AMERICAblog: Obama to have gay Bishop give invocation at Sunday inaugural vote. Obama official says has nothing to do with Warren controversy.
ShirleyGoodnessanMercy
· 10 months ago
What the hell is the "Sunday Inaugural vote"???
Indigo
· 10 months ago
My thought exactly.
John Aravosis
· 10 months ago
LOL "event" - sorry
BB
· 10 months ago
John, you're starting to sound like a Republican. You're not happy if Rick Warren speaks, then you're not happy if Bishop Robinson speaks. Give it a rest already. I believe the skeptics they were referring to were people like you who would complain no matter what he did.
Akaison
· 10 months ago
Actually sounding like a Republicna is defending Rick Warren since he's closes to what Republicans believe (although the Republicans are not as far right as Warren). Very Rovian approach using the "sounding like a Republican " line since its the opposite of what's happening. You basically telling people to follow the leader and shut up.
John Aravosis
· 10 months ago
Yes, being the biggest blog to defend Obama a good year ago, my support for civil rights, and my disappointment that Democrats aren't nearly as true to their ideals as they should be, make me - rather than you - a Republican. Uh huh. Your definition of Republican is a Democrat who wants our leaders to do the right thing. I fear what your definition of a Democrat is.
CarrieNJ
· 10 months ago
Isn't it better that they always intended to do this than that they did it just to shut you whiners up? Sheesh! Some people just can't be happy unless they have something to complain about. You're worse than a truculent five-year-old on a long plane ride. Thank God Obama is not as petty as you. I swear if I was him I'd have yanked Robinson off the program after all the crap you and bloggers like you have been spewing since "Warrengate."
PeteWa
· 10 months ago
So, if you were Obama, you would yank Robinson to spite the bloggers on this and other sites? How petty. How petulant. Worse than a truculent five-year-old on a long plane ride. Thankfully, you are not Obama.
CarrieNJ
· 10 months ago
Why is it that it's gay men who continue to be so outraged by this whole episode? The lesbian community isn't this outraged. The pro-choice community isn't outraged even though Warren compared abortion to genocide. Jews, Hindus, Muslims etc. aren't outraged at all even though Warren says they're all going to Hell. So why the implacable anger, gay men? Could all this lashing out perhaps be a defensive mechanism against all that shame and guilt that makes you afraid to be alone with yourself in the dark? I'd like to hear from you; and yes, please feel free to lash out...
Akaison
· 10 months ago
Why are you making shit up? I mean- seriously- how easy is it for me to google the number of times that each group you mention has in fact been outraged over something? Do some of you not realize you are on line rather than CNN ? And whot do you think you are spaking for lesbians as a group? And no, I don't care if you are a lesbian or not. It does not give you the right. It just reinforces how manipulative your post is.
willnyc
· 10 months ago
So you're judging levels of outrage now? So gay men are, say, level "red" and lesbians are, maybe "orange?" I'm not ashamed but I am outraged. As are all my family, straight or gay, Christian or Jewish or Atheist or Muslim or Buddhist (and that's just my close circle of family and friends). We're all appalled at the Warren choice. It's not only gay men who are against him speaking for America. You seem very angry and aggressive against gay men. Educate yourself. And not for nothing, but maybe a little meditation wouldn't hurt. Or possibly laying off the caffeine?
willnyc
· 10 months ago
Asking our future president, whom we helped get elected with money and time far disproportionate to the actual gay population of the US, to recognize us at the inauguration is "petty" and "truculent?" Asking for equality under the law is "whining?" Asking that an anti-gay bigot not be part of an important national event is "complaining?" Asking posters for information exposing Warren's videotaped comments on homophobia is "spewing crap?" I disagree with you, but at least we all know where you stand.
ShirleyGoodnessanMercy
· 10 months ago
Bravo willnyc!
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
*claps*
EXACTLY.
caphillprof
· 10 months ago
It would be much more gay inclusive if the divine were from the MCC.
Lynn Dee
· 10 months ago
You know, I think it's time to drop this particular complaint against Obama. Let it go.
John Aravosis
· 10 months ago
Why?
Akaison
· 10 months ago
Since they have ben saying that since oh, the minute people brought it up- I think the problem is not just Obama. Someone really needs to start talking about Obama supporters are who so fanatical that any real criticism of him is met with this George Bush supporter - like STFU and follow the leader stuff.
timncguy
· 10 months ago
Because apparently it's making Lynn Dee "uncomfortable"
Lynn Dee
· 10 months ago
You're wrong, timncguy, that's not the reason. But I did appreciate John asking me to explain why I said what I did. For me, the distress I felt when the decision to have Rick Warren speak was first announced has largely dissipated, and having Gene Robinson speak, for me, neutralizes the issue. But, that doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. So basically what happened was I responded with: "Hey, I'm okay with this now; isn't everyone?" And I learned: "Uh, no, Lynn. Not everyone feels the same!"
Akaison
· 10 months ago
Your comment reminds me of the gay people I met who were apathetic about marriage rights. "I don't want marriage, so I don't see why you are making a big deal about this."
Warren is a big deal because abroad he supports a guy who pushed for legislation that is the equivalent of Paragraph 175.
Lynn Dee
· 10 months ago
I don't quite see the comparison. I agree Rick Warren stands for all the wrong things and that should be taken seriously, particularly as he seems to be wading into political water. It is specifically his speaking at the inauguration that, for me, has been neutralized. But, my initial response notwithstanding, I understand that other people feel differently.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
He won't be neutralized until him and his bigot followers are relegated to the dustbin of history along with their ignorant 'beliefs' that would see whole segments of the population in social bondage.
timncguy
· 10 months ago
well, what will neutralize the situation for me is when Obama comes through on his campaign promises. The promises he made to the LGBT community cost ZERO dollars so will have no effect on the terrible economy. And, I fully expect the congress should be able to accomplish more than one issue at a time. So, what I want is the enactment of hate crimes legislation, the enactment of ENDA , the repeal of DOMA and the repeal of DADT. These shold not be difficult to do when dems control all three branches of goverment. And, as I said, there is no MONEY required to pass these items.
When Obama's ACTIONS match his WORDS, then Warren will be neutralized.
Here's how I want it to go. When they talk about hate crimes legislation and the Warren's of this world object to it as "special" rights. I want the Obama admin to step up and say LOUDLY, we invited you of the religious right to the table, we listened to your position, we decided that you are WRONG on this civil rights issue.
Lynn Dee
· 10 months ago
In virtually all of the things you list here, you're talking about going forward, which is exactly where I personally would put the focus now.
As an added point: You're talking about neutralizing Warren, as if that is what I was talking about. It's not. I was talking about the particular instance of neutralizing Warren's appearance at the inauguration.
Beyond that niggling little point, we seem to be in violent agreement.
Akaison
· 10 months ago
There is a history and objective way of viewing these things without reference to just one's own personal feelings. This is politics.
Akaison
· 10 months ago
The comparision is that you think first of your emotional state rather than the issue being discussed. So first one has to go around what you are feeling emotionally rather than discuss the issue. It's a detour.
And "you understanding other people's feelings" only illustrates a lack of objective thought.
Lynn Dee
· 10 months ago
I didn't first think of my emotional state. Someone else did, suggesting I was "uncomfortable."
But never mind. This is obviously a closed discussion, so I'll just bow out.
Lynn Dee
· 10 months ago
This is just my opinion, of course, but it seems to me Obama has done all he's going to do and can really be expected to do with regard to Rick Warren appear at the inauguration. The original concern was not that Obama was willing to, for example, talk to Rick Warren, but rather the symbolism of his inviting Rick Warren to appear. I think that concern has been neutralized. To me, it is now possible to focus on what Obama should do going forward without feeling like gays as a group have to swallow what was the very understandable feeling they'd been thrown under the bus.
Again, though, this is just my opinion. If the pain is still there, then of course, the matter shouldn't be dropped.
Would it be possible, though, now that the concern has been heard, to use that pain in a different way? I'm not sure what that would be. Perhaps you, or someone else, has some ideas? It seems clear, though, that Rick Warren is not going to be uninvited. I have even kind of enjoyed, over the past several weeks, the discomfort Rick Warren has obviously been feeling over being "caught" trying to have it both ways. I know the resulting dialogue wasn't intended, but I think it's been helpful.
willnyc
· 10 months ago
Lynn Dee, interesting points. The pain of Warren speaking at what was to be a celebration of progressive activism is still VERY MUCH alive. The pain is still there. This pain has already exhibited itself as energy, as a loud demand that bigots be called out when they hide behind a belief system, and going forward, a demand for equality under the law. But you've brought up an important point: What's next? Exactly?
Akaison
· 10 months ago
this goes beyond warren and is about an effort to force obama to live up to his word on rights.
Some of the problem I have with your posts is that are not about politics at all. Which is what we are discussing.
Let me cut and paste something posted on Daily Kos last night:
"And what I learned on working on Nixon and watching him and slow-moing him for hours and hours and hours, is never to 100 percent totally believe the person the politician is when the red light goes on, because he wants to communicate something to us. He wants to communicate power or sensitivity or vulnerability or in Nixon's case, toughness.
Every single politician must stand in the dark a second before the light goes on, and something unconscious changes. So I've learned to watch like a hawk everybody - Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, it doesn't matter - and all of us, too. We all know we do some things slightly different."
This is Frank Langella, who portrays Nixon in Nixon/Frost.
The poiint he is trying to make is that politics is about more than the personality (Obama as Obama). It's about what they are pushing forth. Always. When looking these issues, I really do get the sense reading comments that people seem to not appreciate that it is politics. When you say things like we are in the middle of a sensitivity training session it makes me question do you get it?
Let me allow Kos of Daily Kos to sum up why these things matter- the point of this is to keep pressure on Obama. Politicians only respond when you do that. Not when you try to turn it into a personal relationship.
willnyc
· 10 months ago
fascinating. actors know this b/c they are trained to do it. politicians are born, not made. Obama is a politician and lives in that world and reacts ONLY to political reality. so yes, keeping the pressure on is the only way to get a response from him. period. why is that so hard for people like Lynne D to understand?
Akaison
· 10 months ago
Because she is personalizing it to her emotional needs. It's like she's in a personal relationship with everyone . She's doing the sensitivity training stuff above which irks me becuase that's also not a real conversation. Its corp speak for coversation. The core problem is that a lo of people really don't get it. They don't understand politics because they think its simply a matter of hwo they feel personally and not how politics works, how their are techniques like any other fieild for achieving a goal, how there is history, how language matter, etc. None of this is involvedd at all in her calculus. It's "I believe" or "I feel" not well is there a standard by which we can try to come up with common tactics that will push an agenda for all. That's not her calculus.
Akaison
· 10 months ago
by the way- the actors comments are about how politiicans use the emoitonal to push their agenda. They on stage to perform a role, and they know that theya re there in reality to obtain an agenda.
Lynne never thinks about how that mechanism works.
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
Yeah, good luck with that.
Ginny
· 10 months ago
It's called PR. Don't get so discouraged by it all. Obama is still a politician, after all. And our political system is still a massive archaic creature.
Fortunately, he's a much better human being than what we've had to endure through the past 8 years. And we are all going to see a big difference-- once he's actually the President.
Don't let this tug of war ruin the inauguration for you. This is one we should all be celebrating!
Joel
· 10 months ago
It's called PR.
Bullshit.
Doing what is right is called leadership.
I will not be celebrating January 20.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
Sorry, Ginny. No disrespect to you intended, but I have to say I can't celebrate with the likes of Warren being honored. His stance on gay people would be enough. But add to that the fact that my marriage is on the legal chopping block, in part thanks to Warren. It does put a damper on what would otherwise have been a completely celebratory mood.
Joel
· 10 months ago
Many of us interpreted this as a sign that the Obama people are starting to get it, that they understand how offended, slighted, and hurt many Obama supporters were at the Rick Warren invite.
The problem is, from Obama's perspective, it is not he that has to "get it." It is us that are supposed to "get it." It is there simply aren't enough gay men and women for Obama to pay any mind to. If the fact that Obama is specifically pointing out that this is not an olive branch to the gay community, that Obama personally does not beleive in your right to marry, and Obama is set to ignore the issue of gays in the military, doesn't get through to you that Obama simply is not concerned with gay rights, what will?
Oh, by the way, notice that Obama is backing off closing down Gitmo?
Indigo
· 10 months ago
Apparently, there's a politically correct inclusive check list: 1. bigot 2. liberal 3. conservative 4. gay 5. woman 6. ?
Where are the rabi? the imam? the roshi? the saddhu?
Jack J.
· 10 months ago
Geezus, can you EVER be satisfied!?
John Aravosis
· 10 months ago
I'm kind of uppity that way.
Akaison
· 10 months ago
Ha ! being black I always thought we were the uppidy ones.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
Nuh uh, you guys are SO 2007. Gay is the new black, so nancy it up!
Jack J.
· 10 months ago
more dippidy and outta touch I'd say.
jcgraham77
· 10 months ago
To all the naysayers on this comment thread: I see John Aravosis as a pioneer in gay civil rights. If you haven't been paying attention to this blog you wouldn't have noticed the ongoing posts about glbt rights and the controversies surrounding him or John's passion/dedication to such. I don't think John is giving his seat up on the bus anytime soon so lay off. If you don't like what you read go elsewhere.
lucidity
· 10 months ago
Obama's decided he simply can''t be seen as a captive of "The Left." So even when he finally has to respond to us, he claims not to be responding to us. (But he's happy to point out when he's responding to Republican petulance.)
