DISQUS

AdmNaismith · 11 months ago

There are consequences for f*cking with people's lives, or even traveling with people who f*ck with people's lives. No more Mr. Nice Gay.

anastasjoy · 11 months ago

I completely disagree with Carla. And I'm a little tired of being whiplashed between people complaining that we aren't continually outraged about every obscure thing and people who complain we're too outraged about things that don't matter. That this misogynistic, anti-Semitic, anti-Islamic, anti-Episcopalian and yes, incidentally, homophobic, exclusionist of a pastor was chosen to be the EXCLUSIVE delivery of the inaugural invocation IS a big deal, and is worthy of the anger and outrage of women, gays, Jews, Muslims and mainline Protestants everywhere. I haven't paid too much attention to his anti-gay remarks, since I'm not gay, other than to remark that they are wrong and have no place in our civil discourse. But I am a woman and I find his philosophies about the role of women in our society to be outrageous. If anything, i wish there was less focus on strictly his homophobia and more focus on the full panoply of people he wants to oppress.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

anti-marriage is also a small part of his portfolio, even restricting the subject to gay rights.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

Well said. It is not just a gay issue at all. It never really was. It is about elevating ignorance to new heights. And it is ignorance and cowardice to be able to say and do what ever you want and hide behind a bible.

It amazes me that all one must do is hide behind a bible and say anything and take no responsibility for it and the consequences that ensue.

So all of our left leaning friends that think we are complaining, I want you to think of this when Ricky is up there with smiles and two dollar words:

-He believes women should stay w/ a husband even though he beats her. FACT.
-He believes the earth is a few thousand years old.
-Gay people are NOT allowed in his church.
-He believes being gay is a 'problem' that can be cured.
-He believes Jews are going to hell.

I know it sounds abraisive. But let's not sugar coat it kids. While the Chicago symphony is playing, and the chorus is going and the flags are flying. The beautiful Obama family will be up there w/ Lincolns bible. And this man, this horrible Warren with the beliefs I listed above (and more) Will be speaking on behalf of woman and gay people everywhere.

......OK.....now how do you feel?

I am disgusted, personally.

scytherius · 11 months ago

Well, I certainly don't think we are wasting our time as I have learned in life that what you get when you tolerate assholes is . . . more assholes. Rick Warren is a pig. No question there. And screaming for gay rights until they have them is required to be a human being. However, the most important thing is what Obama does once in office. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Time will tell.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

yeah i don't get this concern about spending political capital. bill clinton obviously spent capital on 'gays in the military'. but ignoring rick warren and james dobson (who were defeated soundly on Nov 4) on Jan 20 doesn't spend any capital. nobody has been able to explain the downside of reaching out to rick warren SOME OTHER PLACE and SOME OTHER TIME than the inaugural blessing.

tlsintx · 11 months ago

there is no bigger fish to fry than equal rights for all humans...

I talked to my 70 year old mother about Rick Warren over Christmas...she had no idea about his views on gays and that he had worked for Prop 8 in California...she knows now and now she doesn't think he's such a great idea...

keep calling bullshit on Rick Warren

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

"there is no bigger fish to fry than equal rights for all humans..."

I like that. And you are correct. Without this basic tenant...there is nothing else.

Rich · 11 months ago

I've had very mixed feelings about this. Obama has never come out in front for gay marriage and like most politicians, he has to make an effort to embrace different constituencies. I was never as enamored of him as other people (Edwards was my original pick and that meant ignoring his Blue Dog history), so perhaps I never expected him to be the messiah. The Warren business has been good at galvanizing people, but runs the risk of seeming to be a broken record. We need to keep our eye on long-term objectives like employment rights and gay marriage. I come from a union background, so it's not surprising that I would put employment before marriage and I would frame marriage as an economic issue--directly (inheritence) and indirectly (providing for children and spouses).

In the short run, Warren, along with prop 8 has galvanized the grassroots in tremendous ways. Given the way they screwed up, Prop 8, I suspect that our "gay leaders" are the last people we can trust to be effective advocates of anything. Their response to Warren strong, but not exactly immediate and they haven't followed--up on his unconvincing backpedaling and outright lies. I think analogies to the Civil Rights movement are problematic (we were never slaves), but one way in which we need to learn from that movement is to see how the established leadership of African-Americans often performed miserably. They had a place at the table, although not at the big table and they did okay materially as in betweens working with the white power structure and their communities. They often were a roadblcok to community organizing and when the dust settled they often co-opted the gains made by grassroots people and perpetuated a neo-feudal political structure in many African-American communities. We need to make sure that HRC et al. don't repeat this pattern. This and other fights need to come from the grassroots and the grassroots need to create their own structures or effectively takeover the ones with nice office space in downtown DC. Otherwise, we'll keep getting stalled in our efforts to move forward.

Apphouse50 · 11 months ago

Yeah, I had a few "get over its" out at HuffPo when I suggested that perhaps the Obama people ought to solicit donations from Rick Warren to help with the Inauguration festivities, donations being rather scant it seems.

Apparently, it hasn't occurred to the get-over-its that perhaps some of us would rather spend our scant recession dollars on something that isn't so offensive to gays, women, sick people, and others.

To the entreaties to "get over it," my reply was, "No." I'll get over it when I feel like it, and it won't be because some clueless dope tells me I have to.

Personal Failure · 11 months ago

but apphouse, hasn't the recent dustup over the prop 8 backlash taught you that gays are required to give their hard earned money to people who actively work against their civil rights? get in the back of the bus and tip the driver for the privilege!

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

I will not give my money...and I and the friends I called upon gave quite a bit, to anymore democratic causes until I see some action. I am sick of it.

Apphouse50 · 11 months ago

You're right, of course.

What was I thinking?

I'm so ashamed.

LarryMcD · 11 months ago

Yup. I was seriously steamed about what the choice of Warren said about Obama's regard for us, but I went from a simmer to a full boil when my husband and I got emails the next day from Joe Biden thanking us (again) for our generous contributions to the campaign and suggesting that, based on those contributions, we should be willing to pony up at least $250 apiece to help pay for the inauguration!

My response to Carla's original post over on B.O. was that Dante might have been wrong. The hottest place in Hell may be reserved for those who remained "agreeable" while their rights were being trampled.

David Bricka · 11 months ago

What is fascinating to see is the power of all that has happened since the announcement of Warren and the power of our (LGBt) voices being heard.

Mike Roger was on Hardball and was in my opinion brilliant in his even metered responses to the reverend that was brought on to defend the selection of Warren.

Rick Warren and his ilk are being exposed by all of this and that is a good thing. How many people knew what his website said before all of this?

The other extreme that for me was exposed by all of this is the oppressive language relating to women. Rachael had a great segment on this recently.

I am not losing hope on the upcoming Obama administration. We are so lucky to have a lot of very smart people tapped to lead this nation out of the hell that we've had to experience. Hope is here!

Rick Warren is having some trouble with the pressure that has been placed upon him by you John and many other folks. I think that he is doing a nice job of imploding. The pic of him hanging out in West Hollywood was wild.

Fascinating that he was on "Today" Christmas Day promoting his new book. How convenient. That is when we became "Good Morning America" viewers (lesser of two evils)

The more that is exposed, the more Rick Warren will look like the homophobe he really is.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

Pefectly said. True, no one knew what this guy's website said, or some of his more whacky beliefs.

Stay with your husband, even THOUGH HE BEATS YOU. This is what Warren believes. OK, so now that it's just not gays that are offended...anyone else want to join in the 'whining'?

He is being exposed, and good will come out of this. And I still really like Obama......I just want to know that he has recieved this message.

liberaldemdave · 11 months ago

Roger's brilliance, however, was overshadowed by his assertion that Warren had somehow changed his mind about gay membership in his "church". We knew then that wasn't the case. What we DID know, was that the information had been scrubbed in order to make "Pastor" Warren look less intolerant. THAT should have been a part of Roger's otherwise brilliant performance.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

Mike Roger stuck to the issues picking apart that pompous "Reverend" who was trying to make fun of Mike by dismissing him and belittling him. Mike cut him to ribbons with logic and facts whilst the buffoon pontificated acting anything save, what a Christian should act like. The differences in their characters was huge.

larry · 11 months ago

Yes John you are dead on correct. Lots of african americans were lynched in the south for many years...the transgressions lasted from Grant to Johnson. They stopped when the african american community organized and pushed back in effective ways and in ways that clearly signaled to Washington that blacks were not going to go away ......unlike the african americans of the south we have the right to vote and we have money so in that respect we have a better starting point finalizing our civil rights. We just have to understand what we have and learn how to use it....and screaming like prepubescent girls at a slumber party ain't gonna get it. Use the tools we have seriously, quietly, strongly, peacefully and do not give an inch until all americans have equality and the civil rights. Turn off the cash, and see how important we become when get out the vote time comes around in 2010, 2012, when volunteers are needed everywhere....next time we want to stop a prop 8 do not assume ANYTHING and take it serious. In short, grow up , act like an adult push back like an adult.
I have been out since 64...been "married" for 28 years I have seen progress but sometimes we go in the weeds, we can no longer afford that luxury....stop depending on the straight community and its politicians to save your asses. Go to work, get off the divan, put down those martinis and do something.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

Once again....we have to be the nice and take it. I have one thing to say: (no, not sashay, or shantay) But this: WE CAN MULTI TASK. Of course Warren is a blip on the radar screen. He is one person, with the intellectual prowess of a kindergarten child. (i.e.: his views on science as it pertains to evolution) And human rights.

In order to use political capital Carla, you have to actually HAVE political capital. The reason people are using this symbolic gesture to draw attention to, is to GAIN political capital. To show that we will not sit on the side lines, even for the little stuff. And to perhaps even garner the baby step of making the administration think a few chess moves down the road when it comes to who they exalt and bring to the table.

That's all. WE CAN MULTI TASK. Yes, we have huge problems, but let's do it all at once. It's not that hard.

I will not sit back and take it, even for the small stuff. Just like when Imus said Nappy headed hoes and felt the consequence...so too, must we let it known that including Warren has consequences.

Personal Failure · 11 months ago

no, he doesn't have the human rights of a kindergartener. 5 year olds have an inherent sense of fairness that would naturally disallow picking on gays. keep in mind, i did have to explain "gay" to my neice when she was 5 due to an in-laws bigotry, and her basic response was "anyone kissing is gross, gay or straight" and "who cares if they love each other". kids get to the heart of the matter faster than anyone.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

kissing is gross. lmao. i remember being grossed out around age 6 when i first learned about straight sex. i got over it and that's why i tell grossed-out straight folks they can get over it too.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

LOL. Point well taken. :-) You got that right. Bad comparison on my part.

anastasjoy · 11 months ago

Also, I'm not convinced that making this choice costly for Obama is SPENDING political capital as much as INCREASING it. Even if he doesn't disinvite Warren, which I'm more convinced by the day he should. In addition, I think shedding some light on who Warren really is and what he really supports to do as much damage to his reputation as his inaugural slot will enhance it is important too. We need to counteract as much as possible the likelihood that Warrren is going to be perceived by the media as the go-to guy to speak for mainstream faith in America and constantly quoted on every last thing. I mean, this is a guy who, in the pages of Time Magazine, defended the odious Nigerian Bishop and Republican party tool Peter Akinola, who, among other things, denies the existence of gays in Nigeria while at the same time supporting a law that would order prison sentences for simply meeting or having lunch with a gay person. Akinola is being used by the right as a wedge to tear apart the Episcopal Church. I have a message for Akinola and Warrren: You will not succeed. There are more of us every day, Our church is growing in size. Many are openly gay including our senior priest. In spite of you, we will continue to fight for peace and social justice. And we will continue to expose hate wherever we see it.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

very good point about Obama driving the media to Rick Warren as the go-to guy on faith.

clarknt67 · 11 months ago

Yep, you can already see, that despite people saying "this pick means nothing" That One's annoitment has elevated him to Billy Graham status. Thanks Obama!

Butch1 · 11 months ago

I agree. I think by calling him on this, we are building political capital. He is going to try and make amends down the road some where since his political Achilles Heel is that he can not admit mistakes and will retain Warren to save face. I do think our point ( this time around ) has been made and taken and they will think first before making such a myopic decision when it affects us in the future if they really are going to do what he said he would do for us if elected. Otherwise, for me, I will start looking for a more progressive party to support whether it wins elections or not.

akaison · 11 months ago

He's losing political capital with the press. He has lived by their sword. He , like McCain discovered as a candidate, can also fail by it.

butch · 11 months ago

John - You are over the top. STOP accusing obama of job discrimination!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't see any lesbians writing here very often..."there must be a reason."

liberaldemdave · 11 months ago

Sorry butch, but John's right on this one.

