Best column Cohen's done in a long, long time -- clearly, knowing and understanding and loving his gay sister has inspired him to considerable eloquent force.
Ray in Ark.
· 1 year ago
I would argue that you need not be gay, or have a gay person in one's family, to be just as outraged by Rick Warren's comments. You just have to be decent.
By analogy: If someone makes an offensive comments about black people, you shouldn't say, "That offends me because my brother in law is black." How about it offends you because it's inherently offensive?
For this reason, John's statement, "This isn't just about gays and lesbians. It's about their family members, who are also offended by someone comparing their brother, their sister, their child, to a pedophile," rubs me the wrong way.
You shouldn't have to have any significant relationship with a gay and lesbian person for Rick Warren's statements to be personally offending.
Does that make sense?
Bucky
· 1 year ago
Ray, I agree with and appreciate your comment about not having to be gay to be offended by this fiasco.
But as a counterpoint, that wasn't the way I read that part of the comment. It was preceeded by a comment about a "little gay controversy" and I tok the point to mean that if the Obama camp was looking at this as a numbers game (and they certainly are) their evangelicals outnumber gays calculations failed to consider that every gay person has family and friends. And others who are just smart enough to be ofended.
Chris From Maine
· 1 year ago
if people hadnt fought for their rights, Barack Obama couldnt have voted for.. Barack Obama.
Observer
· 1 year ago
I knew what to expect from Obama when he threw Wright under the Hope Train: Mo' the same.
Obama wants to put me in prison, as does his AG pick, Eric Holder -- a successful advocate for mandatory minimums.
Warren? He only wants to prevent me from marrying & convince me I'm going to Hell.
I'm far more scared of Obama & his unrighteous thugs.
Goddamn Amerikkka for killing innocent people!
Hemp Liberty or Else!
hawkman
· 1 year ago
Actually, there is an interesting contradiction here. For the vast majority of the last 5,000 years the definition of marriage in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim world has often included polygamy and marriage between older men and underage (by today's standards) girls. And though marriage between brother and sister is a bit extreme, marriage between fairly close cousins was often the norm (especially in small and remote villages).
So, as far as I can see, either Mr. Warren is ok with polygomy, child marriage, and incest, and therefore would like to maintain the definition of marriage for the last 5,000 years, or his definition of marriage is a little historically inaccurate.
Nigel Elliott
· 1 year ago
Wright was Obama's preacher, but Warren is not. Cohen is against Obama talking with Iran, because Cohen thinks America should bomb Iran to protect Israel. Palestinians are humans, but they are denied human rights. Using Cohen's logic, maybe gays should bomb Churches until gays get equal rights. I know my comparison is absurd, but so is Cohen's.
foxy
· 1 year ago
OMG, that last paragraph John just struck me dumb founded. How absolutely true.
ted
· 1 year ago
Rick Warren seems to have involved himself in a lot of politics. Perhaps it's time his church lost it's tax exempt status.
I am not as celebratory as I would have been. I will be watching the new administration to start the discussion toward civil unions for all. Then if you need you your church's blessing, go for it.
By the way, as a son and a brother to ordained ministers, it would be difficult to call me Warren's new word 'Christ-o-phobic' , I am however a Christian who happens to be gay. I pray for him
foxy
· 1 year ago
A message from Melissa Etheridge... “ I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.
Melissa got fooled. All you have to do is watch Pastor Rick's video blog to see he isn't our friend, and ain't ever gonna be. When you think your views are the inspired word of God and everyone else's views are not, then there isn't much room for dialogue.
Professor_Farnsworth
· 1 year ago
lol, melissa is saying what people don't want to hear....now she's being abused and labelled a fool.
my god...what will people do to keep from admitting they are wrong.
Millicent
· 1 year ago
I seriously doubt he entered the room with an open heart, if that has anything at all to do with an open mind. This jerk is furiously back-pedaling to try to turn down the heat. Like most bigots and liars, when the public spotlight is turned on their hypocrisy, they squirm to try to slither back into the darkness.
Tom
· 1 year ago
You left out this part Etheridge says, " I hadn't heard of Pastor Rick Warren before all of this. When I heard the news, in its neat little sound bite form that we are so accustomed to, it painted the picture for me"
So an intellectually lazy performer didn't bother to read when he compared her relationship to child rape and incest. That he lied repeatedly about hate speech laws, which don't exist in the US due to the first amendment , would cause his arrest if Prop 8 passed. She didn't bother to learn that he bans unrepentent gays from his church.
Yes he likes her music so he is not a hater.
TampaZeke
· 1 year ago
You also forgot to point out that the first words out of his mouth in their telephone conversation was to ooh and aaah over her, tell her that he has all her "albums", tell her what a big fan he is of her and her music. Con-man Technique 101, chapter one, first sentence, "Begin by flattering your 'mark'". Melissa swallowed it hook, line and sinker and now she will be used as a shield every time he say or does something terribly homophobic. Before you can say "Holy Homophobe Batman!" Warren will pull Melissa out of his pocket as one of his "best friends that are gay" and all will be well.
Melissa got punked!
Millicent
· 1 year ago
Reminds me of brainless wondergirl Britney Spears.
Professor_Farnsworth
· 1 year ago
oh please, melissa is nothing like britney spears. get a grip.
nicho
· 1 year ago
In the last 150 years, the Mormon cult, the prime mover behind Prop H8, has "redefined" marriage three times. So, please spare me the "redefine marriage" bullshit.
Ray in Ark.
· 1 year ago
And only very recently (1970s) the Mormons finally redefined blacks as equal people.
mirele
· 1 year ago
Whenever I read that sentence, "I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage," I think to myself, "yeah, right."
That 5,000-year old definition of marriage, in addition to excluding same-sex marriage, also saw women as property, allowed for polygamy, and in our American South, did not allow the slave property to get married.
So, as far as Rick Warren's concerned, his argument about the 5,000 year old definition of marriage is a complete pile of steaming, stinking horse manure!
Someone really ought to quiz that asshat with a fscking blowtorch and see what he REALLY thinks.
Ray in Ark.
· 1 year ago
And for how many thousands of years did people believe the sun revolves around the earth and/or the earth is flat?
mirele
· 1 year ago
Far more years than can be counted.
But hey, we know better now, don't we? Don't we?
RainbowPhoenix
· 1 year ago
Over 20% of the american population still doesn't.
Ray in Ark.
· 1 year ago
I would argue that you need not be gay, or have a gay person in one's family, to be just as outraged by Rick Warren's comments. You just have to be decent.
By analogy: If someone makes an offensive comments about black people, you shouldn't say, "That offends me because my brother in law is black." How about it offends you because it's inherently offensive?
For this reason, John's statement, "This isn't just about gays and lesbians. It's about their family members, who are also offended by someone comparing their brother, their sister, their child, to a pedophile," rubs me the wrong way.
You shouldn't have to have any significant relationship with a gay and lesbian person for Rick Warren's statements to be personally offending.
Does that make sense?
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
yes. i get depressed when our supposed allies refer to "your" struggle.
Reality and knowledge
· 1 year ago
I'm a white guy and would not talk to a black person about "your" struggle.
RonNYC
· 1 year ago
"He wants us to acknowledge that there are two sides to every issue, even our very existence. " And, you might add, just us The Gays. Only our existence is negotiable. Obama would not treat members of Aryan Nation churches this way, nor should he. Just us. Now, even smart people can make dumb choices; perhaps Obama, riding very high (weren't we all?), thought for a moment that he's his own market maker, that he'll stride, giant-like, across America and change all of our lives instantly. Perhaps it was just that very heady moment. But I don't think so; and I have a prediction: That as reporters keep, if they do, moving the questions during press conferences back to Warren and The Gays, Obama will retreat, snail like, into a shell and suddenly, we'll see a bit of Bush or Cheney in him. I hope not; I hope he's a game changer, but so far, not so much.
Millicent
· 1 year ago
This whole shameful Warren debacle is over Obama's insatiable lust for the evangenital support now and their vote in 2012. He realizes gays are a captive audience -- unless we can get our act together and convince him otherwise. It's a cynical calculation on his part, I would guess it is a payoff to Warren for the friendly forum he provided so Obama could reach out to evangenitals during the campaign. What other terms of the payoff haven't we heard about yet? His elevation of Warren to such a pedestal of honor will do gays irreparable harm for a long time to come, through the encouragement if provides bigots and their gay bashing ways.
Bucky
· 1 year ago
I agree Millicent that we might be a captive audience of the Democratic party. But Obama is about to find out there is a difference between captives and supporters.
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
you are only a captive auudience if you chose to be. Frankly, I determined several years ago that the democratic party took women for granted and finally this year I decided that grudging part time support for me having the right to control my own uterus (the one I had taken out 20 years ago) is not nearly enough reason to vote for the democratic party. I now vote for women until we have reached the 51 percent of power mark that we deserve. How the GLBT community holds pols accountable is a little bit more puzzling. Women have all the power they need if they would just use it. Gay people are going to have to take another tact...but I would venture that voting for the equal rights candidate regardless of party might be a good start.
Bucky
· 1 year ago
I agree, teresa that it is time to reassess. I was an unenthusiast Obama supporter this election cycle (couldn't support Clinton -- she's still defending DOMA). And I argued with myself that this election was too important to be a single issue voter.
Now I'm not so sure. The anger I feel right now is palpable. I realize that there are other important issues -- most notably for me climate change and the environment and the economy -- that make me glad a democrat is in office.
But I think in the future, I'll put my support behind candidates who support my full citizenship rights. If there aren't any, I can think of better things to do with my time and money.
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
I do not believe the Hillary ever defended DOMA. I think I remember her being against it. What she defended was DADT, which she said was a half way measure between no gays in the military and being able to be openly gay in the military. She saw it as a compromise that saved the military careers of gay and lesbian people, that in any case failed to work as planned and should be repealed.
nope wait, I found what you are referencing.
