AMERICAblog: Obama: We have to be able to agree to disagree
hopeless pedant
· 11 months ago
Once again, this is much ado about nothing.
And yes, I'm gay.
Appointments and policies matter, not who does an irrelevant invocation.
Let's move on already. Please.
Observer
· 11 months ago
Appointments and policies matter?
Such as that of Eric Holder, who pushed for mandatory minimums for cannabis users?
And policies such as Obama affirming that he does not support legalization of cannabis?
Gays aren't going to jail for being gay, are they?
Yet cannabis users are.
Where's the outrage?
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
Gays were going to jail for being gay, or at least for having sex with someone of the same gender, not that many years ago in this country until the Supremes struck down sodomy laws.
Men and women in some other countries _do_ go to jail for being gay, lesbian, or perceived as being transgendered.
I've never heard a major figure from either party saying anything about that.
Observer
· 11 months ago
Not denying that, if it wasn't clear, and I was so incensed I left off the end of a sentence:
Yet cannabis users are... going to jail for using a non-toxic, non-addictive herb while Obama sucks on cancer sticks responsible for billions in health care costs.
I'm not saying tobacco should be outlawed, but I am pointing out that he's an unconscionable hypocrite on more than one subject.
Frankly, I expected him to behave exactly as he is.
scottinsf
· 11 months ago
There's still outrage. Just as an aside, gays and lesbians have also long been at the forefront for reforming marijuana laws. Take Dennis Peron for example. He was one of Harvey Milk's inner circle and has been one of the most influential people in marijuana advocacy for years.
Tom
· 11 months ago
Smoking pot is a choice, being gay is not.
Observer
· 11 months ago
Having Cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's, MS, PTSD or depression are choices?
Really? Care to cite a link?
Tom
· 11 months ago
You equated being gay with illegally smoking pot, I didn't. (a false comparison) There are ways to obtain medical use marijuana, but that's not at all what you meant or you would have mentioned medicinal marijuana in your original post.
Observer
· 11 months ago
Actually, I didn't equate them. I merely agreed that appointments & policies do matter, and I noted that Obama intends to continue to waste resources on imprisoning non-violent cannabis users.
I think this is unconscionable given that: (a) Obama admits to cannabis use as a youth; (b) Obama currently smokes tobacco.
Some people would reply to your claim that people are born gay by saying, "That doesn't mean you have to act on it."
Others might say, "Actually, I do have a choice given that I'm bisexual, and I choose to have intercourse with members of my own sex."
Are they wrong?
Wether it be for medicinal, spiritual or recreational use, I don't think cannabis users should be forced to lose all they have and imprisoned for 5 or more years.
The fact that Obama chose Holder (and I won't even get into his defending Chiquita) shows me in no uncertain terms that Obama's presidency will not be Change...
it will be more of the same.
Professor_Farnsworth
· 11 months ago
Actually, I didn't equate them. ------------------------------
Yes. You did.
Observer
· 11 months ago
No, I didn't. You inferred it.
I said, "Gays aren't going to jail for being gay."
Then I noted (see amended sentence below) that cannabis users are going to jail for using a non-toxic, non-addictive herb while Obama sucks on cancer sticks responsible for billions in health care costs.
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
Indeed, appointments and policies do matter.
Based on how the administration is shaping up, don't expect anything at all to improve for Gays and Lesbians over the next four years. If anything, you'll probably see them get worse if cuddling up to the Religious Right is this administration's way of "coming together".
Perhaps Obama would like to "agree to disagree" with one of the many ministers in the South and elsewhere that still preach against "mixing of the races" and desegregation? We can all "just get along", now can't we?
Lolis
· 11 months ago
no group should think obama will give them something with pressure ... i think this is a bad move to pick Warren, but if gay groups were smart right now they would be negotiating a deal with Obama to get a gay cabinet member or some other kind of power from this. as much as it feels good to quit something, the best approach is to stay in it and fight.
gay groups can gets something out of this debacle.
Teddi
· 11 months ago
I agree with Lolis, this "outrage" everyone has makes us no better than the right wing. We will never win our battle with our opponents by acting like them. We unfortunately have to set the table for the agree to disagree. It doesn't mean we spend our money on those opposed to us..but somewhere we have to set the line that discourse will be handled without hatefilled speech. Pick our battles and work to have Obama involve gays in his administration who can serve openly and proudly...this Warren issue is a hotbutton which will only make us look stupid. Don't become racebaiters in your process to disagree. For god's sake he hasn't even been inaugurated yet. I'm thoroughly glad he's not McCain, Clinton or any other candidate. We have a chance if we quit acting like idiots.
An Idaho lesbian parent
dula
· 11 months ago
What makes you think they aren't already advocating for that?
Al
· 11 months ago
Appointments and policies are hard to pass.
Personally inviting someone and giving them a platform to get publicity for their bigotry, is not okay.
Obama just shot himself out of a second term.
Indigo
· 11 months ago
" I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans." As a matter of fact, Mr. Obama, it is a well guarded secret. You have created a situation for the gay community analogous to putting a KKK minister on the presidential podium for the inauguration. The offense exists, now remove it! You cannot put Rick Warren in a position of respect and pretend that you lead the nation.
Obama, awake!
shell
· 11 months ago
This is on the mark -- and just what I thought. Just substitute "race" with "gay" and you see.
And yes, I am old enough to remember MANY churches (mostly in the South) refusing to see African Americans as equal to Whites. As I recall, even Jimmy Carter's church was like that. He tried to change them, and when he couldn't, he quit the church.
Yes, it is all well and good to "come together" but not with racists, homophobes, etc. For a long time, I thought Obama was just acting this way (we need to come together) to get his projects through. But then I realized that these racists, homophobes, etc. will never change. It is a fool's errand to try to get to them to. The only thing that will "change" many of them is letting them die off.
Bart
· 11 months ago
He's as big a liar as Rick Warren. "Fierce advocate for equality for gay...." Utter bullshit while his actions and coded messages to religious whackjobs show otherwise.
aquarius2
· 11 months ago
This is a very poor start for someone wanting to "bring us together" Surely there were less controversial ministers than Warren, ministers that could have provided an uplifting message for all Americans. If this were a report card Obama surely rates an F.
Chad
· 11 months ago
Obama is for Obama. And now see that Donnie McClurkin was the just opening act.
Skipper
· 11 months ago
I am with hopeless. My son and brother who are big Warren fans and right wingers voted no on prop 8- They felt it was wrong to tell someone who they can love and marry and it was unconstitutional. I was shocked that they had this view. Maybe this is the disagreement Obama speaks about? They admire Warren, but disagreed with him. Or maybe we should beat this to death till those few who support us are gone.
Bart
· 11 months ago
In other words, don't speak out about your rights lest someone think badly of you. Go away!
frank
· 11 months ago
I'm being censored over at huff post for suggesting he bring the KKK to the table. they too are a part of this great noisy nation.
Mary
· 11 months ago
Huffington Post has joined the ridiculous. They are censoring, which in itself is pathetic. I have basically quit posting.
Bart
· 11 months ago
What do you call someone who marries a gay man for his money?
davespicer
· 11 months ago
Perhaps - just perhaps - this is designed to give Warren a chance to "speak his piece", which would then be forcefully rejected in the inaugural address itself. Could be quite the setup...
Bart
· 11 months ago
You can't wallpaper over this blood spot.
joe
· 11 months ago
genius post and exactly what i was thinking! let's just get a neo-nazi to speak, because he has "different" views.
Mary
· 11 months ago
It is NOT about diverse issues. It IS about the fact that Warren has said pretty vile things about gays. This is the crux of the matter, not the views held, but the level of of disrespect Warren has shown towards a segment of our democracy.
tlsintx
· 11 months ago
Isn't there a nice Aryan Nation member who could give the invocation? Because even though we disagree, we should give them an honored role in this inaugural event? Right?
Ohio_Dem
· 11 months ago
Fair is fair. Either Obama's administration is going to be inclusive or it's not. If he's going to have a homophobe, then bring on the racists.
unclaimed
· 11 months ago
um, does the name Robert Byrd sound familiar to anyone? Whom BHO befriended after arriving in the Senate?
Jesse Holmes
· 11 months ago
He'll be an advocate for same-sex relationships, but if you think that he should restrict himself with a litmus test on the issue, then you're asking for a one-term president. Rick Warren isn't my cup of tea,. But when you compare him to the KKK and other racist leaders, you do yourself and him a disservice.
Bart
· 11 months ago
Like Bush was a one-termer because of his litmus tests?
Jesse Holmes
· 11 months ago
So you want Obama to rule in the style of Bush?
Bart
· 11 months ago
On some things, yeah, in the style of Bush. Ideologically consistent. Oops, I guess St. Barack is being ideologically consistent here. We just were bamboozled by all his glitter and sweet and oily words during the campaign.
Jesse Holmes
· 11 months ago
My understanding is that Rick Warren IS in favor of expanding social services, including an expansion of health care. They disagree over same-sex rights. No two people are going to be entirely ideologically consistent.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
"But when you compare him to the KKK and other racist leaders, you do yourself and him a disservice"
who is comparing him to racist leaders? the question was: why did he not invite a racist to speak at his inaugural. simple question, i think. deserves an answer.
Gridlock
· 11 months ago
That's the really telling thing. Racists, anti-semites, and all the other socially unacceptable viewpoints are roundly denounced and not 'invited to the table' to talk and 'disagree'.. but hey, homophobic bigotry is still acceptable, and must be included.
Bart
· 11 months ago
What would religious and political power grabbers do without gays to kick back and forth?
Gridlock
· 11 months ago
the last acceptable minority to kick around, cuz when you do you can hide behind Jesus.
LowKey
· 11 months ago
I just unsubscribed to Obama's mailing list.
Here is what I said in the optional "why" box:
Your choice to have the gay hating bigot rick warren give the invocation at your inaguration.
Change my ass - you are a fucking politician just like all the rest.
You lost my vote in 2012 and my future financial support. You thing the religious nuts in the south will make up for losing me and people like me who believe in human rights just cause you let a whack job preacher who hates gays pray?
If so, you are not as smart as I thought you were.
Mary
· 11 months ago
We should all unsubscribe with reference to this decision. Great idea.
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
I'm changing my registration at the local voter registration office to "Independent" on Inauguration Day because of this and the long history of double-talk by the national Democratic Party on LGBT issues. Tell them you're doing so.
Getting off an email list won't have much impact. Changing your registration sends a much stronger message, especially if there's a big group that does it during the same week or on the same day.
tlsintx
· 11 months ago
i'm fine with agreeing to disagree. but Rick Warren is taking away my rights. Sorry. I can't agree with that.
Lolis
· 11 months ago
This is vintage Obama. He sees gay rights, like abortion, as a social issue not a civil rights one. This is where the conflict comes from.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Very interesting point, Lolis.
Randall
· 11 months ago
Oh, just get over it already. The gay community can get all up in arms about this but this is just a minor blip on the radar, it's not like Obama appointed Warren to a cabinet post.
You guys are like the religious right sometimes, you make a real loud noise but you dont have the clout or numbers to influence policy as much as you'd like. How you're Day without Gay go over? Like a lead balloon.
Obama is a conservative Democrat, remember? He's not a liberal and you should have known this was coming.
Gridlock
· 11 months ago
I'm frankly tired of straight people telling us what we should and should not be upset about. Piss off.
Jack J.
· 11 months ago
Yeah, get over it.
Frankly, I'm tired of gay people being just as as racist (yes you are!), nasty, mean-spirited and narrow minded as straight people and basing your overall view of Obama on one or two gay issues he doesn't agree with. He has already made it very clear to all of you his stance on gay rights.
I understand the issue of rights for all people and agree that ALL people deserve equal rights and those rights should never be subject to a popular vote so why don't you, as gay citizens, do as others have done...take it to the Supreme Court and stop the constant kvetching about it.
And yes, you were a bunch of frightened wimps who rolled ove for Bush over the past 8 years. At the very least you should give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Jezus, this is getting ridiculous.
Tom
· 11 months ago
You don't have to be a liberal to cherish and yearn for equality. Everyone should.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Get over it? Like it doesn't matter who delivers the invocation on Obama's first day in office? Meaningless? Wrong!
Jack J.
· 11 months ago
Time to stop whining and trust the man. This Rick Warren tthing is a non issue about one of thousands of narrow-brained bible thumpers. This issue needs to go away.
I wish you guys had been as hard on Bushco over the last 8 years.
Please stop whining, John.
Gridlock
· 11 months ago
Uh, where were you? This place has been one of the hardest on BushCo.
Bart
· 11 months ago
We were as hard on Bush over the last 8 years.
Trust Obama. Sure, like I won't vote for FISA, or I'll raise taxes on the very rich, or like trusting Kerry who said we'll count every vote. Trust Obama -- only as far as you can throw a piano.
Webster
· 11 months ago
A grand piano. A Bosendorfer with the extra octave.
Jim Olson
· 11 months ago
Oh, please don't throw that one...its so nice. I have a beater old Kawai you can have instead.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
it's all about who gets the last whine. so far it's you, but it won't last.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Whining???? My marriage is on the line in part because of this bigot whom Obama is honoring. Whining???? Are you married? Is your marriage in danger of being dissolved against your will? Have you been called a pedophile lately? Whining???????
doggril
· 11 months ago
It's one thing to acknowledge Rick Warren's power. I personally think he's a cult leader; but, nonetheless, he's a leader. So talk to him. But it's a whole 'nother matter to give him a place of honor at the inauguration. I agree with John that if by giving Warren a place of honor at the inauguration is how Obama defines "coming together," then, by all means, where are the white supremacists in the inaugural schedule? He's their president too.
Ohio_Dem
· 11 months ago
I personally think all fundie religion is a cult.
lark83
· 11 months ago
I'm with skipper and hopeless. Apparently Obama means to whenever possible include the non-shrill acting opposition in White House social events. This is a social event. We can now ram gay equal rights down the throats of the opposition, but it would also be nicer to also get them to accept and see our wisdom. Some followers of this minister are likely more persuadable than say a Dobson.
I would have liked to see a Unitarian Universalists minister given a chance to speak, but I guess we are too "radical" a political choice. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I'm happy with the recent elections.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
It doesn't help people to see our viewpoint when someone with Warren's viewpoint is publicly honored by the President in this manner. During the Bush years people flocked to polling booths across the country and voted to take away gay rights with the blessing of the President, the Pope, religious leaders and politicians. They provided the cover for bigotry. Obama is making a mistake by giving this kind of honor to a bigot.
Mitchla
· 11 months ago
How do you think you begin to win over your opponents? Is this a battle worth fighting?
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
Some opponents you can't "win over".
Why do you think racism is still so strong in some areas of the country? It's a deep set belief system that no amount of "dialogue" can really change.
Ohio_Dem
· 11 months ago
Then you should agree that Obama should begin to win over racists by inviting a prominent racist on stage. Right?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
You may not believe this, but gay people didn't get to where we are today by refusing to fight. I don't know your age or background, but I suggest you might start by seeing the movie "Milk". You have to fight for your rights.
frank
· 11 months ago
throw a black Wright under the bus but embrace a Warren from the OC. Comedy Central material
Taylor
· 11 months ago
Usually I think people are pretty level headed on this site. This has been blown way out of proportion and taken the wrong way.
This kind of reaction is completely hypocritical.
- A gay man
Chad
· 11 months ago
Gay for a day, I bet.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
it's more constructive to respond directly to the point(s) made in the post.
Tom
· 11 months ago
You must be single.
tlsintx
· 11 months ago
:D
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
or a gay republican... but then I repeat your point.