And John -- you're not overreacting. The Obama team's continued vocal rejection of the LGBT community over this issue is definitely worrisome.
cowboyneok
· 10 months ago
This is exactly how I feel. When Republicans or the Talibangelicals bitch, Obama responds LOUDLY and PUBLICALLY to try to placate them. When people in his own camp, the LGBT community, gets crap thrown at them its "just shut up and take it" and an opportunity arises where it looks like they might have done something to make things better and its "Shhhhh! Don't tell anyone... "
Akaison
· 10 months ago
You should read this at Daily Kos. They are spinning this like a top.
lily
· 10 months ago
I have a different interpretation. I actually think it's a good thing that picking Gene Robinson is not a direct response to the outrage over Warren. I appreciate the pick as being more genuine and inclusive of all people, rather than an attempt to look more PC, just my opinion.
Akaison
· 10 months ago
Oh please. he would not be doing it to look pc. He would be doing it because of the politics of having made a mistake. PC is a right wing buzz word thrown out there to explain everything that involved identity groups. Its not applicable here.
HelenaMontana
· 10 months ago
They SAY that Gene Robinson's pick is nothing to do with Warren. If there's one thing I've learned from the Bush administration, it's believe your lying eyes, not what the powerful tell you to believe.
cowboyneok
· 10 months ago
Out of the blue, the most famous gay Episcopal bishop in America gets invited to give a prayer, but BY G-D it doesn't have a thing to do with the Warren controversy. HOW STUPID do they want to get?
David T
· 10 months ago
but if arrangements were actually made before the warren fiasco, would you rather have them lie?
Topher
· 10 months ago
No, but if the arrangements were indeed made before the Warren pick, why are we only finding out now? Why weren't they announced at the same time?
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 10 months ago
Did Obama run this by Warren and Warren's lil' African buddies Akinola and Kolini?
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 10 months ago
"It's just not so."
Hmm-kay. Then why not announce Robinson a month ago?
foxy
· 10 months ago
Skeptics? Gay = Civil Rights Community = Skeptic.... now? How septic.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
So why are they going to such lengths to make sure nobody thinks they are listening to the gay community?
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
... because gays are ICKY, duh!
foxy
· 10 months ago
Icky Icky poo poo indeed. We're not the gay community any more we are the "Civil Rights Community".
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
OK, so why are they going to such lengths to make sure nobody thinks they are listening to the "icky" community? What is the political calculation here? What are they trying to achieve by making it appear that they are not listening to us? Are they worried that they will come across as maybe beholden to us for our enormous support? Are they trying to placate the Right? Is this as you seem to suggest more some kind of personal distaste for gay people? I'm wondering what exactly is behind their effort to not appear to be listening to our concerns.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
I would say placate the right.. all that "post partisan" delusion where Democrats pretend that Republicans have any interest in doing anything but making the next 4 to 8 years a living, stalled hell.
For some reason, they still think neocons are going to help them along despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and one thing that sticks in the craw of the jesusfucks is any support of the 'homosexual agenda'.
Forget peace and love, these nutjobs are all about hate and bashing.
foxy
· 10 months ago
And "hate and bashing" = collection plate cash.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
Very true. Speaking of which I was very disappointed when Obama indicated his interest in continuing Bush's "faith based initiative" programs. First of all I see it as a violation of the separation of church and state. Secondly, it has already been shown that some of our tax dollars sent to some of the churches have been misused. I hate knowing that part of my taxes are going to the people who oppress me.
timncguy
· 10 months ago
Obama hasn't talked about continuing, rather he has said he will INCREASE the dollars for this.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
Oh jesus. Just what we need.
timncguy
· 10 months ago
i agree with you completely. They are supposed to NOT be able to use the fedral tax money for "religoius work". But, you know if their budget PRIOR to getting the funds was used for X% charity and X% religious work, they now have this cash infusion so that their own money they used to spend on charity can be redirected for religious funding. Thus we are actually finding their religous work with tax dollars. Unless, they continue to spend the same of their own money of charity and uns ALL the fed tax money to increase that charitable soending.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
Right. Even if the money is being used as intended, it frees up other funds for the fundies to use as they please. And I seem to remember maybe two years ago reading about the faith-based initiative money being used by some churches for purposes outside the guidelines. That sort of thing is always bound to happen, and will only increase. At some point this has got to wind up before the Supreme Court I would think. And as we know, justice depends on who is dispensing it.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
I definitely agree, and it is possible that this is the common factor behind all of what we are seeing. I tend to think there is also more, and it really troubles me.
willnyc
· 10 months ago
I think you answered your question. It's a combination of a few things: the Right won't have ANYTHING to do with furthering any gay causes b/c If Obama is seen as "our" president, he's lost lots of Xtian votes. There is probably an ick factor - I'd be curious to know if the Obamas have any gay friends since he seems uncomfortable at gay events. Finally, we just don't matter that much in terms of numbers so in his eyes we should be thankful for anything we get.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
Thanks. I think along those lines as well. There's something else too that I can't quite put my finger on. I'm not saying this is the case, but I keep seeing signs that someone in the Obama team involved in making decisions is maybe in the closet. The things that have been coming down on more than one occasion have struck me as the kind of political moves that originate from someone who is gay and fighting it. It's just a hunch on my part. I don't know who that would be on the Obama team.
willnyc
· 10 months ago
That's really interesting. There is definitely some discomfort there coming from the Obama camp.
Boycottutah
· 10 months ago
I agree. I think his name is Barry. Now he goes by the name Barack.
Webster
· 10 months ago
There's no doubt that the incoming Administration has the biggest possible tin ear when it comes to GLBT issues--still, whether or not Robinson was chosen before or after the Warren decision--while not optimal, I'm still glad to hear it. I'm the tiniest bit less crabby than I was before.
I do think, however, that the brouhaha raised here and elsewhere did have something to do with it--and it looks as though to counter that tin ear, we will have to continue to stand on their shoes and YELL in their faces until they finally get it. Keep up the pressure, John. They will change when they realize GLBT people are simply not going to be satisfied with a half a loaf. Not anymore.
foxy
· 10 months ago
Indeed! No more Mr. and Ms. Nice Gay. Or Mr. and Ms. Civil Rights or even Mr. and Ms. Skeptic.
willnyc
· 10 months ago
Exactly, Webster. All these people telling us NOT to keep the pressure on just don't get it. We must be loud and vocal at every opportunity, and I think people like John A really get the message across. Like it or not, President Obama, we helped you get elected in numbers way disproportionate to the actual gay population, so we demand recognition.
jcgraham77
· 10 months ago
What the heck is a "tin ear". Am i too young to have heard this before?
willnyc
· 10 months ago
a tin ear is when someone can't match pitch, is tone deaf, can't hear the difference between different notes or melodies, and thus calls attention to himself by often singing the wrong note or melody. so it's a metaphor for someone who not only just can't get it right on an issue, but really sticks out by doing so.
DavidinPS
· 10 months ago
Everyone in here sounds like a bunch of church ladies arguing over who gets the nicer pew on on Sunday or who the new minister likes better. The underlying problem is that by getting stuck in this religious flypaper of a discussion, we allow the other side to keep gay equality as RELIGIOUS discussion. It is not. It is a civil issue. They WANT to make it a religious issue so they hide their bigotry behind the first amendment. And we keep enabling them to exactly that. Robinson is a lovely guy it seems, but by continually putting him ( or any gay clergy for that matter) in the forefront, we keep getting messed up in his internal church politics, which is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, and again, keeps the gay equality issue in the realm of religion where it doesn't belong.
And then there is the whole question about why there is any religious speech at an official government ceremony.
foxy
· 10 months ago
Well unfortunately that's the reality. To bring it into the realm of reason is another story....and one that will be a never ending one at that.
AdamBlast
· 10 months ago
You're not wrong. Gay rights *must* move beyond being a religious discussion of any type.
Except in this regard--the anti-gay vote was state-sanctioned religious persecutiion. It must be *told* to the religious (and told by other religionists as necessary) that whatever their faith says, it doesn't trump the basic American ideals of justice and equality under the law.
If it takes liberal Christian allies to pressure those who persecute us, if it takes an opposing theology, a counter-view of religion that keeps its hands off gay rights, I'm all for their help.
foxy
· 10 months ago
I guess this is a way of trying to stop "outing" and frying Rick Warren. I say keep the heat on.
PJ
· 10 months ago
John, GMAFB!
MikeinSanJo
· 10 months ago
I'm still hoping the Newdow/FFRF lawsuit sees some action before the inauguration.
It would be nice to finally get the religious nonsense out of our government once and for all.
Blueflash
· 10 months ago
I'm all behind John Aravosis' efforts in this matter to keep the heat on Obama. There can be no excuse for giving such a prominent and honored role to the likes of Warren. The hateful (and irrational) beliefs he disseminates regarding gay people have led to countless gay lives destroyed through violence, abandonment by family and friends, and suicide in this country and around the world. To those Democrats telling us to just shut up, well, we know your type. You love our money and hard work on the part of progressive causes but when the time comes to speak up for us few of you are to be found. That won't stop us from speaking up in defense of ourselves, our own dignity and our demand that the profound bigotry and hatred toward us that still exists in this society in no way be accommodated.
foxy
· 10 months ago
**applaud**
willnyc
· 10 months ago
you nailed it blueflash!
TampaZeke
· 10 months ago
What do I click to vote for favorite comment?
CLICK, CLICK, CLICK!
Boycottutah
· 10 months ago
Well said. Maybe we should only give our gay dollars to those who support full equality, and that won't be Obama 2012.
BB
· 10 months ago
Gay dollars aren't enough. You have to get out there and do more than just throw money at an issue. for everyone person here, who's bitching and moaning about Obama, I hope you are all OUT and working to in progressive canidates, which is much more than just giving money so other people can do it.
Oh, and if you're straight, you can still be OUT about being a straight ally.
middlegirl
· 10 months ago
There are many ways of looking at this move but as usual, John, you take the one that has the most victimization energy Could it be that Obama didn't want to be accused of shameless pandering?
"If it was the plan all along, the Obama administration sure did a good job keeping the secret." A BIG if and unlikely.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
.. and it begs the question, WHY keep it a secret? To what purpose?
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
If you're asking if Obama was trying to avoid accusations of shameless pandering to gay people, there is no way he could be accused of that. Not after selecting a homophobe to give the invocation. He could be accused of shameless pandering to the Right by choosing Warren.
phein
· 10 months ago
There is another way to read this. Taken on it's face, the claim that Bishop Robinson's invitation stands apart from the Warren controversy says, "We don't have to be forced to take gay concerns into account; we already had invited Bishop Robinson. And, no, it's not a particularly special nod to the GLBT community. Including a gay minister as part of the celebration of America is the way it should be, not something extra you have to give to a special interest group."
By putting Robinson on the same stage with Warren, the Obama Administration is saying that both are part of America, which is true (even if not particularly flattering), and that both have legitimate claims to represent significant parts of the citizenry.
I think you have to be pretty committed to aggrieved victimhood to read it any other way.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
I thought Robinson is taking part in an inaugural event on Sunday, while Warren is giving the invocation at the inauguration on Tuesday.
MikeinSanJo
· 10 months ago
...and if Robinson isn't a knee-jerk reaction to the commotion surrounding Warren's appearance, why not mention Robinson from the beginning, when they mentioned Lowry (is that the other preacher's name?)
Bruce
· 10 months ago
Are you EVER happy? I don't think so.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
Did you miss his explanation as to why this seems.. off?
I guess you did.
ShirleyGoodnessanMercy
· 10 months ago
Breaking news! ANN COULTER invited to do strip-tease at inauguration!!
(THAT'LL keep the crowds down a bit!)
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
Thank goodness! I won't need to take my appetite suppressant. ;0)
tigergrrldc
· 10 months ago
When Warren was announced as participating in the inauguration, in Robinson's comments about it, he didn't say, "Well, I'll be praying at blah, blah, blah." He was disappointed like the rest of us. This was a recent thing. Even in response, Obama could have said that he was going to ask Robinson to participate in some capacity, but he didn't. This had to be in response to the furor over Warren. Also, many people asked why didn't he ask Robinson instead of Warren. Did they know who Robinson was before this? I think Obama (or someone on his team) doesn't want the Republicans to point to this and say he capitulated to the far left , which really sucks because he doesn't mind looking like he capitulated to far right. Spit!
phein
· 10 months ago
I think we'll get a lot more mileage out of Robinson's appearance if it is presented to the public at large as just the right, normal thing to do, not a political concession.
Why should there be anything remarkable about gay priests? -- People used to be against gay priests?, really?
may lead to
Why should there be anything remarkable about gay cabinet members?,
and
Why should there be anything remarkable about gay weddings?
It may well be the case that this is the result of pressure put on the Obama team, but I'd let them present it their way, which seems to be to take breakthrough actions without making a fuss about them. I'm pretty sure that the end goal of most readers on this blog is to have sexual orientation be no more remarkable than hair color. The revolution won't be televised; with luck, it won't even be noticed.
Is the invitation of a gay Bshop not good enough for you to enjoy the inauguration? Barack Obama has to slight Rick Warren and/or conservatives too just to make the inauguration enjoyable to you?