I, for one, will continue to support Obama but I will not sit idly by while we are left out...once again.

As to your comment about lesbians writing here, Pam Spaulding used to be a fairly regular contributor. I'm assuming that the demands of her own blog have taken precedence over blogging here. John (although he needs no outside assistance in defending himself) has assembled a very talented team of contributors at Americablog and they never gloss over the LTB portion of the acronym.

tlsintx · 11 months ago

huh? you don't see lesbians writing here very often? that's funny.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

No one is accusing him of that. I just don't think Obama sees what pain this has caused. And we are just trying to bring it to his attention. That's all. It's not any more coplicated than that.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

Perhaps you haven't looked here long enough to see Pam write filling in for people when they take vacations. Do you really think there are no lesbians who comment here?

Regarding your charge that Obama does not discriminate, what would you call a person who thinks only straights can marry and not gays? I call that discrimination. ( or doesn't that count?! )

liberaldemdave · 11 months ago

This post is exactly why we need to fight this battle all the way to January 20th, if necessary. They expect the LGBT community to do what we've always done in the past...acquiesce. It's time to send a strong, clear message that our days of waiting patiently are over. No more being satisfied with only being asked to entertain and serve at "the party". NO, the time for a seat at the table is long overdue.

Personal Failure · 11 months ago

I love the idea that by shedding light on Warren's true beliefs- actual video of things he has actually said- the gay community is being ridiculous.

If Warren had said these things about blacks or women, we wouldn't be listening to people telling us that we should just let it go, that we are making ourselves ridiculous, or taking cheap shots. Nor would anyone suggest that Obama has the right to have anyone he wants give the invocation.

Frankly, I see Obama's pick of Warren as saying, intentionally or not, "get in the back of the bus, we left you plenty of room. oh, and thanks for the votes, suckers!"

For shame.

ChrisSF · 11 months ago

Yeah, thanks for the votes, and the big contributions, and the phone banking, and the trips to red states to go door to door, now here's a big "FU" as my first political act that affects your community!

clarknt67 · 11 months ago

I care. And appreciate you keeping this in the public eye, thank for that. This discuss of "There are more important things!" is silly. What do people who are posting this thinking? Obama's going to be so tied up on Rick Warren damage control he won't have time to meet with Paulsen or General Petrayus on the big issues? Please. This "fight" is hardly a bleep on his radar, and that's the problem.

Democracy isn't served when voting blocs are taken for granted because the candidate knows there's no viable alternative. Just cause he's Obama doesn't mean he can't be taken to task.

renegademom · 11 months ago

Excellent post. I originally agreed with Carla on this issue, but have since been persuaded, by posts like this one, and comments to others, that John is right.

bamjaya · 11 months ago

Oh for fucking fuck's sake.

No fucking way am I going to act like Pelosi and Reid, and stand there while every goddam wrong thing goes on and assure everyone we'll REALLY take the fight to them next time.

This time. Tomorrow is promised to no one. Tomorrow we will be fighting the re-criminalization of homosexuality if we do not fight the re-banning of gay marriage today.

How do I know? Because we are fighting the permanent burial of Cheney's crimes today because the nice docile Pelosi and Reid took Bush's crimes off the table last year.

What the fucking fuck?

clarknt67 · 11 months ago

Thank you for the comparison, I do love how progressives are ALWAYS screaming about Reid and Pelosi rolling over and play nice with the GOP.

And now so many progressive's advice to the gay community? "Roll over and play nice!"

Butch1 · 11 months ago

Amen!!

Yankee · 11 months ago

Because Rick Warren is a menace to non-gays as well. Go to Talk2Action blog and keep track of the Rick Warren exploits, especially his use of The Purpose Driven Life to prevent military suicides ,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/creationism-the-latest-in_b_147155.html and Christian Reality TV series on TBN with the help of the DOD shows military proslytising to Iraqi's and Afghans using Rick Warrens book.http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/12/15/12544/058/Front_Page/U_S_Military_Now_in_the_Christian_Reality_TV_Business This only brings more questions to the new administration about what direction this country should be taking aka Change.

Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas · 11 months ago

All these uppity white trash jebus freaks are a menace to all because their ultimate goal is to eliminate sex, free speech, womens' rights, and anyone else who is not white, straight, and born again. Backing down on this innaugural mess is unacceptable.

Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas · 11 months ago

Yup...we've been sissies too long. Warren's invocation is HUGELY symbolic. Basically it legitimizes him on a national scale. It subtly says "Go fuck yourselves, faggots and dykes." I am extremely angry with Obama on this.

tlsintx · 11 months ago

Melissa Etheridge had not even heard of Rick Warren before Obama picked him...she has been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I wonder what she thinks now as more of the truth comes out about him...people sometimes don't take the time to look a little deeper at certain issues...Rick Warren has seemed like a more benign, more moderate, more inclusive evangelical to a lot of people, but HE'S NOT! Don't let him hide behind his bullshit...he's a bigot plain and simple.

Ohio_Dem · 11 months ago

I doubt she reads anything at all about this since she hadn't been paying attention before. Unless someone sits down with her, explains it all, shows her video to PROVE what they are saying, explain how her support for him has undermined the LGBT community, etc etc. I doubt she will give this a second thought. He's a fan. He gushed over her. He's coming to dinner and making nice. That's what she knows about Rick Warren.

Indigo · 11 months ago

Working through the system hasn't worked, has it?

The economy already collapsed, recovery will be snail-speed no matter what we do.
This is exactly the right time to make it very costly to move against the gay community.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

good point.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

What are her suggestions on an agenda we should choose to win their respect if they don't give us a second thought when making these decisions?

Wesinoregon · 11 months ago

BlueOregon underestimates our abilities. I think we are capable of fighting on several fronts. Why take them one at a time? That is weakness.

clarknt67 · 11 months ago

Exactly, I think this is faulty reasoning. I really do not understand how fighting Warren's selection somehow translates into weakening Obama's ability to tackle the economy, or Iraq. Will these protests somehow weaken his political capital so he can't get Congress behind his stimulus package. NO. No matter how effective this pushback is the most we can really hope for is bad press.

But that's why Progressives like Blue Oregon is so intent on quieting us. We're getting bad press for Obama. Whether he does or doesn't deserve this press has a strong correlation with whether you're GBLT or not.

But Blue Oregon isn't supporting him as a politician, that's suporting him as a Messiah.

Ohio_Dem · 11 months ago

Obama picking donnie mcclurken WAS intentional. As someone who lives in South Carolina in an area that has a large african american population, I can tell you that they were supporting Hillary if lawn signs was any indication. Our black neighbors were hosting Hillary parties and working hard to get out the vote for her.
Then came the big rally in Columbia with Donnie McClurken. Obama brought him in to rally the african american religious communtiy into supporting him, by using their homophobia. He knew exactly what he was doing. And he certainly knew who McClurken was at least two weeks before that big gospel program because I personally called and emailed his campaign and told them, and received answers from them. Answers that basically told me they didn't give a shit.

So I am not as disposed as you to give Obama the benefit of the doubt with Warren being invited simply because they "forgot" the LGBT community. it's more like he was invitied DEPITE the GLBT community from my experience.

And I believe it is past time to call them on this. I believe this is a fight that has to be done and the more noise we make, the sooner Obama and the Democrats will start listening. Until we make this unconfortable for them, believe me, they have no reason to listen and they won't.

I am so very proud of you John for standing up and being a leader this time around. It's time the GLBT community said loudly and clearly "ENOUGH" and meant it.

clarknt67 · 11 months ago

I'm inclined to suspect that too, this selection was a dog-whistle to the South, "Don't worry, the fags won't be calling any shots. No worries about the Gay Agenda!"

Jay · 11 months ago

Using their homophobia? McClurkin isn't popular because he is against gays and BTW Hillary isn't any more progressive on gay issues.

Ohio_Dem · 11 months ago

McClurken stood there UNOPPOSED and bashed gays for over 30 minutes at the end of that program. The Obama campaign, to appear "fair" decided to invited a religious person to represent the LGBT community. They chose a WHITE GAY minister, giving credence once again to the myth that being gay is a white man's "disease". Out of the entire state of South Carolina they couldn't find ONE african american gay person of faith, not one african american PFLAG parent. Nope they chose a quiet, soft-spoken white minister who left as soon as he spoke, and there was no one to refute the hateful homophobic things McClurken said.

I didn't say that Hillary was more progressive on gay issues. I said she had a great deal of outspoken support among the african american community where I live. They were educated, motivated, and well respected community leaders and they were getting out the vote for her.

devlzadvocate · 11 months ago

I care about RW as the introduction to the Inauguration of the next president. I would care about that if he were picked by any president-elect. More so by president-elect Barack Obama. However do I care personally about RW? No.

This selection of RW along with the cabinet choices makes me wonder what Obama's selection of a Supreme Court Justice may look like.

That's what has me wondering!!!!!!

When Pat Robertson says he loves those choices, I put on my running shoes.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

If Obama is trying to be inclusive to everyone (save, us) and expects us to understand why Warren was his choice, then why hasn't he asked David Duke to offer his words of wisdom at this event? Wouldn't he also, expect people of colour, Jews and gays to be just as understanding? Hmmmmm...but that's different.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

Yes, it's the SAME exact difference. I have been saying that about Duke as well.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

It's unfortunate that they think it's a different issue fighting against the bigotry against race and not for gay civil rights issues.

Cuneiformed · 11 months ago

I agree with you 100%, John. Grow up, Obamarama.

Tim · 11 months ago

If they picked these people without thinking about the gay community at all, how is it sucking up to homophobes? Wouldn't it just be picking people for other reasons? This is a bit contradictory.

I didn't realize there was a cabinet quota....did Obama also get enough people from the southern methodist persuasion? If you complain about this quote you made up, give an example of a homosexual person who was passed on for a position who is clearly and unquestionably better than the person Obama did appoint.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

I do not believe for a moment that this group is so myopic that they didn't think of the consequences of selecting Warren. We are only 2 % of Obama's base and therefore, expendable in their collective minds. We're small potatoes and it is obvious they do not take us seriously. I can tell you the bus tire tracks do not go well on my shirt. They also counted on us being polite and only wringing our hands because where can we go besides the Democratic Party? I got news for them, they are on notice and if nothing is done for us regards our civil rights, I will be looking for a new party that actually is progressive, something we have needed for along time. A pox on you Pelosi and Reid. If enough people start joining a new grass roots party, I guarantee they will start listening very, very hard.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

I am ready. Sign me up. I have had it with the Democratic party. I used to think we needed to take the path of least resistance to get to our goals faster. But it seems that this is doing nothing. Only breaking off and fracturing into a progressive party movement will do it. I am there...I never thought I would say that....but I am ready. Let's do it. Screw the Democrats and the Republicans.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

Yep, they're on notice and if it's "more of the same" from the democrats these next four years, I will withdraw my support and look into a real progressive party that has the interests of the citizens in mind over corporate and lobbyist interests. Time for some real change.

devlzadvocate · 11 months ago

does that mean our party is still a go?

PS. Above I commented on GLBT issue "centralization" to avoid "mixed messages". A job that I don't think HRC does well. I think the grass roots theme and this centralization go hand-in-hand

We must start to smartly and strategically use what we have learned.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

Yes, we have the "Wanna Party" waiting in the wings if Pelosi and Reid do their one pony act. We may consider changing the name but, we might be back to starting a grass-roots effort at bring about real change. I think the Democrats have taken advantage of us one time too many if they don't get their act together this time around.

fredndallas · 11 months ago

You are absolutely right, Butch1, that BO knew fully well what he was doing and what he hoped to accomplish with it. For one, sending us a signal to STFU and "wait our turn" -- which never comes of course.

I wish you were right about the third party. I've been seduced with that idea for 40 years. Just doesn't seem to work. We need a different strategy with more power. We need to keep thinking.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time to bring enough people around to win an election with a new party in the mix but it might do the Democrats some good fearing that we might be large enough to affect an election and push their insensitive arses out of office should they continue on this centrist course of trying to please those who voted against them and will continue voting against them in spite of those who actually did support and elected them. I would of course, rather see democrats in power than republicans, but if the democrats are not going to include us at the table or do things that continually slap us in the face, then they may need to worry about being voted out of power. I would rather give my vote and support to someone or a party that really meant what they said whilst running for election. I'm very tired of broken promises and an arrogance that says " you'll have to put up with us since we are the only game in town, where are you going to go, besides us?" I know where they will go without us and they need to know it as well.