"Secondly, DOMA, I believe that DOMA served a very important purpose. I was one of the architects in the strategy against the Marriage Amendment to the constitution, and DOMA gave us a bright line to be able to hold back the votes that were building up to do what I consider to be absolutely abominable and that would be to amend the constitution to enshrine discrimination. I believe marriage should be left to the states. I support civil unions as I've said many times with full equality of benefits and so I think that DOMA appropriately put the responsibility in the states where it has historically belonged and I think you're beginning to see states take action. I think it's, I think part three of DOMA needs to be repealed because part three stands in the way of the full extension of federal benefits and I support that. So that's the first."
Again she does seem to find the compromises that prevent a greater evil. She is a pragmatist and always has been. During the 60s she staged teach ins rather than demonstrations. With her, what you see is what you get. I would love to have seen her be more liberal on some issues...however I have always felt that with Obama what you see is never what you get. I am the type that would rather be disappointed in a person's position than their character.
But in any case I am sorry if I gave the impression that this is about senator Clinton. It is not. I do not see any reason whatsoever that Obama had to do this. It almost seems like an intentional FU to the gay community. But then I have said for over a year that if Obama has not offened you yet it is just because he hasn't gotten to your group. I was thrown under the bus a long time ago when I was told that as a small town Pennsylvanian I must be supporting Clinton because I was voting my vagina or was racist.
Bucky
· 1 year ago
Wasn't at all implying that you were a Clinton supporter. I have no idea. Just saying that her continued defense of DOMA at this late date greatly disturbed me (along with a host of other known problems with gay rights issues.) and that was one of the reasons for my support of Obama instead of Clinton. I didn't really have a candidate representing me in this election but I worked hard to get the Dem elected.
No longer. They are working hard to make me into a single issue voter.
Millicent
· 1 year ago
Warren is a Dominionist, who, like Palin, Falwell and Pat (assassinate Chavez) Robinson, would turn this country into an Iranian-style theocracy if they ever had half the chance. They got Bush to hire their dumtards from the madrasahs into his regime where they did irreparable harm (Goodling, for example). What kind of similar deal has Obama struck with this ayatollah? How many Goodlings are we going to see added to the government ranks as a result? There needs to be a lot more attention shown on this angle.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
now THAT scares me.
NGLTF
· 1 year ago
The Cohen piece is masterful. I would love to ask Obama if he respects and wants to build bridges with those people of faith that believe that 'The Curse of Ham' in the Bible specifically calls for Black people to be enslaved.
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
Precisely. I am sick and tired of being told we are 'over reacting' and to get over it. It is a basic human rights issue. An issue of respect that we are NOT getting. It's not any more complicated than that.
El Rojo
· 1 year ago
This is starting to get fun. Yet another homophobe has discovered that there are consequences to one's actions.
I predict that the passage of proposition 8 is going to be spoken of by future (and even current) gay historians as the most important event since the cops attacked the patrons of Stonewall back in 1969, although only because the victims in both cases finally stood up and said "enough." The difference is that In this case the supportive response of those outside our immediate community has been somewhat greater...
Indigo
· 1 year ago
Excellent op-ed piece!
Here's how I see it now: Obama is not a theologian. He's just another hardbody (we've all see the picture). He sees clergy as political tools. Let's face it, they often are.
To say Obama doesn't get it is to understate the situation. He doesn't want to because he (honestly?) believes he doesn't need to. In my day we called that the "dumb jock syndrome." I think that's what's happening.
Millicent
· 1 year ago
I'm fairly sure some Obama staffers are well-aware if the whole thing, so I could not call him ignorant of it. Further, he pulled a similar, though not as important, stunt back during his campaign. He was fully apprised, I'm sure of that fallout. He not change the McClurkin choice then as he will not change the Warren choice now. In both cases Obama used these assholes to deliver his own coded message to evangenital bigots everywhere that their bigotry and gay bashing was really ok by him, even though he later eloquently tried to paint a different picture.
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
I think you may be right about this. I also believe when he is full time in DC over the next four years he will see how disproportionaly gay the people that work in government are. Perhaps he will really get it then.
BusyTimmy
· 1 year ago
I clicked over and read the entire article... then I started reading the comments there. It's a sad, sad America.
jcgraham77
· 1 year ago
I wasn't an Obama supporter but after he won the primary I joined in. I suspected up front that he was more about brand and packaging than anything. Same ole same ole. He is bill clinton in a different body.
Field negro
· 1 year ago
Rev. Wright justifiably rails on white people - who don't deserve to be cut a bit of slack - and Rev. Warren hates the gays. The connection is only in the minds of whites.
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
Wright took his Christmas sermon and made it about "Hillary Hate", saying she had never been called a n*gger. Well guess what, OBama has never been called a C*nt. Let's not have a contest of the most oppressed. Wright is a sexist jerk who is no different than any white evangelical who uses revving up feelings of persecution to make himself a mega church millionaire.
FunMe
· 1 year ago
Guess who was in gay West Hollywood? Yup, that Warren dude.
Looking at the photo just gives me the willies. I got a big ICK factor looking at that. How contrived.
We are not over reacting. This man in interviews, on his website, in sermons, etc. Does not think we should exist...or if we go away it would make life so much rosier.
This leopard will not easily change his spots. This whole thing is becoming farcical.
ICK. .....and PS: Warren IS gay....he has the gay face.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
Some wag at TMZ noticed that Rick looks like a bear squeezing his cub.
LOL!
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
TMZ: Harvey isn't gonna take, as a gay Jew, any of Rick's shit!
Now I get what they meant by "Shut Up and Sing" Uniformed entertainers piss people off.
Right Winger
· 1 year ago
Exactly. The right-wingers aren't wrong about everything! Some people shouldn't speak.
FunMe
· 1 year ago
"He bought my records. He likes me! He really likes me! Let's forget about all the gay hate he has expressed in the past. Or even the fact that gays are specifically banned from his church"
Melissa: bitch please!
What is it with these "celebrities" who are so easily bought. Melissa is definitely not helping the cause. DUMB!
Professor_Farnsworth
· 1 year ago
funny how y'all were up her ass when she was speaking against prop 8.
now, throwing her under the bus when she doesn't walk in line with your rigid views!!
People try to reduce this discussion to gay marriage. But finally, at last everyone is getting the contradiction in what Obama has done. It's very Orwellian. Warren- a man who is disagree of gays right to exist- is someone with whom we are suppose to try to be agreeable?
Please.
That's why the frame is b.s. To say we are simply discussing issues is to ignore what Warren has said. Things he has not refuted other than by massaging the ego of a pop star who is easy to manipulate (Yes, I am referring to Melissa E. who had similar issues with Washington on the show Grey's Anatomy).
The long and short of it is that this is not about compromise on issues. I don't agree with Obama on civil unions, but I do not feel the need to deny his right to believe that. Where I draw the line at is someone who compares me to a pedophille. That's not a conversation. That's evil.
scottinsf
· 1 year ago
Yes yes yes! This is all about so much more than marriage equality. Some people are having trouble wrapping their brains around that.
Akaison
· 1 year ago
No they aren't. They simply find it distasteful to admit to what they already know. think about it. If they admit that we are discussing something broader than the controversial like "gay marriage" and are indeed going into "gays are not human" territory, then how can they claim that this is anything but an evil view that they are defending? You give people too much credit. When I have repeatedly discussed this with others, and still gotten the same frames from them I realized it's not a flaw in their understanding. It's an intended misdirection to pretend they are arguing against what we are saying rather than simply changing the subject. Human nature- cognitive dissonance allows the "progressives" to claim they are still being progressive regardless of facts just like conservatives did under bush.
scottinsf
· 1 year ago
I was trying to be charitable with my last sentence there. I think we agree.
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
this makes me think of the argument that creation should be taught in school because it was just another scientific idea, or that both "the earth is round" and "the earth is flat" are equally valid points of view.
kenshin
· 1 year ago
i'm straight, and i reserve the right to deny his right to believe that rick warren is suitable to lead this inauguration, because it is hypocritical. seriously, if mccain had won and put up a racist minister for the inauguration, this conversation would be pretty simple.
even the show of acceptance of warren's homophobia and such, leads to divisiveness and even violence in our society. this is not acceptable. we need to stop rationalizing new and ingenious reasons for discrimination, and certainly we must stop letting religious leaders hide behind such rhetoric.
civil marriage is a civil right. anything less is a play by the chamber of commerce.
SheRa13
· 1 year ago
As a straight married mom I thank you for writing this.
truebluecoondog
· 1 year ago
No. What he is asking you to do is to is turn your back (protest if you feel you need to) while this person delivers the invocation. He is NOT asking you to join his church or change who you are. There are alot of people who don't follow the "teachings" of this Warren idiot. You can't please everyone.
When the Rev. Wright issue was being beaten' to death, my feelings were that you cannot hold a man/woman responsible for the thoughts and utterances of everyone they associate with. And that is exactly my feeling now. I don't know how Warren got chosen but, I do not believe that Obama chose this man to do this task because he agrees with his exclusionary opinions.
It has become evident that he has made a poor choice. You have done your part to bring it out into the open. However, he is not appointing this guy to a powerful position. He is only hired to do one blessing. Done. Over.
We have a country to fix. Equal rights is high on the to do list. This inauguration invocation will not get us there, nor will it hold us back.
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
you can hold them responsible for who they give a public honor to. If Obama wanted to be inclusive why not just include the Klan? No, what he really should have done was include some rational science loving mainstream, non- homophobic non- women fearing protestants and catholics who have been left out of the discussion of religion since Bush took office. The left wing pundit shows do not even invite them to the conversation. Of course it may be that they are all to busy actually attending to such things are serving the poor and making sure old ladies have a ride to church on Sunday.
truebluecoondog
· 1 year ago
I agree with you on all points except that I don't believe that delivering an invocation is such a high public honor. I guess it's just because I don't see any value in that kind of thing. By your own standards though, how many people has Obama given a public honor to so far? And how many of those do you agree/disagree with on one point or another? Also, did you think it was fair what the right did by running Rev. Wright over and over again? Should Obama have lost the election due to his association with that man?
Just wondering.
timncguy
· 1 year ago
that was more than an "association". That was a 20 year "father figure" relationship that Obama described as his "spiritual mentor" on more than one occaision.