He didn't invite Warren just to please conservatives. He didn't invite Robinson just to please liberals. That's just who Barack Obama is and it's important that we who support him understand that. We're part of a very big and diverse tent called the United States of America.
foxy
· 10 months ago
So quit pissing out the door on gay people.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
"That's just who Barack Obama is and it's important that we who support him understand that. "
IE: stop being critical, just trust him, stop looking at his decisions with a scrutinizing eye.
The big tent of America includes bigots? I don't see any racists or anti-semites being invited.. not very big tent.. aren't they valid viewpoints along with anti-gay bigotry?
No?
Please explain the difference without using the word "religion"
I'm timing you.
kingbuzzo
· 10 months ago
I think that there is a temptation by some anti-gay people to say that this was just a capitulation by Obama, so they can say, "See, this is just a political calculation made to placate a demographic."
I don't see how viewing gay rights through a cynical lens really helps. If you don't know how the decision was made, why give the looney right wingers more fuel for their fire? Why not just accept that Robinson was invited because he is an important religious figure and he represents in his preaching and actions some key values that are important to Obama.
Why isn't it possible that Robinson was chosen for a positive reason? Why does it have to be interpreted as an insult?
Bush_Bites
· 10 months ago
Sounds better to me than Obama throwing a few crumbs for political expediency.
But I'm not gay.
kingbuzzo
· 10 months ago
Even jumping on the word "skeptics" is out of line. A skeptic is a person who does not believe the stated reason. I am a civil rights supporter, but not a skeptic. So, I do not feel so deeply insulted by the use of the term skeptic.
But if YOU are skeptical about the stated reasons.... that means YOU ARE A SKEPTIC. It's not an insult to equal rights advocates. It's a pretty straightforward description of what skeptics think. A skeptic is one who is skeptical.... and thus who does not believe the stated reason... but wonders if there isn't some other reason. The only way one can cease to be a skeptic is to cease to be skeptical. I don't see how that is an occasion for offense. I mean, if you don't believe Obama's reason.... wouldn't you say your were "skeptical" about his stated reason? What descriptive term would make you happy? "Doubter"? "Non-believer"? "Denier"? "Critics"? "Haters"? Skeptic seems to be a pretty neutral word in comparison to the alternatives.
More like No. 3: 3.) Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
johnosahon
· 10 months ago
no, john wouldn't say "skeptical" he will say "gaytical" that's why he is complaining. he is beginning to look like sharpton that complains about EVERY DAMN THING, you see where that gets him?
jcgraham77
· 10 months ago
the squeaky wheel gets the grease....duh!
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
I love straight people who don't get it.
johnosahon
· 10 months ago
i am Gay not straight, sorry to destroy your assumptions. instead of concentrating on having the first gay religious person perform on an inauguration, we instead focus on the negative.
we were matching every day after the election only to be taken away by warren and the likes of you complaining about a 2 minutes prayer instead of focusing on the gay policies that would actually advance our goals.
now we are stuck taking about warren 24/7 looking like right-wingers while the idiot looks like a god we are picking on, even melissa is assiting him in his effort to look like the victim. FOCUS PEOPLE.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
Go to school. Learn about advertisement, branding, and message clarity. Then get back to us.
*eyeroll*
johnosahon
· 10 months ago
pot calling the kettle black.
*eye rolls and rolls*
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
No, me calling you uneducated and ignorant. Apparently symbolism is lost on some.
Boycottutah
· 10 months ago
I love gay people who don't get that they are homophobes.
Akaison
· 10 months ago
They think that its a pass on their own interalized issue. Many people think that coming out is all that is required. Not that they have a life time of baggage to still address.
JohnInTexas
· 10 months ago
We have no intention of watching any of it, backs will be turned. I don't care if Jeebus is singing the national anthem.
chrisnyc
· 10 months ago
you have gone full-blown wingnut of the left variety.
Who cares if he's saying he's not planning out who is at a public event for all americans based on outcrys from different groups.
why isn't it enough that he had already planned to have Gene there? Are you still missing the point that he's trying to say we're all one country?
Don't you see that this will upset some Episcopals? They aren't all necessarily bad people, but many do follow a strict reading of their faith. They are going to be mad too...do they not deserve some response as you've been asking for? I'm sure many even voted for Obama.
I know you're really hoping if you keep hounding Obama as a once loyal supporter it might gain you further attention...I mean, who really cares about yet another progressive supporting obama, but it's time to move on from one stupid preacher being at an event...it didnt' seem to really bother you when Obama had one who converted gays when Hillary supporters were crying foul.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
People should care if bigots feel bad because their bigotry (cloaked in religion) isn't being promoted?
That's your argument?
Griffon
· 10 months ago
“Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism — but it’s just not so.”
An inability to admit mistakes or even acknowledge a mea culpa; this is sounding so familiar...
johnosahon
· 10 months ago
john i ask you the same question, Would it kill you to actually let us enjoy this inauguration? must you complain about every damn thing. it seems you would ONLY be happy if obama divorces michelle and marry a man, NO scratch that you would probably say he is ONLY doing it to please the gays and call for a ban to gay marriage.
LET ME ENJOY THE INAUGURATION , DAMN IT
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
"sit down, shut up, stop questioning, now isn't the time!"
Been there, done that, not buying it. Go liv in your own little fantasyworld where everything is gumdrops and rainbows.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
if you can enjoy watching a hideous homophobe invoke god in support of bigotry at the swearing in, you should not even be on this blog.
johnosahon
· 10 months ago
yes, because the bigot is praying throught out the event, it is ONLY 2 minutes, you can simply turn the channel or turn the volume down during his prayer just like the right would do the same during robinson, IT's THAT SIMPLE.
you are NOT the one watching, nor are you the ONLY one that find some parts of the inaurguration disgusting or offensive, the right-winger would not watch robinson, the racist may not watch erita singing, you turn the part you want off.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
false equivalency. that says a lot about where you're coming from.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
"yes, because the bigot is praying throught out the event, it is ONLY 2 minutes, you can simply turn the channel or turn the volume down during his prayer just like the right would do the same during robinson, IT's THAT SIMPLE. "
How long do crosses take to burn?
jcgraham77
· 10 months ago
now i can see it is fruitless to debate with you...you don't follow logic this is a comment thread on a liberal blog--you would be more apt to enjoy a nice conservative blog...there are plenty of conservative blogs for you to visit...all filled with hate and venom, but there is only one inauguration for this president...so it needs to be done right...and in the manner his voters/supporters approve of
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
Sorry, John, but it's not just a two minute event. An outspoken homophobe giving the invocation at the inauguration is not just a two minute event. It means a great deal. And Robinson will not be part of the inauguration. He will be speaking on Sunday.
jcgraham77
· 10 months ago
i dont' see anyone making you read this blog
johnosahon
· 10 months ago
neither do i see any one making you watch the inauguration
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
Nor do i see anybody preventing YOU from watching the inauguration with all your rights already gifted to you from birth.
lpeggy
· 10 months ago
Hell yeah, I am going to enjoy the inauguration. The alternative would be watching John McCain and Sarah Palin sworn in. Which to me, would be a national day of mourning.
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
It's still a slap in the face,. And a throwing under the bus. And everyone still has the right to be furious and I won't STFU, you can't tell people what to think, only I can tell people what to think, so YOU STFU and leave if you're not ready to join the Circle of Rage. So there.
renegademom
· 10 months ago
Needle, your comment made my day. Smoochies.
Boycottutah
· 10 months ago
Does your monicker "the needle" refer to a certain part of your anatomy?
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
obviously there was no way to fix the Warren mistake without disinviting him. bishop robinson cannot fix it. stating the truth that robinson is there only to mollify the civil rights community cannot fix it. those things are given. but going forward, we can be glad that robinson is getting national exposure and we can be glad that maybe we are witnessing and participating in the education of barack obama.
renegademom
· 10 months ago
yes, we are witnessing the education of barack obama. he has always said that there is much for him to learn. and political pressure helps. speaking out helps.
going forward is good.
also, another nugget that may not have been mentioned. a lesbian couple has been invited to ride the train that travels to washington for the inauguration, along with obama and biden. don't have a link.....but there was a thread on it at the daily kos.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
the token Ohio lesbians have been discussed on this blog. again, looking for a sliver lining: maybe they will have more courage and awareness than the Etheridges and speak up.
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
"Tokens"? Hell, I I bet they're not even real lesbians. I'll bet they're just girls who get drunk and make out in front of people at parties.
Hunterdon_Rube
· 10 months ago
:)
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
Only one couple? If they don't have at least a carful of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered couples, Obama will RUE THE DAY! And I mean a carful EACH, people!
James McConnell
· 10 months ago
Yep, another dumb PR move. Absurd claim. Robinson, who worked hard for Obama, made a very vocal complaint about Warren, which, one assumes, he'd not have made had he been part of the program from the beginning. According to Raw Story, he will be speaking at the Lincoln Memorial before the Inauguration, with Obama in attendance. I like the poetry of a gay Episcopal Bishop speaking at the Memorial of the Great Emancipator. But, given that the actual swearing-in will be at noon in DC, or 9am in California, I wonder who will see it. Where, I wonder, will Warren be speaking and at what time? The podium in front of the capitol aat 11:50am? Is there a rough equivilence? Is Robinson being "buried." I would prefer to see no priest take part in the official portion of the event, and since we already have 3 of them now, I wonder if it might make more sense to just have something at the National Cathedral with other religious persuasions represented, such as was done post 911, and get the religious stuff out of the way. I would hope Gene chiooses the Sermon on the Mount for the text of his prayer. "Blessed are the Peacemakers"
johnosahon
· 10 months ago
this is hilarious, they interviewd robinson today on CNN, he was singing obama's praises and saying obama was doing was he actually SAID he would do, invite everybody to the table. i gues people were not listening to him during the election.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
I don't see any racists or anti-semites at the table. No no nazis, no klansmen. What, their bigotry is less acceptable than anti-gay bigotry?
Shocker!
johnosahon
· 10 months ago
you answered your own question. 40 years ago, they would have been there after all most preachers in the past equated blacks to less than equal so yes they could have been invited if you actually wanted to have everybody at the table.
hopefully 40 years from now, this issue would be the same way.
senator bird the democrat was a racist or kkk member yet he was elected over and over again. that cannot happen now.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
well in 40 years you can feel proud of your strong voice for civil rights. oh wait...
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
40 years?
How about NOW.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
robinson was also conciliatory when he was refused an invitation to the latest Anglican synod. seems they didn't want to upset the african homophobes and robinson was okay with it. that's why he's a bishop and we're not. why do you assume people are not listening?
TampaZeke
· 10 months ago
I was elated when I first heard this news but the more I find out about this event the more SKEPTICAL I am getting over the whole thing.
The DC Gay Men's Chorus has just announced that they will also be featured at this event.
Interestingly, they applied to take part in the Inauguration Day festivities on Jan. 20th but were turned down.
Is anyone else noticing a pattern here?
It seems that the gays are getting their own special, designated seats in the back of the Inaugurational bus. Their own special, but separate, water fountain as it were.
I know people will accuse me and others of never being satisfied. So be it. But I won't apologize to anyone for being unsatisfied with second best.
NO ONE ELSE IN AMERICA IS EXPECTED TO BE SATISFIED WITH SECOND BEST. Why should gay people be?
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
You're right. If Rev. Robinson doesn't get to deliver the Inaugural Address, I am DONE with Obama.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
You know what really kills me: a couple of Warren articles back, when he and his organization were directly and indirectly responsible for people DYING in africa, not one f#cking person was saying "Oh be quiet, sit down, stop bitching".
Not one.
But when gays get riled up over bigots and things relating to the unequal state of their civil rights, those admonitions come POURING ON from straight people and, frankly, Log Cabin apathetics.
Amazing.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
we are not being hosed down and chased by police dogs. that's one refrain. the other one is that the would-be hosers and police dogs should have a place at the table too.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
They alreay do, along with their chicken-bone rattling shamans who bless their efforts.
ShirleyGoodnessanMercy
· 10 months ago
No, we're not being chased by police dogs, we're just being murdered or thrown to the streets by our own families.
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
I'm definitely against inviting dogs to the table.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
we could make an exception for your little one. makes me hungry for tacos. :)
Boycottutah
· 10 months ago
Exactly. Well said!
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
"While I'm glad that Robinson will be giving an invocation,"
I think your gladness is a slap in the face.
foxy
· 10 months ago
A song is coming on..."...hand bags and glad rags..."
I think that Obama having an openly gay bishop deliver the prayer is GREAT NEWS!!! So why all the sad and angry faces? Perspective is everything here. It is a prayer. A one time thing. SO much more to get busy on, dont'cha think?
buddhistMonkey
· 10 months ago
((( "So why all the sad and angry faces?" )))
John thinks that Obama hates gays because he invited Rev. Warren to his inauguration. Everything must now be viewed through that Obama-is-antigay lens. No matter what Obama does from this point forward, it must be wrong, by definition. Therefore, inviting a gay Bishop to give the invocation must somehow be interpreted as a slap in the face to gays and lesbians everywhere. There must be some way, some angle, that turns good news like this into an affront to the gay community. John got the ball rolling by zeroing in on the horrible, offensive word "skeptic." I'm going to go him one better, though: I think that Obama invited Bishop Robinson to the inauguration so that Rev. Warren can try to cure him of his homosexuality. Boy, I'm angry just thinking about it.