Taylor
· 11 months ago
No, I'm not. And you're just adding to my point with that type of comment.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
That man has equated you to a pedophile and a common criminal. He believes you are unworthy of ever being married, and he worked in California to pass Prop 8. And Obama not only says we should just agree to disagree, he is offering the man the greatest honor by having him, as a pastor, give the invocation at his ****ing inauguration. Do you understand? Obama is honoring the man! It's not just a speech from someone who smiles. Obama is honoring a homophobic hatemonger on the first day of his presidency! And to that grave insult you want to add that we are hypocrites for being upset? Unbelievable!
Dieuberfrau
· 11 months ago
How about us atheists who are just offended by the whole "unholy" marriage of church and state?
Butch1
· 11 months ago
"What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues." - Obama
At our expense, not yours. When do you start standing up for us and insult the right winged theocrats? Keep this up and you will lose us all together.
tlsintx
· 11 months ago
oh ha ha ha ha. racist email jokes around the Alaska state government offices...should we just agree to disagree with this or should we put a fucking stop to it?
Does Obama get why people are upset? The problem is not that they disagree. The problem is that Warren is a hate monger who peddles fear. Sure he might smile more than Dobson, but hate is still hate.
I like the message we are sending to the world about change to American foreign policy by promoting the advocate of assasinations on inaugeration day. Change is on the way!
met00
· 11 months ago
Other people Obama should invite to be on stage with him....
He should have Gordon B. Hinckley there too.
[Gordon B. Hinckley is the head of the Mormon Church. They were the cheif fundraisers for the Yes on 8 campaign. In addition the Church believes...
And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities." (2 Nephi 5:21,)
Yep, Black people are really bad too...]
But this is an open administration so it should show it by having The Reverend Thom Robb up there too. Who better to have there to show an open and accepting Administration other than the head of the KKK.
Other people he should invite on stage include...
David Duke - the European-American Unity and Rights Organization. John Tyndall, founder of the British National Party. top National Alliance lieutenant Kevin Alfred Strom. Don Black, founder of the pioneering white supremacist Web site Stormfront. Willis Carto of the American Free Press and The Barnes Review. anti-Semitic attorney Edgar J. Steele. Canadian activist Paul Fromm. anti-Semitic propagandist Ed Fields. Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf.
LowKey
· 11 months ago
That would be tough to pull off, since Gordie is dead.
Gbennett
· 11 months ago
In 2004, I worked my tush off doing door to door canvassing for John Kerry and Ken Salazar (CO Sen. candidate at the time, now CO Senator and Obama's nominee for Sec'y of Ag.). I put in every free hour I could over the span of many months, as the prospect of a continuation of Bush and his assault on the Constitution and the rule of law, science based policy, and other rational bases for governance was inconceivable.
When Bush won, I was very disappointed. I could not believe that my country had fallen for the fear baiting tactics of the Bush cabal. (recall all the orange alerts emanating from the Dept. of Homeland Security that miraculously stopped on election day 2004?)
But what really got to me that election year was when the newly elected Senator from Colorado, Ken Salazar, in his first major public act as my Senator, introduced and recommended Alberto Gonzales, author of the memo that called the Geneva Convention's ban on torture "quaint", to the Senate for confirmation as Attorney General. I felt that Senator Salazar did not understand or care about what had motivated me and many others to work for his election, all in the name of political expediency. Gonzales proved to be an inept upholder of the rule of law and a Bush sycophant, and was forced from office. Salazar would go on to vote to uphold the Bush policy on torture along with the majority of the Senate.
I am feeling almost the same way about Obama right now. In his first major public act as my President, the inauguration ceremony will begin with an invocation by avowed homophobe/bigot Pastor Rick Warren. Warren worked avidly to remove marriage rights of gays and lesbians in California in the Prop. 8 campaign. Warren has equated same sex love with pedophelia and other criminal behavior. This is a highly divisive choice, and an extremely unfortunate note to begin his presidency on.
Right now, I am glad that I did not invest the time and energy into the Obama campaign as I did in 2004. Some niggling thought told me not to really trust Obama's progressive rhetoric. I voted for him (twice) and canvassed one day for his campaign. To me politicians like Obama and Salazar, by seeking to bridge the divide between right and left, end up abandoning core principles. I will have a happy day on Jan 20, as the Bush years will be over, but it will be bitter-sweet as I will have rubbed in my face that I, as a gay man do not count.
Gerald Bennett Boulder, CO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Listen to 350+ music, sports, & news radio stations – including songs for the holidays – FREE while you browse. Start
tlsintx
· 11 months ago
Rick Warren does not agree to disagree. He actively fights to deny my civil rights and stirs up his millions of followers to do the same.
Tom
· 11 months ago
So where is David Duke's invitation to speak?
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
I think he needs to be ordained first.
Bart
· 11 months ago
There is one bright spot in today's news: Paul Weyrich is dead at age 66.
Bush Bites
· 11 months ago
Thanks for giving me the excuse.
That calls for a drink!
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
Weyrich: It has been known for many years that Congressman Foley was a homosexual. Homosexuals tend to be preoccupied with sex
Norris: Now, before we go on, I think I can say, Mr. Weyrich, that there quite a few people who would take exception to the statement that homosexuals are preoccupied with sex.
Weyrich: Well, I don't care whether they take exception to it - it happens to be true.
Norris: That is your opinion.
Weyrich: Well, it's not my opinion, it's the opinion of many psychologists and psychiatrists who have to deal with them
-WIkipedia
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
I would just like to say that I am NOT preoccupied with sex, even though typing the word gives me a woody.
/snark
Bush Bites
· 11 months ago
Kind of interesting.
Pro-Lifers Rip Rick Warren on Obama Invocation December 18, 2008
So let me get straight to the point.
Liberals and gay activists aren’t happy with Barack Obama for choosing pro-life and prop 8 supporting pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s inaugural. But pro-life readers seem to be equally upset at Rick warren for agreeing to it.
The Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this. Below is but a very small sampling. I can’t reprint all of them but let me just say that pro-lifers are NOT happy with Warren at all.
President-Elect Obama's rationalization for including Rick Warren in the inauguration simply doesn't hold water.
"What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable." Does that statement hold true to the point where an avowed racist or an avowed anti-semite should be allowed on the inauguration platform? No, Obama would not invite David Duke. But it's all right to have Warren, someone who holds gay Americans in the same regard David Duke does African-Americans and Jews.
Gays are *always* the group it's all right to discriminate against. I've been out of work for three years--and yet I managed to scrape enough money together to make a small contribution to Obama's campaign, thinking that finally *equality* would be on the President's desk. Genuine equality--not just words in a campaign. My contribution to the campaign was small--but in my unemployed state, it was huge.
This is nothing less than political expediency. We can throw away GLBT people once the campaign has taken their money and their efforts to help Obama get elected--because their rights *just don't matter.* Warren's selection tells me that gay Americans are second-class citizens in this new Administration's eyes--NO DIFFERENT from the last eight years--more of the same discrimination as we've seen from the worst President in American history.
To paraphrase a great gay American writer, Gertrude Stein: Politicians are politicians are politicians. The choice of Rick Warren is nothing less than state-sanctioned gay bashing--a declaration that I and millions of other GLBT people are not part of the American ideal of equal justice for all.
We are none of us free until ALL of us are free."
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
You took the words right out of my mouth, John. Exactly! Where are the racists? What racists are speaking at his inauguration? Who among those he honors have said that God views blacks as inferior? Which persons are he including that use the bible to condone slavery? Doesn't he need to reach out to them as well? Shouldn't they be up there with him at his inauguration? Can't we just all agree to disagree, but still honor those individuals?
And how about the Jews? Shouldn't he include people who view Jews as Christ killers? How about anti-Catholics? What about people who despise immigrants and consider Hispanics to be vermin? Why is it that he keeps reaching out and including people who spew vile lies about gay people, but doesn't include these others?
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
Maybe someone should suggest to david duke that he should get ordained by some church or other... then Obama could balance out the other two with a speech from duke.
.
BR_Parkway
· 11 months ago
Current head of the KKK - is both a Reverend and Dr of Theology - sure seems like he would fit the bill to use that exact same Bible to say a prayer ushering in Obama's new "reach out to all" campaign
E. Herd
· 11 months ago
I always thought it a mistake to support Obama over Clinton. This is the reason. I knew Obama was against gay marriage and would not support gay marriage.
nicho
· 11 months ago
The only problem is that Clinton couldn 't have won. Her campaign was so wretched that McCain would have creamed her. As it is, 58 million people voted for McCain/Palin. Had they been running against Clinton, I think they would have been more careful in selecting a VP candidate.
Also, many of the people who voted for Obama might just have stayed home. The only reason they voted Dem -- or voted at all -- was because they believed in "hope and change."
If Clinton had run, we'd be looking at McCain/Romney being inaugurated in a few weeks.
Rix
· 11 months ago
President-elect Obama doesn't seem to grasp that this "fierce advocate" was hardly seen or heard from during the campaign, & supporters of LGBT rights let it ride in the interest of "change." Now we're gonna want that change sooner rather than later.
Bart
· 11 months ago
Want all you you want, pal. These fukkers don't give a shit about gays. Gays are useful at times. That's all. Certainly not worthing wasting valuable political capital on.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
Welcome to Clinton's 3rd term.
Al
· 11 months ago
You mean, Bush.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
no, I meant Clinton... DADT, DOMA... but he loved us gays, remember??
Mike
· 11 months ago
I think I would have ignored this if they weren't trying to emulate Lincoln so much. Lincoln did not seem to care so much about agreeing to be disagreeable. Maybe I am wrong, but I seem to remember his Presidency was marked by divisiveness, and yet he is considered by most historians to be our greatest President. Weird.
jcgraham77
· 11 months ago
Here is the problem-----------Obama does not see being gay comparable to being black. Its that simple and that apparent.
Bart
· 11 months ago
Does he think it's a CHOICE? Like the lying wingnuts he's trying to get into his bed?
example
· 11 months ago
Huh, don't you listen to the rightwing noise machine? His wife hates 'teh whitey' There's a tape out there, I think.
Rob Mule
· 11 months ago
I just caught a few seconds of Rick "Gluttony Isn't a Sin" Warren telling Ann Curry his objection is based on 5,000 years of exclusive multicultural heterosexual marriage history. Rick is simply wrong...Ill informed based on less than current historical knowledge and prejudiced research concerning homosexual pairings from proto-humans to present day. Except for aboriginal Australians, homosexuality has always been a part of tribal to technological humanity in various manifestations. Adam didn't have a Steve but Jesus had a John. I doubt Ms Curry had a follow-up...
Bush Bites
· 11 months ago
Warren doesn't seem particularly bright, does he?
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
ever notice how no one really calls them on their '5,000 years' of marriage history?
seriously... the ONLY person I heard question one of these assholes on the real 'history' of marriage was John Stewart... and the MSM sees him as a comedian, so his FACTS will never wind up in questions by 'real' reporters.
I really think we need some op-eds about the history of marriage... the Newsweek column on Biblical references was bashed by the christian right as inaccurate or just plain wrong... of course, they didn't explain WHAT was wrong with the article... nor do ANY of them explain why its okay to pick and choose what parts of the Bible apply.
Rob Mule
· 11 months ago
God forbid the corporate media could stop fretting over lost Madoff millions for a minute to interview any published expert on historical human sexuality... Remember, aside from nepotism, our present corrupt media heavily trades in standard historical dominance sexuality...Big alpha brute with a harem of handy orifaces. I could name a few current holy teevee faces with more oral/genital action on their invisible resumes than most working hos.
Bart
· 11 months ago
Seems like David had a "friend" too.
Blueflash
· 11 months ago
I guess the Greeks (those losers) who regarded same-sex love as more noble than heterosexual love don't count. And until recently opposite sex marriage was primarily about property and inheritance in societies where a woman's role as chattel was to produce sons. Furthermore, Jesus admonishes his followers to abandon their (traditional) families if they would follow Him and Paul regards marriage as an unfortunate but sometimes necessary stop-gap measure for the hopelessly promiscuous. So much for early Christian "family values". These people like Warren are utter ignoramuses who see the whole world and all of human history through the narrow prism of modern American fundamentalism.
imagenvideo
· 11 months ago
test
nicho
· 11 months ago
It's a very strange way of "coming together" by driving wedges between large blocs of the people who put you into power.
I wonder if they considered asking Bishop Gene Robinson to give an invocation?
What I find odder is that Obama didn't ask Rev. Wright -- since he would fit the "I don't agree with everything he says" argument. Wright would have been the most logical choice, as Obama's home church pastor and someone who was very influential in his life.
Bush Bites
· 11 months ago
Yeah, I kind of miss Rev. Wright.
Jesse Holmes
· 11 months ago
We have one openly gay representative in Idaho, and she works everyday with people in the legislature who think that her relationship is immoral. She recognizes that she can't pretend that people who disagree with her on some progressive issues don't exist, and she, by working with these people, gets great work done for the people of Idaho. We have to fight for progressive causes on multiple fronts; if we restrict ourselves to associating with those who agree with us on all of them, then the progressive movement isn't viable.
thingwarbler
· 11 months ago
inviting a man like Warren to pray at the inauguration is a little different from "associating with those who disagree with us".
Al
· 11 months ago
This isn't policy Mr. Holmes. This is symbolic, and this is embracing hate.
I don't think any clergy should be invited. I don't want anyone's religion getting in the way of my government.
SCLiberal
· 11 months ago
I wholeheartedly agree. Change would be to remove that portion of the innauguration ceremony.
Teddi
· 11 months ago
I agree with Lolis, this "outrage" everyone has makes us no better than the right wing. We will never win our battle with our opponents by acting like them. We unfortunately have to set the table for the agree to disagree. It doesn't mean we spend our money on those opposed to us..but somewhere we have to set the line that discourse will be handled without hatefilled speech. Pick our battles and work to have Obama involve gays in his administration who can serve openly and proudly...this Warren issue is a hotbutton which will only make us look stupid. Don't become racebaiters in your process to disagree. For god's sake he hasn't even been inaugurated yet. I'm thoroughly glad he's not McCain, Clinton or any other candidate. We have a chance if we quit acting like idiots.
An Idaho lesbian parent
Al
· 11 months ago
Teddi, you are the definition of a self-loathing moron.
Professor_Farnsworth
· 11 months ago
how constructive. *rolls eyes*
thingwarbler
· 11 months ago
".this Warren issue is a hotbutton which will only make us look stupid." -- well, who initiated this hotbutton issue by inviting Warren? Note that Warren wasn't invited to sit on a panel to discuss gay rights, he was invited to pray at the inauguration. That's not discourse.
Gridlock
· 11 months ago
"We unfortunately have to set the table for the agree to disagree. "
.. but only if it's for anti-gay, religious fascists. If you're a racist, or an anti-semite, you aren't welcome at the table.
Are gays this f#cking pathetic that they carry around this kicked puppy mentality?
"Oh we should let people who harrass, attack, bash, and demean us at the table because their viewpoint is somehow valid"
Take a minute and go find your ovaries. That stance is nothing short of capitulation.
You do NOT allow these people a place at the table. When they come to your door, you shoot them in the f#cking face and chop up their corpses for garden mulch. You destroy them.
Bart
· 11 months ago
Uncle Tom.
Bart
· 11 months ago
You sound more like an Obama staffer, fully equipped with gallons of whitewash.
bish8
· 11 months ago
I agree with you Teddi. I guess the Right Wingers are right. The Dems always eat their own.
Jesse Holmes
· 11 months ago
I notice that those of us who actually live in red states understand that you have to win progressive battles by separating the Republican bloc. Warren is in favor of many expanded social programs, but not in favor of the expansion of same-sex rights. The libertarian-leaning end of the right wing is more OK with same-sex rights, but not with expanded social programs. If we can get them to vote their conscience instead of voting as a bloc, we can achieve some major progressive wins.