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
I can disagree with someone and not have a problem with that. But as a liberal Christian I am tired of people like both Warren and Wright being given a pass on their bigotry and ignorance. I know that as a lefty I am supposed to think Wright was a victim and an okay guy for a Christian. But knowing what is possible on the Christian left end of things, I was underwhelmed by the pass he was given for his own brand of looniness. I know that is not politically correct, but I actually found the acceptance of his ideas among the left somewhat racist. What super educated white man would we give a pass to for sexist language, endless anger and crazy conspiracy theories? Do such white guys and women get a pass on the religious right? Sure they do, but not from me. A friend said to me once that Wright's theory about AIDS was excusable considering what the military did to the black men who had Syphilis. But I do not find the two situations comparable at all now that I think about it. I have had a problem with Obama's religious associations and his pandering for 4 years. Do I think he should have lost? No, but I also do think it should have been excused by the media as completely unimportant either.
JustTryingToHelp
· 1 year ago
Brilliant. Nothing scares the Obama people like the resurrection of Wright. Regarding the Rick Warren problem, though, it seems that everything is happening exactly as it should. Rick Warren is a moron, a bigot, etc... but what do you expect from a religious figure? Since he was invited to give the invocation, Warren's church has removed some anti-gay language from its' website, and Warren himself is actively reaching out to the gay community through people like Melissa Etheridge. To put it another way, he is being pushed to the center, even if he isn't really there. He is also taking almost as much flack from the religious right as Obama is taking from progressives over the inauguration invitation because Obama supports abortion rights. To be clear, I think progressives, and especially the gay community, should be making as much of fuss about this as possible, because it is precisely that sort of backlash that has forced Warren to make these admittedly minor conciliatory moves. Like it or not, evangelicals are the largest religious group in the country, and they vote Republican overwhelmingly. This sort of reaching out is much like Howard Dean's 50-state strategy: it will pay off in the long run even if there are no short-term benefits. Perhaps there may even some be short-term costs, but if Democrats can bring these people to the center and redefine the terms of the debate then any costs will be outweighed. Right now, both the Obama's people and Rick Warren's people are on the defeensive, and that is exactly where they need to be to move the terms of this debate. It must be made clear that the goal of gay marriage supporters is to simply enable the state to recognize a marriage, and not to force a particular religious group to marry a gay couple if they choose not to. The Baptists and the Catholics may never recognize a gay couple, but they don't have to because there will always be Episcopalians and Unitarians who will. This is not about forcing anything on anyones church. It is about not forcing anyone's church on everyone else. It is an issue of government, not religion. If people like Rick Warren can be made to see that the backlash from their support of anti-gay measures outweighs any benefits, and if they can be brought into the debate and made to understand that gay marriage recognition is not an attack on their particular religion's definition of the institution of marriage itself, then they WILL back off funding measures like Prop 8 in the future. As a final note, and I know how heartlessly craven this sounds, there is no better PR victory for gays than the passing of Prop 8 and the potential invalidation of 20,000 existing marriages. It is one thing to grant marriage and another to take it away retroactively. Keep in mind that it took images of blacks being beaten and hosed down in the streets for demanding equality to move public opinion in their favor. The American public loves to feel sorry for the victims of injustice. So keep up the pressure in some corners while playing the victim in others. That is how this battle will be won.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
that's hope i can believe in :)
Millicent
· 1 year ago
"The American public loves to feel sorry for the victims of injustice."
Is that why anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendments have been so successful all over this country?
truebluecoondog
· 1 year ago
Brilliant!!! I think the word, "marriage" is the problem. You can achieve all of your goals without that word. I know that "civil union" sounds concilitory and illegitimate to some but it gains people all of their LEGAL rights. Religious rights can only come from a church. As a married woman who was not married in a church nor by a clergyperson, I live what I speak here. I think when you say, "marriage", people think "church". IMHO, it is not the time to parse words when we are so close to a victory.
timncguy
· 1 year ago
if civil union is good enough for gays, its good enough for straight. have the states issues civil unions to ALL. Then let churches decide on marriage. Problem for the fundies will be that gay couples will have no trouble at all finding a church to "marry" them anyway.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
Having "civil unions" for gays is like having separate water fountains for blacks. Even if the separate fountains were of equal quality, it wasn't equality. And at least when whites were forcing blacks to use separate water fountains, they allowed blacks to call them water fountains. They won't even allow gays to refer to their unions as marriages.
kenshin
· 1 year ago
civil unions will still get insurance companies the ability to deny claims. that's the whole of the problem, that the chamber of commerce is keeping civil marriage from happening so that insurance companies can continue to deny insurance claims.
marriage in a church is a sacrament and civil marriage cannot keep a church from denying that sacrament. they will not lose their non-profit status. we just want everyone to have the same rights as others, simple as that. people are people, not profits.
don't fall for the civil union jive--it was invented by insurance companies to let people believe it'd be okay.
lpeggy
· 1 year ago
Pope's message angers gay rights activists
-Church's mission is to "protect the human beings against self-destruction" -Pope says the order of creation must be be respected -Gay rights campaigner: I think the pope is trying to limit God's world view
the pope worships a powerless little God, just the right size to fit in to the pope's pope-mobile. It might be the same God worshiped by Seventh-day adventists who believe God can not reconstitute your ashes during the rapture.
lpeggy
· 1 year ago
The Pope says this kind of stupid anti-gay stuff all the time. Where's the outrage? Oh, I forgot, he's the Pope.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
If the pope doesn't stop bashing gays I'm going to start believing the rumors about him and Father Georg Gănswein. Oh, sorry. Make that Monsignor Georg Gănswein.
jdw
· 1 year ago
John: yesterday a post indicated that Jews were 'dissed' because no cabinet spot was filled by a Jew. Today, you publish criticism from NOW that there aren't enough women in Obama's cabinet. Tomorrow, I'm certain that in this big, wide country you'll be able to find an article about another aggreived group to post as evidence of Obama's 'failings', for want of a better word.
I don't have any right to tell anyone not to be pissed. But just as a reader I will say that the sooner this war ends won't be soon enough for me. Did you ever have a friend that went on about something day after day after day after day...like a fucking broken record until you just wanted to hit them upside the head to jog the needle a little? It's gone from anger to gripe to constant one-note harping. We got the point long ago. B-O-R-I-N-G.
jdw 2
· 1 year ago
"MLK Jr... enough with the speeches, and the rallies, and the protests, and the going to jail. B-O-R-I-N-G!"
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
hmmmnn.. yes, I believe that rather than admit the fact that women are 51 % of the population and have every right to be pissed, he called us a "special interest group". Man, that "special interest group" is responsible for every single democratic party victory in the last 4 decades. If women vote republican democrats will never win another single election.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
Well, nobody would like to see Obama's inauguration go off without a hitch more than I, but Obama did kind of bring this upon himself by honoring a narrow-minded homophobic bigot who took his religion to the ballot box, and encouraged a lot of others to do the same. The inauguration is 4 weeks away. As long as Warren is delivering the invocation, I think you'd be wise to prepare yourself for some continued turbulence.
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
This article was a brilliant find John. The last portion of it really is well stated and gets to the point of the matter. That is the portion that people, even on the left, and some on this site need to take to heart.
Excellent. Well stated.
I sometimes criticize HRC for taking the path of least resistiance. But I have to say, they have kept up the pressure on this issue somewhat. There is power in numbers. JOIN HRC today, if you are not a member. It's super easy.
I joined HRC when I was somewhat ignorant of them. I finally woke up and realized that since they promote Republican as well as Democrat candidates, I could not and would not give them another dime. And for the same reason, I strongly suggest anyone else to react the same way. If those memberships and financial support now given to HRC were converted to an LGBT public relations firm that would not support Republicans, I'm certain it would be more effective.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
my mother was incensed when HRC endorsed the very anti-choice Republican Al D'Amato for senate just because he was pro-gay. i dismissed her concerns but i would be willing to apologize to her now if she were still around.
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
a few years ago I would have agreed with your mother. Now I think it is silly that women are held captive by the democratic party on one single issue that the party only supports grudgingly part of the time. I don't have to worry about pregnancy anymore, haven't in 20 years. WTF do I care about choice if young women do not care? Political parity is the issue we should be worried about and if I were gay... who knows? I am not fond of the gay and lesbian for life groups, because I feel it is basically none of their damn business what some women does with her body. But as far as someone voting for D'Amato because he is for gay rights, I can't blame anyone for that.
Philly_kitten
· 1 year ago
A vote for a Republican is a vote for the Republican agenda. Are a million and a half Iraqi dead, Afghanistan, unbridled capitalistic rape of the country, destruction of the environment, torture worth your vote for D'Amato because he is for gay rights? Some sense of proportion and value.
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
Join us under the bus, us "racist" Clinton supporters who saw through Obama a loooooong time ago. Join us and Obama's "typical white women" granny and oh so many many other people. You want moral leadership from OBama....ha ha, first wouldn't he have to lead? On what issue besides his Leibermanesque worship of bipartisanship did the man ever lead? Yes I know he passed some sort of ethics reform right? Yup and it was designed with just the right size and shape holes for him to slide through on "online contributions", having other people buy your yard etc....
My only question to you is why didn't you expect exactly this sort of thing?
And NO, Hillary would not have asked this schmuck to give the invocation at her inaugural. She has never, unlike Obama shown a predilection for this sort of evangelical jackass.
No Hope In Politics
· 1 year ago
She & her husband just happen to LURV the Bush family.
4-8 more years of Clintonian triangulation?
No, thanks.
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
bullpuck... all ex presidents get along to some extent. They belong to the same exclusive club and have to work together . That is the extent of it. IF you think the relationship between Obama and the bushes is going to be any different, I advise you to put down the Hopebong.
No Hope In Politics
· 1 year ago
I don't expect any such thing. Did you see my moniker?
So, I accept this award with gratitude, with a man I have genuinely always liked and always admired. I can now tell you, and may all the Democrats forgive me this close to the election, I love George Bush. I do.