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
"Everything must now be viewed through that Obama-is-antigay lens. No matter what Obama does from this point forward, it must be wrong, by definition. Therefore, inviting a gay Bishop to give the invocation must somehow be interpreted as a slap in the face to gays and lesbians everywhere."
BY JOVE, I THINK HE'S GOT IT!
renegademom
· 10 months ago
i heart the needle. the needle makes me laugh, even though i have a bad case of the flu and am still at work.
timncguy
· 10 months ago
becuase Obama is not WILLING to admit that the gay bishop has been added to the program as a response to the outrage against Warren. That is the issue we are talking about here. If this gay Bishop was always a part of the program, why wasn't it announced before? If he was always a part ofthe program, why did this same gay Bishop not sau so when he made his public complaint about the Warren announcement?
Why can't Obama admit that this gay bishop was added to the program in order to placate the gays that were upset with Warren?
That's the question John is asking here.
mona31
· 10 months ago
if he did acknowledge that, there would be just as many people hollering about how bishop robinson is a token, and how insulting it is to think that this would placate the gay community etc. it's pretty much a no win situation; i don't need him to admit his reasoning, i'm just glad that robinson will be there and have the opportunity to reach obama and others.
"Obama's First Gift to Africa: Rick Warren By: KELLY JEAN COGSWELL 01/11/2009 If you want to foster AIDS and kill queers in Africa, Rick Warren's the man for you. While Warren's characterization of queers (and Jews and Muslims) as godless perverts fuel bigotry in the US, the real effects of inviting Warren to preside over Obama's inauguration will be felt in sub-Saharan Africa.
He has missions all over the place, and he's rolling in dough and influence built on the best P.R. campaign I've ever seen. He hobnobs with Bono and Melissa Etheridge while liberal journalists regurgitate his press releases, crowning him a moderate evangelical and touting his AIDS campaign, which is little but a thinly veiled mask for his proselytizing work. The last thing he needs is more power.
In case you actually care, his campaign for AIDS prevention, in a region decimated by the disease, sneers at condoms, needle exchange, and sex education. He claims all those efforts merely slow the spread of AIDS, while his plan can stop it flat. The secret - abstinence before marriage, religious conversion, and, not included on his website, that perennial favorite, queer-baiting.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
at least he's not touting the garlic-and-lemon cure.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
Progress! We're moving foward!
lol
ChrisSF
· 10 months ago
I am happy about this. There was no way Warren was going to be dis-invited. This is about as good an outcome as we could hope for. Robinson enrages religious conservatives, even within his own relatively liberal church. It was very bold of Obama to do this and is the first tangible sign that he means it when he says he wants to include everyone and will be a strong advocate for LGBT rights.
foxy
· 10 months ago
It's not good enough...sorry. It's empty.
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
Agreed. Anything short of literally dragging Rick Warren onto the podium in chains and dumping a bucket of feces on his head will be an empty gesture, as far as I'm concerned. Until that happens, Obama is no better than McCain, and worse than Bush.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
Sorry Chris. I've never bought the idea that Obama was doing the right thing by including Warren in the first place. I see it as wrong to honor homophobia and then call it an attempt at inclusiveness. It was wrong with McClurkin and it is wrong with Warren. Even if Obama were to have Robinson speak at the inauguration on Tuesday instead of the separate event on Sunday that Robinson has been given, it would not erase the mistake of honoring Warren. I do hope Obama will be a strong advocate for LGBT rights. And I hope he has learned from this mistake. I applaud John for continually holding his feet to the fire over this. Sadly, I think it was and is necessary.
Maria
· 10 months ago
I agree with you. The problem was and still is in the honoring Rick Warren.
It would be akin to having a racist preacher being honored on inauguration day. And adding 100 non-racist preachers still wouldn't make it okay.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
That's how I see it too, Maria. Plus it is part of a pattern.
BloggerDave
· 10 months ago
I agree and I also think Warren will decline the invitation due to this development.
Notes_On_Virginia
· 10 months ago
Lord, who cares? Is our community completely focused on symbol over substance now? Let's not forget that Obama promised us to: pass ENDA and hate crimes laws, and repeal DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. I hope we can be as focused and energetic on these issues as we were on who gets to say a constitutionally dubious prayer for us for a few minutes on one day in January.
ChrisSF
· 10 months ago
Amen. Time to move on to the substantive issues.
Akaison
· 10 months ago
Symbolism is a part of how substantive issues happen.
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
There can be no progress on substantive issues until the symbols are properly aligned.
Notes_On_Virginia
· 10 months ago
@Ritorna: No disrespect to the faith crowd here, but government-sponsored prayers ARE meaningless to me. I'm more upset about about the existence of inauguration prayers than who's giving them.
@TheNeedle: I hear you. I wasn't pleased about Rick Warren either. But he represents a powerful constituency -- one that's been kicking our asses pretty consistently over the past decade, I might add. And politicians pay attention to power. Simple as that. So I guess it's not a bad thing that we're making Obama squirm on the whole inauguration issue, but I'd dearly love for us to start making politicians squirm on real issues and make some real progress. All I'm saying is that we've been a little too good at the symbol side of things, and not so good at the political change part. But hopefully a new day is coming...
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
Hi N_O_V.. I'm an atheist, so I know what you mean. Still, honoring Warren really gets me.
Akaison
· 10 months ago
Well they create public pressure. Here we have a president elect who is feeling pressure from us. Next time people will think twice and make sure that someone less bigoted is choosen. thus moving the overton window. That's the whole point of this. To move that window bit by bit. Its the same reason why Civil unions should be unacceptable. By pushing for marriage, we get more and more rights than if we accept whatever they hand out.
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
What part of "slap in the face" don't you understand? If someone works for your rights and promises to end oppressive laws, but they still associate with people who don't like you, that's a slap in the face. And slaps are all that matters.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
If it were only a meaningless two minute speech one day in January, I'd say you were right. But it is not.
willnyc
· 10 months ago
NotesOnV, I promise you this: we must speak the language of POLITICS, not of what's comfortable. If we don't bitch and moan and raise total hell NOW, over government-endorsed homophobia, do you think for a second that Obama will bother to work on ENDA OR DOMA OR DADT? This is POLITICS! We must keep at him constantly and vigilantly to make sure our needs our heard. We must speak HIS language and make our demands heard politically. He's not our BFF, he's our President. He can take it, trust me.
Robert
· 10 months ago
You're right about one thing. He can take it.
Otherwise, you're inventing a new little 'oppressed' reality for yourself. Obama didn't need any bitching and moaning, not one little bit of it, to get way out front on LGBT civil rights issues. You obviously don't know what he's been articulating fearlessly on the campaign trail or what he put up, front and center, on his transition website. If he was nervous or reticent, he wouldn't be trumpeting his pro-LGBT agenda. Now, if it makes you feel like a more powerful person to imagine that your bitching and moaning is what is going to make the president pay attention then, well, you go right ahead. Whatever you need to do to feel like you're indispensable, I guess.
willnyc
· 10 months ago
You sound like someone who thinks he has a personal relationship with Obama rather than a political one. The only think Obama has said is that he agrees that gays should have equal rights, even though he has come out many times AGAINST gay marriage. He has not been "articulating fearlessly" for equal rights for gay people. Asking Warren to be the nation's spiritual representative at his own inauguration is proof of this. I know I'm not indispensable. I know that all this loud bitching and moaning only goes so far up the ladder. I don't take any of this personally. I only know that gay people must learn to speak out in political ways, not in personal way. We must be vigilant to take advantage of moments to constantly demand equality under the law. If Warren is it this time, so be it. And finally, if you think gays are QUOTE "oppressed" rather ACTUALLY OPPRESSED, then you're living in some alternate universe.
CarrieNJ
· 10 months ago
Why is it that it's gay men who continue to be so outraged by this whole episode? The lesbian community isn't this outraged. The pro-choice community isn't outraged even though Warren compared abortion to genocide. Jews, Hindus, Muslims etc. aren't outraged at all even though Warren says they're all going to Hell. So why the implacable anger, gay men? Could all this lashing out perhaps be a defensive mechanism against all that shame and guilt that makes you afraid to be alone with yourself in the dark? I'd like to hear from you; and yes, please feel free to lash out... BTW I happen to belong to three of the not-outraged communities I listed so feel free to also call me a self-hating, Obama kool-aid drinking troll.
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
"Could all this lashing out perhaps be a defensive mechanism against all that shame and guilt that makes you afraid to be alone with yourself in the dark?"
Who is lashing out here?
judybrowni
· 10 months ago
Hey asshole: I'm heterosexual and pro-choice and I could see the evil clearly, of Warren characterizing each of my brother and (lesbian) sister's loving, three decade partnerships as the equivalent to pedophilia and incest.
That you don't is not only culpable but says more about your defense mechanisms and lashing out, than anything else.
Maria
· 10 months ago
I am also heterosexual and I am outraged on behalf of my gay friends and my lesbian sister and also on behalf of MYSELF.
Rick Warren represents a big part of what we have all been fighting against these past 8 years, and to have him honored in any way is a huge slap in the face to all of us who voted for Obama. And those who can't see that are in a major state of denial.
And if you all (and Obama) think that "reaching out" to these right-wing religious fascists is the thing to do, I have news for you, they ultimately will compromise with no one and their sole goal is to make this one nation under THEIR god.
fredndallas
· 10 months ago
Unfortunately you are totally and completely correct, Maria. Bigots and purveyors like Warren will never, ever be satisfied until the USA is a theocracy with their ilk at the helm. THAT is the far, far greater danger above their homophobia, racial bigotry and total denial of women's rights. You cannot compromise with zealots who want our constitution shredded for their own selfish purposes. Obama has got to know that.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
"So why the implacable anger, gay men? Could all this lashing out perhaps be a defensive mechanism against all that shame and guilt that makes you afraid to be alone with yourself in the dark? "
1) You assume we're all ashamed to be gay?
2) You assume we all feel 'guilt' over our sexuality?
3) You assume we're all afraid, afraid to be alone, afraid of everything so we hide?
What pathetic, sophomoric psyche-101-isms.
It's called outrage, exhasperation at being kicked under the bus, and tired of being told to "calm down".
Good for you, you aren't upset. Fantastic. I hope your state of bliss does SOMETHING to change the status quo, but I seriously doubt it.
BloggerDave
· 10 months ago
At the risk of being burned at the stake on this website, I agree with you. I am a gay male who does not buy into Warren's characterizations of the LGBT community. I see his rhetoric as vicious and divisive because in fact it is he who is desperately defending his antiquated and immoral positions against the torrent of public opinion that has been increasingly going our way. His are powerful words for which we must have as powerful replies rooted in fact and conviction not in emotion. His rhetoric is purposely meant to incite our emotions and when we take the bait, he wins by proving to the world his theory that we are immature, irresponsible, and definitely not worthy or ready for the seriousness of marriage. Another major side effect of all this emotional reasoning is that we are attacked as intolerant when in fact we are one of the most tolerant people on this earth.
Hunterdon_Rube
· 10 months ago
what shame? what guilt? I'm not afraid of my self nor the dark...
get a clue
judybrowni
· 10 months ago
I was really angry about Warren: gay brother and sister, ya know.
Each in partnerships for over three decades: but not able to cover the other on health insurance when it was desperately needed, won't be able to collect Social Security benefits, if a partner dies young, for just two heartbreaking reasons that marriage is important to them.
Having my brother and sisters' 30 year loving relationships compared to incest and pedophilia still rankles: I believe Warren is evil for the evil he encourages.
BUT this new invitation of Obama's both warms my heart and gives me hope that he will be the President who speeds forward civil rights and acceptance for our GBLT citizens.
And will leave the petty tyrants like Rick Warren covered in the dust of history.
BloggerDave
· 10 months ago
I am starting to think that the person who does not want us to enjoy the inauguration is John Aravosis unless he has everything exactly his way. This is where we part company as I do not share the "victim" role he is attempting to cast for all of us with every utterance by the Obama team. John needs to get past his righteous anger to begin seeing the forrest for the trees. In this case, the forrest is breathtaking because Obama chose a high ranking member of the clergy who at the same time is gay. This may seem inconsequential to those who do not have any religious affiliation but it's huge and has the potential to make Rick Warren bow out of the role he originally accepted with cynical glee. With this announcement, Obama has raised the stakes beyond gay marriage and legitimized the notion that a person can be close to God and gay at the same time. The illusion that God does not accept gays is at the root of the bigotry which all religions suscribe to including the Saddleback Church. Obama has stated very clearly to all people of faith that gay people are equal in the eyes of God without the need to deny ourselves or our sexuality. This is indeed more than I expected and I for one will be thoroughly enjoying the inauguration.
timncguy
· 10 months ago
Obama has said NO SUCH THING. In fact Obama OPPOSES gay marriage based on his own PERASONAL religious beliefs.
When will everyone realize that CIVIL marriage has nothing to do with religion even any one individual's personal religious beliefs?
BloggerDave
· 10 months ago
Yes , Obama has said that he is against gay 'marriage' but he has never said explicitly that his opposition is due to his personal religious beliefs. He has kept his reasons vague. Regarding civil marriage having nothing to do with religion, I agree. But whether you like it or not, the pattern that was revealed by the exit interviews in the Nov elections re prop 8 was that people favored it due to religious reasons. Again, whether you like it or not, we will need a chunk of these people in order to overturn it. Obama is helping on that front by legitimizing the gay bishop by his invitation.
timncguy
· 10 months ago
well you just haven't listened closely enough. Obama HAS specifically stated his opposition to gay marriage is based on his religious beliefs.