Wh0Cares · 11 months ago

I say disrupt the Inaguration in a Gay Pride Parade sort of way. Let's let them know we are here, we are queer, and we ain't going away. The skimpier the dress, the better.

njprogressive · 11 months ago

I don't think that would be a very good idea. If anything is done to take away from the importance and symbolic meaning of the inauguration of the first black president the group responsible will feel a backlash of hate against them. While it is important to get our message across, no one should do anything to take away from that moment.

devlzadvocate · 11 months ago

Freedom of speech isn't suspended on Inauguration Day.

njprogressive · 11 months ago

i never said it was.

speaks · 11 months ago

well, we don't need to disrupt the whole thing. Just have blowhorns go off when Warren speaks.

njprogressive · 11 months ago

I personally don't like the idea of any religious leader speaking at the inauguration of any president.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

me too. Jefferson never put his hand on the bible.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

Boat horns should do it. Get them at your local Ace hardware store. Those things are LOUD from a mile away. JUst hold away from your ears please. Then when Warren stops., stop the horns.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

If we surround the perimeter closest to the festivities...that should get some attention. Stand near TV station booths.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

As much as I do not like having prayer dominating every single event this government has, it would still send the wrong message interrupting his prayer. Why not blow the horns immediately after he speaks and boo him as well.
That would show a respect during a prayer and still get our protest across. Being atheist, I find it inappropriate to force everyone to have to listen to that superstitious blather, but there are others who want to give the president-to-be some good luck, and praying to the various spirits etc. is their way. Why don't we invite Sarah Palin's African Witch doctor to march with the gay band and he can shake some rattles or something for effect? Perhaps, he is also a fire-breather and can spit a flame of fire out his mouth or arse at the appropriate times during Warren's "booga-booga"? Just a thought . . . ;-)

clarknt67 · 11 months ago

Whistles too

devlzadvocate · 11 months ago

Skimpy dress? January in DC? I'll be in my Kenneth Cole thigh-highs.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

It's very cold in January.
( perhaps, a full length coat with only a "g" string on underneath.) Everyone could flash at the very moment Warren gives his little invocation. That ought to upstage him. ;-)

or

Let him say the prayer, respectfully being quite until he is finished, then boo him.

JuDeck · 11 months ago

We need to care about everything that is impacting the LGBT community. We've been quiet too long.

Jay · 11 months ago

Well unless you show real strength with regards to Warren then you'll actually be weaker. That means something has to happen. If it doesn't then it looks like the LGBT community is great at yelling online but not effective on the ground and that sets you back. At a minimum you'd have to keep pushing forward even after 1/20 to be taken seriously as a movement.

Do I need one · 11 months ago

Then the only way to scare them is to have mainstream lgbt leaders have some meetings with the Log Cabinettes and the moderate Northeastern Republicans. And then have these meetings leaked to the public at large. The mdoerate, Rockefeller Republicans probably would like to make a comeback, and with the LGBTers they have a chance. I am not saying actually support them on a national scale, but the Northeast moves differently from the rest of the US.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

arlen specter is the only northeast republican who would feel much pressure, but that's a long shot. i bet Log Cabin republicans don't care about Warren. i've read that House dems want to delay consideration of DADT for a couple years. that might be the best place to fight. they will use Carla's bogus argument about political capital and overriding priorities.

Ferdiad · 11 months ago

Again, don't our newly empowered Dems sound eerily similar to their conservative predecessors? Rather than the mantra of the early Bush war days where "we have more important things to focus on in our country" and "we have to suspend slightly some liberties" and the "Nation is in grave danger so back off the liberalism a bit" we now have the Dems parroting the same idea, albeit to a different tune. Just notice the language Carla uses, which is coming out of the political establishment as well, that "if we weren't in such deep shit," then she would agree to take up this fight. If we weren't at war, Bush would have respected the Constitution. Those are big IFs. John, keep up the fight, it is well worth it and you are challenging the status quo, which is EXACTLY why the blogs are relevant, whether it be a Republican, Democrat of Ron Paul in the White House. Remember, the pigs can act just like the farmer if left with unfettered power.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

Well said. So I guess if we just wait for the perfect storm, at some point in the future THEN we can speak out. Well kids, that perfect storm will never happen. The time is now.

akaison · 11 months ago

No- because the difference is that if they perceive gays to have power they will react to us, but the GOP will not.

The difference between the parties is not that one side is a bunch of saints and the other side sinners. It's again how power is used to what effect.

njprogressive · 11 months ago

I can't stand progressives (or those that think they are progressive) who feel that their political capital is finite and therefore should only address the "really important issues". It's absurd and dangerous to imagine a world where the only issues that get addressed are the ones that are politically safe. Of course that's the world we live in now, and that's why its turning to shit.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

". . .imagine a world where the only issues that get addressed are the ones that are politically safe. . ."

. . .or the issues our "so-called" self-chosen leaders of the GLBT community decide they think is important.

caphillprof · 11 months ago

The fundamental problem is that it remains ok in America to engage in anti-gay bigotry. As long as they can put the Warrens of the world in the inauguration, you'll never, ever achieve civil rights for glbtq.

clarknt67 · 11 months ago

Exactly. It is acceptable to compare gays to child molesters.

Any other group (except maybe rapists, murderers) that would be an outrage.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

...as long as you hide behind the bible, you can do or say anything in this country without suffering any consequences. Cowards all of them from the Mormon Church, to brokeback, ....eh I mean saddleback church.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

Perhaps, the GLBT people should start a church and use it the same way these bigots use theirs. How can the government differentiate between one church for another? It doesn't have to be a Christian church, hence all the bigotry associated with the Laws of Moses etc. If they need to be christian, make it only the New Testament and remove what you don't like in it. That's exactly what the early "Christians" did when they canonized the present books and excluded others that didn't agree with what they wanted to present. Fight fire with fire. We allow marriages in our churches and the government and the right are discriminating against our religion. ( as an atheist, I would love to watch how our government tries to handle this. )

timncguy · 11 months ago

There are already existing Christian churches in the US that support gay marriage. One is th eUnited Church of Christ. The ironic part of this is that Obama's church in Chicago was a United Church of Christ church. So, if he actually believed his own churches teachings, he would support gay marriage.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

There is also the Metropolitan Community Church that does as well. Strangely, the government ignores the fact that they are interfering with these churches being able to marry same gendered couples. Though the United Church of Christ is mostly heterosexual, the MCC is mostly homosexual in its membership. My thoughts were of a church, not unlike MCC that holds more gay and lesbian members and structure it where it's belief system is different than the right-winged fundie's approach and let the government have to play Solomon and try and divide up this "baby" of a problem. The point is, the government should not be in the business of deciding which religion gets the favors and that is what is happening today. I wonder if any MCC churches received any money from George Bushes' "Faith Based " scam that the citizens of this country had to pay out to churches?! My guess is that Obama will continue this farce.

akaison · 11 months ago

That will only change when they become afraid of us as a voting block. The real problem is that gays act like we are the first minority to face these issues. We are not. We can learn from what other minority groups did.

clarknt67 · 11 months ago

I agree. I don't think it's premature to think of making a plan for how we GBLT voters will approach the next election cycle. We need start planning NOW to get the word spread around, that there WILL be consequence in our votes, volunteers and donations, if there is not real LEGISLATIVE progress made on issues like DADT, DOMA & ENDA.

Alas, I haven't seen anyone present what might be a good plan.

akaison · 11 months ago

Exactly. Now is the right time to do it. We should be threatening to primary any one who will not support us. That's how you weld power. Sometimes you use the carrot (you sit down and you work with them) and other times the stick (if you don't help us we will make sure your replacement does). Old School Democrats and gay groups understood this.

fredndallas · 11 months ago

caphillprof, you've said it in a nutshell.

And BO knows it!

PissedSissy · 11 months ago

John,

This is one of the most spot-on comments you've made about this issue yet. The point about "fear" is particularly true - and it is a particular SHAME that most people on the left, especially gay people, still do not get this important point.

One only has to look at the Civil Rights movement of the 60's to see that this is so. So many people on the Left these days seem to equate the "non violent" approach the Civil Rights movement as also being "non threatening". Hardly. As my parents often attest, the real reason why things changed in the 60s is not because everyone simply "changed their hearts and minds" when throngs of people took to the streets in "peaceful" protest. Rather, things changed because of the FEAR the "average" American had of SHEER ANGER that brought those throngs to the streets in the first place. Everyone on both sides of that conflict knew full well that the "peaceful" protests were a merely warning that things were not going to remain peaceful for anyone for long if demands were not met.

To have good look at what made this movement something to be feared, read the following for MLK's "I have a dream" speech:

"It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges."

These words scared the hell out of the white majority. Civil Rights legislation passed not so much out of compassion to the notion of Civil Rights itself, but rather out of fear of what would happen if it did NOT pass.

In comparison, any time in recent memory that the Left - and especially the gay community - takes to the streets, there's more "fun" and "festivity" than anything to be "feared". People now expect this sort of "non violent" - and non-threatening protest from us; it's no wonder such "protests" have lost their potency.

But if we're smart, we could use this expectation to our advantage - if only we choose to do so. I've heard there is a plan for yet another march on Washington. This time, we should leave the "fun" and "festivity" at home. This time, we should march into Washington from outside the city limits, in formation. This time, the only sound that should accompany us is the simple, steady tap of an invading army's drum cadence. This time, we should carry only the flags of our home states, and the American flag. This time, we should simply wear one of the six basic colors, so as we stream into Washington gather on the Mall, we leave the indelible image of one large, visible, angry, living and breathing rainbow flag.

The message would be loud and clear: we are no longer here to "play" in the streets, and we are no longer going to play "nice." We're angry, and we're here to claim our rightful place as fully-enfranchised American citizens. And like "I have a dream", the words we deliver must send an equally powerful message of outrage - and impatience.

Whether it is something such as this, or some other means or method, we must create an image of ourselves that America will respect - and fear. Until we recognize this fact, we will continue to be used, abused, and ridiculed by the political powers that be - Democrat and Republican alike.

I commend you, John, for taking the lead on this; please keep up the good work.

Webster · 11 months ago

I like the way you think.

DavidinPS · 11 months ago

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Pragmatist!!! This is EXACTLY right. There are too many "kumbaya" gays who don't understand what you so beautifully make clear: The difference between "non-violent" and "non-threatening." I have been beating this drum for ages to no avail. MLK was not only about speaking softly--he carried a big stick too.

devlzadvocate · 11 months ago

I would only add one thing to what John said. Like somebody we all know, we have political capital to use and we are not using it wisely. Right now, the Obama team has not experienced a loss of political support from the GLBT community because we have not exercised our political "capital". When we do, they will listen. HRC is being oh so careful with their petitions when they should be exercising their power, not giving it away. Waiting will cause it to evaporate. There is no cental GLBT leadership. Everything is decentralized causing different messages. So, they don't have to listen because there is no leadership.

When there is centralization, you can use the political capital you have to exercise the power you have created and gained. That will also help pass bills in States and Congress.

It has to be a NAACP, AARP, etc type of organization that doesn't kow-tow to politicians a la HRC.

Julie · 11 months ago

He has not just lost support of the GLBT community. He has lost the support of those of us who believe the term equality does not just extend to those of color or gender. I was full of hope on election day and the day following. Slowly, the Obama team has eroded this to where I now believe progressives may regret our choice.

Obama is an intelligent guy. If he cannot work to resolve more than one issue at a time, i.e. the economic crisis and global warming and health care, then we should have a progressive in office who can.

What is wrong with only allowing "people at the table" to be those who support the very basic issue progressives support....equal rights?

devlzadvocate · 11 months ago

There is nothing "wrong" with it. From an Obama camp perspective there is the issue of political expediency.

akaison · 11 months ago

Thank you.

A lot of people on the left and in the gay community simply refuse to learn that politics is about welding power and the perception of who welds power.

Webster · 11 months ago

What Carla doesn't seem to understand is that this is just the *first* serious salvo. There's plenty more where this Warren outrage is coming from. They haven't seen *anything* yet.

Daniel · 11 months ago

Thanks, John. You hit the nail on the head!