That is what Obama is doing, and it's time we recognize it.
Raymond T. Anderson
· 11 months ago
"We will never win our battle with our opponents by acting like them."
That applies to torture, killing innocent people, and condoning those acts by refusing to prosecute their perpetrators. Giving legitimacy to those who would destroy us is called suicide.
"It doesn't mean we spend our money on those opposed to us"
So this means that there will be a mass boycott of inaugural festivities? And those of us who donated to Obama's inauguration will get our money back? And those of us who watch it on TV will not support the advertisers?
I have a better idea along the lines of your reasoning. Let's invite Osama bin Laden to give the invocation. At least with him we'd have a better chance of negotiating our way out of Afghanistan than we do negotiating gay rights and good science out of Rick Warren.
dula
· 11 months ago
Troll
Professor_Farnsworth
· 11 months ago
because someone doesn't agree with you?
May wanna avoid the whole boy who cries wolf thing.
Demo_Dave
· 11 months ago
As usual Gays get thrown under the bus. Why not get the Phelps that would be really inclusive. or how about the Phelps and the Grand Leader of the Klu Klux Klan. Those two must have done one or two good things in their lifes. Maybe they support green technologies.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
Those two must have done one or two good things in their lifes. ---
not yet, they're both still alive.
SCLiberal
· 11 months ago
Maybe he needs to also include that doofus who named his kid Adolf Hitler Campbell. He could hold the Bible.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
in khaki with a red swastika armband.
hey, that little kid represents "the sanctity of heterosexual marriage" in America.
procreation by married klan members is sacred... and MY marriage is a sham.
clio
· 11 months ago
It is one thing to listen to bigots. It is another thing entirely to showcase their views. Will the Aryan Nation be addressing the world form Obama's Inaugural platform?
Al
· 11 months ago
Waiting to hear who the Klansman and Neo-Nazis speaking will be.
Oh, who will the gay speaker be? Oh, that's right, there won't be one.
Obama needs his ass kicked! His first ass-kicking for voting for FISA, is long overdue too.
LLDEM
· 11 months ago
Does a gay marching band count? We got one o' those!
Silver Owl
· 11 months ago
If all Americans had equal rights then Obama picking Warren would not matter so much. We don't.
With women and gays constantly struggling and fighting to have equal rights in America and fighting against Warren and his ilk that would deny us equality for their dead asses and a messed up god, Obama's choice signifies to me that he's gotten what he wanted and the fight for the rest of us is not nearly so important.
There is always some excuse as to why equality for gays and women gets put on the back burner. Been that way for centuries now. Something always comes up gays and women can wait 10 more years, yada yada yada. Their rights aren't as important as everything else, blah blah blah.
Bart
· 11 months ago
Faggots are good for fuel to warm your hands by.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
and we will continue to be until we get serious about non-violent resistance to change policies.
Bart
· 11 months ago
Take a look at Tibet. Almost completely subsumed by Han Chinese during the Dalai Lama's decades of insistence on non-violent resistance. You'll say it worked in India. The reason it worked in India wasn't because Indians sat idly by and thought non-violent thoughts. It was because they were out in the MILLIONS continually protesting in the British faces -- non-violently -- led by a charismatic leader who was willing to die for their cause.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
point taken. We are going to have to do more. Obviously. Although, I am willing to lay down my life to ensure young gays and lesbians have the hope to continue living... its that important to me.
Sam Stein at HuffPo: "At his 2005 inaugural, George W. Bush tapped Rev. Dr. Louis Leon to deliver the invocation. Like Obama and Warren, the two shared a commitment to combating AIDS in Africa, as well as a friendship from time spent in each other's company. But Leon was and is a progressive voice. And his selection in '04 sparked a lot of interest, though little of the outrage that we see with Warren."
yeah because this is not about progressive versus conservative. It's personal. if you had an anti-semite on the stage, nobody would be asking if he was progressive or conservative.
Bart
· 11 months ago
The compassionate conservative's beard. Apples are not oranges.
The bottom line is Mr.Obama would never dream of having an anti-semite preacher, or a racist preacher, but he finds it acceptable to have an anti-gay bigot at his inauguration and that will never be okay. Yeah, I'll get over it, and that is his political calculation. I prefer NO preachers at all, but I won't stop speaking out about it either.
bish8
· 11 months ago
I guess the right wingers are right after all. The Dems do always eat their own....
dula
· 11 months ago
Yeah Obama is eating the Gay Community all right...
Atlanta Jim
· 11 months ago
Talk about taking the wind out of the sail for an entire segment of the population. The limited contact I have had today with GBLT friends brings a consistent reaction: the shaking of the head as in defeat.
The GBLT community needs to start acting again as a movement for civil liberties. We can't afford to be silent or take empty promises. The reaction to Prop 8 was a good start. It needs to remain energized in the community.
LLDEM
· 11 months ago
Just got a request for more money from the Obama/Biden camp. Until I see better from our new Prez, I'll have to pass.
Blueflash
· 11 months ago
If the New York Times is correct then this elevates Warren to the new Billy Graham. Obama has essentially given his imprimatur to the new "nation's preacher", a man who regards gays as sinful abominations. What's the message here from "progressive" Obama? Yes, gays are lesser human beings but I myself don't want to be mean to them though others, understandably, aren't so charitable. The worst kind of straight progressive condescension toward us.
vkobaya
· 11 months ago
Right sentiment, but a bad mistake. I would have hoped Obama was smart enough not to try to pet a scorpion. Must be wrong about his intelligence.
Bart
· 11 months ago
What do you expect from a guy who consistently says "a administration", "a educational", "a this vowel, a that vowel" -- Looks like a blind spot in his education, just like his gay subterfuge is a blind spot in his ethics. Shades of "nuculer".
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
that's 'nuculAr' with an A.... sheesh.
/snark
vkobaya
· 11 months ago
The really stupid thing about Obama is that this scorpion already has stung him one and while he survived, why would he go back and pet it a second time. Maybe because he thinks that this scorpion only stings and doesn't kill, but as I understand it, even those scorpions that aren't always lethal are extremelly painful and sometimes fatal. Warren intends to kill Obama, that is quite clear. So to try to cuddle up to him is foolish and even worse when you consider that he has always attacked gays, women's civil rights, etc. as well as gays and Blacks.
devlzadvocate
· 11 months ago
John, you took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to post a comment similar to what you said, but I couldn't do better than you did. PERFECT.
Thanks!
James McConnell
· 11 months ago
1. Obama is a liar. He opposes gay marriage and is consequently NOT a "fierce supporter of gay equality". 2. It is not possible to support inclusiveness by giving airtime and with it, validation, to a professional EXCLUDER. 3. The biggest outrage to me is the extent to which Obama TRIVIALIZES gay rights. Like it's some difference over farm subsidies. Some stinking little non-important thing and we can overlook our differences on it. Especially among friends. So how many of us have friends who are professional bigots? Obama is just not in reality on the subject of civil rights and perhaps that is because he is an African American who is not a descendant of slaves. It is this peculiar double think we saw in the black vote on Prop 8....that among the majority of blacks, gay rights is not a civil rights issue. Perhaps this is Obama's sensibility also.
boloboffin
· 11 months ago
So Rick Warren was a conscious choice meant to send a message, that we must learn to disagree without being disagreeable. To Obama, this is the sin far greater than the sin of hatred, of denying human rights, of warmongering.
That's what his campaign has been about. The message couldn't be clearer. The homophobe best-selling Christian ayatollah gets the front seat, and the liberal girlie-boys get their representation in the back seat. Now get back there and simmer down. Don't make Obama call the etiquette police on us.
Marcus
· 11 months ago
Doesn't anybody remember Obama's flagship appearance on dKos long ago? A long clarion call to pipe down and be polite and stop saying mean things about Republicans? An attack on the politics of contrast?
This is no surprise.
MotorCityBadBoy
· 11 months ago
Guys relax... He has associated with racists... He talks to Republicans all the time.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
you know, there's a solution to this whole problem...
it just involves some planning and gathering the essential materials:
handcuffs, rohypnol, some extasy and a few Cialis tabs, a cheap motel room with good heating and a TV/DVD combo player, really hot gay porn DVD, a camcorder and tripod... and a request for an interview from Barbara Walters (can be faked... one for each person) sent to james dobson and rick warren.
the resulting DVD would be mass produced and sent to media outlets worldwide.
It minimizes the insult to only condemn Warren's homophobia.
He has equated a woman's right of reproductive choice to the holocaust and he has advocated for the murder of a foreign leader.
Let's speak about all of the issues as we express our opposition to continue giving the mic to a sub-culture of religious hate in this country.
I votes for change and, goddammit, I WANT change.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
You're right, Mirth, and that may be key. So far I've only seen on AP the fact that Warren supported Prop 8. No mention of his extreme Christo-fascist bigotry. The facts need to be exposed so that everyone sees what a rotten choice Warren was to give an invocation anywhere, especially at the inauguration.
danconnors
· 11 months ago
I think there is potential for this to be a bargaining chip for the progressive side. Let Warren talk, I do not see any chance of removing him. However, Obama now has to prove himself on LGBT issues, (along with pro-science, pro-choice, etc). If Obama wants to depend on progressive voters in the future, especially LGBT voters, he will need to deliver actual legislation to make good on his rhetoric. (How about repealing DOMA and DADT for a start?) Despite the inside the beltway CW, progressives can afford to not support democrats, or even replace them with good ones in primaries, so throwing a major constituency under the bus will have consequences.
Bart
· 11 months ago
As the incumbent president, he WILL be the nominee in 2012. He knows progressives will vote Dem before voting Rethug. He holds all the winning cards. Face it. He's fucking us up one side and down the other and he will get by with it.
danconnors
· 11 months ago
But that does not mean that the legislature can do the same thing. While the president sets priorities, house members have to get elected every two years, and a nice big herd of new democrats filling vacancies need to run in 2010. I would never vote for a republican, but with a reasonable majority in the legislature, it does not mean I will vote for a homophobic or pro-life dem.
Bart
· 11 months ago
Withholding your vote -- small consequence.
danconnors
· 11 months ago
fair enough, but what options do we have then? Whining about Warren gets us nothing, even if we kick him off the inaugural dais there is nothing to hold Obama's feet to the fire on LGBT issues. I would love to see Obama come out and say "oops I was wrong, Warren hurts a lot of people, he has no place in my administration or in my personal circle," but do you see that happening? Is this the hill we choose to die on?
Bart
· 11 months ago
What Obama needs re gay issues is a loud, noisy and demanding majority of gays constantly shining the public spotlight on his condescending camouflaged assaults on gay civil rights. Separate bathrooms and drinking fountains are not good enough. Neuther is this kind of backhanded hatemongering.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Ooo, I like that terminology. Equating civil unions for gays and marriage for straights to separate bathrooms and drinking fountains. Becomes even more pointed once we have a black president.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
We'd better not choose this as the hill to rest on. We want to be treated with respect? We have to demand it.
danconnors
· 11 months ago
So take the fight to capitol hill. Obama needs to live up to his promises, and actual legisltative action will trump any photo op with Warren. Outreach to conservatives is only useful if it results in consensus to pass real change, and now Obama has to prove his strategy will work.
Tracy
· 11 months ago
Witholding money is far more effective.
tlsintx
· 11 months ago
if rick warren ever agreed to disagree, i might too. but he actively works to deny equal rights for gays. so i will actively fight against him.
Tony D
· 11 months ago
Just another kick in the gut. This day was supposed to be bittersweet and its only turning out to be bitter. Even if I did buy the argument that every bigot should have "a place at the table" I dont think this symbolic day should be that venue. Im glad I decided not to go.
Third party 2012?
Dustin
· 11 months ago
I too was offended by the inclusion of Warren, as I am attending the inauguration and don't want to see him there. But, I think it is consistant with how Obama ran. Even on the issue of race, when Obama first reached the Senate he reached out and met with Senator Byrd, a former KKK member. In his book, Obama mentions the meeting as an example of reaching out. So, it is not fair to say he would not reach out on the issue of race.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Then let him prove it by having a David Duke type Preacher share the stage. Let him prove it by having someone who is against inter-racial marriage help give the invocation. He won't. Why? Because disagreeing about "race" is unacceptable. Right? Well, taking away my civil rights is UNACCEPTABLE and shouldn't be legitimized by having Rick Warren give an invocation. My gay civil rights are just as important as people of different cultures and skin colors.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Then let him meet with Warren and reach out. But let him not honor the man who worked so hard to take away civil rights and who equates gay people with pedophiles and criminals. Let him not elevate that kind of thinking to the status of giver of the invocation. And if Obama is so consistent he would have invited a racist, a xenophobe, an anti-semite, an anti-Catholic, an anti-Mormon......
cookindiggin
· 11 months ago
I'm sure the rabid right wing is having a party with our wailing and gnashing. I am soon to go out an put on my sackcloth and sprinkle ashes on my head over this.
I am curious however. Can we channel all of this negative energy into something positive, rather than just scream in Obama's face. Yes, this is more than just haveing a different view on taxes. Although some would argue that having a Christian and a Jew on the stage together would be just as traitorous as this joker.
So. What's next? What can we do to show that we disagree with this choice without sounding like screaming mee mee's? What can we do to come to the table and be ABOVE these kinds of decisions and get to the business of forwarding our agenda?
I'm just saying...
Bart
· 11 months ago
I'm confident that the older and wiser diplomats among our gay ranks who have access are in there making their hapless and toothless pleas for some token crumbs.
triple7s
· 11 months ago
The rich old queens may be in the same boat as lots of us. The economy is NOT homophobic, they may be just as broke as some of the rest of us. But you can BET the MEGA CHURCHES have bucks stashed away for just such a need. Like getting the ear of a prez-elect. Just sayin'
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Would anyone be willing to have a Hunger Strike over this? I am. A Hunger Strike would be a very serious way of fighting this bigotry. Listen, we can't "party our way" out of this, or even have disorganized protests. If we are going to DO something about this we need to get organized with non-violent resistance and DO IT.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
We could become Log Cabin Republicans.
blueoysterjoe
· 11 months ago
You know, I have failed to understand the difficulty of getting people to change their minds about this issue. Obama's comments, and the comments made by the LA Times a while ago, attempt to portray this issue as if Americans are disagreeing about how to bail out our auto industry or whether or not we should subsidize corn in Iowa. Their comments suggest they don't really understand the fundamental issue here, which is the loss of human rights.
As such, I think John's comments are spot on. If Obama believes that human rights represent a cordial difference of opinion, I think he should include other people that don't agree with him, like David Duke.
Of course, Obama is smart. He knows all of this. What he is making is a political calculation. Namely, that the gay / lesbian community will vote for him no matter what, so he needs to reach out for the moderates, whether they are bigots or not. This will not be the first time he disappoints us in this way. Which leads to the ultimate question: what does it benefit us to work hard to elect Democrats, when the Democrats turn around and vote Republican?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
This isn't the first time he disappointed us in this way. Donny McClurkin was. And then his decision to not support gay marriage. And then his seeming reluctance to move ahead on DA-DT in the military.
sherifffruitfly
· 11 months ago
The "your own people" part is pretty shitty of you, but otherwise, yah.
Griffon
· 11 months ago
There has always been a time-tested 'position' that questionable politicians employ when exposed in blatant violation of their promises to their supporters. In this order: They will state their view: Reiterating 'unfailing champion' of issue, then move to extreme concision of the violation which omits and trivializes the real-world ramifications and those affected, next comes the patronizing explanation of why this violation should be swallowed whole, with emphasis on hackneyed generalities which are irrelevant and inapplicable when addressing aforementioned specific issues.