Dem v. Rep = False Dichotomy / Phony fight / Pseudo-alternatives
ChrisSF
· 1 year ago
Lest you be deceived, take a look at this little lump of coal to LGBTs from Lanny Davis, former Clinton surrogate, defending Warren and accusing people of misrepresenting Warren for stating (100 percent accurately) that Warren has compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. I have no way of knowing whether Hillary would have thrown us under the bus, but I wouldn't be surprised:
I know this is going to come as a big surprize, but Hillary Clinton is even less Lanny Davis than she is Bill Clinton. The women is a Methodist, keeps her religion to herself and has never claimed to be the "religious democrat", the one who can "talk to the issue of religion because she could clap in time to the gospel choir". Face it, this has always been Obama's shtick, it has never been hers.
I go to church with a lot or republicans and have often prayed with people who are in faiths I do not agree with. but none of them would get invited to speak at my inaugural. This article and it's ridiculous attendant conspiracy theory have always been amusing to say the least.
Millicent
· 1 year ago
The only difference between collaboration and conspiracy is the law. Is that what you have in mind when you use the term "conspiracy theory" of is it merely to splash something you don't believe with a loaded propaganda term?
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
I mean to say it is complete and utter lunatic garbage. Is that clear enough? I used to believe that the dominionists were after us and guess what...nothing happened and it has been years and years. Clinton went to a prayer group and in it were some republicans. Now I know that is scary and all, but like I said, my church is full of republicans and despite our disagreements on policy they are really quite normal people and not one of them has created a shadow church to put reverend Carter out of the pulpit.
MotherTeresainHeaven
· 1 year ago
I guess you haven't been watching very closely. It dawns on me that thou mayest protest a wee bit too much to be taken seriously.
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
lol, nothing like a little lefty anti religion paranoia to start Christmas eve with. So you have me all figured out and I am a dominionist? How very dkos and DU of you.
Phillis Schlafly
· 1 year ago
There is little that is more boring and tiring than yet one more embittered, shrill, bigmouthed Hillary supporter. Suck on your sour grapes and get over it already.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
She's got a point, though. Obama has a predilection for this sort of evangelical jackass. Warren makes number three.
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
ps..... marriage is a legal contract in this country. If it takes place in a church then it is a religious sacrament.... if the people really mean it to be. OTherwise it is a legal contract and we don't have to change the name we just have to give everyone the right to do it with any other person of their choice (unless it is an immediate relative of course)
iggy
· 1 year ago
IMHO, you're all missing the big picture here.
Whatever Obama does in terms of pro-gay legislation, he's going to have to deal with the Christianists, and their powerful lobby. By inviting Warren to give the invocation at the inaugural, he's essentially anointed him as the de-facto leader of the Evangelical right, displacing Dobson, Robertson and all the others.
Given that Warren is not close to being the political animal and power-broker that Dobson already is, it's going to make passing the legislation a much easier proposition, than having to fight with the FRC and the rest of the religious hard right.
This doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that Warren will be persuaded to change his mind, wrt gay rights. But that doesn't matter, in the end, as long as he doesn't become a significant obstacle.
In the end, this kind of overdue change is difficult. Obama's challenge is to achieve that transformation, without plunging the country into a 60's style explosion of violence and social chaos.
No Hope In Politics
· 1 year ago
a 60's style explosion of violence and social chaos.
Yes. Nothing good came from that.
You niggers, hippies & fags were better off when you knew your place.
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
Bingo...I am sick of people being 'uncomfortable' about our 'uppityness'. GET OVER IT. We have very, very basic and simple requests and we must keep up the heat until we get it.
And the funny thing is...if granted rights wich simply are inaliable....the people that would against such a measure are completely and utterly UN affected by this. That is the really silly part.
Just give us what we want, it's basic and I don't deserve anything less because of the simple fact of my birthing order.
As it stands, I can be fired from a job for being gay...I can't adopt...the list goes on and on. And we will continue to needle, and annoy, and cajole, and blog until we get it.
It's no skin off anyones teeth, so such grant us the rights. NOW.
chas
· 1 year ago
ur writing don't make sense
rmichels
· 1 year ago
I agree with you completely. Equality in all respects, NOW. Which doesn't mean anyone has to call anyone a "fat ass" or anything else derogatory. Rick Warren's a fundamentally decent man with some retrograde views. We can demand our rights without attacking people or condemning them or shunning them. All or most of us have colleagues at work whose views on some pretty important issues are at 180 deg. divergence with what we know is right, and yet we work with them, eat with them, laugh with them, care about them. And they care about us.
Some people here have turned Rick Warren into a caricature the same way was done to Rev. Wright. You should be ashamed of yourselves. And this has NOTHING to do with fighting for equal rights.
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
"Rick Warren's a fundamentally decent man with some retrograde views"
Quit making excuses for this bigot. And he is, plain and simple.
Many many well intentioned people go to church, pay their taxes and obey traffic signals. That does not make them good people.
This man judged me personally and called me a pedophile. At least me calling him a glutonous fatass is more accurate than his description of me. Sophomoric, yes I agree. But then this entire excersie is getting rediculous. And I am not going to sit idely by while this half wit takes a place of honor.
ChrisSF
· 1 year ago
Do you really think Obama has the power to anoint anyone to anything among evangelicals? What he has done is given Warren a license to shift hard right and a platform to say any offensive thing about gay people with impunity between now and the election. By all signs, Warren is using his license to the fullest.
iggy
· 1 year ago
Obama's power to anoint is contained by the ability to place people in the spotlight. imho, that single act, propels Warren to the front of the queue.
wrt Warren's anti-gay opinions, I don't think he's shifted one bit, has always held those views, and wasn't ever shy about expressing them.
Still, in recent days, Warren's crew has cleaned up his website. I'm not sure what that means, but it isn't the act of someone who is out for blood.
The issue is simple: if you're Obama, and you want to pass pro-gay legislation, who would you rather have to deal with: Dobson or Warren? The answer, to me, is pretty obvious.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
How about you condemn them both for being ignorant bigots, and honor someone honorable instead?
iggy
· 1 year ago
Because it's irrelevant to do so. What purpose would that serve, except to gratify my own self-righteousness? Warren, Dobson and the others will still be there. And will still be opposed to full equality.
The *only* thing that matters is that legislation that gives the LGBT community absolute and indisputable equality must be passed. Nothing else.
Then again, if it were easy, and there were no significant opposition to that task, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
It follows, then, that the path to achieving that goal would be eased by reducing any opposition to it. Hence Warren instead of Dobson. It's that simple.
My take is that Obama is actually serious about passing these laws, as opposed to the Clintons who enacted legal theatre, but in real terms did nothing of true consequence for the LGBT community. Don't ask, don't tell ?? Spare me!
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
No, sorry. Choosing Warren to give the invocation is an outrageous affront to the gay community and to all who oppose blatant bigotry. And for Obama is was not a choice between Warren or Dobson. Obama could have chosen any number of respectable ministers to give the invocation. I do not buy the notion that the choice of who gives the invocation must be an expression of political outreach to the bigots. And Obama's stance that gay people should have civil unions rather than marriage is the equivalent of separate but equal water fountains. It sounds more like you are defending Obama against the attacks of Clinton supporters here, rather than seeing Obama's mistakes.
rmichels
· 1 year ago
I guess that's why Warren apologized to Melissa Etheridge for his remarks that linked homosexuality up with incest and pedophilia. Gee, I wonder whether any of you haters have ever said or done anything that was wrong and/or hurtful to others. Oops, I forgot, that's what you're doing now!
Professor_Farnsworth
· 1 year ago
THANK YOU!
Never mind forgiveness...they just wanna be persecuted and feel victimized. One can't even apologize without being labelled a con man. They don't wanna hear what Warren says, even if he apologized and meant it.
It's also funny to watch them (Inc. John himself) belittle him for being overweight. As if that isn't bigoted in itself. *rolls eyes*
wait a sec, they are only allowed to do it because after all....they've been called names, too!
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
unroll those eyes. nobody's buying it, professor. you are deliberately missing the point about the biblical meaning of overeating.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
He could also take note that writing angry messages and working actively to cancel other people's marriages are two entirely different things.
ChrisSF
· 1 year ago
I guess by "they" you mean those evil, nasty, mean gays. By the way, I am not one who has belittled Rick for being overweight or for anything else other than his statements and actions on LGBT equality. I would never do that. So please do not lump me in with them. And could someone please tell me why I am a "hater" for pointing out Warren's actual statements and actions and saying I disagree with them and think he shouldn't be given a place of honor at our nation's inaugural? Isn't that part of the "free speech" that Warren waxes so eloquently about?
If you want to talk about persecution mentality and victimhood, go watch Rev. Rick whine about "hateful attacks" and "Christophobia" on part 3 of that video.
OK, to the business at hand. Let's be clear: Rick Warren has not apologized for anything. He has only dissembled (to put it charitably). What he actually did was to DENY that he ever said the things he is well documented as having said. Go watch Rev. Rick's 3-part video and see whether you find any words of apology to gay people who were offended by his words (which he used repeatedly, as little as one week ago). Let's go to the tape . . .
"I have been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia. Now of course as members of Saddleback Church, you know I believe no such thing. I never have. You've never once heard me in 30 years talk that way about that."
-- Rick Warren, December 21, 2008
"Two lovers living together is a not a marriage. Incest is not marriage. A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage."
-- Rick Warren, December 15, 2008 (six days earlier)
"I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Q: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?
Who called Warren a con man? But since you mentioned it.....
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
Well, as far as I can remember, I've never worked to cancel anyone's marriage. Does that count? And I've never called anyone a pedophile. Nor have I ever condemned any one to hell. Well, except rhetorically.
ChrisSF
· 1 year ago
I said "election" in this post. Of course, I meant "ianauguration."
Mark in Florida
· 1 year ago
Very good points. Well said. I just don't think this event is the appropriate place for it. But it will catapult this fat ass into the spot light for sure.
Professor_Farnsworth
· 1 year ago
more bigotry.
Millicent
· 1 year ago
That 60's style explosion of violence and social chaos brought full public attention to the inequality this country had blessed from the beginning, and guess what, civil rights legislation. And to the extent it carried over into the '70s, it ended the Vietnam war and increased immigrant workers rights.
iggy
· 1 year ago
having lived through the 60's and early 70's, my recollection is slightly different:
I remember MLK advocating peaceful resistance, and Malcolm X advocating violence in the pursuit of equality. JFK and RFK. And their assassinations.