Jake In Music City · 11 months ago

John, Thank you for your public voice on this. I even used the words from one of your columns to reply to Joe Biden's "Dear Jake" letter asking me to donate to the inauguration fund. I donated more than I should, gave months of my life to knock on doors, phone bank, and register voters to elect Democrats to office. I will not shut up now, when Obama has chosen to elevate the voice of someone I profoundly and deeply disagree with to such a place honor on such an historic day. I am insulted, angry, and appalled. I agree with you...if we don't stand up for basic civil rights for all Americans now, when will we? If we don't stand up against bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic religious tyranny now, when will we? Thank you again for being a public voice for so many of us.

pdxprobert · 11 months ago

Are you saying you don't believe Rick Warren and his followers should have a place at the table and only the gay positive people should be seated? As a nation, we are most likely going to enter into some of the most disturbing times economically speaking that our nation and the world has ever experienced... Rick Warren and his other buds in positions like his, will be there to help the people spiritually and charitably as more families plunge into unfortunate circumstances... What will pandering to the gay community do to help families in general (not just gay families) when bad times fall upon more and more families? Does it ever dawn on the gay community that gay people haven't presented a compelling case that somehow they're damaged by their inability to marry and shown the damage that has been done to them... if the gay community had done that in the past 15+ years the gay marriage movement has been in place, we'd be in that place with full benefits as straight people have... and now somehow the gay community is trying to elevate their call for equality to that of staying off a depression that many are predicting will make the 1930's look like a welcome event.... Personally, I don't care for the elevation that Rick Warren has received, but politically speaking and from a strategic standpoint, Obama chose people who would be more helpful to him in getting our country through this economic crisis... Just what can the gay community provide Obama in the next few years that Rick Warrens spiritual leadership can't? I may not be a religious person and personally think organized religion is archaic... but to many people its their sole purpose for existing and many of them are more apt to provide charitable assistance than the gay community can exhibit or has shown to the greater society as whole... What the gay community did as far as the AIDS crisis is commendable, but we are now looking at a crisis of equal magnitude economically speaking.... the AIDs crisis was one that pretty much happened behind closed doors, but the decline of our economy if not rescued will present hurting people just about everywhere we look.... tell me why gay marriage is more important or equal to saving the country from economic ruin?

TampaZeke · 11 months ago

Why are you and so many others of the mind that the US Congress is completely incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?

Do you realize that the Civil Rights Act was a result of activisim that continued throughtout the sixties in spite of people telling the activist that "now isn't the time", "there are bigger fish to fry right now", "why should we focus on this when we are in the middle of a war?" etc.

If our government can't handle passing LONG OVERDUE ALREADY, civil rights for gays and lesbians at the same time as they work on fixing our economy and get us out of war then they have no business being in office and should be replaced, ALL OF THEM, post haste.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

people know that gay equality doesn't impede economic recovery. so what you're really hearing in those comments is an aversity to gay civil rights.

akaison · 11 months ago

Bingo- its masked homophobia, whether internalized to the gay person spouting it or externalized to straights spouting it. The fact is that it's just things people say to rationalize how they view the issue.

One of the truest way to test this is to ask them to compare their views on gays to say African Americans. They either say nothing or split hairs or, worse, make stuff up (ie, African Americans never boycotted for their rights).

pdxprobert · 11 months ago

You think so? In the world of corporations, its called prioritizing... The politicians will string along the gay community the same way they string along the pro-life and anti-gay marriage side.... watch and see....gay people arent being attacked by state sponsored guard dogs and fire hoses and lynch mobs... theres a big difference in the 60's civil rights movement in comparison to the gay marriage movement... present a compelling case that gay marriage must be approved now. Because so far, the gay marriage movement's leaders havent done a very good job.... Obviously, Obama saw an opportunity for the Rick Warrens of America to fill a need... Why hasnt the leadership of the LGBT community provided an equally compelling case? By attacking me, youre not answering that question....

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

first of all, this is not about gay marriage. but in general, you say the case for gay civil rights is not compelling. however, waiting for every other crisis to blow over would make civil rights less compelling, not more. so it's interesting that you have undermined your own point that we should wait for economic recovery. perhaps group hosings would be more compelling than lots of isolated hate crimes, but it's not something to wish for. we shouldn't be focusing on the physical violence aspect exclusively, but it's true that anti-gay violence is no longer carried out primarily by police. it's carried out by random violent people directed by homophobic clergy and other leaders (boy scouts, military, legislatures). gay rights groups have been trying for years to make that situation -- as well as the non-violent denial of rights -- more "compelling" but there's a lot of deafness on the issue. the push-back on rick warren might be a sign that we're turning a corner.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

Yes, we are being bashed. And fired for no other reason, and there is no law, or lawyer that can help us because there is no federal protection from such events. I could go on, and on. There is nothing special about equal rights, it just is. And the fact that you have such a problem about says a heck of a lot more about YOU than it does us. So go home, and do your personal homework and look yourself in the mirror and ask, "does this really affect ME personally?" The answer of course is "No"...but it seems to affect the twenty million or so Americans who are gay. A situation which we have as much control over as we do having blue eyes, and blonde hair. It is not any more complicated than that.

Stop thinking of this in 'society' this, and society that. This is MY life and my families life that is affected by ignorance. Yours is not. That is the difference.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I am not even going to do a long post: you don't know what you are talking about. Just because you ignore it or are blind to it does not mean something does not happen. You word things in a hyperbolic way - almost like the movie version of reality- but that does not mean that in some ways everythng you describe is not already happening. There are no dogs. There is just de facto discrimination on more than marriage. That and others fixate on that is about YOU.

jurassicpork · 11 months ago

How can standing up to religious and sexual intolerance when it has direct access to the White House be a waste of time? There's a lot of outrage to go around. We can multitask. Obama will fuck up and invite criticism. Warren's a legitimate starting point.

According to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, Barack Obama is the most admired man in America. But you'll never guess who finished #2 and who wound up behind him.

The womens' results weren't much more encouraging. I suppose we should be grateful that Warren's not on the list.

howie in seattle · 11 months ago

I am going to quote Obama from his post on Kos in September, 2005:
I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone. Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/30/102...

clarknt67 · 11 months ago

For the millionth time. There's a difference between engaging and HONORING.

devlzadvocate · 11 months ago

and for the millionth time there's a difference between sincerity and hypocrisy.

Akaison · 11 months ago

who is being insinceriity and who is being a hypocrit? Throwing out words you should provide context of what you mean. This strikes me strawman, another term people just throw out without context of meaning.

devlzadvocate · 11 months ago

RW and BO in the context of their statements on the GLBT community are hypocrits. That's who. Isn't that what the issue is? BO claimed to respect the GLBT community and then selected a GLBT bigot for the invocation and RW made de-grading statements and then repackages his website and visits LA HIV clinics or the like.

I call that hypocrisy.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I don't understant how yoru statement links to the post to whom you replied. I just found it confusing.

Bucky · 11 months ago

While I appreciate Obama's understanding that we need to be open to those that may disagree with us, keep in mind that we aren't talking about policy issues here. This isn't about tax policy or pork spending or where to build the latest military base.

This is about basic equality. It isn't open to discussion or debate. It isn't a difference of opinion. My birthright as an American citizen is nothing less than full equality before the law. No more, no less.

And as Clarknt67 points out, there is a huge difference between engaging and empowering those with whom we disagree. With this selection, Obama has empowered Warren and his foul ideas.

That is unacceptable. And we need to make sure that we send a clear message. President-Elect Obama certainly sent a clear message to the gay community. Let's be no less clear in our response.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Human rights are not subject to sacrifice on the altar of politics. Right now, as a result of "sacrifice", there are gay people dying across this planet including in the U.S. As recently as Dec 18 of this year, the US abstained from voting on a non-binding (that's right non-binding) measure to say that homsexuality should not be illegal by the U.N.

The result of this vote is that the U.S. abstained from saying that killing gays in 6 countries and jailing them in many others is not something worthy of human rights.

This is something heavily supported by the evangelicals, including Warren.

Let me give you a quick example because I am sick of ignorance:

Here is Warren's praise of Nigerian Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...


For those of you unfamilar with who this is:

"Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/us/17episcopa...



Historically, when we go back to Nazi Germany, this law is eqivalent to Paragraph 175 which was used to justify placing gay men in concentration camps. Please don't tell me these sorts of things can not happen again. They already have in Rwanda, Bosnia, and with the Khmer Rouge in the killing fields.

You keep following Obama like a sick kind of puppy in love.

I am going to engage my understanding of civil rights outside of any one candidate or party.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

thanks for that citation. it helps us compose the message, which starts with the fact that mr. obama HAS the majority. the campaign is over. He needs to recognize who his supporters are and take a stand consistent with his rhetoric on civil rights.

ChrisSF · 11 months ago

I'd like to think that equality for LGBT citizens is part of Obama's "fundamental values" and not just another item on the "progressive checklist" that can be tossed out the window or compromised when convenient. But the Warren pick seems to show that that is not how he thinks about it.

fredndallas · 11 months ago

Thank you for the quote. It does enlighten on perhaps how BO is rationalizing his homophobia-motivated choices to himself, but it certainly provides not one wit of logical justification for the Warren honor.

He says, "Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging..." we won't be able to accomplish changes in energy, fiscal, foreign or health care policies.

There is nothing new about Rick Warren's ideas. Bigotry has a very long history.

Justifying choosing Bigot Warren for the inauguration honor to lay the groundwork for changes in energy, fiscal, foreign or health care policies is a stretch of logic that requires hallucinogenic assistance. Not to mention BO's citation of "avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties."

Oh yeah, honoring Bigot Warren and his followers is JUST the way to embrace the peaceful Muslims of the world and to protect civil liberties here at home.

If BO is rationalizing all this, it appears he is having real difficulty in integrating his intelligence with his emotions -- and isn't that a bedrock requirement for homophobia?

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

I just noticed something. If you look at Rick Warren and that goofy smile of next to a picture of the late drag Queen DeVine, out of drag. You can't tell the difference.....I m just saying. (insert levity here..)

devlzadvocate · 11 months ago

So, for every fundie there is a "separated at birth" drag queen"? I'm writing that book!!!!!

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

Devine probably faked his death to become a mega church pastor to make millions in book deals.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

It's the parallel universe theory. In another universe somewhere there is a Rick Warren who accepted his sexuality, shaved his armpits, squeezed into a spandex maternity top and amputated his toes to fit size 11 pumps. While in this universe we're stuck with the sanctimonious closet case in the boring blue button-downs.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

We can't be sure until we hear Warren shout, "Dawn Davenport! You burned my house down!!"

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Ooo!! Ooo!!! I know. We can make Warren eat dogie doo and see if he can hold it down like Devine did in Pink Flamingos!

lynchie · 11 months ago

I am enjoying Christmas up in Montreal with my Sister and my kids. At dinner yesterday were a number of my sister's co-workers, 4 of them are gay men. I asked them about this issue (Warren) and they all responded in just the way you did in this column. The gay community in the U.S. is being ignored. They do not feel the same bigotry here in Canada as they have rights under the law. I think not enough people realize we are all the same in the things we believe in, core values, wanting the freedom to love who we want, etc. I imagine if the issue was about the right for a black man to love a white woman Obama would react differently, yet there is no difference. Some one commented that the gay community needs a central body and in thinking about that it is true, it needs a lobbying, visible head. In circumstances like Prop 8 in California in would organize and lead the opposition to such legislation. In terms of Warren whom ever is the spokesperson could be the visible voice of the whole gay/.lesbian community. That body would then gain support, respect and could not be ignored. There is no real organization and so ignoring the blogs or ignoring a few who speak out is not costly to the political future of Obama and his staff.

TampaZeke · 11 months ago

Well said John.

I think you hit the nail on the head about why this is such a big issue and why we HAVE TO rattle some cages about it.

Mighty · 11 months ago

What I do not hear in this debate about Rick Warren is why its ok to have his anti-gay point of view represented but not the point of view of racists like David duke. They both just have "differences of opinion from the rest of us" and don't we have to be able to disagree without being disagreeable? Can anyone explain to me why it is ok to pick Rick Warren but not David Duke or someone similar? I think its as John has pointed out they don't fear us. We don't matter to them. Had David Duke been chosen the screams that would have been heard would have been deafening.