Voila, ordinary arrogant politician.
sutt
· 11 months ago
Are we really suprised by this?
I couldn't bring myself to be an active supporter of Obama during the election because he is, frankly, more a rightist than a leftist. Fundamentally he is not even in the same ballpark as me politically. But I assumed this was common knowledge (that he is far from being a progressive). Am I wrong? Did people actually consider him a progressive?
It should be painfully obvious to you now that he is not.
LA Dawson
· 11 months ago
Giving bigots an international platform from which to spew their venom is also known as the "The more things change, the more they stay the same." platform of the Democratic party.
frizbeesf
· 11 months ago
Mr. President Elect, I would like you to consider embracing the following statements.
"If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then being Black would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce strong families and you would think that over thousands of years that being Black would work itself out of the gene pool."
And this...
"Most people know I have many Black friends. I’ve eaten dinner in Black homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through Black relationships. So they can’t accuse me of Racism...”
Or even this...
“We support Segregation. And if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Segregation. …[T]he universal, historic definition of marriage [is] a White man and a woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years and every religion for 5,000 years has said the definition of marriage is between White man and a White woman. …This is not even just a Christian issue, it is a humanitarian and human issue, that God created marriage for the purpose of White family, White love and White procreation. I urge you to support Segregation and to pass that on.”
Pretty awful stuff right?
Well then, take out the word "Black" and substitute the words Gay or Homosexual. Take out the word White, and change "Racism" to homophobia and "Segregation" to Proposition 8. What you get is all of those disturbing racist quotes are in fact statements from interviews and speeches by Pastor Rick Warren.
If Rick Warren had said, the same things about African Americans or Hispanics, or Asians, or Jews, or even people who are left-handed, that he has about LGBT Americans, you would be appalled. If Warren had said about your family the things he has said about mine, he would not be allowed with in 100 miles of your inauguration. Yet you have chosen to put this man front and center on the day you take office.
You don't feel that you need to "agree to disagree" with White Supremacists, you don't say we need to "agree to disagree" with those who deny the Holocaust ever happened. You don't "reach across the aisle" to xenophobic bigots who want to round up immigrants. Yet you have embraced someone who is the equivalent to LGBT Americans. Why?
Millions of LGBT voters remembering the betrayal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act under the Clintons rallied to your cause during the primaries and then in the general election. Your choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation on inauguration day sends a clear message that Gay and Lesbian Americans can expect no better under your administration.
You are sending a clear message that to use the tyranny of the majority to strip away civil rights from a minority is ok. Your choice of Pastor Rick Warren says you intend to govern a nation that has two levels of citizenship. First Class for heterosexuals and Second Class for anyone who isn't.
This isn’t bipartisan compromise, this is politically expedient cowardice.
And it is beneath you.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
EXACTLY!!! EXCELLENT EXCELLENT POINTS...
Some of us Saw it coming
· 11 months ago
John,
It didn't matter to you when he threw women under the bus, why are you surprised now that you are joining the crowd under the bus. People who don't stand up for human rights for all shouldn't be surprised when they are excluded too.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Tracy
· 11 months ago
It's amazing how many homophobes are in the Democratis Party as so many comments over at Huffingtonpost are of the "shut up, gays, and get over it! We have to support him on everything or else the other side loses!" Me thinks they wouldn't be quite so keen to post such comments if Rick Warren were preaching against black folks.
FunMe
· 11 months ago
Obama: Blacks are now with Whites. Gays? Back to the end of the bus!We're too busy being "centrists" with HOMOPHOBIC evangelical "leaders".
Oh, I see that CNN "gets it" then. It should all be about unscientific internet polling, and / or a scientific poll or even putting Civil Rights on a ballot, right? WRONG. SNARK... When will people understand Civil Rights are not an issue that deserves polling or the tyranny of the majority?
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
The condescending Lee Stranahan is teaching anger management lessons at HuffPo. Seems to think that the only problem with Rick Warren is that he opposes gay marriage. How do you get through to these people? After a lifetime of the unremitting BS, I've got way more anger management experience than Stranahan does.
Ferdiad
· 11 months ago
Stay on him John. The only way to win this war against these bigots is to make it totally unacceptable to espouse those views. They cannot in any fashion be allowed on the mainstream stage - that only gives legitimacy and credence to their backwards ideals. As you said, would Obama let a racist preacher speak at his big day? What about an anti-Semite or known sexist? No - he would not. This a continued slap in the face.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Thank you! While Obama attempts to dialogue with the bigots by honoring them at his inauguration, let him see what it will cost him among his supporters.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
NBC News has a much better story about the Warren controversy than the original AP story.
Obama is either very naive or has a ridiculously exaggerated sense of his own charm and charisma if he thinks for a second he can win over fundamentalist Christian with gestures like this. I've been following these theocrats since the days of Falwell's Moral Majority and nothing. not even abortion, horrifies them more than gay rights. If Obama actually does go on to push for some of our legislation these people will be his sworn enemy, inauguration address or no inauguration address. Obama is either deceiving himself or us.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
What you say is so true.
James McConnell
· 11 months ago
Obama can't pull Warren out now. Too late. But he can put in someone who is a strong, nationally known leader and a tireless advocate for gay rights. Oops! I forgot. We don't have one of those. Why not?
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Lets see:
Ellen Judy Shepard Joe Solomnese (from HRC)
should I name more?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Dame Edna. (sorry. Couldn't resist. You're so right on. Love ya.)
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
xoxo back atcha.
Atlliberal
· 11 months ago
John,
I noticed you didn't bold this part of the quote:
"I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and -- well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency."
Is this not the first time we have had a president who believes gay people should have the same rights as everyone else? Regardless of who speaks or doesn't at the inauguration, the policies to follow will be the most progressive ever.
Change will not happen overnight, but it will happen. The pendulum is swinging back from the far right. I can understand your anger, but looking at it rationally, this is a tempest in a teacup. The real test is what will happen over the next 4 or 8 years to make sure everybody has the same rights.
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
"Is this not the first time we have had a president who believes gay people should have the same rights as everyone else?"
He can believe all he wants - actions speak much louder than words. And I'm not impressed with his actions so far.
"Change will not happen overnight, but it will happen."
I've been waiting for "change" for LGBTs since I came out over twenty years ago. I'd like to think that, during that time, we'd progressed to the point where someone who's spewing the same crap as Jerry Falwell or Jesse Helms was when I was in high school wouldn't be given a featured place on Inauguration Day.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
The change that has happened has not been the result of just waiting for change. It's been a fight. And they ain't seen nothin yet.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Nope they ain't seen nothin' yet and we are going to mobilize. It is TIME. I honestly believe this is OUR time for the LGBT to come together for positive change. I've seen a lot of change in my 43 years, and its been relatively positive for the LGBT community but I REFUSE to go backwards. I REFUSE to go backwards both for me, my LGBT brothers / sisters and especially those young gay / lesbian kids who are FINALLY being raised with the idea they might just have the hope of a good life ahead of them. Too many gay / lesbians kids don't make it through high school because they feel there is no hope. I am NOT going to be part of that. Its up to us to make their future better.
timncguy
· 11 months ago
in truth, Obama does NOT SUPPORT EQUALITY for LGBT people. He supports the "separate but equal" concept of allowing individual states to provide civil unions if they happen to feel like it.
Obama in NO WAY supports marriage equality. And, he in no way supports a FEDERAL mandate for the civil unions that he does favor to force ALL states to even provide the "unequal" concept of civil unions.
Atlliberal
· 11 months ago
Obama opposed DOMA when it wasn' politically helpful to do so. He supports giving gay people the exact same rights federally as straight people.
timncguy
· 11 months ago
that is simply NOT TRUE, If a state doesn't provide at least a civil union for a gay couple, even getting rid of DOMA would not give any federal rights to a gay couple.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
If Obama believes in equal rights for gays, then he supports gay marriage. But he does not. He wants separate but equal. In other words, separate bathrooms and drinking fountains.
The "teacup" you mention includes my marriage. My very real, completely legal marriage. If you value marriage, then you understand. The Rev. Warren worked hard to have my marriage revoked against my will by total strangers who merely needed to vote "yes" on a ballot proposition. He and his friends denied my friends the right to marry as I did. It isn't irrational to resent having one's rights and one's marriage voted away. And it is not irrational to believe that a fight is necessary to ensure that everybody has their rights back.
mirth
· 11 months ago
Mr. Warren, as a show of respect for national unity and for love of country inclusive of all her citizens and their civil rights, I call on you to withdraw from all inaugural events.
Mr Obama, you were elected to lead us away from the destructions of past administrations. The Warren inclusion in inaugural events is a huge blunder and denigrates your promises of change. This decision will have far-reaching and long-lasting repercussions against you and your efforts as president. To minimize its effects and for the sake of national unity I call on you to rescind the invitation to Mr. Warren.
Kcunac
· 11 months ago
He does not believe in equality for gays.
He doesn't believe in gay marriage.
Equality isn't qualified.
I have been going back and forth on this since the story broke and have finally made an opinion.
Obama's principle of engaging opposing views is right.
To try and palm off the Inguaration as a practical place to do it is ridiculous.
I'm diasppointed with him.
American gays should just give it up and move to Canada.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
We actually considered moving to Canada during the Bush years. I'm glad I stayed, even though it means having to fight so much nonsense and hate.
jvsp
· 11 months ago
It must be galling to have voted against one's own interests. Of course John would have one believe that Senator Clinton would have been no better.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
She wouldn't have, as far as I'm concerned. You will never get me to believe someone who lied about getting shot at in Bosnia and played "tough mama" by voting for the Iraq War would do anything but try to PROVE she was centrist enough by throwing us under the bus. Elections should have consequences, and Obama is not stupid and should know our community isn't going to just keep sitting back and allowing Democrats to shit on us. He needs to start moving on equal rights for LGBT and giving Rick Warren the mic at the inauguration isn't acceptable. We've moved beyond giving bigots a place at the table. They had their say, now it is time for US to have ours.
jvsp
· 11 months ago
Clinton has a record with the LGBT, and Obama has... ? He has a place for Pastor Warren at the inauguration. Logic has already been tortured for eight years, and unmercifully, so why stop now?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
As you may know, Cowboyneok, I'm a major Clinton fan, as well as a fan of yours. I have no illusions that Hillary is not a politician and that she would have never played politics with gay rights. But I just don't think she would have marred her own inauguration by having the invocation delivered by a known bigot. I give her more credit than that. I also gave Obama more credit than that. I'd become a big fan of his, by the way. Right now I'm just reeling from the blow.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
If Bill's agenda was any indicator... she'd say whatever she needed to in order to get elected... then do nothing to help us, or worse - pander to the religious right in order to pass other legislation.
you seem to have forgotten DADT and DOMA... both of which were Clinton legislation... and BOTH of which Obama says he'll repeal.
having warren at the podium at this HUGE juncture of American history is DISGUSTING... but I don't see it as an indicator of his future policy.
maybe I'm pollyanna here... but I'm hoping if he doesn't get rid of DADT and DOMA in the first four years, the GLBT community will attack him.
one plus of prop 8 passing... it galvanized the GLBT community in a way that hasn't been seen since the Stonewall era. I just hope that anger doesn't fade again.
Kcunac
· 11 months ago
Who's he kidding?
Does he actually believe having Rick Warren at the podium is gonna cut ice with the evangelicals when he's liberalizing abortion or some such policy? Or are we in for the surprize and not them?
Very disappointed in Obama.
Jeff
· 11 months ago
Exactly. All he's doing is bestowing legitimacy on those who would force theocracy down our throats. They will have "won" another battle in the "culture wars."
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
It's such a lousy political decision I have trouble believing that Obama made it. It has more of the hallmarks of a closeted gay staffer with something to prove, or an influential evangelical staffer with more religious zeal than common sense. I can't believe Obama either wanted this kind of controversy surrounding his inauguration, or failed to see it coming.
amatul
· 11 months ago
yeah, i agree with you RV. this is a terribly hurtful blunder and seems like advice from neo cons as to ow to break up the nation's HOPE/ and lose goodwill. terribly dumb. and he isnt dumb, so what the hell is this all about, really? incredible. sad.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I know how you feel. I'm stunned. No so much about his betrayal of his gay supporters, but that he would make such a political blunder.
KM
· 11 months ago
While I understand your point, your analogy misses the mark by 40-50 years. While racism still exists (unfortunately), a vast majority of Americans now believe that racial discrimination is a matter of human rights, not (in theory) to be put to the vote/opinions of the majority. Once upon a time, many Americans thought that certain viewpoints towards African Americans were matters to "agree to disagree" on. The Civil Rights Movement was a catalyst, not a quick remedy. Several "racists" were publically embraced in the mainstream long after the landmark legislation and court decisions of the Movement (I say "racists" in quotes, because using the standards of today, they would be considered so, but not necessarily by the standards of that time).
15 years ago, the idea of a civil union between gays was considered a far left proposition. Now it is considered mainstream (or even conservative). I wholeheartedy disagree with Proposition 8, because I am fundamentally opposed to any constitution (State or otherwise) which takes away rights. The reality is that I would not call myself a supporter of gay marriage rights. I'm indifferent. I would never try to stop a state from granting them, but I also don't see myself doing anything to make sure that such rights are granted.
Right now, there are many people who can "see" both sides, even if they agree with one more or wouldn't mind if they flipped a coin to decide. It may not be fair, but it is reality...for now.
Kcunac
· 11 months ago
I have to agree.
The racist analogy is unweildy at best and so inflammatory it risks undercutting the point.
Myself, I'd strive for a better frame to win the argument. I
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
the racism analogy forces the "outreachers" like obama to explain themselves. even if indeed the argument is that it's not our time, obama still has to stop "disagreeing" with homophobia and say instead that it's unacceptable. he also has to identify religious-right hate rhetoric for what it is -- instead of constantly implying it's well intentioned but misguided. .
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Obama could start by not honoring an active homophobe.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
The racism analogy is a good one. The bible supports racism, as it supports homophobia. Warren is a minister who uses the bible to attack gays.
KM
· 11 months ago
You can pretty much use the Bible to support/condemn anything. I don't buy the race/gay arguement, but I also don't accept the "homosexuality is an abomination" nonsense either.
I am a Christian (in the interest of full disclosure), but I find that too many Christians are afraid to read the Bible and think about what it says.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I stand by the race/gay argument. The situations differ in many ways, but they share more. I see the bible as a collection of rules, myths and histories, some accurate, some not. It contains some very lovely stuff, some very ugly stuff, and a lot of nonsense. And yes, it can be used to support anything. I used to be a strong believer, and I certainly don't mind if anyone believes. But the Christo-fascists have so politicized religion and tried to impose their beliefs on so many that they must be resisted.
Jeff
· 11 months ago
It is "reality" because people aren't vehemently making the point that it is unacceptable. Jim Crow was tolerated for 100 years precisely because people weren't vehemently making this point.
Another galling thing is that people keep claiming that Californians voted against gay marriage. Prop 8 was losing in a landslide before the Catholics and Mormons started running their despicable, lying ads claiming that it would lead to the "indoctrination" of everyone's children. There was nothing legitimate about it.
KM
· 11 months ago
To say that Jim Crow was tolerated becuase people weren't making the "point" that it was "unacceptable" is historically inaccurate and a slap in the face to all of those who fought those small battles (some succesfull, other not so much) over those 100 years. While I would suggest that the Civil Rights Movement had a longer road to travel (first step --not a slave, second step - be considered a "person" and so on), a series of small victories set the stage and it took a long time for enough people to determine that racial discrimination wasn't acceptable AND that additional laws were needed to protect those against such discrimination.