Secondly, prop 8 should rightly be overturned. It should NEVER have been on the ballot.
Civil rights are NEVER to be put to a majority vote. If blacks had been made to wait for "popular opinion" before civil rights legislation be written into law, they would still be waiting today. The Civil Rights legislation was NOT popular with the public when it was enacted. IT was the act of forcing it on the public, of forcing integration of schools and jobs and society that has caused people's minds to change over the years.
Suggesting that gays need to wait for popular opinion in order to gain their civil rights is asking gays to bear a burden that others before them have not had to bear.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
Overheard at Rick Warren's megachurch:
"Though the candidates came down on opposite sides of the California initiative that would ban gay marriage, both stressed that they opposed same-sex marriage. Obama called marriage "a sacred union," drawing applause when he added, 'God is in the mix.'"
Would it help if Obama personally sucked off every miffed gay?
judybrowni
· 10 months ago
Hey bigot asshole: make your closet case homophobia useful and suck yourself off.
foxy
· 10 months ago
He can't because he's got a small dick.
TheNeedle
· 10 months ago
If he could do that, he wouldn't have time to post blog comments.
whomod
· 10 months ago
Who would?
Honestly though, for all my crude attempts at making a point about some people here to not let something go even when gestures are extended at reconciliation, it seems that the mood of the day just seems to be to try to ride outrage for all it's worth. And I purposely made my displeasure crude and overt because even if I'd made it all nice nice, the reaction is always the same here by the more militant here, regardless.
Always the accusations of right wingers attacking them covertly. Always the crude closet gay insinuations, always the whole militant all or nothing attitude that really didn't work for Malcom X or the Palestinians or anyone else who ever tried it.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
... militant? For the last 20 years we've played nice, put on pretenses of assimilating, being 'normal', being entertaining and neutered and desexualized and that's gotten us NOTHING.
It's time to be militant. The bigoted enemy doesn't recognize 'playing nice'. If you play nice, they take and take and take and give nothing back.
Line in the sand. No more mr nice faggot.
Robert
· 10 months ago
fantastic! you've concocted a recent history for the GLBT community; is this how you actually lived the last 20 years? Because it's so . . . draMATIC, so HOLLYWOOD. You know, you should make a movie called "No More Mr. Nice Faggot."
In any event, it's not the life I'VE been living nor have I seen the people around me trying real hard to 'be normal' and stay 'neutered.' Too funny!
timncguy
· 10 months ago
A gesture doesn't COUNT when you aren't willing to admit that it was a gesture. Obama has gone out of his way with this announcement to be CLEAR that inviting the gay bishop to speak WAS NOT A GESTURE to the LGBT community.
Had Obama ADMITTED that this announcement was made as a gesture to try to appease the LGBT community, John's post would have been entirely different.
Robert
· 10 months ago
Exactly. He made clear it wasn't a gesture because it WASN'T A GESTURE. It's just what it is: embracing of Americans as Americans. And guess what, you ARE included.
whomod
· 10 months ago
Hey Knee-jerk, go make your overt assumptions complete and just call me a Right Winger or something.
But seriously, this whole politics of victimization by the evil Obama is starting to go stale. With this kind of reaction for his efforts, perhaps he should just say f**k it and invite Fred Phelps, George W. Bush, and Anita Bryant to give the invocation.
Boycottutah
· 10 months ago
Typical homophobic pseudoliberal bullshit. But you are not a homophobe???? Nah, you are a "progressive".
Boycottutah
· 10 months ago
You mean after he is done giving lipservice to Warren, McClurkin and all the other gayhating cesspits. God knows where else his lips have been.
Boycottutah
· 10 months ago
Bottom line the pressure is working. Obama hears the noise and has decided to throw the barking dogs some scraps in an effort to quiet us down. This is a good thing. Obama and the homophobic Dems will need LGBT dollars and energy very soon.
The thing that many of the gayhating Dems here do not understand is that many in the LGBT Community have had an epiphany about the Dems. We now understand that we should use our energy to fight for our rights and only support those who support full equality for LGBT people.
We have been hurled too many times under the bus. Now we are going to see who is driving the bus before we decide if we want to pay the for the ride. Don't underestimate the LGBT Community or the fact that there is a new generation of LGBT people who will not settle for anything less than full equality. As the older generation dies out and the new generation is ushered in a change is on the horizon.
whomod
· 10 months ago
Bottom line is that you and john are both making assumptions. It really seems this site just likes to post Obama YouTube videos but really don't listen to anything he says. The fact that he invited someone he disagrees with and disagrees with everyone here is the point. One that I've heard in his speeches over and over.The fact that he also invited his polar opposite is also the point.
We don't have to agree with Warren or with Robinson or Obama but we sure as hell better try to find common ground and try to move this country forward and past ideological stalemate. Obama didn't run to please the liberals or to piss off the conservatives. he ran and said that he ran to bring this country together as best he could and try to help. He didn't run for the blacks or the gays or the Democrats. he ran for the country. and I think it's rather foolish and short sighted to think that just because he's considered a Democrat or liberal or what have you, that he has to only appeal and cater to us. Doing that will only guarantee political and social deadlock again. Which is also something he talked about often.
Gridlock
· 10 months ago
You don't find "common ground" with bigots any more than you find common ground with racists or anti-semites. You relegate them to irrelevancy, you crush them, you stamp them out, and then you school their deficient spawn on how to exist as decent human beings.
whomod
· 10 months ago
Sounds exactly like what far right wing Republicans believe as well.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
more false equivalency. you could not be more obtuse.
timncguy
· 10 months ago
well then, where is the common ground we are searching for with racists?
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
until now, the common ground is "you are first class and we are second class". so what is the compromise for the new millenium? 1.5 class? do pedophiles and homos and child-raping fathers and shoplifters all belong together in class 1.5? would that be acceptable to you? you still don't get it with your BS about bringing the country together. we don't need to agree or disagree with warren. we just need to keep him off our fricking stage.
BloggerDave
· 10 months ago
Steve,
I see that you're still on your high horse, keeping the hystrionics going, and attacking anyone who doesn't share your never-ending outrage. How we handle Warren and people like him need to be rooted in fact and conviction not in emotion. Warren's rhetoric is purposely meant to incite our emotions and when we take the bait, he wins by proving to the world his theory that we are immature, irresponsible, and definitely not worthy or ready for the seriousness of marriage. Another major side effect of all this out-of-control emotional reasoning is that we are attacked as intolerant when in fact we are one of the most tolerant people on this earth. You can continue to wallow in the misery Warren's words have caused you and remain the perennial victim but my partner, my kids, and I will never join you in your self-defeating, and self-involved outrage.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
utter condescending BS. anger is not "wallowing or immature or irresponsible or out-of-control or hystrionic or perennial victimhood or self-defeating or self-involved". did you wear out your thesaurus? good god what a load.
Hunterdon_Rube
· 10 months ago
LOL you go steve in jersey....hold on to your convictions...i bet you look pretty damn good on a horse!
BloggerDave
· 10 months ago
What convictions? Playing the victim is not brave nor noble. And sadly you've proven that misery loves company.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
i think we see what is sad here.
Hunterdon_Rube
· 10 months ago
victim? did you just finish reading coulter's latest book and get a hard-on?
you closet repug WANKER
go spew your ignorant rants on a palin blog! more your style and audience
WANKER
BloggerDave
· 10 months ago
We'll never get anywhere with people like you that insult just to win an argument. Insults don't work, crying like immature babies doesn't work, and reacting emotionally to every perceived slight will never work. Obviously, you and those who responf so rabidly are reacting to some deeper issue within you that gets tapped each time a conservative evangelist hurls insults. The more I see this sentiment advamced in the blogs, the more I'm convinced that it sparks so much vile because it's true. Luckily, there are many more of us who don't buy into that bs and therefore have clearer heads to actually get thing done. I understand what is meant by the fringe now.
BloggerDave
· 10 months ago
Calling you on your self-absorbed ( new adj) hystrionics is now called condescending and stringing adjectives out of context now counts as arguments to justify your ongoing drama. Grow a pair, stop crying, and do something constructive with your hissy fit.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
you are one bizarre POS. go incite somebody else's emotions. if you are an example of "the most tolerant people on earth", i guess i'll take intolerance.
BloggerDave
· 10 months ago
Your emotions have already been incited, not by me but by Warren and they've remained that way ever since. What good has it done for you and the rest of the victims on here that support your belief that shared pain and crying about it incessantly will change anything? New things happen like the bishop being called for opening prayer yet you ignore its significance because you'r rather wallow in your anger. I don't care what insults you or anyone here hurls at me because to me they matter as much as Warren's.
Robert
· 10 months ago
Thank you for stating clearly what is obvious to all of us who worked on the campaign and embraced the message as well as the messenger. Some of the posters on this site, in their righteous condemnations, reveal more about the smallness of their own minds and hearts than anything else.
To the whining wounded: GLBT equality doesn't get one second closer to realization by calling someone, anyone a pig.
whomod
· 10 months ago
Change the second paragraph from "gay" to 'black" and you'll see that that is exactly why Obama reigned in the fact of his own blackness during the campaign. Because to have done otherwise would just have looked like the old politics of grievance that really turns off people and loses us votes and thus eliminates our chances of ever actually having any power to affect change.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
actually, no. obama did not rein in anything of the sort. he campaigned as a black man. his philadelphia speech did not legitimize racism or racists. nor should it have. there's your contrast.
Maria
· 10 months ago
Said just like someone who has the same civil rights as everybody else.
So if gay people and those of us who support them just sit down and shut the hell up about it the rest of you will decide to benevolently bestow equal civil rights on them for being good?
Can you give us a time frame on that? My sister and her partner have been together for 22 years now and they're awfully tired of waiting...
FunMe
· 10 months ago
Where are all the REALLY RICH gays? They too need to put the pressure.
Every email I get from the Obama camp I responde with something and the heading: NO TO HOMOPHOBIC WARREN
fredndallas
· 10 months ago
My thought about Bigot Warren being honored by President elect Obama was that Obama was continuing to respond to his own internalized homophobia and had calculated that slamming the GLBT community got him more than it lost him.
I felt the community's wisest response was to shame Obama by highlighting the enormous contradiction between his intellectual (moral?) instincts and the emotional conflicts that he apparently feels about sexuality. I hoped that Obama's ego couldn't take being shamed as embracing bigotry and that he might learn that Bigot Warren's honor was actually bringing more attention to Obama's inner feelings about sexuality, instead of shielding him.
This announcement about Robinson is a gigantic break through and I am very pleased with it. I think the GLBT community and friends have succeeded and I believe it shows that Obama is becoming more self-aware, growing and resolving some of his inner conflicts. I hope I'm right.
But, of course we are being told that this was the plan all along. Without that cover story, Obama's incredible ego would be badly bruised. I think we need to just wink and nod and say, "oh, well if we had only known."
Could it be that indeed this was the plan all along and that all my ruminations are just so much non-sense? Yep, could be.
Of course you would also have to conclude that Barack Obama and his crew are political idiots who don't have a clue about their constituencies, the media, progressive thought and opinion and pay no attention to details of execution, communications, etc.
As implausible as my theory might be to some, I think the latter explanation is far weaker.
In any event, the Robinson invitation is absolutely, perfectly and totally appropriate and we should all express strong support of it and whatever thinking went behind it. Now let's stay behind Obama in solving this country's incredible problems.
As far as all this "who leads prayers" being unimportant "stage-dressing", I think that opinion, if not totally disingenuous, is comprehensively naive. Obama cares nothing about symbols? Give me a break. Symbols have not been key in his election and defeat of the Republican disaster? Give me a break.
And to those friends and families who spoke up about this symbol that sent a terrible message of hate endorsement -- thank you, thank you, thank you.
Allan Brauer
· 10 months ago
I am also overjoyed at Robinson's inclusion in the inaugural festivities, albeit in a smaller and less visible role than Pig Warren.
And the Obama camp's claim that this was in the works all along is belied by the fact that one of the people who spoke out against Warren's inclusion was Bishop Robinson. If the Bishop already knew he was being included, he would have said as much when he made his comments about Warren, or the Obama team would have responded to Robinson's objections by noting that he was also participating in the inauguration AS EVIDENCE of their effort at balance.
QED this was a RESPONSE to the thousands of us who emailed change.gov and Obama's LGBT liasion making this exact suggestion.
kladinvt
· 10 months ago
I'm not really sure what this "gesture" by Obama means, yet. Warren, by any standard is a terrible choice to hoist before the national/global spotlight & is an insult on many levels beyond his insults to the LGBT community. As for this last minute announcement of having Bishop Robinson give an invocation, on the surface it's better than not having him participate, but whether or not it means anything substantive, only time will tell. The best thing that has come out of this whole misstep on Obama's part,(for me anyway) is the removal of the 'rose colored glasses' that many us wore previously when viewing Obama. It's left many of us with a clearer view & a skeptical eye when regarding Obama & his future actions & that is a good thing. After all, none of us would want to be like the 'trained seals' who were W's fans, these past 8 years! So keep questioning Obama & challenging him when it's called for, it could help to make him an outstanding president!
nogo postal
· 10 months ago
hmm can you prove that this was Not made before Warren? If you truly believe that Warren was not a gesture but this is? Cool I can safely say..during the Dem Primary..you did not knock doors for Obama......fine.... But to those of us who did? For him to invite the spectrum of our nation to our nation's table is no surprise.
