gay and it saddens me that they don't have the same rights under the law as I do. I think it reflects poorly upon our society. Don't confuse my questioning of the tactics being utilized with my beliefs on a particular issue.
Gay marriage
Abortion
Stem cell research
Human cloning
Euthanasia
I am a supporter for civil rights for all citizens and in this I will never falter.
But the arguments for Warren having no participation in the inauguration should not be limited to his fundie views on Gay marriage. We weaken ourselves when we confine ourselves. We up our volume and our effectiveness if we broaden the dialog to persuade those who may feel less passionately about Gay marriage but will not tolerate another four years of anti-science or threats to our personal freedoms.
The greater our number and the stronger our voices, the more likely that Warren will suddenly discover a scheduling conflict that prevents his participation in the inauguration.
Obama must hear our NO!
I have long respected you and your blog, but I'm done with both. I support gay rights 100% including marriage, and always will regardless of what I now think about you, but you've lost me on a personal level and if you've lost me, you've lost others. Not a good way to advance your cause.
We've all seen Rick Warren and are perfectly capable of making up our own minds about him without reading your hateful diatribe every day; and now implying Obama is anti-semetic.
I'm sure you've already heard the argument that Obama is trying to show his willingess to interact with those whom have differing viewpoints, so I won't bore you with that, but why is it that you keep harping on the fact that Rick Warren is there, when Rev Lowery, who is pro-gay will also be there? Hillary and Biden will be there, does this mean Obama is suddenly pro-war too, since they voted for it?
This argument about a 2 to 3 minute speech is proving to divide us much more than unite us, and everyday that we sit here going back and forth, giving attention to Rick Warren, we give a victory to the Republicans. While I truly believe gay rights are civil rights, it's going to take some time, like with anything for people to get this, and for victories to be made. Let's not allow divisiveness to ruin what will truly be a blessed day in our nation. I plan to skip over the part with Rick Warren, and enjoy the rest of the ceremony. I hope that you can find it within yourself to do this as well so that we can move forward.