-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/obama-we-have-to-be-able-to-agree-to.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
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.