A Spit In The Eye

This must be a record, winning Time's Person of the Year and Atrios's Wanker of the Day on the same day.

Lookie here who's giving the invocation at the inauguration:

President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony will feature big names like minister Rick Warren and legendary singer Aretha Franklin, the Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies announced Wednesday.

Warren, the prominent evangelical and founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, will deliver the ceremony's invocation. The minister hosted a presidential forum at his church last summer that challenged both Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain on a host of faith-related issues. Warren did not endorse either presidential candidate.

But there was the matter of a little initiative that he did endorse heartily:

His public support for California's Proposition 8 -- the measure that successfully passed and called for outlawing gay marriage in the state -- sparked the ire of many gay rights proponents, who seized on a comment in an October newsletter to his congregation: "This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."

Memo to President-elect Obama and the whole transition team: when choosing the person to give the invocation at the inauguration, there should have been a Proposition 8 litmus test -- only opponents need apply. I agree with BarbinMD:

What a spit in the eye to the GBLT community in particular, and to anyone who supports equality, dignity and justice under the law.

Not to mention the progressive movement as a whole. The thing is, there's no shortage of progressive Christian pastors, ministers and priests who opposed Proposition 8 and are no less Christian than Rick Warren. Sure Warren may be better known, may have sold a whole lot of books and brings with him the added bonus of sending a dog whistle signal to Christian conservatives that he's their president too, but what about sending a signal to the LGBT community and broader progressive community who, ya know, actually supported him and worked our ass off for him? Reinforcing the false notion that the only real Christians are conservative Christians is NOT change I can believe in at all.

Teddy Partridge has Warren's video endorsement of the Hate amendment that makes it unequivocally clear why he is unfit to appear in any official capacity at the inaugural ceremony. Watch it if you can.

Update [2008-12-17 17:49:40 by Todd Beeton]:If you'd like to register your displeasure with the pick, calling Dianne Feinstein's office might be a good place to start. As the Chair of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, Feinstein announced the line-up -- including Warren -- today, calling it "superb."

LA: (310) 914-7300
SF: (415) 393-0707
DC: (202) 224-3841

Tags: Barack Obama, Rick Warren (all tags)



Re: A Spit In The Eye

It seems like Rick Warren kinda gets a free pass for not being as awful, or maybe as partisan, as some of the other evangelicals.  I agree that we can do better than that.

The problem with according someone like Warren the status of "America's Pastor" and basically endorsing the notion that he speaks for mainstream religious America is that it gives the guy an awful lot of power.  What happens down the road when he predictably denounces one of your policies?  Unless Obama is secretly tight with Warren the way Nixon was tight with Billy Graham, I really think it's a dangerous game.  And I empathize with those who don't like the signal it sends.

by Steve M 2008-12-17 12:45PM | 0 recs
But how can Warren be...

"America's Pastor" if he thinks it's OK to treat at least 10% of American citizens like crap? Warren defends homophobia, plain & simple. It just reminds me of what happened during the primaries when Obama embraced homophobic bigots like Donnie McClurkin & Kirbyjon Caldwell. And when we spoke out against it, he threw us under the bus.

I hope this doesn't happen again with Warren. Dump Warren & invite a minister to speak at the inauguration who's willing to share the "love of God" with everyone, not just straight WASP registered Republicans.

by atdleft 2008-12-17 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: But how can Warren be...

It just reminds me of what happened during the primaries when Obama embraced homophobic bigots like Donnie McClurkin & Kirbyjon Caldwell. And when we spoke out against it, he threw us under the bus.

They laughed when we said Hillary was the progressive candidate.

Who is laughing now bots?

by KnoxVow 2008-12-17 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary also opposes gay marriage moron

Troll rated for personal attack. I never said Hillary was a progressive. I said she was more progressive than BHO.

Hillary would of never picked a bigot and homophobe as Warren.

Do you think differently?

by KnoxVow 2008-12-17 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: As a matter of fact I do

Hillary Clinton is loved by the GBLT community for all she has done. Why do you feel the need to smear her? Get over your CDS please. No politician is more respected by the GBLT community than Hillary Clinton. So please STFU because you are talking out of your ass bot.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-17 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary also opposes gay marriage moron

No, you said she was "the progressive candidate"

How do you think you can get away with lying about what you said two posts up?

by lojasmo 2008-12-17 06:55PM | 0 recs
why not just ask her out on a date already?

and get over your obsession?

In fact Hillary DIDN'T  run the Donnie McClurkin come home to Jesus homophobic Gospel tour and hate fest during her campaign.

by Teacher1956 2008-12-17 02:25PM | 0 recs
On the other hand, if you want to do something

Are you looking for someone else to email to express your outrage?

parag.mehta@ptt.gov (Parag Mehta is Obama's LGBT liaison in the transition team.)

by judybrowni 2008-12-17 06:48PM | 0 recs
Who is laughing now?