The other thing that bothers me is that we as a community are not apparently unified. I am seeing from various quarters opposition to us complaining about Rick Warren. If we are not unified in our voices it just gives the other side reason to not listen to us. IMO

pdxprobert · 11 months ago

Are you all saying you don't believe Rick Warren and his followers should have a place at the table and only the gay positive people should be seated? As a nation, we are most likely going to enter into some of the most disturbing times economically speaking that our nation and the world has ever experienced... Rick Warren and his other buds in positions like his, will be there to help the people spiritually and charitably as more families plunge into unfortunate circumstances... What will pandering to the gay community do to help families in general (not just gay families) when bad times fall upon more and more families? Does it ever dawn on the gay community that gay people haven't presented a compelling case that somehow they're damaged by their inability to marry and shown the damage that has been done to them... if the gay community had done that in the past 15+ years the gay marriage movement has been in place, we'd be in that place with full benefits as straight people have... and now somehow the gay community is trying to elevate their call for equality to that of staying off a depression that many are predicting will make the 1930's look like a welcome event.... Personally, I don't care for the elevation that Rick Warren has received, but politically speaking and from a strategic standpoint, Obama chose people who would be more helpful to him in getting our country through this economic crisis... Just what can the gay community provide Obama in the next few years that Rick Warrens spiritual leadership can't? I may not be a religious person and personally think organized religion is archaic... but to many people its their sole purpose for existing and many of them are more apt to provide charitable assistance than the gay community can exhibit or has shown to the greater society as whole... What the gay community did as far as the AIDS crisis is commendable, but we are now looking at a crisis of equal or even greater magnitude economically speaking.... the AIDs crisis was one that pretty much happened behind closed doors, but the decline of our economy if not rescued will present hurting people just about everywhere we look.... tell me why gay marriage is more important or equal to saving the country from economic ruin?

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

"pandering to the gay community" -- that's where you can stop reading. the rest is the same BS about gay equality being an impediment to economic recovery. zzzzzzzzzzz.

Webster · 11 months ago

Under which particular slimy rock do these people come from anyway? If Obama can't handle equal rights and the economy at the same time--we're in deeper trouble than I thought.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

Carla's "political capital" argument might have have made some sense if she were talking about legislation instead of the national prayer. That pretty much gave her away. But the argument is bogus anyway. Obama doesn't need fundie capital to get economic reforms in place. (just to be clear, the difference between the prayer and legislation is that ignoring rick warren would have been a perfectly safe act of omission).

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

I WISH we were pandered to. What a day that will be. Let me know when it actually happens, I will wear something nice for occasion......

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

You offer false choices and a poor case. Sorry my friend.

ChrisSF · 11 months ago

Amen. He acts as if gay rights and fixing the economy were somehow mutually exclusive.

fredndallas · 11 months ago

pdx, your comments appear to spring either from naivety, comprehensive lack of understanding or very foggy thinking. Do some logical examination of the evidence:

Rick Warren was chosen to do this BECAUSE he is blatantly homophobic -- period. That he has popular standing in the secular media was hoped to daunt the reaction from the GLBT community. He was not chosen to accomplish anything toward the economic problem. Such capabilities are hardly his distinguishing characteristic.

Our reaction is not about same sex marriage, although that adds to it. It is about humanity. Rick Warren has gone far, far, far beyond registering a "protest" about same sex marriage in his condemnation of the humanity of GLBT people.

History provides amble examples of what happens to countries that have prospering economies and bankrupt characters.

How do you think the US got in this mess?

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Obama didn't have to choose an outspoken homophobe who lies about an entire group of Americans and works actively against their rights. And your post presupposes that America can only work for one thing at a time, which is not the case. It also pits gay rights against progress, which is false argument. And then there is this sentence: "And just what can the gay community provide Obama in the next few years that Rick Warren's spiritual leadership can't?" That betrays a viewpoint that the gay community must provide Obama with something. And it surprises me to be saying this, but the gay community could provide Obama with some moral leadership and direction that leads to justice for all and an America that is more faithful to its ideals, while the Rev. Warren can't. It surprises me to say that, because Warren and his ilk have cast so many stones and so monopolized "righteousness" that to call gay people "moral" sounds like something new.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

I am sorry....we can't have both equal rights and a good economy?

Hey, how about women? Warren is just as offensive on the subject of women's rights.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Mentioned this below, but thought might put it in a place where you may see it better regarding Warren's additional past actions:

Here is Warren's praise of Nigerian Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...


For those of you unfamilar with who this is:

"Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/us/17episcopa...



Historically, when we go back to Nazi Germany, this law is eqivalent to Paragraph 175

This was discussed at Daily Kos here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/24/191631/90

intrigued · 11 months ago

I think it's such a cynical move to have Warren there, and I didn't want to start this new administration with cynicism. There are scores upon scores of religious leaders who embrace everyone, as part of their religion. I only knew about Warren because just a few days before this was announced I watched the Amber Frey 'made for tv' movie on Lifetime. She was guided by Rick Warren's book, "The Purpose Driven Life", prior to and during the time in which she dated the straight man who murdered his straight wife while she was pregnant and then threw her body, still pregnant with their presumably straight infant, into a large body of water. So, I suppose it's great that he helped Amber Frey during her liason with the diabolical married heterosexual Scott Peterson...Warren has probably helped tons of people like others have said, and lots of them have been the wrong people. Sometimes you have to take a stand for what is right, which Obama needs to do. I feel so disengaged from him now, like 'whatever'. One of the worst things about being a minority is having to deal with the people falling all over each other to tell you it's YOUR FAULT you are a minority. It's easier to deal with homophobes like Warren than it is people like this blogger, who may have a pretense of being on your side but are all too willing to exempt themselves from responsibility by droning on and on about how gays are just doing everything WRONG, and if they did everything right (not realizing all the 'right' ways have been tried and then some) things would be better or different. So you end up feeling betrayed by the very people who claim to support you. I wish these people would just shut it. At least Obama has shown his true colors, 'yes' to the votes, but 'no' to our rights. Does he really think he would lose votes by supporting gay marriage? No, he would not, and he should be able to figure that one out.

Blueflash · 11 months ago

Good article. Unfortunately, this time it definitely cannot be blamed on thoughtlessness. The ruckus we made over McClurkin reached Obama and his staff. They knew this controversy over Warren was coming. What conclusion can be drawn from that seems uncertain but I'm worried we've been had again.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Oh John, you have often been right on, but never more than now! Every word you just wrote is exactly right. We didn't make a big enough stink about McClurkin because many were more concerned about getting Obama the nomination and didn't want the issue to embarrass him in the way it deserved to. And here he is doing it again, but in an even bigger manner. And many would rather the issue drop rather than inject any controversy into the inauguration. But the controversy was put in place by Obama himself. I agree with you. He is not our enemy. He just needs to respect us, and in Washington that respect usually includes a hefty dose of fear. They certainly like our money. Too bad we have to make it costly for them to pull stuff like this, but clearly we do.

Steve · 11 months ago

BINGO!!! I don't often agree with John, but on this, he is dead right on. I just look at it this way...if a Warren-like creature or a McClurkin-like creature had said similar things about Jews, Blacks, women, Hispanics...whoever would anyone be telling any of them to "get over it" to "look at the bigger picture" or that "he's just trying to reach across the aisle to people with whom he disagrees." Look...I'm all for sitting down with people I disagree with. I'm all for sitting down to discuss issues to find some common ground with those with whom I disagree. However, do you really think that if a white reverend had said that a White person marrying a Black person was akin to a White person marrying a monkey were invited to give the invocation that the same excuse Obama has used would be accepted...that it's just a matter of disagreement and, after all, we have to be able to engage those with whom we disagree? Nobody would countenance that...and rightfully so!

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

Yup. And it's not anymore complictated than that. I was very sad about all of this. Now I am angry.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Me too. Quite.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

BINGO to you too! It's exactly as you say. I remember back during the McClurkin flap when I kept repeating the mantra that if McCain had shared the same stage with an outspoken member of the KKK whom he'd invited to MC a southern gospel tour, it would have all been over for McCain right then and there. But when it comes to gay people America is so accustomed to hearing preachers berate and spew outrageous calumnies and step across the line into politics that even those who totally disagree have become desensitized to it. That's the reason in order to make people understand we so often have to put homophobia into a different context like racism or antisemitism. Otherwise it's like watching someone get shot on tv. No reaction.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

we've all just been shot on tv. let's make the damn tv explode.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Ain't it the truth?! And we're going to have to watch that man deliver the invocation, unless of course we choose not to watch. There's no way I'm missing Obama's inauguration. And who knows what Warren might say?

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

Yes, yes we do. And I am. The Democratic party will not get a cent from me untill I see something pretty impressive...pretty soon.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Same here. And thank goodness, because I've already sent too much money and should really hang on to what I've got, at least until I see an end to the blatant disrespect, be it intentional or oversight.

coolcatdaddy · 11 months ago

That's why i'm changing my registration to Independent on Inauguration Day and I wish other Democrats, both Gay and straight, that are offended by this would do the same.

I've been patient with the Dems for years and they could count on me for my vote and support on the ground. No more.

Respect is earned. Obama and his staff, with the pick and the explanation, have said that LGBTs don't matter in his administration except as window dressing and to provide marching band music at the parade. If they want my respect, they have to earn it.

woodroad34 · 11 months ago

The sheen is off the Obama bloom. As he walks across the water, the hem of his robe is starting to get wet and his halo is starting to tilt. He's turning into a "compassionate conservative" and we all know where that leads.

Older_Wiser · 11 months ago

Well, here comes my Kumbaya moment. Fear? Fear? Fear? Isn't that a tactic of the rightwing? Strength is what we need, lots of it.

I feared my father, but I didn't respect him--I did learn to be strong in many ways, though. When you act out of fear, you make major mistakes. You are assuming that Obama and his campaign team didn't know the extent of the influence of the gay community in his campaign? I beg to differ. The preachers, priests and nun used to try to instill fear in us as kids. It didn't stop me from becoming first an agnostic at 15, then an atheist in my 20s.

Picking Warren was a strategic move, and not "symbolism" at all--Obama is attempting to be inclusive of people who summarily reject the many out of their own bigotry, using that bigotry to instill even more fear in people. The "fear" of straight people toward the LGBT community is simply fear of their own sexuality. I've heard many discussions on these posts about religion, some about people using the "bible" to justify bigotry and hate, some using it to say the 'bible" doesn't condemn homosexuality. Well, using that book to justify anything is just plain wrong. "Fear of god" is just another phrase for "fear of other humans." No modern person is in that book, so it doesn't matter one whit to me what it says. It's far to late for me, at 67, to see this kind of bigotry and fear disappearing, but it's not impossible to think it might happen in the future. No one ever had reason to fear me in my lifetime, although I sure as hell did make a lot of them uncomfortable with my anger and impatience at their ignorance. Do I believe in confrontation and political maneuvering? Hell, yes. But fear? Never.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Hope I haven't misunderstood your post. I think the fear John was referring to was the political fear that we apparently must instill in Washington in order to get respect - respect not necessarily being true respect, but something that brings the same result. I don't think John was advocating or observing fear in the gay community. I also think Obama's assertion that he is simply trying to be inclusive by including an arch-homophobe is nothing but the same cover story he used when confronted about the outrage of honoring Donny McClurkin way back in the primaries. We've yet to see Obama honor a racist, for example, as a way to reach out to them. I agree with you totally about confronting fear. I only wish to point out that John is using the term only in reference to what we must do in Washington in order to be treated with respect. He's not advocating that we be fearful.

Webster · 11 months ago

Absolutely. As a woman stated in "Sicko," it's time the government started being afraid of the citizens instead of the other way around.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Yes, and wasn't "Sicko" wonderful? He used France as an example where he said the government is terrified of the people and more than willing to bend over backward to avoid protest, hence all those vacation days and benefits. And look at their health care system!

FunMe · 11 months ago

And let's not forget "V is for Vendetta":

People should not be afraid of its government, the governmen should be afraid of its people.

ChrisSF · 11 months ago

I never understand it when people talk about opposing Warren as "spending political capital" that could be used on other things. The political capital that is being spent right now is not a finite resource, unless you believe this dustup is going to make Obama and the Democratic leadership turn against us on some important issue, or to push our agenda to the back burner when they wouldn't have done so otherwise. Unless you think Obama is spiteful in that way (and I sure don't), then speaking out can only help with the bigger issues, not hurt.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

they just want you to keep your powder dry, after all it worked so well in the congress.

gymnjim · 11 months ago

Exactly, we want to keep warehouses full of dry powder that our enemies know we will never use.

G.S. · 11 months ago

Here here/hear hear!

The current protests do not represent a finite resource; they are a resource that can expand and grow.