I will never belittle any group's pursuit of justice and equal rights (but I also don't accept that this is "just like" the Civil Rights Movement). I just know that change comes slowly. It's not fair, it's not right, but it is the way it is.
I don't believe that it will always be this way, just as it isn't the way that it used to be.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I'm not sure how it went in other states, but in California which in 1948 was the first state to strike down anti-miscegenation laws, it was done by the state Supreme Court, and the decision was highly unpopular. State polls at the time showed more than 70% disapproval of the court's decision. Had anyone put it on the ballot in a state-wide referendum, the court's decision would have been overturned by a landslide. By comparison, gay marriage which was put on the ballot, was defeated by 52% to 48%. So in the case of gay marriage in California those opposed to discrimination have almost reached a majority. In fact deceitful tactics were used by the Mormons and others, and a poll taken after the election shows that a majority of Californians now favor gay marriage. But in 1948 it required the courts to strike down anti-miscegenation. We may eventually see something similar nation-wide with gay discrimination if anti-gay prejudice remains as high as it is in many states. We may see the US Supreme Court stepping in, and hopefully by then the Bush court will be outnumbered.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
How do you feel about Warren calling gays pedophiles?
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
the main arguement lies not in Biblical bullshit... but whether or not you believe being gay is a choice.
if you believe its a choice, then no... race doesn't factor in.
if you believe it isn't a choice, then YES... it IS racism.
mike huckabee totally sidestepped John Stewart's question "when did you decide to be straight?" as irrelevent... it isn't, it should be one of our main talking points.
I never chose this, until I knew there were other people like me I felt alienated and misunderstood... imagine a 10 year old who thinks ALL guys are supposed to like girls?
as soon as I knew what 'gay' was, I knew it applied to me.
I still feel alienated and misunderstood... but not by my family or friends, by my state (California) and country.
I'm normal. how normal is bigotry?
Jackson Thersites
· 11 months ago
Hey I'm gay and I don't have any interest in either getting married or serving in the military. But I see that in order for me to have an equal place among the citizens of my country those two rights are in some ways the sine qua non achievements.
Gays and Lesbians have spent 40 years fighting to overturn the punitive, often criminalizing expressions of our minority status. We have achieved after all that the position of fully endowed second class separate but "equal" citizenship. Marriage rights and military service rights would make us legal equals. That is unequivocally a momentous goal. Another reaffirmation of the ever widening and deepening equalizing power drawn from our magnificent Constitution. We could use you in this fight.
usagi
· 11 months ago
It is brilliant politics. Never an enthusiastic supporter, I was willing to take a "wait and see" attitude. Well, now I see. Fuck him. No support, financial or otherwise. No defense from stupid attacks (why hasn't the Obama transition team released the information about their conversations with Blagojevich yet?). No honeymoon. No accepting a positive step without looking for the hidden motivation and where the next knife is coming from. Congratulations. The tone has been decisively set. Enjoy it. Fuckers.
dcredhead73
· 11 months ago
You are right. John McCain would have been a much better choice.
usagi
· 11 months ago
I prefer my enemies where I can see them. "Friends" who betray me don't keep the designation for long. I'd expect McCain to slap me in the face with his inauguration. Obama earned all this ire. When he wins my support back, he can have it, meantime, what exactly is he hiding from the public about his relationship with Blagojevich? I don't have any reason to trust him anymore, so I don't.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Again, when Obama allows an Aryan Nation person to speak at the inauguration then I will shut up. Until then, I won't. I am also very seriously contemplating organizing a Hunger Strike. It is TIME for the LGBT community to start battling back. The LGBT community need to watch "MILK" and learn what to do to fight back. This is OUR TIME to finally get equality and we can NOT back down.
Bart
· 11 months ago
Hunger strikes are honest only if you're willing to starve yourself TO DEATH. Short of that, they're merely a weigh-loss program that may or may not be noticed by anyone else.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
I don't need to lose any weight. Trust me. Well, maybe ten pounds but they have proven effective without people dying of hunger. Dude, I DON'T want to go on a hunger strike, believe me! I'm trying to find some way to make a difference! If it takes a hunger strike, I WILL do it.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Harvey Milk said, "You gotta give 'em hope." And I was thinking, who does the inclusion of Rick Warren give hope to? The evangelical bigots, of course. Certainly not those of us whose marriage rights he took away.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
You gotta give 'em hope. Exactly...
Mike
· 11 months ago
John How can you expect to bring the people who are not receptive to the LGBT community if we don't include them? Chill out would you.
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
Sorry, but I don't buy that argument.
There are many fundamentalist Christians out there that will never be receptive to LGBTs - it's a basic part of their faith and their belief system. Despite all the progress we've made socially and legally on race, there's still much racism out there - some people you can just never reach.
There comes a point when you have to take a stand and say that spreading misinformation about a particular group or advocating limiting their rights because it doesn't jive with your religion is just morally wrong and unacceptable.
Bart
· 11 months ago
What got the attention of the nation over black civil rights was huge marches and circles of fire the major cities. Then came the civil rights legislation. What will it take to get this nation of homophobes to get the point?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Sitting down at the back of the bus and being quiet isn't it.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
How can we expect to bring the people who are not receptive to black civil rights if we don't include them on the podium with Obama? Or how about the people that see Jews as Christ killers? Shouldn't they be honored too? How else can we reach out to them? Meet with them in private, perhaps? Or debate them? No. We have to honor them in front of the whole world. We have to show that we value them. We have to give their values a platform.
robertwest
· 11 months ago
John, As a 61 year old strait male, I am outraged at this Rick Warren affair. You are on the right track in fighting back by using the racist analogy. You should start calling what the Obama team is doing their "Southern Strategy" . The only difference between this "Southern Strategy" and the one the Republicans used is this time it is homophobia instead of racism.
Robert West
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Thank you, "robertwest." Thanks for being straight and not narrow.
Paul Ramon
· 11 months ago
This is so absurd. Get over yourselves. Surprise, the left is self-righteously pissed off. Go ahead, expect patience and tolerance to be shown to you while you show none.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
In other words, do nothing and expect change. Sorry. Faulty logic. And what is this about us expecting "patience"? Are we testing your patience? Sounds like you think we're getting uppity.
Dustin
· 11 months ago
Criticize Obama for not believing in marriage equality, not being willing to share a stage with someone he disagrees with. Only including people who agree with you has not produced any change for the better. A majority of Americans still don't understand why we as gay people should be able to get married. So, if you only have a dialouge with the minority of people who understand, you don't get anywhere. This is one reason No on 8 failed in California--the campaign did not want to do effective outreach to african american congregations who don't already support gay marriage, despite the members of that community encouraged dialouge and different arguments. Well, that is a losing strategy. Bring everyone to the table, let people participate, try to educate them and their followers (who may tune in because of their involvement), and don't compromise on your beliefs when dealing with a real policy issue. Obama does not deserve criticism for bringing everyone in to the inauguration, but he still needs to be pressured to change his view on marriage equality.
kevinbgoode
· 11 months ago
Wow...the 20 million gay Americans are being "represented" by a marching band. Apparently we are only good for entertaining. . .I suppose we should be glad there isn't such a thing as "gayface."
How about a little real outreach to our community beyond a token gesture of a marching band? Like maybe actually doing something about equal rights instead of giving the oppressors more ammunition to use against us?
dcredhead73
· 11 months ago
Excellent point, Dustin.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I agree with you that the No on Prop 8 effort was flawed big time, and we failed to effectively deal with the rampant homophobia in the black community. I also agree with you completely about dialogue. But I totally disagree that honoring a rampant homophobe who works against civil rights and equates gays to pedophiles is reaching out or being inclusive. Giving that man the honor and platform of the inauguration elevates his views and gives a stamp of legitimacy and approval. If you can't see that, then change the context to a Christian preacher who is outspoken about the Jews going to hell. Letting such a man deliver Obama's invocation on such an important day would not be an outreach to those who see Jews as Christ killers. It would be an unbelievable and totally unacceptable blunder. So it is with honoring an arch-homophobe. Let the outreach happen in appropriate places and circumstances. Not at the inauguration. And never honor bigotry.
Jackson Thersites
· 11 months ago
You have missed the central salient point. Obama is not sharing the stage, as though invited to an event of another‘s making, he is SETTING the stage. He is choosing the voices to be heard at his inauguration and he has chosen Rick Warren. On January 21, people all over the world will watch this inauguration, most likely the largest audience in the history of world. Obama has chosen a man of faith to give the opening prayer who only recently called for the assassination of the President of Iran. How will the Islamic world see that? A man who compares abortion to the holocaust. How will women struggling to control their reproductive rights see that? A religious leader who equates gay marriage to incest and statutory rape. How are gay people supposed to see that?
Obama justifies this choice by saying Warren included him by inviting him to speak at his church and that his own campaign has always been about inclusion. So, invite Warren to the White House for a Left/Right religious summit. But this choice isn't really about inclusion. He’s fetishizing a limited inclusion (how many atheists are included, socialists, Muslims), then his apologists use that fake inclusion as a weapon to shut down dissent by shaming those who protest against it as intolerant.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Excellent post, Jackson. Thank you. And I had forgotten about Warren's call for the assassination of Ahmadinejad. What on earth was Obama thinking??? I'm amazed at the enormity of this blunder, and I have no sympathy with those who can't see it.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Bravo, Jackson! Bravo!!! Very good points.
Webster
· 11 months ago
Yes, Miz Parks, you just keep on sitting in the back of the bus. Your rights will come ... eventually. You just be patient now. The times are just not right ... maybe later.
The time for waiting for equal rights is OVER!
Just wonderin
· 11 months ago
No, in other words practice what you preach. You expect to be able to spew your hateful rants, but no one else should be able to present their side if you perceive it as hateful rants. You can't claim "my way or the highway" at the same time you cry about how wrong that is for others to do, and be seen as the least bit credible. Is that really not completely obvious??? How can you not see how utterly rediculous that is?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
But my hateful rants are actually angry rants, plus they are true, while Rev. Warren's hateful rants truly are hateful, plus they are false. And my rants are not elevated by the President by having me present an invocation at his inauguration. I really don't expect anybody to keep quiet. I expect people to fight back when attacked, which is what I am doing. If you ever have your marriage put to a popular vote, I hope you are not the kind of person to accept the will of a bunch of strangers and do nothing about it.
Tom
· 11 months ago
Here we go again, we object to intolerance and we are the intolerant. Sell your crazy on Fox News, we don't buy that crap here.
stymie
· 11 months ago
"If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then being homosexual would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce strong families and you would think that over thousands of years that being homosexual would work itself out of the gene pool."
Warren has not thought this through. He is making a hypothosis and I disagree. Perhaps the gene is not recessive at all. The population of the world is exploding and some fear that we will not be able to feed eveyone, which is the case in many third world countries. More people exerts more pressure on the systems for nutrition and waste removal, ie global warming especially. There is a side of the analysis that could say that production of more offspring is detrimental to our survival because of these concerns. Therefore the homosexual gene may actually be considered primary or "progressive". I was told many times and firmly agree that "God don't make no junk". What Warren is saying is that homosexuls are junk, thus God makes junk, (in his eyes). Therefore Warren is a hypocritre of the very bible, pulpit, religion he sermons on. Unuf said.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
The biblical Jesus is based closely upon the Hindu-Persian god Mithra, who was based closely upon the Egyptian god Horus who also was born the son of god on December 25 to a virgin in a cave in the presence of shepherds and visited by three wise men, etc, etc, etc.. Myths are fine if they do good. If Obama must honor preachers at his inauguration, let it be preachers who do good. Not homophobes who work to deny civil rights and bear false witness against their gay neighbors by calling them pedophiles.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Ritorna, you are definitely so right on.
Stevious
· 11 months ago
He's free to choose whomever he wants to do the invocation at his Inauguration, and I am free to close my wallet to his continued requests for donations.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I don't see the inauguration as belonging only to the president, but I agree that your money belongs to you, and withholding our money is a way we can fight back. Democrats including Obama have been coming to California for years asking us, including gay people, to open our wallets. And we did - big time - for Mr. Obama. Something tells me that we didn't have in mind watching a preacher at the inauguration who fought successfully to take away our rights. If this stands, no Democrat had better ask me for money any time soon.
Antinous
· 11 months ago
This is not a social issue, this is a human rights, civil rights issue. Mr Obama you are smarter than that, aren't you.
Angela
· 11 months ago
"Or does your desire to create a new "atmosphere," and reach out to our enemies, stop when it's your own people, your own children"...
Excuse me, what exactly do you mean by " your own people" ??
Paris reader
· 11 months ago
Obama has a pretty poor record of religious associations. He also went to Reverend Wright's church for years. I guess no one ever told him to beware of false prophets. Religious leaders who teach hate and self oppression are dangerous. They lead people astray. Especially when there are so many religious figures who have love and grace in their heart, Warren is a horrid choice for a President who want to set a tone of change and transformation.
Tim in SF
· 11 months ago
I think it's rather unwise to judge someone's lifetime career based on a short youtube video that was edited together by opposition researchers. You don't know Wright and you don't go to his church.
kevinbgoode
· 11 months ago
If President-Elect Barack "Separate but Equal" Obama is so interested in promoting "inclusion," he would be supporting marriage equality, not some second-class "civil union" policy. And if he wants to set an example of "agreeing to disagree" then he needs to sit himself down with white supremacists and try having the same kind of dialogue we face every daily with the wingnut religious fundamentalists.
He obviously doesn't "get" it. You don't tell me I'm "equal" Barry. . .and then publicly explain how you are a marriage separatist - and then underscore that point by hauling in someone who just campaigned to remove my goddamn constitutional rights in the most populous state in the country.
We ain't yer house faggots, Barack - and you aint' our heterosupremacist massa. And we are good for more than just posing as a token marching band "representing" our community.
Why don't you insult those who oppress us for a change, President "Separate but Equal" Obama? Instead of constantly trying to stomp on our human dignity and then claim you are supporting our rights?
dcredhead73
· 11 months ago
Were you this outraged when Bill Clinton signed DOMA? Talk about the ultimate seperate but equal.
roberto
· 11 months ago
Sure, Warren invited Obama to a forum at Saddleback. But O'Reilly also invited him to be interviewed on Faux News. By that reasoning why not invite Sean Hannity to swear him in?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
LOL! Sounds logical.
SkippyFlipjack
· 11 months ago
but it'll be OK because Colmes will lead the processional.
dcredhead73
· 11 months ago
If we want to alienate every single person in America who disagrees with our views, we might as well have re elected George Bush. I for one have had enough with -- "if you're not for me, you're against me." It didn't get anything done as far as the greater good is concerned in America and completel F'd up our country for the past 8 years.
Obama's statement makes a lot of sense to me.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
So just accept that a bigot who works to revoke gay civil rights and equates gays with pedophilia and crime shall be the man to receive the honor of delivering the invocation at the inauguration of our next president. Sorry. No way. If you are afraid of alienating those who are already alienated, then step aside and let others do your fighting for you.
Jackson Thersites
· 11 months ago
As I wrote below, on January 20, people all over the world will watch this inauguration, most likely the largest audience in the history of world. Obama has chosen a man of faith to give the opening prayer who only recently called for the assassination of the President of Iran. How will the Islamic world see that? A man who compares abortion to the holocaust. How will women struggling to control their reproductive rights see that? A religious leader who equates gay marriage to incest and statutory rape. How are gay people supposed to see that?
Protesters against this choice are not engaged in a Manichean threat of "if you're not for me you're against me." Of course there must be room where we can as Obama says "create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable."