Apparently, Clinton supporters like KV, who find discrimination hilarious.

KV, you know, even if you do not care, that Clinton supported DOMA.  You know that Obama opposed it.  I don't know how you could reach the conclusion that "Hillary was the progressive candidate," but it clearly wasn't her position on equality that led you there.

Would Hillary have selected Warren?  Yes, easily, as evidenced by the ease with which she supported DOMA.

by Drew 2008-12-17 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Who is laughing now?

Why are we still refighting this?  Virtually none of this is true OR RELEVANT.  Enough.

by Steve M 2008-12-17 04:26PM | 0 recs
Ask the Clinton supporter

Who claimed that Clinton was clearly superior to Obama on these issues when at best, she was slightly worse.

She supported DOMA.  Still does.  He did not.  Still doesn't.  That's the truth, and I don't see any reason to ignore it, especially when her supporters are wrapping her - and themselves - in thoroughly undeserved self-righteousness.  

I don't see any reason to give Clinton - or her supporters - credit for good work she doesn't deserve, especially in this context.

Really, Obama is taking his supporters for granted and promoting a bigot like Warren.  He should be held accountable for that.

I don't see how lying about Clinton's record does that.  In fact, I'd say it does what it has always done, which is allow Clinton to avoid accountability for her actions.

But hey.  She marched in a parade!

by Drew 2008-12-17 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Ask the Clinton supporter

Oh, for the love of Christ, she doesn't support DOMA.  Can we stop lying about people now that the primary is over and there's nothing to be gained by it?

by Steve M 2008-12-17 05:35PM | 0 recs
She herself has said

That she does not support the full repeal of DOMA, and even that small and transparently political concession is little more than a year old.  Before that, she opposed any repeal of DOMA.

Meanwhile, Obama has never supported it.

To paraphrase Truman, I'll stop telling the truth about Clinton when her supporters stop lying about Obama.

by Drew 2008-12-17 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually she kinda did

Of course she didn't repudiate that provision!  It was the law long before DOMA that states didn't have to recognize any foreign marriage that violated their public policy, and it would continue to be the law if DOMA were repealed tomorrow.

Having that provision written into law changes nothing, takes away no one's rights, and is arguably even a boon in that it removes one of the key arguments in favor of a federal marriage amendment - the idea that federal action is necessary to prevent one liberal state from effectively mandating gay marriage for the country.

If you want Utah to have to recognize that Massachusetts marriage, repealing DOMA doesn't get you there.  You'd need a new federal law requiring them to recognize it.  And while I'm in agreement with the concept, I don't know of a single candidate who has indicated they support such a law.  And honestly, I don't even know if it would be constitutional.

But nobody likes to do nuance.  So Obama is "better" on GLBT issues because he favors a "full" repeal of DOMA.  And for supporting a repeal of the only part of DOMA that actually takes away anyone's rights, Hillary gets smeared as a "supporter of DOMA."

Now, shame on me for letting myself get lured into this primary-war threadjack, and I will say no more on the subject.

by Steve M 2008-12-18 03:03AM | 0 recs
Re: But how can Warren be...

You are so one-note.

by mikeinsf 2008-12-17 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: But how can Warren be...

Hey, I have no idea.  I thought America was about tolerance and Jesus was about love.  But I guess I'm just a silly liberal.

Obama has sent some mixed signals on GLBT issues.  He specifically mentioned gays in his victory speech, which he didn't have to do.  He called out homophobia in the black community.  These things count for something.  On the downside, there's the stuff you mentioned.

Clearly, this is not a litmus test Obama is prepared to apply, and maybe it's too much to expect that of him.  But I just think it's politically dangerous to go around reinforcing the notion that mainstream religion and hostility to gays are inexorably intertwined.  I think we need to give more microphone time to the religious left in this country, and when I say the left I don't mean people who simply aren't as bad as the crazy right-wingers.

by Steve M 2008-12-17 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: But how can Warren be...

Exactly my problem with the pick. It says there is one voice on this left and right- when Christians themselves are split on this. You have one church about to split over the issue. So giving comfort that one side is right by having one of his central proponents as your preacher on the day ou are inaugurated is a mistake. this is a lose-lose. He should have choosen someone safe

by bruh3 2008-12-17 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: But how can Warren be...

Comment by KnowVox | 2008-12-17 17:55:58

Did everybody see how The One threw the GBLT community under the bus? It's safe to go back to MyDD and post there as well. I have been posting for 2 weeks now and have not been hide rated or banned. The place is dead and it woud be great to take it back to further our cause of exposing Obama as a fraud. The trolls and obots got tired of the place.