I remember the Chicago Democratic convention, and the consequent two-term election of Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and the prolonging of the Vietnam War for 7 more years.
I remember the courage of Lyndon Johnson to pass the CRA in 1964, in memory of JFK, and by alienating the South, the subsequent damning of the country to nearly 40 years of Goldwater/Reagan/Nixon socially Darwinistic Republicanism. And the stupidity of Johnson in starting the Vietnam War.
I remember revolution in the air, Che Guevary, the Red Army Faction, Baader-Meinhof, Patty Hearst, and 30 years of the IRA.
Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, the Wild Bunch and Dirty Harry. One small step for a man, 2001, A Space Odyssey, and Apollo 1.
I remember A Day in the Life, All You Need is Love, Sympathy for the Devil, and Altamont; White Rabbit and 21st Century Schizoid Man. And Debbie Boone.
Millicent
· 1 year ago
I remember the bashed heads of the protesters at the Chicago Dem convention and rigged trials of the protest leaders, I remember the rings of burning neighborhoods around central business districts throughout the country, I remember the clashes of war protesters with police and guards.
iggy
· 1 year ago
I guess I wasn't being clear: I disagreed with your point about public protest having much to do with ending the Vietnam War, given that Nixon was elected for a second term.
Moreover, it's clear that public protest at the 1968 Dem convention, was directly responsible for getting Nixon elected in the 1st place, regardless of who was to blame in that fiasco in Chicago. In fact, by enabling Nixon's election, the war protesters did as much as anyone to prolong the Vietnam War.
While mostly agreeing with your point of view, wrt the civil rights movement, I disagree on some points of detail. Despite almost complete legislative equality, 1964 & 1968 were, imho, just the launching points for actual equality. And even though Johnson did the right thing, morally, politically the cost was so dramatic, that we're still paying for those consequences today.
Also, I contend that the legacy of Malcolm X, combined with the revolutionary air of the times, and resulting in the creation of the Black Panthers and other similar groups, also delayed actual equality (which we may not actually have, even now).
Did the Watts riots of the 60's, help promote equality? In my opinion, no. It only helped to entrench racial prejudice in the LAPD for 30+ years, and prevented black communities from improving their economic lot.
Still, it's true, for the most part, that politics is a function of the prevailing mindsets, and that changes with time. It was Nixon who created the EPA and established price controls, and Clinton who passed the Defense of Marriage act, welfare reform and NAFTA.
What Obama seems to be charting, with the Warren invocation, is an opportunity for the prevailing mindset to change, by reducing the virulent opposition he would have with Dobson. It's a gamble, that's true, but if he's successful, it would allow an easier passage of pro gay-rights legislation.
dula
· 1 year ago
Gee, imagine if at the height of the Civil Rights struggle (for Blacks only), Lyndon Johnson asked the head of The Klan to say a 'lil prayer for the folks at his Inauguration.
Millicent
· 1 year ago
Interesting how history gets rewritten everyday, depending on one's leanings.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
I remember the invention of the ball point pen. And Ajax before it had blue dots. And Babo Cleanser. Remember Babo? It was a can of Babo that Mommy Dearest beat Christina with in the bathroom that night after she discovered wire hangers in her closet. "NO WIRE HANGERS!! EVEEEEEEEERRRRR!!!!
teresaInPa
· 1 year ago
that kind of sounds like "he is keeping his powder dry". In other words I think you are fantasizing.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
Or Obama could have snubbed the Religious Right and allowed them to continue losing power instead of knighting a bigot.
iggy
· 1 year ago
The rollers aren't going anywhere.
However, if they are allowed to regroup on their own terms, under the leadership of a Dobson, they will present a much stronger obstacle to full equality.
Jeez, wasn't anybody paying attention to California? The LGBT community was unable to overcome the fricking Mormons, wrt Prop 8, in what is supposed to be one of the most gay-friendly states in the country.
Trust me, when I tell you that what the Mormons did in California is mild in comparison to what the Dobson led Christianists would do, given the chance.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
You're right, of course. And I do know what the Christo-fascists can do. My marriage is one of the ones on the block here in California. I guess I should have phrased it differently. The religious right as a political force peaked some years ago, and is in general losing power, not that it is powerless. Unfortunately Obama has, as someone put it, made Warren the Pope of the Religious Right. It would have been so much better if Obama had chosen the right pastor and not given the bigots such a boost. Nevertheless I do see them fighting an uphill battle over time because the political tide has changed, and the younger generations just don't hate the gays like so many of their elders. However they have had their victories against gays in many states, including the most populated state, and it remains a high priority for them. We must defeat them.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
there are plenty of reasons to say: 'g-damn america'. plenty. and it's not anti-american, it's highly patriotic. to be able to criticize and call out wrongs, shows you care about something. and where does any white person have the right to tell a black man he can't say 'g-damn america'? unbelievable.
timncguy
· 1 year ago
is tat similar to why does any straight person feel they can tell gay people how to feel or who to love or who to marry?
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
yes, i think so...
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
I disapprove of Wright not because he said God damn America. I disapprove of his old school mentality and approach that portray black Americans as perpetual victims. That worked for a while, but now it is holding people back. Fortunately society is moving on, and Obama will help enormously in that regard.
ChrisSF
· 1 year ago
I totally agree that Cohen sums up nicely what is wrong with Obama's decision. Equality for LGBT citizens is not some policy-wonk issue like tax credits, offshore drilling or fuel mileage standards on which you trade political chits, it is about human rights. We don't "agree to disagree" on racism, sexism, or torture, and we should not "agree to disagree" on LGBT equality either.
AdrianLesher
· 1 year ago
Don't forget that Wright's church was known to be a welcoming place for the LGBT community (though Wright did not go as far as endorsing same sex marriage). To compare Wright to Warren on this issue is an insult to Wright.
Wasn't Rev Wright's church part of the United Church of Christ? Doesn't that church support gay marriage?
Then who don't both the Rev Wright and Obama both support gay marriage since it is the stated position of their church?
William Smyth
· 1 year ago
I haven't actually seen or read Rev. Wright's position on SSM. I have seen his name on petition to repeal DOMA. The position taken by the national synod of the UCC in favor of SSM places no requirements on the individual congregations or their members. The UCC SSM resolution speaks to the congregations not for them. Numerous congregations including mine have actively worked for SSM laws and against Prop 8.
I do like the following quote from a the 1990 era Rev. Wright sermon.
I refuse to limit my God, to lock God into my cultural understandings because culture is fickle. And culture is often wrong. Culture was wrong about slavery. Culture was wrong about women. Culture was wrong about Africans and Indians, and culture was wrong about Christ. I have been the pariah among many of my clergy colleagues who somehow see me as defective or not quite saved because I won’t join them in their homophobic gay bashing and misquoting of scripture.
larry
· 1 year ago
Obama has preacher problems and issues that he needs to solve. Why does he seem to need radical wild eyed reactionary theologians acceptance and in his quest for that acceptance elevate them to positions like Wright who he described as some mentor figure and Warren now the exalted position in his inauguration. Whats the deal ...why do we have to put up with his acceptance issues that seem to tie back to his abandonment by his father or something? Solve your own faith and daddy issues Mr. President Elect. In any case...Obama can deal with them...I will turn my back to Warren and on the decision that rewarded him with the invocation. If backs are to be turned...lets do the turning.
MK
· 1 year ago
You've lost the fight now. I've been a member of Trinity United Church for 15 years. Rev. Wright was my pastor. The fact that you have commenters on this blog GLEEFULLY using Rev. Wright as a weapon again says everything that we need to know about what you are trying to do now. You've lost an ally today.
boloboffin
· 1 year ago
There is ONE commenter here using Rev. Wright as a weapon. Everyone else is pretty much talking about how Obama treated the Rev. Wright controversy. Come back when you learn to read.
mark
· 1 year ago
I live in Chicago and think Wright is AWESOME. I'm gay, male, and white and wish Obama hadn't distanced himself. It would have been awesome to see Obama show some backbone. Nothing Wright said was ... wrong. It was right on.
That said, please, please don't allow the posting of one or two people to turn you away from the light! Your support is needed and valued.
Tom
· 1 year ago
Obama threw Wright under the bus, he should have lost you as an ally as well. I bet he didn't.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
so long, ex-ally.
ChrisSF
· 1 year ago
If what you are saying is you weren't too sure about gay people before and you're really sure they don't belong now (which is how I read this), then by all means, good riddance.
boloboffin
· 1 year ago
A man taking multiple wives and calling that marriage?
How dare Abraham! How dare Jacob and David, Solomon and hundreds of other Old Testament patriarchs!
God, Warren makes it too easy.
grandpajohn
· 1 year ago
you people sure are weird, getting you kicks out of beating dead horses.
shano
· 1 year ago
Wishing Obama chose Rev. Wright instead of Rick Warren. Wright is much more tolerant of all the right things and intolerant of all the wrong.
Rev. Wright is a much more true Xtian than Rick could ever be.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
It's hardly a dead horse with the inauguration less than a month away.
ChrisSF
· 1 year ago
Please, tell us, what is the dead horse of which you speak? Tell us, is it the federal law against employment discrimination? (Wait, we do not have that yet.) Is it federal recognition of same-sex marriages or even domestic partnerships (oh, wait we don't have that either)? By the way, who do you mean by, "you people"?
Happy Holidays!
Carlton
· 1 year ago
This just burns me up more and more I think about it.
Andrew
· 1 year ago
"This isn't just about gays and lesbians. It's about their family members, who are also offended by someone comparing their brother, their sister, their child, to a pedophile."
This is also about people like me - heterosexuals who are married with kids and have no gay relatives to speak of, but who think that the whole "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" is bogus, who are bothered by innacurate comparisons of gays to pedophiles and and who wholeheartedly support efforts to allow gay marriage, etc.