So, include Warren by inviting him to the White House for a Left/Right religious summit. But this choice isn't really about inclusion. This is classic triangulation. Obama is elevating a limited inclusion (how many atheists are included, socialists, Muslims) while winking at Warren's views, on gays, on abortion, on the legality of assassination and tacitly saying they matter less than inclusion. Now his apologists are using that fake inclusion as a weapon to shut down dissent by shaming those who protest against it as intolerant. Pure inclusion is a Utopian illusion. The real world only allows limited inclusions of choice and Obama’s choice of Rick Warren is a bad one.
dcredhead73
· 11 months ago
And one more thing -- I find all this national outrage to be a little late to the party. If only Prop 8 was fought with this much ferocity. If 25% of all the energy going into the Rick Warren controversy went into fighting Prop 8, the ballot initiative never would have passed. It's amazing how suddenly HRC has a spine.
SkippyFlipjack
· 11 months ago
But at least we got that film festival organizer in Los Angeles fired.
Tim in SF
· 11 months ago
You're an idiot who doesn't know the difference between a resignation and a termination.
SkippyFlipjack
· 11 months ago
People worked to get him out of his festival job, and were happy when he pulled the cord himself. Call it what you will, but that was the goal and it was successful.
(Note to self: add to New Years' resolutions, "stop reasoning with angry, insulting little internet trolls.")
J. Clarence
· 11 months ago
I totally agree with your argument, John; however, what do you mean by "your own people", last I checked there were gay black folks too.
KISSman
· 11 months ago
I don't have a big problem dealing with people who we can agree to disagree with. My problem is when people say over-the-top, hateful things towards groups of people in our society. I don't have to agree with what Warren thinks on every issue, but I do care if Obama is rewarding this guy with a major opportunity after saying some pretty deplorable things about gay people. There is a difference.
SkippyFlipjack
· 11 months ago
To second what others have said, Obama's overstating his views a bit. A "fierce advocate" would push for the desires of the communities for which s/he is advocating. Obama's position (civil unions) is not that of the LGBT community (actual equality, aka marriage.) He's a supporter (and an incredibly powerful one) but not a "fierce advocate".
Obama is right, we need to be at the table with people with whom we disagree. But the Invocation is a symbolic act and the selection of that person is a symbolic act, so choosing a divisive figure is a really dumb move.
larry
· 11 months ago
It is obvious that Rick Warren is going to give the invocation. The best that can be done now is to show your feelings quietly, with respect for the office of President and Barrack Obama and display no disrespect for anyones faith. Stand, and with unbowed heads turn your backs to the platform, Warren, the TV whatever. Turn our backs quietly with unbowed heads of protest to what we believe to be not a man of everyones God and certainly not to many of us who supported Obama/Biden for the high office. If he insults us with this choice, then we must turn our backs on the choice while protesting the insult.. Simple....honorable, respectful.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Sorry. I know there's a place for passive aggression, and the whole noble victim thing, but not here. Thousands or millions of people turning their backs to their television sets will mean absolutely nothing. We have to make a loud noise, and if it embarrasses Obama, it is his own fault for inviting to address his world event inauguration an anti-women's rights arch-homophobe who has called for the assassination of Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
And as for respecting people's religion, that fine if they respect me, or at least leave me alone. But a lot of them don't. The courts will be deciding shortly if I am still married or not as a result of a bunch of Mormons, evangelicals, Catholics and yes, Rev. Warren. So I feel free to point out that these biblical literalists are woefully unaware that the gods Mithra and Horus who both predate Jesus by more than 1000 years, and who both were popular in the Roman Empire at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived, were also both born on December 25 in a cave to a virgin in the presence of shepherds, heralded by a star in the east, announced by angels, visited by three wise men, fled their homelands as children to save their lives from their kings, were baptized in a river at the age of 30 by a baptist who was later beheaded, went off into the desert and were tempted by a demon who promised power and riches, had twelve disciples, walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, calmed the seas with a word, were transfigured on a mountain, delivered a sermon on the mount, presided over a "last supper" in which they invited their guests to partake of their body and blood, were crucified between two thieves, died, and were buried, descended into hell, after which they rose from the dead three days later as first witnessed by women, and finally ascended into heaven where they both became known as "the way, the truth and the live", "the good shepherd", "the lamb of God" and "the savior of the world" and were expected to return again and rule for 1,000 years. And since the fundamentalist Christians have seen fit to so politicize their faith, I feel perfectly justified in pointing out that their Jesus is a rip off from earlier religions and should never be used to deny my rights. Instead of trying to run my life, let them google Mithra and Horus and wake up to how foolish they are to presume to tell anyone anything.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
You seem to have taken theology classes, "Ritorna." Either that, are you impress me with your knowledge. I studied Mithra and Horus and all that stuff in "Education for Ministry" classes. Religion and how it borrows from previous myths is very interesting stuff, and you are correct-a-mundo. I also liked learning about all the bible versus that appeared due to monks copying text and adding stuff in the margins throughout the years. So much for all that "This is the Divine Word of G-d written by the finger of G-d" crap fundamentalists try to spread. I'm a firm advocate of the "G-d is still speaking!" and "Never place a period where a comma should be."
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
ROTF! Never place a period, period. Do you think I broke the record for the longest run-on sentence in the history of America Blog?
So were you preparing to enter the ministry? Sounds like you've studied a lot. I got most of my tutelage under the strict eye of Holy Mother Church, but it's ok. Sister Benedict Mary said my mind was out the window. I've also picked up a lot about religious BS by marrying an ex-priest. That, plus I'm a devout follower of Google Search Engine, known to evangelicals as 666.
I'm thinking about writing an e-pistle about how there literally is more evidence to support the existence of Santa Clause than Jesus. There really was a Saint Nicholas, but like Jesus, he borrowed heavily from earlier legends. I thought I'd maybe write about him before the north pole melts completely away.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Ritorna, you know I already love you but I'm gonna say it again! Also, hysterical is the word!
Ohio_Dem
· 11 months ago
the ONLY reason this is being talked about on msm is precisely because we are making noise. If you want equality, stand up for it, Get pissed off about it. DEMAND IT. Equality is your right so why should anyone have to stand quietly with bowed head while professional homophobes strip away civil, rights from the glbt community?
I personally believe some kind of big protest from the glbt community and their allies, should occur at the inauguration. I personally think we need to hold Obama's feet to the fire by writing editorials, making phone calls, posting on message boards, and voicing our outrage at this betrayal. This is a slap in the face pure and simple.
and obama is a hypocrite for allowing this divisive person to be promoted to such a prominant position during this most historical event. THIS IS NOT CHANGE. This is what always happens. Gays are bashed. Gays are thrown under the bus.
I believe glbt leaders should organize some kind of massive protest in DC on inauguration day.
gayman
· 11 months ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! better watch out aravosis....they'll be labeling you as a racist soon enough. too bad your so fucking stupid that you didn't see this coming a mile away like some of us that you so gleefully maligned. Go fuck yourself...and oh yeah, as the Obots are saying to all gays now, just as YOU did during the primaries, GET OVER IT you bastard.
frizbeesf
· 11 months ago
Wow who knew that Rod Blagovich reads this blog!
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Uh, that was worse than what Blagovich would have said. Totally inappropriate.
Anntichrist S. Coulter
· 11 months ago
Ay-teh-fuckin'-MEN!!!
So much easier to deny civil rights when it doesn't affect YOU.
amatul
· 11 months ago
this is a real point that you raise here john s. hmmm. i think that the type of game these folks are playing is political and hurts those of us who have personal stake in how these groups (ourselves, our friends, family, lovers or children) are seen and how we are treated. a personal phone call letters and requests for a meeting directly sent to obama and his advisors are in order, from all concerned and all of us who care about the threatened people. we mut stand up for each other, and call each other into accounting as fellow "minorities" but most of all, we must call folks up as decent human beings and ask them to think very carefully about what they say and do. especially when tey say they are our friends...
bill mcminn
· 11 months ago
Just another bigot in the white house. I guess everything he says about equality and respect should be couched with "except gays." He acts as if me rights are just another topic open to debate. My rights are not open for debate. Anyone who does not support equal rights is a bigot.
warbler
· 11 months ago
I agree with President-Elect Barack Obama, the man I voted for as the best hope for our country and for people of all sexual orientations. I disagree with John Avavosis whose blog I visit several times a day and with whom I usually agree.
No need to bully us John. We get your point.
Ohio_Dem
· 11 months ago
You're entitled to your opinion but I am SO HAPPY to see John finally take a stand against this. We need John on cable news talk shows because he has the balls to come right out and say - if a homophobe is ok, why not invite a racist too.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Honoring a man who works to take away gay civil rights and equates gays with pedophiles does not inspire hope.
offspring
· 11 months ago
I AM NOT A FUCKIING SOCIAL ISSUE, I AM AN AMERICAN TAX PAYER WHO HAPPENS TO BE GAY BORN THAT WAY, HOW DO I KNOW I WAS BORN GAY? SIMPLE BECAUSE IT IS ME THAT IS GAY SO I KNOW DUH, BUT THIS IDEA THAT ME NOT GETTING THE SAME RIGHTS AS MY FELLOW AMERICANS IS A SOCIAL ISSUE IS CRAP IT IS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE PERIOD
tlsintx
· 11 months ago
amen. i'm not a social issue either or a "lifestyle"...
Ohio_Dem
· 11 months ago
every law abiding, tax paying citizen of the united states should have equal rights. period.
Elliot Lake
· 11 months ago
Or women.
tlsintx
· 11 months ago
Agreeing to disagree is fine. But Rick Warren and the religious right never stop there. They push for judges and laws and propositions and constitutional amendments and that take away my rights.
so tell it to the wingers. not me.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I see the whole "agreeing to disagree" thing as missing the point of what is so offensive. Obama has elevated this homophobe by having him give the invocation at his inaugural. It implies that Warren's values are good values. I have no problem with reaching out and creating dialogue between groups that don't agree, but this man is a homophobe who lies about gay people and subverts their rights. He shouldn't be on our TV sets on January 20th. He shouldn't be someone Obama honors. There are lots of good ministers out there who could help bring America together and place their invocation upon the start of a new day in this country. Warren isn't one of them.
mirth
· 11 months ago
You say it for me, too.
Ohio_Dem
· 11 months ago
why didn't CNN have John on right now instead of having two people gang up on the head of the HRC and Roland actually LAUGHED about the outrage. He LAUGHED as he said "Oh they thought about it" implying, "they thought about it and they don't give a damn about what glbt people think."
I AM SO FREAKING ANGRY!
at least Oberman had the balls to ask, "what if it was someone who was a racist" and then even he caved to some extent and modifided it by saying "or someone who doesn't like left handed people or whatever".. NO THE QUESTION IS POINT BLANK - WHY DOESNT OBAMA 'REACH OUT" to a racist. THAT is the question and I want an answer. If he has a high profile racist up on that inaugural stage, at least he will be really be putting into practice what he is claiming to be practicing right now. But you and I know that will NOT happen. There will be no racist on that stage to "disagree without being disagreeable" to Obama's beliefs.
SO WHY IS THERE A HOMOPHOBE?
Because its the political thing to do.
rgm
· 11 months ago
If Obama truly wants to respect opposing views then Gene Robinson openly gay Bishop of NH should also be given a prominent role at the inauguration.
SilentGaurdian
· 11 months ago
This is just silly. When we were all talking about a unified, post-partisan era, I actually tricked myself into thinking we'd -all- be in this together. But no, our unity ends along traditional social lines.
Does Warren oppose gay rights? Yes. I agree that's wrong. Did he get Prop 8 through? If so, it's because the Gay counter-argument wasn't strong enough. What else has he done? Exemplary work in poverty and AIDS reduction.
In a democracy, there are myriad conflicting views, but Warren's is (shock and awe) valid. And Obama is here in part (I had hoped) to unite us again, to make us -one country-. And that means dealing with those who oppose us. But that is not accomplished by immaturely screaming when Obama is sworn in by a man who has traditionally opposed your views--it means accepting that and working harder that California will accept GLBT in the future. Or else we can go back to that wonderful mantra, "if you're not with us, you're against us." Don't pretend that it's any more valid just because it's on your side.
GTYC
· 11 months ago
This country has been in a quagmire of ever increasing polarization for so long it has been scary. The cultural divide has degenerated to demonizing the opposition to the point that we are mentally and psychologically akin to Israel and Palestine. If we expect to be treated like valued human beings, then we must give respect to different viewpoints. Somebody has got to take the first step. I believe that we have elected a truly courageous leader who will not compromise on his stand for gay rights, but is not afraid to find ways to bring our country together. Remember that an increasing number of young conservative Christians broke rank to help elect Obama. The groundwork is being laid for our nation to get to work to solve some real big problems - - gay rights included.
susan
· 11 months ago
if the white pastor were against blacks would Obama still have him speak?
blackminx
· 11 months ago
It's bothering me quite a lot (& that's an understatement) that all the gay and lesbian Americans who voted for Barack Obama, and who celebrated his victory as if it was their own personal victory, and who looked forward with great expectation and excitement to his Inauguration will be denied the joy of that occasion because of the thoughtlessness of the man himself. I'm deeply disappointed that President Elect Obama has showed so little empathy and understanding for the people who he claims to be such a fierce advocate for. "Disagreement on a social issue" just doesn't come remotely close to covering it!
All Comments
And yes, I'm gay.
Appointments and policies matter, not who does an irrelevant invocation.
Let's move on already. Please.
Such as that of Eric Holder, who pushed for mandatory minimums for cannabis users?
And policies such as Obama affirming that he does not support legalization of cannabis?
Gays aren't going to jail for being gay, are they?
Yet cannabis users are.
Where's the outrage?
Men and women in some other countries _do_ go to jail for being gay, lesbian, or perceived as being transgendered.
I've never heard a major figure from either party saying anything about that.
Yet cannabis users are... going to jail for using a non-toxic, non-addictive herb while Obama sucks on cancer sticks responsible for billions in health care costs.
I'm not saying tobacco should be outlawed, but I am pointing out that he's an unconscionable hypocrite on more than one subject.
Frankly, I expected him to behave exactly as he is.
Really? Care to cite a link?
I think this is unconscionable given that: (a) Obama admits to cannabis use as a youth; (b) Obama currently smokes tobacco.
Some people would reply to your claim that people are born gay by saying, "That doesn't mean you have to act on it."
Others might say, "Actually, I do have a choice given that I'm bisexual, and I choose to have intercourse with members of my own sex."
Are they wrong?
Wether it be for medicinal, spiritual or recreational use, I don't think cannabis users should be forced to lose all they have and imprisoned for 5 or more years.
The fact that Obama chose Holder (and I won't even get into his defending Chiquita) shows me in no uncertain terms that Obama's presidency will not be Change...
it will be more of the same.
------------------------------
Yes. You did.
I said, "Gays aren't going to jail for being gay."
Then I noted (see amended sentence below) that cannabis users are going to jail for using a non-toxic, non-addictive herb while Obama sucks on cancer sticks responsible for billions in health care costs.
Based on how the administration is shaping up, don't expect anything at all to improve for Gays and Lesbians over the next four years. If anything, you'll probably see them get worse if cuddling up to the Religious Right is this administration's way of "coming together".
Perhaps Obama would like to "agree to disagree" with one of the many ministers in the South and elsewhere that still preach against "mixing of the races" and desegregation? We can all "just get along", now can't we?
gay groups can gets something out of this debacle.
An Idaho lesbian parent
Personally inviting someone and giving them a platform to get publicity for their bigotry, is not okay.
Obama just shot himself out of a second term.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Obama, it is a well guarded secret. You have created a situation for the gay community analogous to putting a KKK minister on the presidential podium for the inauguration. The offense exists, now remove it! You cannot put Rick Warren in a position of respect and pretend that you lead the nation.
Obama, awake!