Go back to NoKKKuarter.

by PotVsKtl 2008-12-17 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

I disagree, Steve.  In spite of his retrograde position on Proposition 8, Warren is principally a threat to the right, not the left.  He gives lip service to red-meat issues like gay rights and abortion, but is working to steer the evangelical movement to devoting much more of its attention to supporting economic development, fighting global poverty, and tackling environmental destruction.  If we are going to break up the rock-solid Republican evangelical block, building positive ties with Rick Warren seems highly desirable.

by markjay 2008-12-17 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

He compared evangelicals doing community work as their focus rather than conservatism as their issue as socialists.

My problem with the choice is that there are other Christians out there besides the Christian right. It's spit in those Christians face to say that this is main face of Christianity.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

How is he the "main face of Christianity"...?  He is delivering the invocation...  The benediction is being delivered by Rev. Dr. Joesph E. Lowery, a giant in the civil rights movement... How is Dr. Lowery not the main face of Christianity or an equal face?

by JenKinFLA 2008-12-17 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

Well, I dunno.  As with a successful politician, it seems to me that people have a way of seeing what they want to see.

The alliance between the Republican Party and the evangelical bloc has more to do with machine politics than with ideology.  People like Ralph Reed realized that hey, I have the power to deliver a lot of votes, provided there's something in it for me.  Obama probably does more to splinter this relationship by co-opting Bush's faith-based initiative program than he does by making friends with Rick Warren.

by Steve M 2008-12-17 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

There is more than one way to do what you describe. You do not have to choose someone who is a clear bigot to do so. You also do not need to choose someone who represents the past of christian thought rather than where you want it to go. Finally, you may also not want to alienate those who did bring you to the ball.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

I happen to agree with all this.  But it goes to the "let's make Rick Warren the face of mainstream religion because he's not quite as nasty as those other guys" attitude which I described above.

by Steve M 2008-12-17 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

His civility makes him worse. It's a fake kind of "I am better." This is the same guy who just recently compared disagreement with him on marriage equality to hate speech. His words. I compare this sort of "I am not a bigot because I say evil things politely" as similar to Nero fiddling while Rome burns. The music may sound pretty, but there is a lot of ugly underneath when you look at it in context.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

Follow up point: being black and gay, this reminds me of the gentle nature that racism could take down south writ large. You are polite and sweet about it, you never say the "n word" but you treat me  like one anyhow is how my great grandmother would describe it. It changes nothing but making the bigot feel good about his bigotry and the naive to conclude that the bigotry is less just because it's not accompanied with music cuing the entrance of the villain into the story.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

Interestingly, that's what the Southerners always used to accuse us Yankees of.

by Steve M 2008-12-17 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

Yes. I'll tell you a story to give you an idea of how it works with race.

I am trained as a lawyer. I went to one of the top 20 law schools in the country.

At the time I went on an interview to work at a large corp, I was admitted into the bar, had a few years of experience under my belt, and you know the drill.

The first questions out of the mouth of this northeast employer's general counsel was to ask me, "Did you take a course in contract law?" You are an attorney as I remember. You know on its face how patently absurd it is to ask someone this question.

The interview went down hill from there. He was at all times very polite about it. That did not change what he was doing. The same resume that he loved on the phone enough to call me for an interview was not quite good enough in person. I showed up black.

The underlying oppression is different between race and sexual orientation, but surprisingly the techniques (faux politeness) are not. If I called this guy during the interview on some of the racial things he implied in his questions and commments to me, I would have been labeled "angry."

If a gay person defends him or herself against bigotry that says they must be unequal under the law, then they are a labeled as hateful.  The politeless is merely the weapon of choice used to gain advantage. Not something that is truly about being polite.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

Yeah, it's amazing to me how the other side has tried to reframe the Prop 8 aftermath as, you know, polite and respectful Mormons vs. hateful activist gays.  "Gosh, all we ask is that gay people show some respect for our religious views!"

My closest friend during my years as a junior BIGLAW associate was black and so I heard plenty of stories along the same lines as what you just said.  It's frustrating for me just to hear about it, and I can only imagine what it's actually like to be on the receiving end.  But yeah, of course if you speak out then you're the bad guy.

by Steve M 2008-12-17 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

They got a step worse- they say that their politeness, and our outrage proves that they are the one's being denied their rights to faith and equality, and that we are the ones engaging in bigotry. Its Orwellian. That's my problem with Obama picking this guy. He is a) not even in the best Christian voice out there (and there are a few) and b) he's Orwellian in what he is doing, and more of the same of the last 20 years that is leading to the down fall of Christianity (whether Christians know it now or not).

by bruh3 2008-12-17 02:15PM | 0 recs


parag.mehta@ptt.gov (Parag Mehta is Obama's LGBT liaison in the transition team.)

You can also contact Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office. She chaired the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and made the announcement.

Senator Dianne Feinstein
Los Angeles
11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 915
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 914-7300
Fax: (310) 914-7318

The following counties are served by the Los Angeles office: Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Ventura.