Ginny
· 10 months ago
Talk about a hissy fit.
Some good news comes along and most of you seem content to kick at it and scream at it and go into an obsessed tirade.
Come ON people. You're starting to sound like paranoid hate-mongering righteous finantics.
Obama's not even President yet. Geesh.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 10 months ago
that sounded well reasoned. zzzzzzzzzz.
nogo postal
· 10 months ago
"Making sure that we all know that this move should in no way be interpreted to suggest that Obama feels our pain is just incredibly dumb." This is just bullshit.. Yep.. Obama NEVER faced being biracial ...yep Obama never faced being black in America.. Just wondering John...can YOU feel the pain of being a gay black male in America?...being a person coming into this country without papers? Being obese? Being female? Being a union advocate? Until you can release the fact that who you are is less or more than anyone else..striving for dignity...than well.... Most of us..in our lifetime..have faced discrimination..in one form or another. Maybe it is possible for you to place discrimination into a neat list . I cannot. But hey...you will not be the first..nor the last to believe the thumb is on your throat more than others....
mauro7inf
· 10 months ago
Obama has a controversially gay bishop speak -- and not as a symbolic gesture to those who were pissed about Warren but because his people actually think that this bishop is an important person -- and you're upset that he's being too sincere? WTF? What, would you want them to come out and say, "Well, we're screwing you with Warren, but we're really sorry and look, here's a gay bishop for you!"? This outrage is completely pointless. Say what you want about Warren, but the fact that he got this extremely important gay bishop to give an invocation is not meant to be an act of surrender to the gay community but an implicit acknowledgment that being gay does not invalidate your life's religious accomplishments. No right-wing bigoted critic will be able to complain that he's bending to "teh gays agendas", while at the same time, Obama's recognizing an important religious man in the struggle for civil rights.
You're pissed off that Obama's people aren't lying to you. WTF? Would it kill you to actually appreciate this man and milestone for gay rights, whose ascendancy has caused bigoted churches to separate, and his invocation? You don't have to get over the choice of Rick Warren, but this is entirely too far. In addition, the "skeptics" in question are the people who see the inauguration proceedings cynically, thinking that a gay bishop is a political play (thus implying insincerity), but the spokesman rebutted that skepticism by saying that they're "for real" with this guy, that he's not just a pawn in the game of public opinion but a truly welcome voice at the inauguration. The "skeptics" include the aforementioned right-wing bigoted critics, too. Besides, if anyone's a political pawn, it's Rick Warren, anyway.
random gay progressive
· 10 months ago
Not everyone in the civil rights community was as pissed off about Warren as you are. Not saying you're wrong for being pissed off, but let's not be monolithic here.
Laura in WA
· 10 months ago
Really? You'd really rather believe Obama picked Robinson out of political convenience, to get him out of hot water with the gay community, than believe that, while under no pressure to do so (and in fact knowing he'd probably take some heat from the right), he decided he'd like to have someone like Gene Robinson at his inauguration?
And I think "skeptics" referred to people who might assume Robinson was picked because of the Warren flap, not supporters of civil rights.
Laurel Thornton
· 10 months ago
I think what this spokespoerson was trying to emphasize is that they were aware of the need for this type of inclusion--before the outcry. Maybe they did--but they didn't necessarily need to make that emphasis.
Nor did you need to read "skeptics" as meaning the "civil rights community."
RitornaVincitor
· 10 months ago
From AP: "Presidential Inaugural Committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass said Robinson is one of several religious speakers who reflects Obama's commitment to diversity throughout the inaugural festivities. 'Rev. Robinson was selected on his own merit because he is a man who preaches tolerance and inclusivity, all very important values that he shares with the president-elect,' Douglass said."
So let's take this logic one step farther. If Obama is about inclusiveness, and Warren was invited because Obama wants to bring all sides together at his inauguration as his team keeps saying, then it follows that Warren was selected because he preaches intolerance and exclusivity. So once again it begs the question. Where is the KKK supporter? Where is the Catholic who thinks Protestants are going to hell? Where is the anti-Semite who calls the holocaust a myth?
Robert
· 10 months ago
The funniest/saddest part to me in John's piece is the fantasy that "the Obama people are starting to get it." The evidence is overwhelming and of long standing that the Obama people always 'got it' when it comes to LGBT civil rights issues. That evidence was all over the campaign, it's been all over the transition website since day one. The Warren pick angered many and, apparently, blinded some to being able to acknowledge ANYTHING but that pick. Mr. Aravosis, Barack Obama isn't on the end of your string or anyone else's, for that matter . . . at least not yet. That's one reason a lot of us voted for him. But whatever. You keep on making yourself feel big and powerful. Whatever works for ya, dude.
willnyc
· 10 months ago
Robert, you keep going on with this idea that we're all trying to control Obama and that we want him to be answerable to us. No. We want him to be answerable to the exact things he said on the campaign trail. And asking a clear homophobe like Warren to give the most powerful spiritual invocation at his inauguration does not add up. We're asking for accountability and an explanation. Why is that so hard for you? And why must you demean anyone who asks a question regarding Obama's infallibility? Especially on this important matter?
Robert
· 10 months ago
Fair enough, Will. The demeaning edge isn't necessary or productive. My point is, to reiterate, that the Obama staff's ears are open, have been open, will be open and that, much better than an ear, they already got the message, long before Rick Warren. Policy is going to change w/ regard to the definition of equality in America in Obama's first 100 days, in the first 6 months, int he first 4 years, and it's going to change in our direction only, not against us, no matter the symbolic inclusion of Americans who would think or wish otherwise.
willnyc
· 10 months ago
More than anything, I so, so hope you're right. You'll have to forgive me if for my own protection that I keep a healthy level of doubt, and keep the spotlight on at all times. Thanks for your optimistic and respectful post.
BloggerDave
· 10 months ago
Thank you for your post. Many on here do not care about the religious implications of inviting the bishop, perhaps because they don't believe in God which is fine. I have stated that that what Obama did is a big deal. We will need to get a chunk of religious voters in Ca to repeal prop 8 whether people on here like it or not. Unfortunately, John A , by example, attracts the loud whiner crowd in our community who would rather play the victim than help to solve the problems we face.
willnyc
· 10 months ago
What Robert seems to saying is How dare we, as GLBT Americans, have the temerity, the absolute gall to think that anyone on the Obama staff has a millisecond to give an open ear to our needs and complaints, especially on a nationally recognized blog like John A's. That that's just an ego trip, a fantasy. LIGHTBULB: Maybe he's right. Maybe this is really how the Obama camp thinks. Would explain alot.
whomod
· 10 months ago
Thanks Robert. Yesterday after I left the comp and actually had time to reflect on this brouhaha, I came to almost the same .. well.. assumption that you did in your last sentence. That this Obama outrage is being milked in order to raise the profile of this web site.
But like I said it is an assumption and not an accusation as I have no way to verify if tis is so or not. it sure feels like it though given the fact that obama can't seem to win for trying. Reading your other posts i see that you have listened to obama's many speeches and perfectly understand that this goes hand in hand with what he's ALWAYS said. My disappointment with this site and with John and the more militant here on this board is on account of the fact that rather than understand that this is merely a symbol of common purpose, regardless of whether you happen to agree or disagree with Warren or Robinson. the subsantive part comes AFTER the inaguration when real change can be implemented.
But IMO in order to gin up some traffic to this site and raise a personal profile rather than understand that this is a gesture of common purpose and one people, gay or straight, black or white, it seems the militant gays here want to make Obama "pay" , which to me translates to 'weaken him', thus sort of ensuring, like it always happens, that NOTHING will change.
Now I suppose I can count my blessings that the "no more Mr. Nice Gays" were asleep at the switch before they could define the Democratic party with their like clockwork 4 year "demands" during primary season. Thus making the Democratic party look marginalized to swing voters and moderates. And thus guaranteeing another loss like it always happens every 4 years and thus ensuring that no pro gay legislation is passed, that progressive causes lose, that nothing ever changes. This time we dodged the angry gay bullet. And yes board, flame away as I'm sure will undoubtedly happen anyways.
Now change will come. Gay causes will win. But I have to wonder if the militant gays here think that Obama is weak, that the Democratic Party can be brought to heel where the Republicans are the strong party. it sure looks that way because I didn't see this sort of militancy given to Bush and the Republicans. And given the fact that every time i open my moth here, i'm accused of being a fake Democrat, a fake liberal etc. etc., i have to wonder when people started thinking that Jefferson, Roosevelt, Che Guevara and JFK handed over the keys to define Democrats and liberals over to the gays at AmericaBlog.
Sorensauce
· 10 months ago
Gene Robinson is the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Barack Obama has invited him to appear at his side at his inauguration, which may end up being viewed live by the largest global audience of any event in the history. The audience will necessarily include many, many, many of the schismatic Anglicans (heavily concentrated in ex Commonweath colonies, e.g. Nigeria) who insist that Bishop Robinson must resign as bishop first of all, and if that doesn't happen sooner or later they will effect a permanent breach with the other half of the Anglican Communion, i.e. the end of the C of E. By inviting Robinson to an event this huge, Obama is taking sides in, again, a SCHISM. He's giving the Archbishop of Canterbury a long overdue kick in the head, while making it even clearer that Robinson isn't going anywhere, and that the schismatics and reactionary clergy in sub-Saharan Africa might be sound more credible abominating New Hampshire-style buttseks tolerance if their own parishes weren't rapidly depopulating because of HIV. I don't know what Rick Warren said. If anyone believes Obama enlisted Warren in order to express hostility to teh ghey... I mean, why?
James McConnell
· 10 months ago
Robinson will not be at the podium in front of the Capitol. he will appear at the Lincoln memorial before the Inauguration and Obama will "be in attendance." not at his side.
tropicgirl
· 10 months ago
Nice try Obama. The phobes you surround yourself messed up bigtime and you know it. Stop insulting us further. Seriously, quit it.
All Comments
How petty.
How petulant.
Worse than a truculent five-year-old on a long plane ride.
Thankfully, you are not Obama.
I'm not ashamed but I am outraged. As are all my family, straight or gay, Christian or Jewish or Atheist or Muslim or Buddhist (and that's just my close circle of family and friends). We're all appalled at the Warren choice. It's not only gay men who are against him speaking for America.
You seem very angry and aggressive against gay men. Educate yourself. And not for nothing, but maybe a little meditation wouldn't hurt. Or possibly laying off the caffeine?
Asking for equality under the law is "whining?"
Asking that an anti-gay bigot not be part of an important national event is "complaining?"
Asking posters for information exposing Warren's videotaped comments on homophobia is "spewing crap?"
I disagree with you, but at least we all know where you stand.
EXACTLY.
Warren is a big deal because abroad he supports a guy who pushed for legislation that is the equivalent of Paragraph 175.
When Obama's ACTIONS match his WORDS, then Warren will be neutralized.
Here's how I want it to go. When they talk about hate crimes legislation and the Warren's of this world object to it as "special" rights. I want the Obama admin to step up and say LOUDLY, we invited you of the religious right to the table, we listened to your position, we decided that you are WRONG on this civil rights issue.
As an added point: You're talking about neutralizing Warren, as if that is what I was talking about. It's not. I was talking about the particular instance of neutralizing Warren's appearance at the inauguration.
Beyond that niggling little point, we seem to be in violent agreement.
And "you understanding other people's feelings" only illustrates a lack of objective thought.
But never mind. This is obviously a closed discussion, so I'll just bow out.
Again, though, this is just my opinion. If the pain is still there, then of course, the matter shouldn't be dropped.
Would it be possible, though, now that the concern has been heard, to use that pain in a different way? I'm not sure what that would be. Perhaps you, or someone else, has some ideas? It seems clear, though, that Rick Warren is not going to be uninvited. I have even kind of enjoyed, over the past several weeks, the discomfort Rick Warren has obviously been feeling over being "caught" trying to have it both ways. I know the resulting dialogue wasn't intended, but I think it's been helpful.
This pain has already exhibited itself as energy, as a loud demand that bigots be called out when they hide behind a belief system, and going forward, a demand for equality under the law.
But you've brought up an important point: What's next? Exactly?
Some of the problem I have with your posts is that are not about politics at all. Which is what we are discussing.
Let me cut and paste something posted on Daily Kos last night:
"And what I learned on working on Nixon and watching him and slow-moing him for hours and hours and hours, is never to 100 percent totally believe the person the politician is when the red light goes on, because he wants to communicate something to us. He wants to communicate power or sensitivity or vulnerability or in Nixon's case, toughness.
Every single politician must stand in the dark a second before the light goes on, and something unconscious changes. So I've learned to watch like a hawk everybody - Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, it doesn't matter - and all of us, too. We all know we do some things slightly different."
This is Frank Langella, who portrays Nixon in Nixon/Frost.
The poiint he is trying to make is that politics is about more than the personality (Obama as Obama). It's about what they are pushing forth. Always. When looking these issues, I really do get the sense reading comments that people seem to not appreciate that it is politics. When you say things like we are in the middle of a sensitivity training session it makes me question do you get it?