Rufus
· 1 year ago
Mrs. Obama, talk some sense into your hubby. He may be President Elect, but behind every man who makes a dumb choice for the guy to speak at his swearing in stands a woman who has her stuff together. Simply, tell him to pick someone else or sleep in the Oval Office on the couch (until 2012).
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
It worked for the Schwarzeneggers. Arnold twice vetoed gay marriage when the Legislature passed it. But Maria talked him into opposing Prop 8, with the help of a very uncomfortable sofa.
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
Cohen's article is a good one, John, and I think there is a part of it that you should have also highlighted. Unlike you, I feel that the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio was not bs, but was very significant. It just came during a time when his supporters rightly feared any controversy, just as the Rick Warren imbroglio now comes at a very sensitive time. But we mustn't ignore it. There have now been three ministers honored inappropriately by Obama. McClurkin, Wright and Warren. So I've highlighted a part of the Cohen article that I think deserves special attention. And I do applaud you for your persistence in the Warren controversy.
"Sooner or later, he (Obama) just might have to stand for something.
"This was apparent to me almost a year ago when I reported that Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, had given a major award to Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. The award was presented in Wright's name and featured in a cover story in the church's magazine, Trumpet. When I asked the Obama campaign about this, I was told that Obama himself did not agree with Farrakhan. What a relief!
"And what a joke. I never for a moment thought Obama viewed Farrakhan any differently from the way I do. But I also thought that as a U.S. senator, as a presidential candidate or even as a mere citizen, he had an obligation to denounce the award -- maybe quit the church. Do something! He did nothing.
"Now we have a repeat of that episode. This time it is not Obama's preacher who has decided to honor a bigot, it is Obama himself. And, once again, we get the same sort of rationalizations. Obama says he does not agree with Warren about all things."
Squarepeg
· 1 year ago
When you're considered 3/5 of a person by the US Consitution, come talk to me about BIGOTRY. Don't you dare try to piggy back on the African American civil rights experience to find your voice. I'm so sick of this shit. You people have the fucking nerve to call Obama a bigot after all he's been through? You think he's OPPRESSING YOU? Over a fucking PRAYER? Miss me with that BULLSHIT you're talking. The LGBT community really needs to get it together.
RainbowPhoenix
· 1 year ago
Come talk to us about bigotry when you've been burned at the stake, had forced lobotomies, forced electroshock therapy, and for the first time in American history, the removal of a civil right, AFTER, it was granted by the courts. This is not a zero sum game. The denial of a group's civil rights is the denial of civil rights, regardless of what those rights are, and what that group has experienced.
JeepTreats
· 1 year ago
Let me educate you Squarepeg, not only am I gay, I'm also black. And I'm so happy you left your nasty little comment. You just showed the world what I have to deal with every single day. Not only do I face discrimmination because of my race but I experience bigotry because of my sexuality. Yeah Squarepeg, I'm a walking living black woman who knows what it feels like to be attacked by white men because of my race. And I know what it's like to be attacked by black men because I am GAY! So I'm talking to YOU about BIGOTRY! Because I experience it doublely thanks to people like you.
ChrisSF
· 1 year ago
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Jeep! If I ever go too far in comparing the gay experience to the black experience, please tell me!
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
"You people"?? Isn't that a forbidden phrase?
Since you don't like any comparison between gays and blacks, I'll give you a different one. There was a time in parts of the country when blacks had to drink from separate water fountains. Those water fountains may have been just as good as the ones whites drank from. But they were separate. For many whites the thought of blacks using their water fountains was disgusting. And perhaps they also wanted to remind black people that they were "beneath" whites.
So here we are. Mr. Obama opposes marriage for gay people. Instead he supports civil unions that are equal to marriage. Gays may still drink from the "water fountains" of marriage, but just not the same one that straights drink from because some straights feel so disgusted about gay people that they feel it would somehow ruin the status of their marriages if gay people were to embrace the institution of marriage. But at least when black people had to drink from separate water fountains, they were still allowed to call them water fountains. Gays may not call their civil unions marriages. Not only do some straights find the idea disgusting, they also would like to remind gay people that they are "beneath" straights. This is what Mr. Obama is supporting, and a lot of gay people think he should know better. A lot of straight people think he should know better as well.
Now, you may not care that an open homophobe who worked hard to invalidate my marriage simply because I am gay is going to be the man Obama honors with the invocation at his inauguration. You may not care if tosses off the "P" word (pedophile) at gay people, or spreads all manner of ugly lies about gay people, or passes judgment and condemnes them to burn for all eternity in hell. But maybe you can set aside your contempt for gay people long enough to think about how gay bashing actually DOES relate to other forms of outrageous prejudice with which you are more familiar.
dula
· 1 year ago
Squarepeg: I understand there is a huge difference between Gay Civil Rights and Black Civil Rights. Blacks were hung from trees while Gays are only tied to fences and beaten to death...or in the case of the Lesbian who was recently beaten and gang raped for having a rainbow sticker on her car...just outside of "gay friendly" San Francisco. How long do we have to play the game of "who suffered more" before you give us our fucking Rights?
dogout
· 1 year ago
I have a question for Rick Warren. A puzzlement that's thrown a boulder in my spiritual understanding of Christianity. I understand that Rick equates gays to incest and pedophilia. Who IS Mrs. Cain? His sister, right? There weren't 2 Gardens of Eden to dilute the gene pool, right? So just shut the fuck up!!! Love is the answer. Work on it.
Macdaffy
· 1 year ago
This whole Reverend Warren flap stinks to high heaven. Obama's here in Hawaii chillin'. The blogosphere is doing its best impression of the Moral Majority. Rick Warren is backpedaling faster than a first-year player designated to defend LeBron James. The Inaugural Invocation is a bigger issue than the ultimate destination of the bailout funds or the tick-tock of our soldiers dying in the Middle East or Dick Cheney's bald admissions of "not-niceness" in defense of our national security, our civil rights, and his own prerogatives.
I am going on record right now as predicting that a shoe will drop during the Inaugural Speech. A HUGE shoe. A shoe big enough to expose this whole Gethsemane we're going through now about the Warren Invocation as a ruse.
Just as in basketball, Obama may fake to the right, but he's left-handed. I've got my popcorn ready and I'm taking bets.
kladinvt
· 1 year ago
So many Obamiacs, come off as if they view Obama as some sort of god or savior. He's not & that's quite obvious by the grave error of choosing Warren to participate in the inauguration. If you really want to show respect to Obama, then go ahead, question & point out his mistakes, argue about them & hopefully teach Obama something. Despite my disgust with this fiasco, I do still believe (and have a thread of hope left) that Obama is an intelligent person & that he is capable of learning from his mistakes, which is something no one could ever say of Bush! My own enthusiasm about his election is on a more real level now & that's probably a good thing. I'll view what he says & does with a skeptical eye & look for him to make amends somehow to our community. I guess my hope isn't completely extinguished.
tofubo
· 1 year ago
one might posit the idea that politics and religion don't mix
All Comments
By analogy: If someone makes an offensive comments about black people, you shouldn't say, "That offends me because my brother in law is black." How about it offends you because it's inherently offensive?
For this reason, John's statement, "This isn't just about gays and lesbians. It's about their family members, who are also offended by someone comparing their brother, their sister, their child, to a pedophile," rubs me the wrong way.
You shouldn't have to have any significant relationship with a gay and lesbian person for Rick Warren's statements to be personally offending.
Does that make sense?
But as a counterpoint, that wasn't the way I read that part of the comment. It was preceeded by a comment about a "little gay controversy" and I tok the point to mean that if the Obama camp was looking at this as a numbers game (and they certainly are) their evangelicals outnumber gays calculations failed to consider that every gay person has family and friends. And others who are just smart enough to be ofended.
Obama wants to put me in prison, as does his AG pick, Eric Holder -- a successful advocate for mandatory minimums.
Warren? He only wants to prevent me from marrying & convince me I'm going to Hell.
I'm far more scared of Obama & his unrighteous thugs.
Goddamn Amerikkka for killing innocent people!
Hemp Liberty or Else!
So, as far as I can see, either Mr. Warren is ok with polygomy, child marriage, and incest, and therefore would like to maintain the definition of marriage for the last 5,000 years, or his definition of marriage is a little historically inaccurate.
http://ftp.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf
By the way, as a son and a brother to ordained ministers, it would be difficult to call me Warren's new word 'Christ-o-phobic' , I am however a Christian who happens to be gay. I pray for
him
“
I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.
When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.
”
http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/2008/...
my god...what will people do to keep from admitting they are wrong.
So an intellectually lazy performer didn't bother to read when he compared her relationship to child rape and incest. That he lied repeatedly about hate speech laws, which don't exist in the US due to the first amendment , would cause his arrest if Prop 8 passed. She didn't bother to learn that he bans unrepentent gays from his church.
Yes he likes her music so he is not a hater.
Melissa got punked!
That 5,000-year old definition of marriage, in addition to excluding same-sex marriage, also saw women as property, allowed for polygamy, and in our American South, did not allow the slave property to get married.
So, as far as Rick Warren's concerned, his argument about the 5,000 year old definition of marriage is a complete pile of steaming, stinking horse manure!
Someone really ought to quiz that asshat with a fscking blowtorch and see what he REALLY thinks.
But hey, we know better now, don't we? Don't we?
By analogy: If someone makes an offensive comments about black people, you shouldn't say, "That offends me because my brother in law is black." How about it offends you because it's inherently offensive?
For this reason, John's statement, "This isn't just about gays and lesbians. It's about their family members, who are also offended by someone comparing their brother, their sister, their child, to a pedophile," rubs me the wrong way.
You shouldn't have to have any significant relationship with a gay and lesbian person for Rick Warren's statements to be personally offending.
Does that make sense?
I now vote for women until we have reached the 51 percent of power mark that we deserve.
How the GLBT community holds pols accountable is a little bit more puzzling. Women have all the power they need if they would just use it. Gay people are going to have to take another tact...but I would venture that voting for the equal rights candidate regardless of party might be a good start.
Now I'm not so sure. The anger I feel right now is palpable. I realize that there are other important issues -- most notably for me climate change and the environment and the economy -- that make me glad a democrat is in office.