And yes, I am old enough to remember MANY churches (mostly in the South) refusing to see African Americans as equal to Whites. As I recall, even Jimmy Carter's church was like that. He tried to change them, and when he couldn't, he quit the church.
Yes, it is all well and good to "come together" but not with racists, homophobes, etc. For a long time, I thought Obama was just acting this way (we need to come together) to get his projects through. But then I realized that these racists, homophobes, etc. will never change. It is a fool's errand to try to get to them to. The only thing that will "change" many of them is letting them die off.
My son and brother who are big Warren fans and right wingers voted no on prop 8- They felt it was wrong to tell someone who they can love and marry and it was unconstitutional. I was shocked that they had this view.
Maybe this is the disagreement Obama speaks about? They admire Warren, but disagreed with him.
Or maybe we should beat this to death till those few who support us are gone.
who is comparing him to racist leaders? the question was: why did he not invite a racist to speak at his inaugural. simple question, i think. deserves an answer.
Here is what I said in the optional "why" box:
Your choice to have the gay hating bigot rick warren give the invocation at your inaguration.
Change my ass - you are a fucking politician just like all the rest.
You lost my vote in 2012 and my future financial support. You thing the religious nuts in the south will make up for losing me and people like me who believe in human rights just cause you let a whack job preacher who hates gays pray?
If so, you are not as smart as I thought you were.
Getting off an email list won't have much impact. Changing your registration sends a much stronger message, especially if there's a big group that does it during the same week or on the same day.
but Rick Warren is taking away my rights. Sorry. I can't agree with that.
You guys are like the religious right sometimes, you make a real loud noise but you dont have the clout or numbers to influence policy as much as you'd like. How you're Day without Gay go over? Like a lead balloon.
Obama is a conservative Democrat, remember? He's not a liberal and you should have known this was coming.
Frankly, I'm tired of gay people being just as as racist (yes you are!), nasty, mean-spirited and narrow minded as straight people and basing your overall view of Obama on one or two gay issues he doesn't agree with. He has already made it very clear to all of you his stance on gay rights.
I understand the issue of rights for all people and agree that ALL people deserve equal rights and those rights should never be subject to a popular vote so why don't you, as gay citizens, do as others have done...take it to the Supreme Court and stop the constant kvetching about it.
And yes, you were a bunch of frightened wimps who rolled ove for Bush over the past 8 years. At the very least you should give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Jezus, this is getting ridiculous.
I wish you guys had been as hard on Bushco over the last 8 years.
Please stop whining, John.
Trust Obama. Sure, like I won't vote for FISA, or I'll raise taxes on the very rich, or like trusting Kerry who said we'll count every vote. Trust Obama -- only as far as you can throw a piano.
I agree with John that if by giving Warren a place of honor at the inauguration is how Obama defines "coming together," then, by all means, where are the white supremacists in the inaugural schedule? He's their president too.
I would have liked to see a Unitarian Universalists minister given a chance to speak, but I guess we are too "radical" a political choice. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I'm happy with the recent elections.
Why do you think racism is still so strong in some areas of the country? It's a deep set belief system that no amount of "dialogue" can really change.
This kind of reaction is completely hypocritical.
- A gay man
At our expense, not yours. When do you start standing up for us and insult the right winged theocrats? Keep this up and you will lose us all together.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/alaska...
I like the message we are sending to the world about change to American foreign policy by promoting the advocate of assasinations on inaugeration day. Change is on the way!
He should have Gordon B. Hinckley there too.
[Gordon B. Hinckley is the head of the Mormon Church. They were the cheif fundraisers for the Yes on 8 campaign. In addition the Church believes...
And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities." (2 Nephi 5:21,)
Yep, Black people are really bad too...]
But this is an open administration so it should show it by having The Reverend Thom Robb up there too. Who better to have there to show an open and accepting Administration other than the head of the KKK.
Other people he should invite on stage include...
David Duke - the European-American Unity and Rights Organization.
John Tyndall, founder of the British National Party.
top National Alliance lieutenant Kevin Alfred Strom.
Don Black, founder of the pioneering white supremacist Web site Stormfront.
Willis Carto of the American Free Press and The Barnes Review.
anti-Semitic attorney Edgar J. Steele.
Canadian activist Paul Fromm.
anti-Semitic propagandist Ed Fields.
Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf.
When Bush won, I was very disappointed. I could not believe that my country had fallen for the fear baiting tactics of the Bush cabal. (recall all the orange alerts emanating from the Dept. of Homeland Security that miraculously stopped on election day 2004?)
But what really got to me that election year was when the newly elected Senator from Colorado, Ken Salazar, in his first major public act as my Senator, introduced and recommended Alberto Gonzales, author of the memo that called the Geneva Convention's ban on torture "quaint", to the Senate for confirmation as Attorney General. I felt that Senator Salazar did not understand or care about what had motivated me and many others to work for his election, all in the name of political expediency. Gonzales proved to be an inept upholder of the rule of law and a Bush sycophant, and was forced from office. Salazar would go on to vote to uphold the Bush policy on torture along with the majority of the Senate.
I am feeling almost the same way about Obama right now. In his first major public act as my President, the inauguration ceremony will begin with an invocation by avowed homophobe/bigot Pastor Rick Warren. Warren worked avidly to remove marriage rights of gays and lesbians in California in the Prop. 8 campaign. Warren has equated same sex love with pedophelia and other criminal behavior. This is a highly divisive choice, and an extremely unfortunate note to begin his presidency on.
Right now, I am glad that I did not invest the time and energy into the Obama campaign as I did in 2004. Some niggling thought told me not to really trust Obama's progressive rhetoric. I voted for him (twice) and canvassed one day for his campaign. To me politicians like Obama and Salazar, by seeking to bridge the divide between right and left, end up abandoning core principles. I will have a happy day on Jan 20, as the Bush years will be over, but it will be bitter-sweet as I will have rubbed in my face that I, as a gay man do not count.
Gerald Bennett
Boulder, CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to 350+ music, sports, & news radio stations – including songs for the holidays – FREE while you browse. Start
He actively fights to deny my civil rights and stirs up his millions of followers to do the same.
That calls for a drink!
Norris: Now, before we go on, I think I can say, Mr. Weyrich, that there quite a few people who would take exception to the statement that homosexuals are preoccupied with sex.
Weyrich: Well, I don't care whether they take exception to it - it happens to be true.
Norris: That is your opinion.
Weyrich: Well, it's not my opinion, it's the opinion of many psychologists and psychiatrists who have to deal with them
-WIkipedia
/snark
Pro-Lifers Rip Rick Warren on Obama Invocation
December 18, 2008
So let me get straight to the point.
Liberals and gay activists aren’t happy with Barack Obama for choosing pro-life and prop 8 supporting pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s inaugural. But pro-life readers seem to be equally upset at Rick warren for agreeing to it.
The Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this. Below is but a very small sampling. I can’t reprint all of them but let me just say that pro-lifers are NOT happy with Warren at all.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/504326.aspx
"This is my last contact with Change.gov.
President-Elect Obama's rationalization for including Rick Warren in the inauguration simply doesn't hold water.
"What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable." Does that statement hold true to the point where an avowed racist or an avowed anti-semite should be allowed on the inauguration platform? No, Obama would not invite David Duke. But it's all right to have Warren, someone who holds gay Americans in the same regard David Duke does African-Americans and Jews.
Gays are *always* the group it's all right to discriminate against. I've been out of work for three years--and yet I managed to scrape enough money together to make a small contribution to Obama's campaign, thinking that finally *equality* would be on the President's desk. Genuine equality--not just words in a campaign. My contribution to the campaign was small--but in my unemployed state, it was huge.
This is nothing less than political expediency. We can throw away GLBT people once the campaign has taken their money and their efforts to help Obama get elected--because their rights *just don't matter.* Warren's selection tells me that gay Americans are second-class citizens in this new Administration's eyes--NO DIFFERENT from the last eight years--more of the same discrimination as we've seen from the worst President in American history.
To paraphrase a great gay American writer, Gertrude Stein: Politicians are politicians are politicians. The choice of Rick Warren is nothing less than state-sanctioned gay bashing--a declaration that I and millions of other GLBT people are not part of the American ideal of equal justice for all.
We are none of us free until ALL of us are free."
And how about the Jews? Shouldn't he include people who view Jews as Christ killers? How about anti-Catholics? What about people who despise immigrants and consider Hispanics to be vermin? Why is it that he keeps reaching out and including people who spew vile lies about gay people, but doesn't include these others?
.
Also, many of the people who voted for Obama might just have stayed home. The only reason they voted Dem -- or voted at all -- was because they believed in "hope and change."
If Clinton had run, we'd be looking at McCain/Romney being inaugurated in a few weeks.
Rick is simply wrong...Ill informed based on less than current historical knowledge and prejudiced research concerning homosexual pairings from proto-humans to present day.
Except for aboriginal Australians, homosexuality has always been a part of tribal to technological humanity in various manifestations.
Adam didn't have a Steve but Jesus had a John.
I doubt Ms Curry had a follow-up...
seriously... the ONLY person I heard question one of these assholes on the real 'history' of marriage was John Stewart... and the MSM sees him as a comedian, so his FACTS will never wind up in questions by 'real' reporters.
I really think we need some op-eds about the history of marriage... the Newsweek column on Biblical references was bashed by the christian right as inaccurate or just plain wrong... of course, they didn't explain WHAT was wrong with the article... nor do ANY of them explain why its okay to pick and choose what parts of the Bible apply.
Remember, aside from nepotism, our present corrupt media heavily trades in standard historical dominance sexuality...Big alpha brute with a harem of handy orifaces. I could name a few current holy teevee faces with more oral/genital action on their invisible resumes than most working hos.
I wonder if they considered asking Bishop Gene Robinson to give an invocation?
What I find odder is that Obama didn't ask Rev. Wright -- since he would fit the "I don't agree with everything he says" argument. Wright would have been the most logical choice, as Obama's home church pastor and someone who was very influential in his life.
http://tinyurl.com/obama-photo-history
An Idaho lesbian parent
.. but only if it's for anti-gay, religious fascists. If you're a racist, or an anti-semite, you aren't welcome at the table.
Are gays this f#cking pathetic that they carry around this kicked puppy mentality?
"Oh we should let people who harrass, attack, bash, and demean us at the table because their viewpoint is somehow valid"
Take a minute and go find your ovaries. That stance is nothing short of capitulation.
You do NOT allow these people a place at the table. When they come to your door, you shoot them in the f#cking face and chop up their corpses for garden mulch. You destroy them.
That is what Obama is doing, and it's time we recognize it.
That applies to torture, killing innocent people, and condoning those acts by refusing to prosecute their perpetrators. Giving legitimacy to those who would destroy us is called suicide.
"It doesn't mean we spend our money on those opposed to us"
So this means that there will be a mass boycott of inaugural festivities? And those of us who donated to Obama's inauguration will get our money back? And those of us who watch it on TV will not support the advertisers?
I have a better idea along the lines of your reasoning. Let's invite Osama bin Laden to give the invocation. At least with him we'd have a better chance of negotiating our way out of Afghanistan than we do negotiating gay rights and good science out of Rick Warren.
May wanna avoid the whole boy who cries wolf thing.
---
not yet, they're both still alive.
hey, that little kid represents "the sanctity of heterosexual marriage" in America.
procreation by married klan members is sacred... and MY marriage is a sham.
Oh, who will the gay speaker be? Oh, that's right, there won't be one.
Obama needs his ass kicked! His first ass-kicking for voting for FISA, is long overdue too.
With women and gays constantly struggling and fighting to have equal rights in America and fighting against Warren and his ilk that would deny us equality for their dead asses and a messed up god, Obama's choice signifies to me that he's gotten what he wanted and the fight for the rest of us is not nearly so important.
There is always some excuse as to why equality for gays and women gets put on the back burner. Been that way for centuries now. Something always comes up gays and women can wait 10 more years, yada yada yada. Their rights aren't as important as everything else, blah blah blah.
http://tinyurl.com/whitehouse-oval-office
"At his 2005 inaugural, George W. Bush tapped Rev. Dr. Louis Leon to deliver the invocation. Like Obama and Warren, the two shared a commitment to combating AIDS in Africa, as well as a friendship from time spent in each other's company. But Leon was and is a progressive voice. And his selection in '04 sparked a lot of interest, though little of the outrage that we see with Warren."
yeah because this is not about progressive versus conservative. It's personal. if you had an anti-semite on the stage, nobody would be asking if he was progressive or conservative.
http://tinyurl.com/bush-shoe-throwing
http://tinyurl.com/great-sexy-ladies
http://tinyurl.com/cool-barak-obama
The GBLT community needs to start acting again as a movement for civil liberties. We can't afford to be silent or take empty promises. The reaction to Prop 8 was a good start. It needs to remain energized in the community.
/snark
Thanks!
2. It is not possible to support inclusiveness by giving airtime and with it, validation, to a professional EXCLUDER.
3. The biggest outrage to me is the extent to which Obama TRIVIALIZES gay rights. Like it's some difference over farm subsidies. Some stinking little non-important thing and we can overlook our differences on it. Especially among friends. So how many of us have friends who are professional bigots? Obama is just not in reality on the subject of civil rights and perhaps that is because he is an African American who is not a descendant of slaves. It is this peculiar double think we saw in the black vote on Prop 8....that among the majority of blacks, gay rights is not a civil rights issue. Perhaps this is Obama's sensibility also.
That's what his campaign has been about. The message couldn't be clearer. The homophobe best-selling Christian ayatollah gets the front seat, and the liberal girlie-boys get their representation in the back seat. Now get back there and simmer down. Don't make Obama call the etiquette police on us.
This is no surprise.
it just involves some planning and gathering the essential materials:
handcuffs, rohypnol, some extasy and a few Cialis tabs, a cheap motel room with good heating and a TV/DVD combo player, really hot gay porn DVD, a camcorder and tripod... and a request for an interview from Barbara Walters (can be faked... one for each person) sent to james dobson and rick warren.
the resulting DVD would be mass produced and sent to media outlets worldwide.
problem solved.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/the-vi...
He has equated a woman's right of reproductive choice to the holocaust and he has advocated for the murder of a foreign leader.
Let's speak about all of the issues as we express our opposition to continue giving the mic to a sub-culture of religious hate in this country.
I votes for change and, goddammit, I WANT change.
but he actively works to deny equal rights for gays.
so i will actively fight against him.
Third party 2012?
I am curious however. Can we channel all of this negative energy into something positive, rather than just scream in Obama's face. Yes, this is more than just haveing a different view on taxes. Although some would argue that having a Christian and a Jew on the stage together would be just as traitorous as this joker.
So. What's next? What can we do to show that we disagree with this choice without sounding like screaming mee mee's? What can we do to come to the table and be ABOVE these kinds of decisions and get to the business of forwarding our agenda?
I'm just saying...
As such, I think John's comments are spot on. If Obama believes that human rights represent a cordial difference of opinion, I think he should include other people that don't agree with him, like David Duke.
Of course, Obama is smart. He knows all of this. What he is making is a political calculation. Namely, that the gay / lesbian community will vote for him no matter what, so he needs to reach out for the moderates, whether they are bigots or not. This will not be the first time he disappoints us in this way. Which leads to the ultimate question: what does it benefit us to work hard to elect Democrats, when the Democrats turn around and vote Republican?
Voila, ordinary arrogant politician.
I couldn't bring myself to be an active supporter of Obama during the election because he is, frankly, more a rightist than a leftist. Fundamentally he is not even in the same ballpark as me politically. But I assumed this was common knowledge (that he is far from being a progressive). Am I wrong? Did people actually consider him a progressive?
It should be painfully obvious to you now that he is not.
"If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then being Black would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce strong families and you would think that over thousands of years that being Black would work itself out of the gene pool."