Let me allow Kos of Daily Kos to sum up why these things matter- the point of this is to keep pressure on Obama. Politicians only respond when you do that. Not when you try to turn it into a personal relationship.
so yes, keeping the pressure on is the only way to get a response from him. period.
why is that so hard for people like Lynne D to understand?
Lynne never thinks about how that mechanism works.
Fortunately, he's a much better human being than what we've had to endure through the past 8 years. And we are all going to see a big difference-- once he's actually the President.
Don't let this tug of war ruin the inauguration for you. This is one we should all be celebrating!
Bullshit.
Doing what is right is called leadership.
I will not be celebrating January 20.
The problem is, from Obama's perspective, it is not he that has to "get it." It is us that are supposed to "get it." It is there simply aren't enough gay men and women for Obama to pay any mind to. If the fact that Obama is specifically pointing out that this is not an olive branch to the gay community, that Obama personally does not beleive in your right to marry, and Obama is set to ignore the issue of gays in the military, doesn't get through to you that Obama simply is not concerned with gay rights, what will?
Oh, by the way, notice that Obama is backing off closing down Gitmo?
1. bigot
2. liberal
3. conservative
4. gay
5. woman
6. ?
Where are the rabi? the imam? the roshi? the saddhu?
And John -- you're not overreacting. The Obama team's continued vocal rejection of the LGBT community over this issue is definitely worrisome.
Hmm-kay. Then why not announce Robinson a month ago?
For some reason, they still think neocons are going to help them along despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and one thing that sticks in the craw of the jesusfucks is any support of the 'homosexual agenda'.
Forget peace and love, these nutjobs are all about hate and bashing.
It's a combination of a few things: the Right won't have ANYTHING to do with furthering any gay causes b/c If Obama is seen as "our" president, he's lost lots of Xtian votes. There is probably an ick factor - I'd be curious to know if the Obamas have any gay friends since he seems uncomfortable at gay events. Finally, we just don't matter that much in terms of numbers so in his eyes we should be thankful for anything we get.
I do think, however, that the brouhaha raised here and elsewhere did have something to do with it--and it looks as though to counter that tin ear, we will have to continue to stand on their shoes and YELL in their faces until they finally get it. Keep up the pressure, John. They will change when they realize GLBT people are simply not going to be satisfied with a half a loaf. Not anymore.
The underlying problem is that by getting stuck in this religious flypaper of a discussion, we allow the other side to keep gay equality as RELIGIOUS discussion. It is not. It is a civil issue. They WANT to make it a religious issue so they hide their bigotry behind the first amendment. And we keep enabling them to exactly that.
Robinson is a lovely guy it seems, but by continually putting him ( or any gay clergy for that matter) in the forefront, we keep getting messed up in his internal church politics, which is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, and again, keeps the gay equality issue in the realm of religion where it doesn't belong.
And then there is the whole question about why there is any religious speech at an official government ceremony.
Except in this regard--the anti-gay vote was state-sanctioned religious persecutiion. It must be *told* to the religious (and told by other religionists as necessary) that whatever their faith says, it doesn't trump the basic American ideals of justice and equality under the law.
If it takes liberal Christian allies to pressure those who persecute us, if it takes an opposing theology, a counter-view of religion that keeps its hands off gay rights, I'm all for their help.
It would be nice to finally get the religious nonsense out of our government once and for all.
CLICK, CLICK, CLICK!
Oh, and if you're straight, you can still be OUT about being a straight ally.
Is this choice really all about Obama taking away your joy? From what I've seen on this blog, that's pretty easy.
I like Eza Klein's take:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_ar...
By putting Robinson on the same stage with Warren, the Obama Administration is saying that both are part of America, which is true (even if not particularly flattering), and that both have legitimate claims to represent significant parts of the citizenry.
I think you have to be pretty committed to aggrieved victimhood to read it any other way.
I guess you did.
(THAT'LL keep the crowds down a bit!)
Why should there be anything remarkable about gay priests? -- People used to be against gay priests?, really?
may lead to
Why should there be anything remarkable about gay cabinet members?,
and
Why should there be anything remarkable about gay weddings?
It may well be the case that this is the result of pressure put on the Obama team, but I'd let them present it their way, which seems to be to take breakthrough actions without making a fuss about them. I'm pretty sure that the end goal of most readers on this blog is to have sexual orientation be no more remarkable than hair color. The revolution won't be televised; with luck, it won't even be noticed.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/12/episcopa...
Barack Obama has to slight Rick Warren and/or conservatives too just to make the inauguration enjoyable to you?
He didn't invite Warren just to please conservatives. He didn't invite Robinson just to please liberals. That's just who Barack Obama is and it's important that we who support him understand that. We're part of a very big and diverse tent called the United States of America.
IE: stop being critical, just trust him, stop looking at his decisions with a scrutinizing eye.
The big tent of America includes bigots? I don't see any racists or anti-semites being invited.. not very big tent.. aren't they valid viewpoints along with anti-gay bigotry?
No?
Please explain the difference without using the word "religion"
I'm timing you.
I don't see how viewing gay rights through a cynical lens really helps. If you don't know how the decision was made, why give the looney right wingers more fuel for their fire? Why not just accept that Robinson was invited because he is an important religious figure and he represents in his preaching and actions some key values that are important to Obama.
Why isn't it possible that Robinson was chosen for a positive reason? Why does it have to be interpreted as an insult?
But I'm not gay.
But if YOU are skeptical about the stated reasons.... that means YOU ARE A SKEPTIC. It's not an insult to equal rights advocates. It's a pretty straightforward description of what skeptics think. A skeptic is one who is skeptical.... and thus who does not believe the stated reason... but wonders if there isn't some other reason. The only way one can cease to be a skeptic is to cease to be skeptical. I don't see how that is an occasion for offense. I mean, if you don't believe Obama's reason.... wouldn't you say your were "skeptical" about his stated reason? What descriptive term would make you happy? "Doubter"? "Non-believer"? "Denier"? "Critics"? "Haters"? Skeptic seems to be a pretty neutral word in comparison to the alternatives.
More like No. 3:
3.) Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
we were matching every day after the election only to be taken away by warren and the likes of you complaining about a 2 minutes prayer instead of focusing on the gay policies that would actually advance our goals.
now we are stuck taking about warren 24/7 looking like right-wingers while the idiot looks like a god we are picking on, even melissa is assiting him in his effort to look like the victim. FOCUS PEOPLE.
*eyeroll*
*eye rolls and rolls*
Who cares if he's saying he's not planning out who is at a public event for all americans based on outcrys from different groups.
why isn't it enough that he had already planned to have Gene there? Are you still missing the point that he's trying to say we're all one country?
Don't you see that this will upset some Episcopals? They aren't all necessarily bad people, but many do follow a strict reading of their faith. They are going to be mad too...do they not deserve some response as you've been asking for? I'm sure many even voted for Obama.
I know you're really hoping if you keep hounding Obama as a once loyal supporter it might gain you further attention...I mean, who really cares about yet another progressive supporting obama, but it's time to move on from one stupid preacher being at an event...it didnt' seem to really bother you when Obama had one who converted gays when Hillary supporters were crying foul.
That's your argument?
An inability to admit mistakes or even acknowledge a mea culpa; this is sounding so familiar...
LET ME ENJOY THE INAUGURATION , DAMN IT
Been there, done that, not buying it. Go liv in your own little fantasyworld where everything is gumdrops and rainbows.
you are NOT the one watching, nor are you the ONLY one that find some parts of the inaurguration disgusting or offensive, the right-winger would not watch robinson, the racist may not watch erita singing, you turn the part you want off.
How long do crosses take to burn?
this is a comment thread on a liberal blog--you would be more apt to enjoy a nice conservative blog...there are plenty of conservative blogs for you to visit...all filled with hate and venom, but there is only one inauguration for this president...so it needs to be done right...and in the manner his voters/supporters approve of
going forward is good.
also, another nugget that may not have been mentioned. a lesbian couple has been invited to ride the train that travels to washington for the inauguration, along with obama and biden. don't have a link.....but there was a thread on it at the daily kos.
Shocker!
hopefully 40 years from now, this issue would be the same way.
senator bird the democrat was a racist or kkk member yet he was elected over and over again. that cannot happen now.
How about NOW.
The DC Gay Men's Chorus has just announced that they will also be featured at this event.
Interestingly, they applied to take part in the Inauguration Day festivities on Jan. 20th but were turned down.
Is anyone else noticing a pattern here?
It seems that the gays are getting their own special, designated seats in the back of the Inaugurational bus. Their own special, but separate, water fountain as it were.
I know people will accuse me and others of never being satisfied. So be it. But I won't apologize to anyone for being unsatisfied with second best.
NO ONE ELSE IN AMERICA IS EXPECTED TO BE SATISFIED WITH SECOND BEST. Why should gay people be?
Not one.
But when gays get riled up over bigots and things relating to the unequal state of their civil rights, those admonitions come POURING ON from straight people and, frankly, Log Cabin apathetics.
Amazing.
I think your gladness is a slap in the face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrsM9WggCdo
Perspective is everything here. It is a prayer. A one time thing. SO much more to get busy on, dont'cha think?
John thinks that Obama hates gays because he invited Rev. Warren to his inauguration. Everything must now be viewed through that Obama-is-antigay lens. No matter what Obama does from this point forward, it must be wrong, by definition. Therefore, inviting a gay Bishop to give the invocation must somehow be interpreted as a slap in the face to gays and lesbians everywhere. There must be some way, some angle, that turns good news like this into an affront to the gay community. John got the ball rolling by zeroing in on the horrible, offensive word "skeptic." I'm going to go him one better, though: I think that Obama invited Bishop Robinson to the inauguration so that Rev. Warren can try to cure him of his homosexuality. Boy, I'm angry just thinking about it.
BY JOVE, I THINK HE'S GOT IT!
Why can't Obama admit that this gay bishop was added to the program in order to placate the gays that were upset with Warren?
That's the question John is asking here.
http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid...
"Obama's First Gift to Africa: Rick Warren
By: KELLY JEAN COGSWELL 01/11/2009
If you want to foster AIDS and kill queers in Africa, Rick Warren's the man for you. While Warren's characterization of queers (and Jews and Muslims) as godless perverts fuel bigotry in the US, the real effects of inviting Warren to preside over Obama's inauguration will be felt in sub-Saharan Africa.
He has missions all over the place, and he's rolling in dough and influence built on the best P.R. campaign I've ever seen. He hobnobs with Bono and Melissa Etheridge while liberal journalists regurgitate his press releases, crowning him a moderate evangelical and touting his AIDS campaign, which is little but a thinly veiled mask for his proselytizing work. The last thing he needs is more power.
In case you actually care, his campaign for AIDS prevention, in a region decimated by the disease, sneers at condoms, needle exchange, and sex education. He claims all those efforts merely slow the spread of AIDS, while his plan can stop it flat. The secret - abstinence before marriage, religious conversion, and, not included on his website, that perennial favorite, queer-baiting.
lol
It would be akin to having a racist preacher being honored on inauguration day. And adding 100 non-racist preachers still wouldn't make it okay.
@TheNeedle: I hear you. I wasn't pleased about Rick Warren either. But he represents a powerful constituency -- one that's been kicking our asses pretty consistently over the past decade, I might add. And politicians pay attention to power. Simple as that. So I guess it's not a bad thing that we're making Obama squirm on the whole inauguration issue, but I'd dearly love for us to start making politicians squirm on real issues and make some real progress. All I'm saying is that we've been a little too good at the symbol side of things, and not so good at the political change part. But hopefully a new day is coming...
I promise you this: we must speak the language of POLITICS, not of what's comfortable.
If we don't bitch and moan and raise total hell NOW, over government-endorsed homophobia, do you think for a second that Obama will bother to work on ENDA OR DOMA OR DADT? This is POLITICS! We must keep at him constantly and vigilantly to make sure our needs our heard. We must speak HIS language and make our demands heard politically. He's not our BFF, he's our President. He can take it, trust me.
Otherwise, you're inventing a new little 'oppressed' reality for yourself. Obama didn't need any bitching and moaning, not one little bit of it, to get way out front on LGBT civil rights issues. You obviously don't know what he's been articulating fearlessly on the campaign trail or what he put up, front and center, on his transition website. If he was nervous or reticent, he wouldn't be trumpeting his pro-LGBT agenda. Now, if it makes you feel like a more powerful person to imagine that your bitching and moaning is what is going to make the president pay attention then, well, you go right ahead. Whatever you need to do to feel like you're indispensable, I guess.
He has not been "articulating fearlessly" for equal rights for gay people. Asking Warren to be the nation's spiritual representative at his own inauguration is proof of this.
I know I'm not indispensable. I know that all this loud bitching and moaning only goes so far up the ladder. I don't take any of this personally.
I only know that gay people must learn to speak out in political ways, not in personal way. We must be vigilant to take advantage of moments to constantly demand equality under the law. If Warren is it this time, so be it.
And finally, if you think gays are QUOTE "oppressed" rather ACTUALLY OPPRESSED, then you're living in some alternate universe.
Who is lashing out here?
That you don't is not only culpable but says more about your defense mechanisms and lashing out, than anything else.
Rick Warren represents a big part of what we have all been fighting against these past 8 years, and to have him honored in any way is a huge slap in the face to all of us who voted for Obama. And those who can't see that are in a major state of denial.