But I think in the future, I'll put my support behind candidates who support my full citizenship rights. If there aren't any, I can think of better things to do with my time and money.
nope wait, I found what you are referencing.
"Secondly, DOMA, I believe that DOMA served a very important purpose. I was one of the architects in the strategy against the Marriage Amendment to the constitution, and DOMA gave us a bright line to be able to hold back the votes that were building up to do what I consider to be absolutely abominable and that would be to amend the constitution to enshrine discrimination. I believe marriage should be left to the states. I support civil unions as I've said many times with full equality of benefits and so I think that DOMA appropriately put the responsibility in the states where it has historically belonged and I think you're beginning to see states take action. I think it's, I think part three of DOMA needs to be repealed because part three stands in the way of the full extension of federal benefits and I support that. So that's the first."
Again she does seem to find the compromises that prevent a greater evil. She is a pragmatist and always has been. During the 60s she staged teach ins rather than demonstrations. With her, what you see is what you get. I would love to have seen her be more liberal on some issues...however I have always felt that with Obama what you see is never what you get. I am the type that would rather be disappointed in a person's position than their character.
But in any case I am sorry if I gave the impression that this is about senator Clinton. It is not. I do not see any reason whatsoever that Obama had to do this. It almost seems like an intentional FU to the gay community. But then I have said for over a year that if Obama has not offened you yet it is just because he hasn't gotten to your group.
I was thrown under the bus a long time ago when I was told that as a small town Pennsylvanian I must be supporting Clinton because I was voting my vagina or was racist.
No longer. They are working hard to make me into a single issue voter.
I predict that the passage of proposition 8 is going to be spoken of by future (and even current) gay historians as the most important event since the cops attacked the patrons of Stonewall back in 1969, although only because the victims in both cases finally stood up and said "enough." The difference is that In this case the supportive response of those outside our immediate community has been somewhat greater...
Here's how I see it now: Obama is not a theologian. He's just another hardbody (we've all see the picture). He sees clergy as political tools. Let's face it, they often are.
To say Obama doesn't get it is to understate the situation. He doesn't want to because he (honestly?) believes he doesn't need to. In my day we called that the "dumb jock syndrome." I think that's what's happening.
Let's not have a contest of the most oppressed. Wright is a sexist jerk who is no different than any white evangelical who uses revving up feelings of persecution to make himself a mega church millionaire.
http://www.tmz.com/2008/12/23/rick-warren-out-o...
Can we say bad PR move?
We are not over reacting. This man in interviews, on his website, in sermons, etc. Does not think we should exist...or if we go away it would make life so much rosier.
This leopard will not easily change his spots. This whole thing is becoming farcical.
ICK. .....and PS: Warren IS gay....he has the gay face.
LOL!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge...
Melissa: bitch please!
What is it with these "celebrities" who are so easily bought.
Melissa is definitely not helping the cause. DUMB!
now, throwing her under the bus when she doesn't walk in line with your rigid views!!
Please.
That's why the frame is b.s. To say we are simply discussing issues is to ignore what Warren has said. Things he has not refuted other than by massaging the ego of a pop star who is easy to manipulate (Yes, I am referring to Melissa E. who had similar issues with Washington on the show Grey's Anatomy).
The long and short of it is that this is not about compromise on issues. I don't agree with Obama on civil unions, but I do not feel the need to deny his right to believe that. Where I draw the line at is someone who compares me to a pedophille. That's not a conversation. That's evil.
even the show of acceptance of warren's homophobia and such, leads to divisiveness and even violence in our society. this is not acceptable. we need to stop rationalizing new and ingenious reasons for discrimination, and certainly we must stop letting religious leaders hide behind such rhetoric.
civil marriage is a civil right. anything less is a play by the chamber of commerce.
When the Rev. Wright issue was being beaten' to death, my feelings were that you cannot hold a man/woman responsible for the thoughts and utterances of everyone they associate with. And that is exactly my feeling now. I don't know how Warren got chosen but, I do not believe that Obama chose this man to do this task because he agrees with his exclusionary opinions.
It has become evident that he has made a poor choice. You have done your part to bring it out into the open. However, he is not appointing this guy to a powerful position. He is only hired to do one blessing. Done. Over.
We have a country to fix. Equal rights is high on the to do list. This inauguration invocation will not get us there, nor will it hold us back.
No, what he really should have done was include some rational science loving mainstream, non- homophobic non- women fearing protestants and catholics who have been left out of the discussion of religion since Bush took office. The left wing pundit shows do not even invite them to the conversation.
Of course it may be that they are all to busy actually attending to such things are serving the poor and making sure old ladies have a ride to church on Sunday.
Just wondering.
I know that as a lefty I am supposed to think Wright was a victim and an okay guy for a Christian. But knowing what is possible on the Christian left end of things, I was underwhelmed by the pass he was given for his own brand of looniness. I know that is not politically correct, but I actually found the acceptance of his ideas among the left somewhat racist. What super educated white man would we give a pass to for sexist language, endless anger and crazy conspiracy theories? Do such white guys and women get a pass on the religious right? Sure they do, but not from me.
A friend said to me once that Wright's theory about AIDS was excusable considering what the military did to the black men who had Syphilis. But I do not find the two situations comparable at all now that I think about it.
I have had a problem with Obama's religious associations and his pandering for 4 years. Do I think he should have lost? No, but I also do think it should have been excused by the media as completely unimportant either.
Is that why anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendments have been so successful all over this country?
marriage in a church is a sacrament and civil marriage cannot keep a church from denying that sacrament. they will not lose their non-profit status. we just want everyone to have the same rights as others, simple as that. people are people, not profits.
don't fall for the civil union jive--it was invented by insurance companies to let people believe it'd be okay.
-Church's mission is to "protect the human beings against self-destruction"
-Pope says the order of creation must be be respected
-Gay rights campaigner: I think the pope is trying to limit God's world view
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/12/23/...
It might be the same God worshiped by Seventh-day adventists who believe God can not reconstitute your ashes during the rapture.
I don't have any right to tell anyone not to be pissed. But just as a reader I will say that the sooner this war ends won't be soon enough for me. Did you ever have a friend that went on about something day after day after day after day...like a fucking broken record until you just wanted to hit them upside the head to jog the needle a little? It's gone from anger to gripe to constant one-note harping. We got the point long ago. B-O-R-I-N-G.
Man, that "special interest group" is responsible for every single democratic party victory in the last 4 decades. If women vote republican democrats will never win another single election.
Excellent. Well stated.
I sometimes criticize HRC for taking the path of least resistiance. But I have to say, they have kept up the pressure on this issue somewhat. There is power in numbers. JOIN HRC today, if you are not a member. It's super easy.
https://secure.ga3.org/03/p_member09/nv1enItEa5...
Political parity is the issue we should be worried about and if I were gay... who knows? I am not fond of the gay and lesbian for life groups, because I feel it is basically none of their damn business what some women does with her body. But as far as someone voting for D'Amato because he is for gay rights, I can't blame anyone for that.
Join us and Obama's "typical white women" granny and oh so many many other people.
You want moral leadership from OBama....ha ha, first wouldn't he have to lead? On what issue besides his Leibermanesque worship of bipartisanship did the man ever lead? Yes I know he passed some sort of ethics reform right? Yup and it was designed with just the right size and shape holes for him to slide through on "online contributions", having other people buy your yard etc....
My only question to you is why didn't you expect exactly this sort of thing?
And NO, Hillary would not have asked this schmuck to give the invocation at her inaugural. She has never, unlike Obama shown a predilection for this sort of evangelical jackass.
4-8 more years of Clintonian triangulation?
No, thanks.
That is the extent of it. IF you think the relationship between Obama and the bushes is going to be any different, I advise you to put down the Hopebong.
Neither can I stomach any more of this: http://www.clintonfoundation.org/news/news-medi...
So, I accept this award with gratitude, with a man I have genuinely always liked and always admired. I can now tell you, and may all the Democrats forgive me this close to the election, I love George Bush. I do.
Dem v. Rep = False Dichotomy / Phony fight / Pseudo-alternatives
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/22/da...
The women is a Methodist, keeps her religion to herself and has never claimed to be the "religious democrat", the one who can "talk to the issue of religion because she could clap in time to the gospel choir".
Face it, this has always been Obama's shtick, it has never been hers.
I used to believe that the dominionists were after us and guess what...nothing happened and it has been years and years. Clinton went to a prayer group and in it were some republicans. Now I know that is scary and all, but like I said, my church is full of republicans and despite our disagreements on policy they are really quite normal people and not one of them has created a shadow church to put reverend Carter out of the pulpit.
So you have me all figured out and I am a dominionist? How very dkos and DU of you.
Whatever Obama does in terms of pro-gay legislation, he's going to have to deal with the Christianists, and their powerful lobby. By inviting Warren to give the invocation at the inaugural, he's essentially anointed him as the de-facto leader of the Evangelical right, displacing Dobson, Robertson and all the others.
Given that Warren is not close to being the political animal and power-broker that Dobson already is, it's going to make passing the legislation a much easier proposition, than having to fight with the FRC and the rest of the religious hard right.
This doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that Warren will be persuaded to change his mind, wrt gay rights. But that doesn't matter, in the end, as long as he doesn't become a significant obstacle.
In the end, this kind of overdue change is difficult. Obama's challenge is to achieve that transformation, without plunging the country into a 60's style explosion of violence and social chaos.
Yes. Nothing good came from that.
You niggers, hippies & fags were better off when you knew your place.
And the funny thing is...if granted rights wich simply are inaliable....the people that would against such a measure are completely and utterly UN affected by this. That is the really silly part.
Just give us what we want, it's basic and I don't deserve anything less because of the simple fact of my birthing order.
As it stands, I can be fired from a job for being gay...I can't adopt...the list goes on and on. And we will continue to needle, and annoy, and cajole, and blog until we get it.
It's no skin off anyones teeth, so such grant us the rights. NOW.
Some people here have turned Rick Warren into a caricature the same way was done to Rev. Wright. You should be ashamed of yourselves. And this has NOTHING to do with fighting for equal rights.
Quit making excuses for this bigot. And he is, plain and simple.