And this...
"Most people know I have many Black friends. I’ve eaten dinner in Black homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through Black relationships. So they can’t accuse me of Racism...”
Or even this...
“We support Segregation. And if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Segregation. …[T]he universal, historic definition of marriage [is] a White man and a woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years and every religion for 5,000 years has said the definition of marriage is between White man and a White woman. …This is not even just a Christian issue, it is a humanitarian and human issue, that God created marriage for the purpose of White family, White love and White procreation. I urge you to support Segregation and to pass that on.”
Pretty awful stuff right?
Well then, take out the word "Black" and substitute the words Gay or Homosexual. Take out the word White, and change "Racism" to homophobia and "Segregation" to Proposition 8. What you get is all of those disturbing racist quotes are in fact statements from interviews and speeches by Pastor Rick Warren.
If Rick Warren had said, the same things about African Americans or Hispanics, or Asians, or Jews, or even people who are left-handed, that he has about LGBT Americans, you would be appalled. If Warren had said about your family the things he has said about mine, he would not be allowed with in 100 miles of your inauguration. Yet you have chosen to put this man front and center on the day you take office.
You don't feel that you need to "agree to disagree" with White Supremacists, you don't say we need to "agree to disagree" with those who deny the Holocaust ever happened. You don't "reach across the aisle" to xenophobic bigots who want to round up immigrants. Yet you have embraced someone who is the equivalent to LGBT Americans. Why?
Millions of LGBT voters remembering the betrayal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act under the Clintons rallied to your cause during the primaries and then in the general election. Your choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation on inauguration day sends a clear message that Gay and Lesbian Americans can expect no better under your administration.
You are sending a clear message that to use the tyranny of the majority to strip away civil rights from a minority is ok. Your choice of Pastor Rick Warren says you intend to govern a nation that has two levels of citizenship. First Class for heterosexuals and Second Class for anyone who isn't.
This isn’t bipartisan compromise, this is politically expedient cowardice.
And it is beneath you.
It didn't matter to you when he threw women under the bus, why are you surprised now that you are joining the crowd under the bus. People who don't stand up for human rights for all shouldn't be surprised when they are excluded too.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=40933512660
Please give your opinion at CNN poll. So far it's favorable to Warren:
www.cnn.com
Story: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.wa...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/12/18/politic...
Ellen
Judy Shepard
Joe Solomnese (from HRC)
should I name more?
I noticed you didn't bold this part of the quote:
"I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and -- well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency."
Is this not the first time we have had a president who believes gay people should have the same rights as everyone else? Regardless of who speaks or doesn't at the inauguration, the policies to follow will be the most progressive ever.
Change will not happen overnight, but it will happen. The pendulum is swinging back from the far right. I can understand your anger, but looking at it rationally, this is a tempest in a teacup. The real test is what will happen over the next 4 or 8 years to make sure everybody has the same rights.
He can believe all he wants - actions speak much louder than words. And I'm not impressed with his actions so far.
"Change will not happen overnight, but it will happen."
I've been waiting for "change" for LGBTs since I came out over twenty years ago. I'd like to think that, during that time, we'd progressed to the point where someone who's spewing the same crap as Jerry Falwell or Jesse Helms was when I was in high school wouldn't be given a featured place on Inauguration Day.
Obama in NO WAY supports marriage equality. And, he in no way supports a FEDERAL mandate for the civil unions that he does favor to force ALL states to even provide the "unequal" concept of civil unions.
The "teacup" you mention includes my marriage. My very real, completely legal marriage. If you value marriage, then you understand. The Rev. Warren worked hard to have my marriage revoked against my will by total strangers who merely needed to vote "yes" on a ballot proposition. He and his friends denied my friends the right to marry as I did. It isn't irrational to resent having one's rights and one's marriage voted away. And it is not irrational to believe that a fight is necessary to ensure that everybody has their rights back.
Mr Obama, you were elected to lead us away from the destructions of past administrations. The Warren inclusion in inaugural events is a huge blunder and denigrates your promises of change. This decision will have far-reaching and long-lasting repercussions against you and your efforts as president. To minimize its effects and for the sake of national unity I call on you to rescind the invitation to Mr. Warren.
He doesn't believe in gay marriage.
Equality isn't qualified.
I have been going back and forth on this since the story broke and have finally made an opinion.
Obama's principle of engaging opposing views is right.
To try and palm off the Inguaration as a practical place to do it is ridiculous.
I'm diasppointed with him.
American gays should just give it up and move to Canada.
you seem to have forgotten DADT and DOMA... both of which were Clinton legislation... and BOTH of which Obama says he'll repeal.
having warren at the podium at this HUGE juncture of American history is DISGUSTING... but I don't see it as an indicator of his future policy.
maybe I'm pollyanna here... but I'm hoping if he doesn't get rid of DADT and DOMA in the first four years, the GLBT community will attack him.
one plus of prop 8 passing... it galvanized the GLBT community in a way that hasn't been seen since the Stonewall era. I just hope that anger doesn't fade again.
Does he actually believe having Rick Warren at the podium is gonna cut ice with the evangelicals when he's liberalizing abortion or some such policy? Or are we in for the surprize and not them?
Very disappointed in Obama.
sad.
15 years ago, the idea of a civil union between gays was considered a far left proposition. Now it is considered mainstream (or even conservative). I wholeheartedy disagree with Proposition 8, because I am fundamentally opposed to any constitution (State or otherwise) which takes away rights. The reality is that I would not call myself a supporter of gay marriage rights. I'm indifferent. I would never try to stop a state from granting them, but I also don't see myself doing anything to make sure that such rights are granted.
Right now, there are many people who can "see" both sides, even if they agree with one more or wouldn't mind if they flipped a coin to decide. It may not be fair, but it is reality...for now.
The racist analogy is unweildy at best and so inflammatory it risks undercutting the point.
Myself, I'd strive for a better frame to win the argument. I
.
I am a Christian (in the interest of full disclosure), but I find that too many Christians are afraid to read the Bible and think about what it says.
Another galling thing is that people keep claiming that Californians voted against gay marriage. Prop 8 was losing in a landslide before the Catholics and Mormons started running their despicable, lying ads claiming that it would lead to the "indoctrination" of everyone's children. There was nothing legitimate about it.
I will never belittle any group's pursuit of justice and equal rights (but I also don't accept that this is "just like" the Civil Rights Movement). I just know that change comes slowly. It's not fair, it's not right, but it is the way it is.
I don't believe that it will always be this way, just as it isn't the way that it used to be.
if you believe its a choice, then no... race doesn't factor in.
if you believe it isn't a choice, then YES... it IS racism.
mike huckabee totally sidestepped John Stewart's question "when did you decide to be straight?" as irrelevent... it isn't, it should be one of our main talking points.
I never chose this, until I knew there were other people like me I felt alienated and misunderstood... imagine a 10 year old who thinks ALL guys are supposed to like girls?
as soon as I knew what 'gay' was, I knew it applied to me.
I still feel alienated and misunderstood... but not by my family or friends, by my state (California) and country.
I'm normal. how normal is bigotry?
Gays and Lesbians have spent 40 years fighting to overturn the punitive, often criminalizing expressions of our minority status. We have achieved after all that the position of fully endowed second class separate but "equal" citizenship. Marriage rights and military service rights would make us legal equals. That is unequivocally a momentous goal. Another reaffirmation of the ever widening and deepening equalizing power drawn from our magnificent Constitution. We could use you in this fight.
How can you expect to bring the people who are not receptive to the LGBT community if we don't include them? Chill out would you.
There are many fundamentalist Christians out there that will never be receptive to LGBTs - it's a basic part of their faith and their belief system. Despite all the progress we've made socially and legally on race, there's still much racism out there - some people you can just never reach.
There comes a point when you have to take a stand and say that spreading misinformation about a particular group or advocating limiting their rights because it doesn't jive with your religion is just morally wrong and unacceptable.
As a 61 year old strait male, I am outraged at this Rick Warren affair. You are on the right track in fighting back by using the racist analogy. You should start calling what the Obama team is doing their "Southern Strategy" . The only difference between this "Southern Strategy" and the one the Republicans used is this time it is homophobia instead of racism.
Robert West
How about a little real outreach to our community beyond a token gesture of a marching band? Like maybe actually doing something about equal rights instead of giving the oppressors more ammunition to use against us?
Obama justifies this choice by saying Warren included him by inviting him to speak at his church and that his own campaign has always been about inclusion. So, invite Warren to the White House for a Left/Right religious summit. But this choice isn't really about inclusion. He’s fetishizing a limited inclusion (how many atheists are included, socialists, Muslims), then his apologists use that fake inclusion as a weapon to shut down dissent by shaming those who protest against it as intolerant.
The time for waiting for equal rights is OVER!
Warren has not thought this through. He is making a hypothosis and I disagree. Perhaps the gene is not recessive at all. The population of the world is exploding and some fear that we will not be able to feed eveyone, which is the case in many third world countries. More people exerts more pressure on the systems for nutrition and waste removal, ie global warming especially. There is a side of the analysis that could say that production of more offspring is detrimental to our survival because of these concerns. Therefore the homosexual gene may actually be considered primary or "progressive".
I was told many times and firmly agree that "God don't make no junk". What Warren is saying is that homosexuls are junk, thus God makes junk, (in his eyes). Therefore Warren is a hypocritre of the very bible, pulpit, religion he sermons on.
Unuf said.
Excuse me, what exactly do you mean by " your own people" ??
He obviously doesn't "get" it. You don't tell me I'm "equal" Barry. . .and then publicly explain how you are a marriage separatist - and then underscore that point by hauling in someone who just campaigned to remove my goddamn constitutional rights in the most populous state in the country.
We ain't yer house faggots, Barack - and you aint' our heterosupremacist massa. And we are good for more than just posing as a token marching band "representing" our community.
Why don't you insult those who oppress us for a change, President "Separate but Equal" Obama? Instead of constantly trying to stomp on our human dignity and then claim you are supporting our rights?
Obama's statement makes a lot of sense to me.
Protesters against this choice are not engaged in a Manichean threat of "if you're not for me you're against me." Of course there must be room where we can as Obama says "create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable."
So, include Warren by inviting him to the White House for a Left/Right religious summit. But this choice isn't really about inclusion. This is classic triangulation. Obama is elevating a limited inclusion (how many atheists are included, socialists, Muslims) while winking at Warren's views, on gays, on abortion, on the legality of assassination and tacitly saying they matter less than inclusion. Now his apologists are using that fake inclusion as a weapon to shut down dissent by shaming those who protest against it as intolerant. Pure inclusion is a Utopian illusion. The real world only allows limited inclusions of choice and Obama’s choice of Rick Warren is a bad one.
(Note to self: add to New Years' resolutions, "stop reasoning with angry, insulting little internet trolls.")
Obama is right, we need to be at the table with people with whom we disagree. But the Invocation is a symbolic act and the selection of that person is a symbolic act, so choosing a divisive figure is a really dumb move.
And as for respecting people's religion, that fine if they respect me, or at least leave me alone. But a lot of them don't. The courts will be deciding shortly if I am still married or not as a result of a bunch of Mormons, evangelicals, Catholics and yes, Rev. Warren. So I feel free to point out that these biblical literalists are woefully unaware that the gods Mithra and Horus who both predate Jesus by more than 1000 years, and who both were popular in the Roman Empire at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived, were also both born on December 25 in a cave to a virgin in the presence of shepherds, heralded by a star in the east, announced by angels, visited by three wise men, fled their homelands as children to save their lives from their kings, were baptized in a river at the age of 30 by a baptist who was later beheaded, went off into the desert and were tempted by a demon who promised power and riches, had twelve disciples, walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, calmed the seas with a word, were transfigured on a mountain, delivered a sermon on the mount, presided over a "last supper" in which they invited their guests to partake of their body and blood, were crucified between two thieves, died, and were buried, descended into hell, after which they rose from the dead three days later as first witnessed by women, and finally ascended into heaven where they both became known as "the way, the truth and the live", "the good shepherd", "the lamb of God" and "the savior of the world" and were expected to return again and rule for 1,000 years. And since the fundamentalist Christians have seen fit to so politicize their faith, I feel perfectly justified in pointing out that their Jesus is a rip off from earlier religions and should never be used to deny my rights. Instead of trying to run my life, let them google Mithra and Horus and wake up to how foolish they are to presume to tell anyone anything.
So were you preparing to enter the ministry? Sounds like you've studied a lot. I got most of my tutelage under the strict eye of Holy Mother Church, but it's ok. Sister Benedict Mary said my mind was out the window. I've also picked up a lot about religious BS by marrying an ex-priest. That, plus I'm a devout follower of Google Search Engine, known to evangelicals as 666.
I'm thinking about writing an e-pistle about how there literally is more evidence to support the existence of Santa Clause than Jesus. There really was a Saint Nicholas, but like Jesus, he borrowed heavily from earlier legends. I thought I'd maybe write about him before the north pole melts completely away.
I personally believe some kind of big protest from the glbt community and their allies, should occur at the inauguration. I personally think we need to hold Obama's feet to the fire by writing editorials, making phone calls, posting on message boards, and voicing our outrage at this betrayal. This is a slap in the face pure and simple.
and obama is a hypocrite for allowing this divisive person to be promoted to such a prominant position during this most historical event. THIS IS NOT CHANGE. This is what always happens. Gays are bashed. Gays are thrown under the bus.
I believe glbt leaders should organize some kind of massive protest in DC on inauguration day.
So much easier to deny civil rights when it doesn't affect YOU.
hmmm. i think that the type of game these folks are playing is political and hurts those of us who have personal stake in how these groups (ourselves, our friends, family, lovers or children) are seen and how we are treated. a personal phone call letters and requests for a meeting directly sent to obama and his advisors are in order, from all concerned and all of us who care about the threatened people. we mut stand up for each other, and call each other into accounting as fellow "minorities" but most of all, we must call folks up as decent human beings and ask them to think very carefully about what they say and do. especially when tey say they are our friends...
No need to bully us John. We get your point.
But Rick Warren and the religious right never stop there.
They push for judges and laws and propositions and constitutional amendments and that take away my rights.
so tell it to the wingers. not me.
I AM SO FREAKING ANGRY!
at least Oberman had the balls to ask, "what if it was someone who was a racist" and then even he caved to some extent and modifided it by saying "or someone who doesn't like left handed people or whatever".. NO THE QUESTION IS POINT BLANK - WHY DOESNT OBAMA 'REACH OUT" to a racist. THAT is the question and I want an answer. If he has a high profile racist up on that inaugural stage, at least he will be really be putting into practice what he is claiming to be practicing right now. But you and I know that will NOT happen. There will be no racist on that stage to "disagree without being disagreeable" to Obama's beliefs.
SO WHY IS THERE A HOMOPHOBE?
Because its the political thing to do.
Does Warren oppose gay rights? Yes. I agree that's wrong. Did he get Prop 8 through? If so, it's because the Gay counter-argument wasn't strong enough. What else has he done? Exemplary work in poverty and AIDS reduction.
In a democracy, there are myriad conflicting views, but Warren's is (shock and awe) valid. And Obama is here in part (I had hoped) to unite us again, to make us -one country-. And that means dealing with those who oppose us. But that is not accomplished by immaturely screaming when Obama is sworn in by a man who has traditionally opposed your views--it means accepting that and working harder that California will accept GLBT in the future. Or else we can go back to that wonderful mantra, "if you're not with us, you're against us." Don't pretend that it's any more valid just because it's on your side.
Remember that an increasing number of young conservative Christians broke rank to help elect Obama.
The groundwork is being laid for our nation to get to work to solve some real big problems - - gay rights included.