Thanks for Prop. 8 there is now a critical mass of LGBT people and straight supporters with, finally, a mentality and understanding that we are never going back. We are no longer accepting being second-class citizens. We are shaking off the shackles of our "less-than" conditioning. It is a mere corollary of no longer accepting second-class citizenship that the choice by Barack Obama of Rick Warren as inauguration invocation giver is a tremendous outrage that must be protested very, very assertively.

We are, right now, creating new political capital. By the force of our souls. By the awakening of long-overdue self-respect.

Captain America · 11 months ago

The Rick Warren debacle pisses off more than just gay people -- it pisses off straight people like me as well. I have a cousin who's gay, I have friends who are gay -- and Warren is such a symbolic mountain of intolerance. It really has smeared the shine off Obama's apple for me. More than anything, Obama's "explanation" for choosing Warren makes about as much sense as if he had chosen David Duke. Obama welcomes "opposing viewpoints?" Well that argument doesn't hold up when it comes to civil rights. If Obama really believed this, he would have a White Power representative up there with him, to represent the perhaps millions of Americans who are probably racists. But instead he has a "Straight Power" asshole up there with him. Obama's a smart guy, but this pick and his explanation for it are the biggest bunch of horse shit I've heard from him yet.

G.S. · 11 months ago

Great comment, Captain.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

Warren also says women should be subservient to their husbands and those who have abortions are equivalent to Nazis.
Warren is offensive on many levels. I just wish my gay friends were as disgusted with his sexism as I am with his homophobia.

pupmunchkin · 11 months ago

I agree.
Obama's choice of Warren is not only insulting to gays. I voted against Prop. 8, and have been utterly disgusted by it's questionable passage. As a straight married woman with very young children, I'm completely offended by Warren and everything he stands for. I would like to see more discussion of Warren clarified as the misogynist he is, as well as a homophobic bigot. Regardless of their sexual orientation, feminists are pissed off too--we need to join together in protesting Warren. BTW, there will be more "horseshit" from Obama, this is just the beginning, unfortunately.

Gbennett · 11 months ago

I agree with Carla. At the outset of his administration, Obama needs leeway to define the parameters under which future gains by the GLBT community will be won. In inviting Warren to perform this symbolic act at the Inaugural, Obama is seeking to defang the far-right. The right would like nothing better to rally their minions than an immediately pro-gay president. Remember what happened to Clinton?

After I wrote a letter to the editor of my daily paper decrying Obama's decision to invite Warren, several right wingers wrote in defending Obama. If he can get at least some of these people on his side, then his full agenda will have much more chance for success in the long run.

I have no worry that Obama is not on our side and that he probably sees his court appointments as his best way of advancing the GLBT rights cause.

I think it is to our advantage right now for the GLBT community to let Obama do what he needs to do. That is not to say that we shouldn't express our anger. However, cashing in all our chips on this issue would be unwise.

Akaison · 11 months ago

No. Giving Obama leeway will result in what happened with Clinton. He will be pushed in the direction of the loudest voices. The reslut willb e concervatives will control the agenda. Poltiical reality here is greter than just gay issues about why many of you are just factually out of touch with power welding.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Yup. I really want to see Obama succeed too. As a Hillary supporter in the primaries I'm amazed at how much emotion I've invested in Barack and his presidency. I always admired him, but I've come to love the guy, making this whole McClurkin/Warren debacle even harder to take. But we can not let this slide for so many reasons, not the least of which is the political reality you mention.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Well I don't dislike Obama. But i realize he is a politician. So we got to keep his feet to the fire or else he will go where he thinks it is easier for him to get re-elected. For Clinton in the 90s, it was right of center. I want to keep Obama as left as possible. The people here advocating that we just let up on him don't understand that if he is not listening to us, then he's listening to the right. Or, they do understand it,a nd that's what they want. Either way, anyone wanting change should read what Kos over at Daily Kos said. That but-for all of this yelling Obama would not have recently made one of the strongest statements on gay rights of any President. That tells me a long with other issues, ie his backing down on appointing the torture guy, his increase in the economic stimulus, their consider of chanign the composition to green economy and private sector jobs- that yelling at them works. Seating back and saying "oh he knows what he is doing" is the thing that's going to guarantee failure.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Oh I so agree! Alas, my hubby says I have 8 minutes to set the table for dinner. I still get to call him my hubby. We'll see what the Ca. court says next.

Keep up the fight!

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

woah, Clinton had a republican congress and senate for most of his time in office. Obama is going in with strong democratic party numbers in both chambers. There is no reason for him to have to compromise. Clinton on the other hand had to compromise to stop worse from happening.
I know that he CDS is strong in these parts, but how about some reality?

Bucky · 11 months ago

Gbennett, I'm not willing to let Obama "define the parameters under which future gains by the GLBT community will be won." If you think that sitting around quietly waiting for someone to give you your rights is how it works, you have little understanding of the history of civil rights struggles in this -- or other -- countries.

And yes, I remember what happened with Clinton. Do you? He made some pro-gay overtures and the right stood up and yelled and there wasn't a corresponding outcry from the left and Bill (no fool to the shifting political winds) quickly tossed us over the side of the unity float and moved along.

We need to stand up now and let Obama know that we aren't going to sit by quietly and let our rights get traded away once again. He needs to understand that there will be a political cost to ignoring our demands for equality.

Webster · 11 months ago

If that's all the chips you've got, fine. I'm just starting.

Quann Tro · 11 months ago

A few days ago it was "there are no gays in Obama's cabinet! This is an insult considering all we've done for him!

Now that it becomes apparent that there are, indeed, probably gay people in his cabinet, the issue becomes "there are no OUT gays in his cabinet!"

It sounds like you're demanding affirmative action for the out, not equal rights for teh gays.

Akaison · 11 months ago

What gays are in the cabinet?

gymnjim · 11 months ago

Oh I am sure they are going with the old conservative meme that Hillary is a dyke.

Google it; there are only about 529,000 entries on the inter-tubes about it so it must be true. On the other hand less then 4,000 use the terminology "bull dyke"

/snark

Akaison · 11 months ago

Yeah, I read someone seriously claiming that he has a lesbian because Napoletaino (or however her name is spelled) is a lesbian. Apparently, like the people who just killed the Ecuadorian guy in Brooklyn, these posters can tell by looking that someone is gay or not.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

I've been trying to figure a way to tell just from the way people type.

Hi, Akaison. I like the direct way you go after things.

whomod · 11 months ago

Move the goalpost to have bitch material?

Akaison · 11 months ago

Same question: list the gay members of the cabinets or else you are just making shit up.

Quann Tro · 11 months ago

No I'm not making shit up, I'm piointing out hypocrisy and pitiful, whiny bitching.

I'm personally hoping for a country where one's sexuality (or one's willingness to discuss said sexualtiy in public) becomes a non-issue. I'm not sure how this "out" litmus test fits into that equation.

Is the issue really "OPEN gays" or is it a larger question of equal rights for all? Do you really think a civil rights movement has a leg to stand on when it starts out with the proposition that all [men, women, out, closeted] are not created equally, that only those who are "gay enough" are acceptable?

If so, I suggest you prepare for many more years of disappointment and failure for gay rights.

timncguy · 11 months ago

the issue was always OPEN GAYS. If they aren't out, how would anyone know they are gay.

rja4429 · 11 months ago

AMEN, John, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!!!

whomod · 11 months ago

Well I can't complain seeing as how she echoes exactly what I've been saying for days now of forgetting the war to fight a largely symbolic battle.

Webster · 11 months ago

Well then, go talk to her and you can feel all righteous together--because most of us here are NOT going to shut up about how we feel, and this is only the beginning.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Count me in, Webster. And I suspect there are more than a few young folks who will later regret their tacit complicity when they see where it leads. I guess one measure of how far we have progressed is how much youth takes for granted.

Webster · 11 months ago

Good point. Most younger gays have no idea what it was like before Stonewall. If they did, they'd heed the signs and hit the streets!

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

I keep telling people to go see the movie "Milk". Isn't that pathetic? There's no way a movie can capture it all, though "Milk" succeeds beyond anything else. I'm sure our parents felt the same as they saw us growing up taking so much for granted that they did without or fought so hard to achieve. Oh well, I'm waxing philosophical. Look out! Waxing can be very painful! ;0)

G.S. · 11 months ago

Count me in, too. The days of shutting up about civil rights, and religion-based gay-bashing, are over. Rick Warren is an outrage. Barack Obama's picking him is an outrage. I will keep speaking out, and keep protesting, in every way possible.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

I'm right there with you!

ScroopMoth · 11 months ago

Carla, the symbolism can't work its magic unless queers chafe at it!. If Obama is going to get any benefit with Evangelicals, then bloggers like you and AmericaBlog are going to have to bemoan and bemoan. The courage and political independence which Pastor Rick credits Obama depends upon us all to generate "enormous heat." You know, Obama is standing like Shadrack, Meshak and Abednigo in Nebukadnezar's oven, except that it's the hellfire of the homo agenda.

tlsintx · 11 months ago

there is no reason on earth why gay human beings shouldn't have rights equal to straight human beings....

simple as that.

fredndallas · 11 months ago

I'm really proud of John doing what he does best and going after BO's choice of Bigot Warren relentlessly. This is a line in the dirt moment and political capital budgets become secondary when it comes to holding territory already gained. Ask any General. Or P&G Brand Manager.

I know John has lots of experience in WDC politics but I strongly disagree that the Warren choice was capriciously done by the BO people and BO himself.

This was a fully intentional brass knuckle strike at the GLBT community. I also think it was significantly motivated by BO's personal ego & internalized homophobia. The full inventory of intentions I don't know, but the community really needs to figure them out.

The GLBT equality struggle has a unique problem. Politicians (and others) who advocate for us necessarily have suspicions cast upon them about why they are "sympathizers". People who have weak sexual identity have a personal problem dealing with those suspicions.

The vast majority of leaders for black equality did not have to deal with suspicions that they WERE black when they advocated for equality. Male leaders for woman equality did not have to deal with suspicions they WERE women when they advocated for equality. If all politics is local, I submit that all politicians are PERSONAL -- their choices personally motivated.

Look at Hillary and her reluctance to even say gay. Look at BO with his choices and his "semi-freak-out" when it was revealed he had been tested for AIDS.

If my premise is correct, our challenge is to mount actions that directly and effectively contravene BO's personal internalized homophobia. I believe that high wattage exposure of the outrageous intellectually dishonest contradiction represented by the choice of Bigot Warren is the starting place -- and it has nothing to do with getting him to rescind that honor, in my thinking.

Let him LIVE with his choice -- and all the personal emotional discomfort it provides. Let him LOOK at himself! (Believe me, with his level of accomplishment & arrogance, it will take a STRONG, LOUD message to get through to him.) We're nowhere near there yet. We must not let up.

PS: Do NOT allow our enemies to paint this as being all about gay marriage. It is NOT. It is about humanity. And I think we've all made a tactical and ethical mistake by not highlighting and incorporating more strongly Bigot Warren's similar spiritual assaults on women, Jews, etc.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

What an interesting post! You've definitely got me thinking about some things. Thank you.

I also think we need to examine Barack's need for religion, and his choice of controversial pastors to honor.

Steve · 11 months ago

I have to confess I disagree. I don't think that Obama is homophobic. I recall the various times where, contrary to Hillary in particular, he addressed GLBT issues in non-GLBT forums. I recall, in fact, an article in either the DC Blade or Philly Blade that made this observation. John even wrote about it on the blog. I also know that he is for full repeal of DOMA (unlike Hillary). I guess that is why this is so hurtful to me. His actions have spoken rather loudly in the other direction, insofar as addressing GLBT issues in non-GLBT forums (and even hostile GLBT forums...MLK Day at MLK's church in Atlanta comes to mind...the speech at the 2004 convention comes to mind), which is why I'm puzzled.

The fact that so many people see this as a "policy disagreement" is also troubling, particularly in light of Warren's comments.

HOWEVER, fredndallas' post has made me think. I do not think that this move was to be a knock at GLBT people. I think this was more of a way to completely contrast the next 4 years with the previous 8 (where the ONLY people that Bush spoke to moved in lock-step...imagine if he had had an MCC Reverend giving an invocation). So...I guess the sentiment Obama was searching for was good (and I'm not sure ANYBODY would disagree with that). But...they just seem tone-deaf. I know this is not about Prop 8, but I have to think there were better choices if he wanted to find an evangelical on the right side of the aisle to chose and reach out to without rubbing salt in the Prop 8 wound.