Many many well intentioned people go to church, pay their taxes and obey traffic signals. That does not make them good people.
This man judged me personally and called me a pedophile. At least me calling him a glutonous fatass is more accurate than his description of me. Sophomoric, yes I agree. But then this entire excersie is getting rediculous. And I am not going to sit idely by while this half wit takes a place of honor.
wrt Warren's anti-gay opinions, I don't think he's shifted one bit, has always held those views, and wasn't ever shy about expressing them.
Still, in recent days, Warren's crew has cleaned up his website. I'm not sure what that means, but it isn't the act of someone who is out for blood.
The issue is simple: if you're Obama, and you want to pass pro-gay legislation, who would you rather have to deal with: Dobson or Warren? The answer, to me, is pretty obvious.
The *only* thing that matters is that legislation that gives the LGBT community absolute and indisputable equality must be passed. Nothing else.
Then again, if it were easy, and there were no significant opposition to that task, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
It follows, then, that the path to achieving that goal would be eased by reducing any opposition to it. Hence Warren instead of Dobson. It's that simple.
My take is that Obama is actually serious about passing these laws, as opposed to the Clintons who enacted legal theatre, but in real terms did nothing of true consequence for the LGBT community. Don't ask, don't tell ?? Spare me!
Never mind forgiveness...they just wanna be persecuted and feel victimized. One can't even apologize without being labelled a con man. They don't wanna hear what Warren says, even if he apologized and meant it.
It's also funny to watch them (Inc. John himself) belittle him for being overweight. As if that isn't bigoted in itself. *rolls eyes*
wait a sec, they are only allowed to do it because after all....they've been called names, too!
If you want to talk about persecution mentality and victimhood, go watch Rev. Rick whine about "hateful attacks" and "Christophobia" on part 3 of that video.
OK, to the business at hand. Let's be clear: Rick Warren has not apologized for anything. He has only dissembled (to put it charitably). What he actually did was to DENY that he ever said the things he is well documented as having said. Go watch Rev. Rick's 3-part video and see whether you find any words of apology to gay people who were offended by his words (which he used repeatedly, as little as one week ago). Let's go to the tape . . .
"I have been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia. Now of course as members of Saddleback Church, you know I believe no such thing. I never have. You've never once heard me in 30 years talk that way about that."
-- Rick Warren, December 21, 2008
"Two lovers living together is a not a marriage. Incest is not marriage. A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage."
-- Rick Warren, December 15, 2008 (six days earlier)
"I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Q: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?
A: Oh , I do."
-- Rick Warren, December 2008
Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2008/12/Rick-Warr...
I remember MLK advocating peaceful resistance, and Malcolm X advocating violence in the pursuit of equality. JFK and RFK. And their assassinations.
I remember the Chicago Democratic convention, and the consequent two-term election of Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and the prolonging of the Vietnam War for 7 more years.
I remember the courage of Lyndon Johnson to pass the CRA in 1964, in memory of JFK, and by alienating the South, the subsequent damning of the country to nearly 40 years of Goldwater/Reagan/Nixon socially Darwinistic Republicanism. And the stupidity of Johnson in starting the Vietnam War.
I remember revolution in the air, Che Guevary, the Red Army Faction, Baader-Meinhof, Patty Hearst, and 30 years of the IRA.
Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, the Wild Bunch and Dirty Harry.
One small step for a man, 2001, A Space Odyssey, and Apollo 1.
I remember A Day in the Life, All You Need is Love, Sympathy for the Devil, and Altamont; White Rabbit and 21st Century Schizoid Man. And Debbie Boone.
Moreover, it's clear that public protest at the 1968 Dem convention, was directly responsible for getting Nixon elected in the 1st place, regardless of who was to blame in that fiasco in Chicago. In fact, by enabling Nixon's election, the war protesters did as much as anyone to prolong the Vietnam War.
While mostly agreeing with your point of view, wrt the civil rights movement, I disagree on some points of detail. Despite almost complete legislative equality, 1964 & 1968 were, imho, just the launching points for actual equality. And even though Johnson did the right thing, morally, politically the cost was so dramatic, that we're still paying for those consequences today.
Also, I contend that the legacy of Malcolm X, combined with the revolutionary air of the times, and resulting in the creation of the Black Panthers and other similar groups, also delayed actual equality (which we may not actually have, even now).
Did the Watts riots of the 60's, help promote equality? In my opinion, no. It only helped to entrench racial prejudice in the LAPD for 30+ years, and prevented black communities from improving their economic lot.
Still, it's true, for the most part, that politics is a function of the prevailing mindsets, and that changes with time. It was Nixon who created the EPA and established price controls, and Clinton who passed the Defense of Marriage act, welfare reform and NAFTA.
What Obama seems to be charting, with the Warren invocation, is an opportunity for the prevailing mindset to change, by reducing the virulent opposition he would have with Dobson. It's a gamble, that's true, but if he's successful, it would allow an easier passage of pro gay-rights legislation.
However, if they are allowed to regroup on their own terms, under the leadership of a Dobson, they will present a much stronger obstacle to full equality.
Jeez, wasn't anybody paying attention to California? The LGBT community was unable to overcome the fricking Mormons, wrt Prop 8, in what is supposed to be one of the most gay-friendly states in the country.
Trust me, when I tell you that what the Mormons did in California is mild in comparison to what the Dobson led Christianists would do, given the chance.
See e.g. Obama Pastor Backs Gay rights, in the Washington Blade,
http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelat...
Then who don't both the Rev Wright and Obama both support gay marriage since it is the stated position of their church?
I do like the following quote from a the 1990 era Rev. Wright sermon.
I refuse to limit my God, to lock God into my cultural understandings because culture is fickle. And culture is often wrong. Culture was wrong about slavery. Culture was wrong about women. Culture was wrong about Africans and Indians, and culture was wrong about Christ. I have been the pariah among many of my clergy colleagues who somehow see me as defective or not quite saved because I won’t join them in their homophobic gay bashing and misquoting of scripture.
In any case...Obama can deal with them...I will turn my back to Warren and on the decision that rewarded him with the invocation. If backs are to be turned...lets do the turning.
That said, please, please don't allow the posting of one or two people to turn you away from the light! Your support is needed and valued.
How dare Abraham! How dare Jacob and David, Solomon and hundreds of other Old Testament patriarchs!
God, Warren makes it too easy.
Rev. Wright is a much more true Xtian than Rick could ever be.
Happy Holidays!
This is also about people like me - heterosexuals who are married with kids and have no gay relatives to speak of, but who think that the whole "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" is bogus, who are bothered by innacurate comparisons of gays to pedophiles and and who wholeheartedly support efforts to allow gay marriage, etc.
"Sooner or later, he (Obama) just might have to stand for something.
"This was apparent to me almost a year ago when I reported that Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, had given a major award to Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. The award was presented in Wright's name and featured in a cover story in the church's magazine, Trumpet. When I asked the Obama campaign about this, I was told that Obama himself did not agree with Farrakhan. What a relief!
"And what a joke. I never for a moment thought Obama viewed Farrakhan any differently from the way I do. But I also thought that as a U.S. senator, as a presidential candidate or even as a mere citizen, he had an obligation to denounce the award -- maybe quit the church. Do something! He did nothing.
"Now we have a repeat of that episode. This time it is not Obama's preacher who has decided to honor a bigot, it is Obama himself. And, once again, we get the same sort of rationalizations. Obama says he does not agree with Warren about all things."
Since you don't like any comparison between gays and blacks, I'll give you a different one. There was a time in parts of the country when blacks had to drink from separate water fountains. Those water fountains may have been just as good as the ones whites drank from. But they were separate. For many whites the thought of blacks using their water fountains was disgusting. And perhaps they also wanted to remind black people that they were "beneath" whites.
So here we are. Mr. Obama opposes marriage for gay people. Instead he supports civil unions that are equal to marriage. Gays may still drink from the "water fountains" of marriage, but just not the same one that straights drink from because some straights feel so disgusted about gay people that they feel it would somehow ruin the status of their marriages if gay people were to embrace the institution of marriage. But at least when black people had to drink from separate water fountains, they were still allowed to call them water fountains. Gays may not call their civil unions marriages. Not only do some straights find the idea disgusting, they also would like to remind gay people that they are "beneath" straights. This is what Mr. Obama is supporting, and a lot of gay people think he should know better. A lot of straight people think he should know better as well.
Now, you may not care that an open homophobe who worked hard to invalidate my marriage simply because I am gay is going to be the man Obama honors with the invocation at his inauguration. You may not care if tosses off the "P" word (pedophile) at gay people, or spreads all manner of ugly lies about gay people, or passes judgment and condemnes them to burn for all eternity in hell. But maybe you can set aside your contempt for gay people long enough to think about how gay bashing actually DOES relate to other forms of outrageous prejudice with which you are more familiar.
I understand there is a huge difference between Gay Civil Rights and Black Civil Rights. Blacks were hung from trees while Gays are only tied to fences and beaten to death...or in the case of the Lesbian who was recently beaten and gang raped for having a rainbow sticker on her car...just outside of "gay friendly" San Francisco. How long do we have to play the game of "who suffered more" before you give us our fucking Rights?
Who IS Mrs. Cain? His sister, right? There weren't 2 Gardens of Eden to dilute the gene pool, right?
So just shut the fuck up!!!
Love is the answer. Work on it.
I am going on record right now as predicting that a shoe will drop during the Inaugural Speech. A HUGE shoe. A shoe big enough to expose this whole Gethsemane we're going through now about the Warren Invocation as a ruse.
Just as in basketball, Obama may fake to the right, but he's left-handed. I've got my popcorn ready and I'm taking bets.
If you really want to show respect to Obama, then go ahead, question & point out his mistakes, argue about them & hopefully teach Obama something. Despite my disgust with this fiasco, I do still believe (and have a thread of hope left) that Obama is an intelligent person & that he is capable of learning from his mistakes, which is something no one could ever say of Bush!
My own enthusiasm about his election is on a more real level now & that's probably a good thing. I'll view what he says & does with a skeptical eye & look for him to make amends somehow to our community. I guess my hope isn't completely extinguished.