And if you all (and Obama) think that "reaching out" to these right-wing religious fascists is the thing to do, I have news for you, they ultimately will compromise with no one and their sole goal is to make this one nation under THEIR god.
1) You assume we're all ashamed to be gay?
2) You assume we all feel 'guilt' over our sexuality?
3) You assume we're all afraid, afraid to be alone, afraid of everything so we hide?
What pathetic, sophomoric psyche-101-isms.
It's called outrage, exhasperation at being kicked under the bus, and tired of being told to "calm down".
Good for you, you aren't upset. Fantastic. I hope your state of bliss does SOMETHING to change the status quo, but I seriously doubt it.
get a clue
Each in partnerships for over three decades: but not able to cover the other on health insurance when it was desperately needed, won't be able to collect Social Security benefits, if a partner dies young, for just two heartbreaking reasons that marriage is important to them.
Having my brother and sisters' 30 year loving relationships compared to incest and pedophilia still rankles: I believe Warren is evil for the evil he encourages.
BUT this new invitation of Obama's both warms my heart and gives me hope that he will be the President who speeds forward civil rights and acceptance for our GBLT citizens.
And will leave the petty tyrants like Rick Warren covered in the dust of history.
When will everyone realize that CIVIL marriage has nothing to do with religion even any one individual's personal religious beliefs?
Secondly, prop 8 should rightly be overturned. It should NEVER have been on the ballot.
Civil rights are NEVER to be put to a majority vote. If blacks had been made to wait for "popular opinion" before civil rights legislation be written into law, they would still be waiting today. The Civil Rights legislation was NOT popular with the public when it was enacted. IT was the act of forcing it on the public, of forcing integration of schools and jobs and society that has caused people's minds to change over the years.
Suggesting that gays need to wait for popular opinion in order to gain their civil rights is asking gays to bear a burden that others before them have not had to bear.
"Though the candidates came down on opposite sides of the California initiative that would ban gay marriage, both stressed that they opposed same-sex marriage. Obama called marriage "a sacred union," drawing applause when he added, 'God is in the mix.'"
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sadd...
Would it help if Obama personally sucked off every miffed gay?
Honestly though, for all my crude attempts at making a point about some people here to not let something go even when gestures are extended at reconciliation, it seems that the mood of the day just seems to be to try to ride outrage for all it's worth. And I purposely made my displeasure crude and overt because even if I'd made it all nice nice, the reaction is always the same here by the more militant here, regardless.
Always the accusations of right wingers attacking them covertly. Always the crude closet gay insinuations, always the whole militant all or nothing attitude that really didn't work for Malcom X or the Palestinians or anyone else who ever tried it.
It's time to be militant. The bigoted enemy doesn't recognize 'playing nice'. If you play nice, they take and take and take and give nothing back.
Line in the sand. No more mr nice faggot.
In any event, it's not the life I'VE been living nor have I seen the people around me trying real hard to 'be normal' and stay 'neutered.' Too funny!
Had Obama ADMITTED that this announcement was made as a gesture to try to appease the LGBT community, John's post would have been entirely different.
But seriously, this whole politics of victimization by the evil Obama is starting to go stale. With this kind of reaction for his efforts, perhaps he should just say f**k it and invite Fred Phelps, George W. Bush, and Anita Bryant to give the invocation.
The thing that many of the gayhating Dems here do not understand is that many in the LGBT Community have had an epiphany about the Dems. We now understand that we should use our energy to fight for our rights and only support those who support full equality for LGBT people.
We have been hurled too many times under the bus. Now we are going to see who is driving the bus before we decide if we want to pay the for the ride. Don't underestimate the LGBT Community or the fact that there is a new generation of LGBT people who will not settle for anything less than full equality. As the older generation dies out and the new generation is ushered in a change is on the horizon.
We don't have to agree with Warren or with Robinson or Obama but we sure as hell better try to find common ground and try to move this country forward and past ideological stalemate. Obama didn't run to please the liberals or to piss off the conservatives. he ran and said that he ran to bring this country together as best he could and try to help. He didn't run for the blacks or the gays or the Democrats. he ran for the country. and I think it's rather foolish and short sighted to think that just because he's considered a Democrat or liberal or what have you, that he has to only appeal and cater to us. Doing that will only guarantee political and social deadlock again. Which is also something he talked about often.
I see that you're still on your high horse, keeping the hystrionics going, and attacking anyone who doesn't share your never-ending outrage. How we handle Warren and people like him need to be rooted in fact and conviction not in emotion. Warren's rhetoric is purposely meant to incite our emotions and when we take the bait, he wins by proving to the world his theory that we are immature, irresponsible, and definitely not worthy or ready for the seriousness of marriage. Another major side effect of all this out-of-control emotional reasoning is that we are attacked as intolerant when in fact we are one of the most tolerant people on this earth. You can continue to wallow in the misery Warren's words have caused you and remain the perennial victim but my partner, my kids, and I will never join you in your self-defeating, and self-involved outrage.
you closet repug WANKER
go spew your ignorant rants on a palin blog! more your style and audience
WANKER
To the whining wounded: GLBT equality doesn't get one second closer to realization by calling someone, anyone a pig.
So if gay people and those of us who support them just sit down and shut the hell up about it the rest of you will decide to benevolently bestow equal civil rights on them for being good?
Can you give us a time frame on that? My sister and her partner have been together for 22 years now and they're awfully tired of waiting...
Every email I get from the Obama camp I responde with something and the heading: NO TO HOMOPHOBIC WARREN
I felt the community's wisest response was to shame Obama by highlighting the enormous contradiction between his intellectual (moral?) instincts and the emotional conflicts that he apparently feels about sexuality. I hoped that Obama's ego couldn't take being shamed as embracing bigotry and that he might learn that Bigot Warren's honor was actually bringing more attention to Obama's inner feelings about sexuality, instead of shielding him.
This announcement about Robinson is a gigantic break through and I am very pleased with it. I think the GLBT community and friends have succeeded and I believe it shows that Obama is becoming more self-aware, growing and resolving some of his inner conflicts. I hope I'm right.
But, of course we are being told that this was the plan all along. Without that cover story, Obama's incredible ego would be badly bruised. I think we need to just wink and nod and say, "oh, well if we had only known."
Could it be that indeed this was the plan all along and that all my ruminations are just so much non-sense? Yep, could be.
Of course you would also have to conclude that Barack Obama and his crew are political idiots who don't have a clue about their constituencies, the media, progressive thought and opinion and pay no attention to details of execution, communications, etc.
As implausible as my theory might be to some, I think the latter explanation is far weaker.
In any event, the Robinson invitation is absolutely, perfectly and totally appropriate and we should all express strong support of it and whatever thinking went behind it. Now let's stay behind Obama in solving this country's incredible problems.
As far as all this "who leads prayers" being unimportant "stage-dressing", I think that opinion, if not totally disingenuous, is comprehensively naive. Obama cares nothing about symbols? Give me a break. Symbols have not been key in his election and defeat of the Republican disaster? Give me a break.
And to those friends and families who spoke up about this symbol that sent a terrible message of hate endorsement -- thank you, thank you, thank you.
And the Obama camp's claim that this was in the works all along is belied by the fact that one of the people who spoke out against Warren's inclusion was Bishop Robinson. If the Bishop already knew he was being included, he would have said as much when he made his comments about Warren, or the Obama team would have responded to Robinson's objections by noting that he was also participating in the inauguration AS EVIDENCE of their effort at balance.
QED this was a RESPONSE to the thousands of us who emailed change.gov and Obama's LGBT liasion making this exact suggestion.
As for this last minute announcement of having Bishop Robinson give an invocation, on the surface it's better than not having him participate, but whether or not it means anything substantive, only time will tell.
The best thing that has come out of this whole misstep on Obama's part,(for me anyway) is the removal of the 'rose colored glasses' that many us wore previously when viewing Obama. It's left many of us with a clearer view & a skeptical eye when regarding Obama & his future actions & that is a good thing.
After all, none of us would want to be like the 'trained seals' who were W's fans, these past 8 years!
So keep questioning Obama & challenging him when it's called for, it could help to make him an outstanding president!
can you prove that this was Not made before Warren?
If you truly believe that Warren was not a gesture but this is?
Cool
I can safely say..during the Dem Primary..you did not knock doors for Obama......fine....
But to those of us who did?
For him to invite the spectrum of our nation to our nation's table is no surprise.
Some good news comes along and most of you seem content to kick at it and scream at it and go into an obsessed tirade.
Come ON people. You're starting to sound like paranoid hate-mongering righteous finantics.
Obama's not even President yet. Geesh.
zzzzzzzzzz.
This is just bullshit..
Yep..
Obama NEVER faced being biracial ...yep Obama never faced being black in America..
Just wondering John...can YOU feel the pain of being a gay black male in America?...being a person coming into this country without papers?
Being obese? Being female? Being a union advocate?
Until you can release the fact that who you are is less or more than anyone else..striving for dignity...than well....
Most of us..in our lifetime..have faced discrimination..in one form or another.
Maybe it is possible for you to place discrimination into a neat list .
I cannot.
But hey...you will not be the first..nor the last to believe the thumb is on your throat more than others....
You're pissed off that Obama's people aren't lying to you. WTF? Would it kill you to actually appreciate this man and milestone for gay rights, whose ascendancy has caused bigoted churches to separate, and his invocation? You don't have to get over the choice of Rick Warren, but this is entirely too far. In addition, the "skeptics" in question are the people who see the inauguration proceedings cynically, thinking that a gay bishop is a political play (thus implying insincerity), but the spokesman rebutted that skepticism by saying that they're "for real" with this guy, that he's not just a pawn in the game of public opinion but a truly welcome voice at the inauguration. The "skeptics" include the aforementioned right-wing bigoted critics, too. Besides, if anyone's a political pawn, it's Rick Warren, anyway.
And I think "skeptics" referred to people who might assume Robinson was picked because of the Warren flap, not supporters of civil rights.
Nor did you need to read "skeptics" as meaning the "civil rights community."
So let's take this logic one step farther. If Obama is about inclusiveness, and Warren was invited because Obama wants to bring all sides together at his inauguration as his team keeps saying, then it follows that Warren was selected because he preaches intolerance and exclusivity. So once again it begs the question. Where is the KKK supporter? Where is the Catholic who thinks Protestants are going to hell? Where is the anti-Semite who calls the holocaust a myth?
We want him to be answerable to the exact things he said on the campaign trail. And asking a clear homophobe like Warren to give the most powerful spiritual invocation at his inauguration does not add up.
We're asking for accountability and an explanation. Why is that so hard for you? And why must you demean anyone who asks a question regarding Obama's infallibility? Especially on this important matter?
Thanks for your optimistic and respectful post.
How dare we, as GLBT Americans, have the temerity, the absolute gall to think that anyone on the Obama staff has a millisecond to give an open ear to our needs and complaints, especially on a nationally recognized blog like John A's. That that's just an ego trip, a fantasy.
LIGHTBULB: Maybe he's right. Maybe this is really how the Obama camp thinks. Would explain alot.
But like I said it is an assumption and not an accusation as I have no way to verify if tis is so or not. it sure feels like it though given the fact that obama can't seem to win for trying. Reading your other posts i see that you have listened to obama's many speeches and perfectly understand that this goes hand in hand with what he's ALWAYS said. My disappointment with this site and with John and the more militant here on this board is on account of the fact that rather than understand that this is merely a symbol of common purpose, regardless of whether you happen to agree or disagree with Warren or Robinson. the subsantive part comes AFTER the inaguration when real change can be implemented.
But IMO in order to gin up some traffic to this site and raise a personal profile rather than understand that this is a gesture of common purpose and one people, gay or straight, black or white, it seems the militant gays here want to make Obama "pay" , which to me translates to 'weaken him', thus sort of ensuring, like it always happens, that NOTHING will change.
Now I suppose I can count my blessings that the "no more Mr. Nice Gays" were asleep at the switch before they could define the Democratic party with their like clockwork 4 year "demands" during primary season. Thus making the Democratic party look marginalized to swing voters and moderates. And thus guaranteeing another loss like it always happens every 4 years and thus ensuring that no pro gay legislation is passed, that progressive causes lose, that nothing ever changes. This time we dodged the angry gay bullet. And yes board, flame away as I'm sure will undoubtedly happen anyways.
Now change will come. Gay causes will win. But I have to wonder if the militant gays here think that Obama is weak, that the Democratic Party can be brought to heel where the Republicans are the strong party. it sure looks that way because I didn't see this sort of militancy given to Bush and the Republicans. And given the fact that every time i open my moth here, i'm accused of being a fake Democrat, a fake liberal etc. etc., i have to wonder when people started thinking that Jefferson, Roosevelt, Che Guevara and JFK handed over the keys to define Democrats and liberals over to the gays at AmericaBlog.
By inviting Robinson to an event this huge, Obama is taking sides in, again, a SCHISM. He's giving the Archbishop of Canterbury a long overdue kick in the head, while making it even clearer that Robinson isn't going anywhere, and that the schismatics and reactionary clergy in sub-Saharan Africa might be sound more credible abominating New Hampshire-style buttseks tolerance if their own parishes weren't rapidly depopulating because of HIV.
I don't know what Rick Warren said. If anyone believes Obama enlisted Warren in order to express hostility to teh ghey... I mean, why?