But, maybe, just maybe, therein lies the rub. Maybe there just aren't any right-wing, high-profile evangelicals who don't think what Warrent apparently does, and this was the mildest they could find. I guess I could have gone along with it if only Obama had explicitly renounced Warren's particular pedophile and incest statements and that he found them just plain wrong.

Something else DOES occur to me though. I really hope we are not taking our eyes off Warren by focusing on Obama. Warren, after all, is the one we need to continually expose, even after the inauguration is past.

timncguy · 11 months ago

Obama's position to repeal ALL of DOMA versus Hillary's position to repeal all but the provision that allows states to not recognize gay marriages from other states was described by legal experts at the time as "a difference without a distinction". Meaning that full repeal of DOMA will NOT make states have to recognize gay marriages from other states via the full faith and credit clause.

Think about it for a minute. If full repeal of DOMA would put the full faith and credit clause into play, that would mean taht gay marriage would by default be legal in all 50 states because MA no longer has the residency requirement. If this were true (and legal experts have said that it isn't) just how many blue dog dems do you think would vote to fully repeal DOMA? It wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting passed.

Steve · 11 months ago

I don't want to get into a pissing match about Hillary v. Barack. However, this was the deciding factor for me why he was my second choice and she was my third. And guess what..."legal experts" aside, without a full repeal nobody knows what would happen. Moreover, without a full repeal, the court would be forced to declare it unconstitutional, which it does not like to do to democratically passed laws. I would rather take my chances on full repeal. Additionally, Hillary would not even have tried for full repeal. Finally, and more importantly, the two positions say more about how each one feels about LGBT rights generally. I just think, in that regard, Obama was better.

Regarding "'difference without a distinction'" as you aptly put it, I have but one word to say to that...excrement. I am well aware of the "public policy exception" that the Supreme Court has read into the Full, Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. I am well aware that there are public acts performed in some states, which other states do not recognize because doing so, would violate the "public policy of that state." Marriage laws of varying consanguinity come to mind. However, again, without a full repeal of DOMA, you never even get to the question...or at least it takes an extra step. Again, finally, whether full repeal stands "a chance in hell of getting passed" is a question neither you nor I can answer. I'd rather try and do a full repeal, then if we indeed can't, go for the "Hillary option." This notion, among my GLBT sisters and brothers, that we have to settle for less or wait "until the time is right" is just plain silly. My civil rights are not negotiable.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

timncguy · 11 months ago

I'm not suggesting that we wait or not try for the full repeal. I'm just trying to point out to many people that full repeal does not autmatically get us recognition even though some think it does.

Although, things may be looking brighter on this point since a recent court case FORCED Alabama to change the birth certificate of an adopted child who was born in Alabama to include the names of the two fathers who legally adopted the boy in another state. The court cited the "full faith and credit" clause as the reason for the ruling.

I have also tried to point out in other comments what Obama's real position is on federal benefits for gays via civil unions. I emailed his camp for clarification. And his position is for providing federal benefits to those couples who live in a state that has some form of legal recognition for gay couples. If you live in a state with no recognition, then no benefits.

His position is NOT, as some believe, to try to institute a federal civil union system or to force all states to provide civil unions. His position is to use the "bully pulpit" to try to convince states to provide civil unions.

Steve · 11 months ago

I don't think you understand the federal/state distinction...or at least it's not coming through. The federal CAN'T have a "federal civil union." It does not have the authority to do so. However, this is why he supports what used to be called the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (and so does Hillary for that matter). With that law, marriage is not necessary for immigration benefits. As far as other benefits, the federal government is confined by what it can offer, unfortunately, based upon some state standard. Immigration is different because the federal government has the SOLE and UNFETTERED authority to regulate immigration in the Constitution. Sucks, but true.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

do you have any idea why the vast majority of Gay and Lesbian people supported Hillary over Obama? You should find out why...ask them. Because at this point your fantasy about who Clinton is just stuns me.

Steve · 11 months ago

Well, I am one of the gay and lesbian people you speak of. As a gay person, I've never understood my fellow LGBT people's love of the Clintons. Bill completely sold us out with DADT and DOMA. So, no, I don't understand the love of either of them. Educate me.

Living in a relationship with someone from Brazil for nearly 9 years, I live every day with the effects of DOMA.

James McConnell · 11 months ago

Absolutely right, John. Forget Carla. Carla is a class A Airhead. This has to do with Warren, but only on the most superficial level. It has to do with Obama's pragmatism.....his amoral, unprincipaled, Machiavellian pragmatism....his return the Clintonian/Emanuelian triangulation, not surpising with all the Clinton hacks on board.. It has to do with the idealism which he awoke in all of us, gay and straight alike, and which now crushes in his selection of Warren. It has to do with his own greed, and his unpaid debt to the community. And it isn't going to hurt us alone; in ditching idealism, Obama is going to hurt everyone.

Don't be put off by the simpleminded analysis that, oh well, this is just about some anti gay preacher. Who do you think will be the most vocal opponent to the lifting of DOMA and ENDA and the most stridently against ENDA, particularly after Obama elevates him to National Pastor? Yep. It's Persecutor in Chief, Rick Warren. It's almost as if Obama is setting himself up for failure on these campaign promises, by promoting their noisiest detractor.

As you have felt, if not quite articulated, this is a sea change for the Obama campaign, the great departure from the theme of his campaign, the Great Turning. No one, possessed of any real sensitivity to the gay rights issue would for a minute think of doing this to us. No one. Not the Kennedys whose support is likely born of a gay personal association, perhaps that of Jamie Auchincloss, Jacquline's step brother and Caroline's uncle. Not even those who are not attracted to us but just hate prejudice and discrimination would do such a thing. Only the uncaring, the Machiavellian "step on any one", never may care politicians like Clinton and Obama would do this, because as they inevitably justify the means and say, "politics ain't bean bag." When Warren gets the PR boost from this he will oppose Obama unrelentingly, and Obama will rue the day he invited Warren to his inauguration. Those familiar with Greek Tragedy knew what would happen to the Bush administration when he stole the 2000 election: it would end in misery and tragedy. And unfortunately, Obama is going down the same sad track.

Keep at it. ... because Obama's turning away from idealism will hurt many, many more than just gays, and it will ultimately doom the Obama administration to a one term operation. The Clinton's had something to do with this, I'd bet, and it is they who will benefit most when Obama craters in 2012.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

your CDS is amazing. It's the worst case on this thread.

moreleesafer · 11 months ago

Worse than being "tolerated" is being ignored or not even considered important enough to be ignored.

warbler · 11 months ago

Here we go agin: Take it hotheads:

Akaison · 11 months ago

Yeah, I read someone seriously claiming that he has a lesbian because Napoletaino (or however her name is spelled) is a lesbian. Apparently, like the people who just killed the Ecuadorian guy in Brooklyn, these posters can tell by looking that someone is gay or not.

timncguy · 11 months ago

and honestly, even if she is gay, what good does it do for the community to have a closeted gay in the cabinet? Just proves the point that you need to stay in the closet to succeed.

Akaison · 11 months ago

You are over thinking it. They threw that comment out there to bullshit us and rationalize what they think regardless of whether their lies are true.

Honestly, until recently, I never thanked God I was born both gay and black as much as now.

The fact is I have seen all of these games before,but it was over race, not sexual orientation.

I keep having this feeling of deja vu lately. Crazy how much the same old arguments are regurgitated. It's like someone did a find-replace from rightwing copy from the 1970s -80s. that's how much the arguments are literrally verbatim what I heard growing up. Just shit people making up to rationalize.

The Tim Channel · 11 months ago

Think about this. The number ONE issue that most respondents to his online survey of America's problems are the drug laws.
We know he smoked pot and probably more.

http://blog.thehill.com/2008/12/15/legalizing-m...

Obama never promised the homosexuals a rose garden (and he's coming through in spades)

He pretends to take into account the needs of the public through discourse with the blogosphere, etc.
I understand and support the issue of gay civil rights (including marriage), but THE PUBLIC isn't as concerned with that issue (as you point out). What about the issue MOST pressing as identified by HIS SURVEY? That will be REALLY telling.

Will he reform the drug laws as a result? I sent this email through Obama's website yesterday on his SUBMIT YOUR STORY link (http://change.gov/page/s/yourstory):

My story? You don't have time, but here's a fairly big issue that happened along in my life some ten odd years ago.....

Got busted for a couple of pot plants in my backyard after coming home from work on my lunch-hour in the middle of a drug raid on my house. Cops had my children up against the wall with guns on them (ages 12-22). They found a couple pot plants in the back yard and I plead 'no contest' to a felony conviction of "Manufacture of Marijuana" to save my college age kids an early police record (and loss of their student aid funding)

In effect, I traded my kids future for my right to VOTE and own a GUN (I don't care about the gun-never owned one anyway. Do you think I made the right choice, or should I have let my college age kids take the fall? I guess I should care that my country has also labeled me a convicted felon, but since I don't 'fit the mold' (I may be a low life but I look good -Eddie Murphy) I haven't had the employment issues that plague many in my situation.

Congrats on your victory. I was an early an ardent supporter, going so far as purchasing custom Mississippi Tags (OBAMA08 and THATONE)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3000859890/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3000019255/

I also did a youtube video in support of your campaign:

Going Out of Business
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH0oJzT9WIg

Maybe you could put some sanity back into the drug laws? I know it's high on the list of AMERICAN priorities, as do you.

I am a white professional male with a college degree, no history of violence and have successfully put (myself) and several children through college. I also smoke pot and have been to Amsterdam where it's legal. I feel safer walking the red light district in Amsterdam where sex and drugs are legal than walking the streets of Jackson Mississippi where it is not. My neighborhood is under siege because drug gangs move in to set up retail shops in rental houses close to the home I've lived in here for over twenty years. I try to keep friendly with them, and they know I won't rat them out, but I'm afraid that it is not a situation which is conducive to raising young children. Being a middle class white guy in a predominantly black urban neighborhood, I notice how many of my neighbors have no appropriate male role model because Daddy is in jail. Most of the time, Daddy is only guilty of participating in delivering drugs the community is more than willing to accommodate anyway.

My house may also be suffering foundation troubles from the constant rumblings of the low flying helicopter surveillance that makes the neighborhood feel like a suburb of Beirut.

I'll admit it would have been nice to have actually been able to VOTE for you, but since I'm a menace to society, I guess that's off the table.

YOU can do something about it. I wonder if you'll have the backbone?

I post at Talking Points Memo as well as my own site: www.thetimchannel.com

I'm willing to wait until after you get done prosecuting the war criminals who, on top of everything else, authorized the torture of toddler's testicles (see testimony Yoo, John) in support of their hunt for WMD's and Osama(?) in Iraq.

The ball is in your court. All America is watching.

Enjoy.

sullivan · 11 months ago

Does Obama have any gay friends?
This is an important question because if he did he might see his choice differently.

foxy · 11 months ago

No more Mr. & Ms. Nice Gay...Got it?

Demo_Dave · 11 months ago

The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

willnyc · 11 months ago

As John A, says, we're not going to get anywhere until we scare them by boycotting, by withdrawing our names from their donor lists, by withholding money, and by being very public about it all. I don't know about y'all, but I've got tons of energy and focus to publicly uncover every homophobe hiding behind a Bible, and every politician who wants to make me a second-class citizen. We must be as relentless as they are. Rick Warren is just the beginning. Ever since Warren recently removed anti-gay shtick from his website and then went on a "fact-finding mission" into the wilds of gay WEST HOLLYWOOD (have you seen the videos? pandering, anyone?) obviously he's running scared. Let's keep the pressure on. Now is the time.

Don · 11 months ago

Amen amen amen

tlsintx · 11 months ago

Ricky's religious views don't trump my equal rights under the law.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

his views do trump your rights as long as you support politicians who give him a voice.

tlsintx · 11 months ago

no. they don't.

NGLTF · 11 months ago

Carla: "To burn through political influence on Warren seems frivolous in the face of the monumental problems on our collective plate..."

This is the key quote. Carla assumes that glbt people don't legitimately deserve equal civil rights and are "burn(ing) through political influence" by merely being too uppity since the Warren issue is "frivolous". This mentality and carefully crafted meme is EXACTLY what the Republicans and the fundies want to perpetuate. It is in the same category as those on the Religious Right who say they are against gay marriage but support civil unions - full well knowing that 14,932 seperate legislative battles for each and every individual spousal right is NEVER EVER going to happen.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

join the women under the bus where Obama and the media threw us. We too are told, even by other women that there are more important things to worry about that equality (we are 51 percent but hold only 16 percent of the power in congress). How can gay people and women be so selfish as to want the same rights as straight men?
BTW, Obama is just another pasty faced straight white guy with darker skin.

Jackson Thersites · 11 months ago

Since the Stonewall riots in the summer of 1969 the LGBT community has made extraordinary progresses in dismantling our criminalization as well as laudable progress in protecting our rights. We have at this point achieved a respectable second class “separate but equal” status in the minds of significant number of Americans including Barack Obama. Fighting for full equality, marriage and military service rights, sadly to Carla Axtman is an unworthy expenditure of our precious political capital.

I’d like to make a withdrawal from her bank of political capital of all that has accrued on the basis of my hard work and financial support and put it into a new bank, one that will spend it on finally accepting me as a fully recognized citizen of the country of my birth.

Anthony Look · 11 months ago

I am an American, my rights are intact in my heart and soul. That a weak president like Obama does not have the fortitude to overcome his political haribingers is of no consequence to me. Obama is a non issue, false prophets from any religious tradition are of no consequence, hate speech and racism are mere words.
I will not spend the next four years capitulating to a president that is far from being a statesman on gay issues.Eight disgusting years have been witnessed full of cowards in the press, in politics and in the churches capitulating to a president that brought a war with lies, that outed a CIA agent, that made torture synonymous with America, that brought our economy to our knees. I made the mistake of voting for Obama, this will not happen ever again; further my energies my sweat will not support any of his goals. He is not a friend of the gay community and we must not waste the next four years bowing to a leader that has no spine, capitulating to a leader that sees our community as a political chess piece. This selection of Rick Warren either is rescinded or Warren apologies and instructs his flock likewise and additionally Obama must demonstrate some semblance of understanding that the selection was insensitive and wrong.
We have supported and voted in a man that is giving a spotlight to a gay racist spokesperson, a man that has not asked of him to backtract his hate speech; as such he is condoning his actions. We have made a tremendous mistake. No amount of double talk about reaching out and unity disqualifies this mans hate speech. This is totally unacceptable. Obama is as digusting a politician as Bush and we must not sit silently and allow these actions to go unnoticed and forgotten. This may divide the gay community to those that are Ethridge like appeasers to the cause; but, more many the honeymoon is over and no bribe, words, or measured actions will ever replace the apologies that should have already been offered.

are_you_serious_john? · 11 months ago

John,

During the primaries you could care less that Donnie McClurkin was asked by Obama to campaign and do outreach for him. You could care less that Obama wouldn't even meet with the Mayor of San Francisco to avoid being associated with gay marriage. You in fact banned anyone that dared point out to your shrill queeniness how conservative Obama was and how he was no friend of the glbt community. Now we are stuck with prop 8 passing because african americans voted for it over 70%. Now we are stuck with Obama because people like you trashed Hillary link drunk Republicans with Clinton Derangement Syndrome despite her clearly more liberal attitudes and outreach. It was because of fools like you that we are not stuck with Obama for at least 4 and probably 8 years. Fine... He's still better than McCain, no doubt. But don't blame Obama, he hasn't changed. He's the same as he was during the primaries! You're just not so insane in hating Hillary like puppets of the GOP that you're finally paying attention to the facts that were always in front of you!!!!

Obama is a conservative black man. To expect him to push for or even lobby for gay marriage is insanely stupid - just like most of the posts you made during the primaries are! Welcome to the world of hard cold reality that most of us tried to point out to you for the last year! I'm glad you're finally done with having your head up your ass, too bad the country has to pay for your delay in pulling it out!!!

Just remember though John, as much as Obama is not going to go out of his way to give gay people equal rights, he's no republican. He's also unlikely to take away the rights that have been obtained after so much hard work. Unfortunately his voters weren't so kind when they took away the rights of so many americans for prop 8. We can trace that success right back to folks like you that were so adamant to have Obama as the candidate... Thanks!

LeftCoastOracle · 11 months ago

Look, I live in CA too and Prop 8 would have passed even without the 70% black vote so enough with blaming black people for it. I voted for Obama because Clinton is waaaaay too conservative for me - remember her vote for the war?
If you think that Hillary Clinton would have fought for marriage rights for us you've got your head up your ass. She doesn't believe in marriage equality any more than Obama does.

Obama is a pragmatist. Look it up.

Joel · 11 months ago

Clinton is waaaaay too conservative for me - remember her vote for the war?

Yeah, right. Now that Obama has caved on the war, that's even more meaningless then it was back then.

The fact is, and always has been, that Obama is no friend. Remember, Obama has always opposed Gay marriage.

LeftCoastOracle · 11 months ago

As had Hillary Clinton. If you wish to appear credible, be careful that the person you're defending has a cleaner record than the person you attack.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

Actually Clinton is more liberal than Obama and even her voting record stands up to that claim. Her vote on Iraq was to slow bush down which you would know had you watched her address to the senate. and then lets do the math....bringing white women to the polls (as opposed to driving them to stay home with race baiting and sexism) would have made all the difference.
Black women voted for prop 8 at 75 percent..... and you think that has nothing to say about the black religious community and Obama as part of that community?
Now, tell me what percentage of white women voted for Prop 8......

LeftCoastOracle · 11 months ago

My my, my, folks are very sensitive about this issue. What I asserted was that the 70% of black voters who favored Prop 8 didn't make the difference. It would have passed even without their votes. I said nothing beyond that.

But now that you mention it, It says a lot about the way black voters felt about Prop 8 and it means that we have a lot of educating to do. Barack Obama has made the same statement about marriage equality that Hillary Clinton has made: they both oppose gay marriage. Obama is a pragmatist, neither purely liberal or conservative.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

ps... Clinton is NOT opposed to gay marriage, she said it is a state matter and as a point of law, she is right.
She doesn't defend DOMA she says it stopped the push for a constitutional amendment. She said she would get rid of DADT as it did not work the way it was supposed to. At the time it was passed to stop the alternative which was "no gays in the military".

monitor · 11 months ago

teresainPa,

The Primary is over.

sitemonitor

tlsintx · 11 months ago

bullshit. saying gay marriage should be left to each state to decide is more chickenshit than letting Rick Warren say a prayer at an inauguration.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

Sexism is fine with lots of people, false claims of racism against the Clintons and Hillary's supporters were a fun political strategy and effective when jackasses like Tweety and Olberman were there on TeeVee to back them up. Homophobia...not so much fun. Sadly sexism and homophobia are just two sides of the same coin. The problem is that some people do not know who their real allies are.

LeftCoastOracle · 11 months ago

Sorry to say but Obama is pretty deliberate in his strategy. He intentionally works with people all across the spectrum: gay to straight; right wing to left wing; all colors, nationalities, ethnicities, etc. He believes in leading by example in the hope that sooner or later we get over our differences. I just hope it's not too much later. I'd like to see it happen before I die.

timncguy · 11 months ago

well since he is working with the anti-gay bigots, when is he going to start bringing the racists and anti-semites on board? All this proves is that he thinks anti-gay bigotry is less important than racism or antisemitism. To Obama gay rights (not just marriage) is nothing more than a discussion of "social" issues and not a civil rights issue.

Lou · 11 months ago

Great post. And yes, I also subscribe to the "gotta make some waves" approach. Probably wasn't intentional on Obama's part to pick this slime bucket Warren, or McClurkin, and it still hurts!! If we don't raise a stink, it'll keep on happening. Since when is bigotry promoted on the front of the stage?!!?

I'm cutting back on my efforts with Obama and change.gov until I hear and see some dramatic CHANGE in their FULL ACCEPTANCE of LGBT people.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

so what you are saying is that Obama is stupid? He didn't know what he was doing twice?
Come on, this is the guy Obama wanted to give the invocation. It may be because he thinks he can win over the evangelical vote in 2012 or it may be that he agrees with the guy. What it is NOT is unintentional.
This is the guy who refused to have his picture taken with Newsome not because he is gay but because he is too gay friendly. Unlike Clinton, Obama is all talk, he has never done a damn thing for gay people including never walking in a pride parade or being interviewed by the gay press. Even Sarah Palin has a better record on gay rights.
What Obama is is all talk and this choice of Warren is how he pays you all back for drinking the kool aid.

Steve · 11 months ago

Ok...what has Hillary done for gay people? Bill certainly sold us up the river.

willnyc · 11 months ago

At least I shook hands a couple times with Hillary Clinton at the Gay Pride Parade here in NYC. Has Obama ever made an appearance at the Chicago Gay Pride Parade?

Steve · 11 months ago

Kudos to her for doing so. Kudos to Bloomberg, Giuiliani for doing the same thing. What's your point? I'm just asking...is the best she can do? I do note that Obama's HRC rating was lower than Hillary's...hers was 95, his was 94 for 2007-2008; 2005-2006...same rating of 89.

Robert · 11 months ago

Are we talking about Obama or Hillary?

We are talking about Obama, and he threw us under the bus!

Steve · 11 months ago

Huh? For one...he has given interviews to the "gay press." You need to check that out. Second, as I said below, he had the same ratings as Clinton from HRC since he has been in the Senate. As I also said, Giuliani and Bloomberg marched in the pride parade in NY. Hell, at least two Catholic Churches march in the pride parade...guess that means the Catholic Church is pro-gay. This is all just silliness comparing the two. There are no measurable differences where the rubber hits the road (except Hillary's lack of wanting to overturn all of DOMA). I am no fan if the Clintons, particularly Bill, after he sold gay people up the river with DADT and DOMA. I admit that Hillary converted me with her convention speech because I came to believe that she actually believed that her campaign was not about her, but was about the people she sought to help. Kudos to her. Back to the issue at hand: Obama screwed up, period. Do I think he is homophobic? No. Do I think he's tone-deaf? At least. Beyond that, I won't say anything about his motives. My goal is to make people see that this is not about a difference of opinion about same-sex marriage. It's about a bigoted preacher equating my relationship to pedophilia or incest. Beyond that, I can only surmise about a person's heart. We CAN shame him.

teresaInPa · 11 months ago

turning?
No, he is in love with his own image as a "uniter not a divider".

cilidog · 11 months ago

Bravo! Let's start this movement. We must encourage friends to change from Dem. to Indep. on Inauguration Day. I, for one have given far too much to the DNC over the years. All of their mailings now thrown in the re-cycle bin.

pdxprobert · 11 months ago

Based on the wrath I incurred on some (most) of my comments, all I can say is many of you are no better than those that think we should not talk or bring to the table the president of Iran, and that we should just bomb them..thats the best comparison I can offer to your responses.... We can't reach the next level of discourse on gay marriage and equal rights all around, unless we acknowledge those whose view is different than ours and work from there... Warren is not a Hitler or any of the other tyrants that war and no diplomacy was the only course to take....

You all seem to think that because Ive accepted Obamas decision that I support and agree with the perspectives of Rick Warren..and I couldnt be farther from that position... Im still wating for one or more of you to tell me how youve been harmed so far in a tangible way because you cant be married? When you come up with that list of harms that you can make a grievance that the courts will honor, then you will have your case to take to the Supreme Court... I layed out a perspective to offer for a couple or an individual to make in a court of law, and all that was done was it was torn apart and said it wouldnt work... I have this strong belief when gay marriage or the equivalent of it is finally legalized, it will be based on constitutional guarantees of freedom from religious bias and prejudice (1st amendment) and the equal protection afforded in the 14th amendment... and that is where my plea was written against..... good luck and I hope the person or couple that takes this battle to the courts doesnt put their efforts up for your scrunity because if there's anything Ive learned the past 8 years, is that the most opposition Ive ever encountered in the role of activist has been from my own side..... tuta fini

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Sorry. I read your post just now, and then went back to your previous posts and read the replies. The answers are all there in the replies. It appears you just aren't listening to what a lot of people have said.

pdxprobert · 11 months ago

Then I guess we should be hearing real soon about a supreme court case on the docket thats going to finally decide the gay marriage issue for the nation.... start spreading the word....maybe you could provide a tip to John in advance of the actual news...

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Ah HA! You said, "tuta fini", but you weren't tutto finito.

pdxprobert · 11 months ago

Busted....and I was wondering how to spell it...thanks...

Robert · 11 months ago

You've all been had by your own God, Obama.

You've been had suckers!

Joe Nagel · 11 months ago

John,

I agree we need to make politicians take us seriously. I have a simple suggestion which I hope you will consider promoting if you think it might help make Obama stand up and take notice. All of us who are gay and contributed to Obama's campaign contact the campaign and ask for a refund. Political theater? Sure. But as Harvey Milk said, "all politics is theater." And we have to start somewhere.