San Diego
750 B Street, Suite 1030
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-9712
Fax: (619) 231-1108

The following counties are served by the San Diego office: Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, San Diego.

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4290
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 485-7430
Fax: (559) 485-9689

by judybrowni 2008-12-17 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye


by KnoxVow 2008-12-17 12:48PM | 0 recs

Her offices are,  predicably, confused about whose decision this was.  The SF office says they are trying to find out whether Dianne or Barack made this decision.  The DC office, much more authoritatively, says this was neither Senator Feinstein's decision nor the decision of the JCCIC: it was the decision of the Obama Presidential Inaugural Committee.

In other words, it's our Sister Souljah moment.

by TeddySanFran 2008-12-17 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: DIFi

From DailyKos:

FYI I just got off the phone (10+ / 0-)

with a senior staffer at Dianne Feinstein's office who told me that the choice of Rick Warren's was Obama's.  Period.  He was horrified that it was being spread around that it was the committee's.  (I know the guy from my many calls to the office, he's gay and isn't very happy about the pick himself.)

by Steve M 2008-12-17 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

"Warren is opposed, on religious grounds, to abortion rights, gay rights, stem-cell research, and euthanasia. In 2004, he described these issues as "nonnegotiable" and "not even debatable."

This is no liberal evangelical- Suppose compared to Wright and Pflegler Warren seems mainstream-

by Menemshasunset 2008-12-17 01:18PM | 0 recs
Yes, there are...

Haven't you heard of Rev. Jim Wallis & Sojourners? Or Rev. Barry Lynn & Americans United? Or Obama's own denomination, United Church of Christ? There are plenty of progressive Christians, even progressive evangelicals. It isn't difficult for the President-Elect to find a better & more inclusive minister to speak at the inauguration.

by atdleft 2008-12-17 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, there are...

I don't know, is Billy Graham available?  Is this about treating gay people as equals or refighting the primaries?  Because if it's the latter, then just get a Clinton approved homophobe.

But what do I know - I'm just a bot.

by Jess81 2008-12-17 02:00PM | 0 recs
Obama is doing exactly as he promised...

When you attempt to bring the country together, it is going to include people with whom you have profound disagreement...

I suggest everyone that used Obama's candidacy as a progressive Rorschach test open their eyes...

by SaveElmer 2008-12-17 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is doing exactly as he promised...

Spoken like a true cultist.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-17 01:25PM | 0 recs
Thats actually quite funny....

As I was a rabid Hillary supporter during the primary season...

What Obama is doing is what he promised, and is a logical extension of Dean's 50 state strategy to leave no stone unturned...

Shunning these people is not going to change their minds. Warren is despicable on issues of gay rights and abortion no doubt. He is also trying to steer the evangelical movement to a concentration on climate change and poverty...

Working with him on the latter opens up lines of communication that may help split the extremists on the former from those in the middle who actually want to accomplish something...

by SaveElmer 2008-12-17 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Thats actually quite funny....

Don't worry about KnoxVow - the person is on at least his/her third username for insightful comments such as those above, and generally only surfaces to fight wars long since over ("cultist" is extremely ironic).

I don't necessarily agree with your take on things, and it's not entirely clear whose idea it was to do this.  Hopefully he can be removed or someone from our side can forcefully address the issue at some other point in the inauguration.

by rfahey22 2008-12-17 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: An openly gay/lesbian band

Who is the lesbian who will sit in the cabinet?

by Steve M 2008-12-17 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Nancy Sutley

That's a cabinet post?  Seriously?

by Steve M 2008-12-17 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know if it's a cabinet post

Well hey, I'm just sayin.  Regardless, I don't think anyone has suggested that Obama is personally squeamish about gay people or bigoted towards them.  It's strictly a function of his willingness to send mixed messages.

Two other points, just so I don't clutter the thread: (1) I think people are a little more offended because Warren is performing a purely ceremonial function here, and thus it would be completely cost-free to go with someone less bigoted; and (2) it's one thing to ask people to accept that Obama will associate with people who "disagree with them" on issues of economic theory or whatever, and quite another thing to ask them to accept disagreement on the issue of their basic equality and humanity.  I'm frankly not surprised at all that some people are unwilling to just suck it up.

by Steve M 2008-12-17 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm just dumbfounded

When the issue is civil rights, different people are going to have different levels of tolerance for the realities of coalition politics.

by Steve M 2008-12-17 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Lest we forget

You did not see blacks as a movement defending racism by saying it s no big deal. You may or may no history, but you dont seem to understand what it means. Like I said sullivan is of similar misunderstandings.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Lest we forget

In 1932, FDR received 23% of the black vote, so let's be a little careful about translating our modern assumptions into those times.

Black voters came to support FDR but I find it hard to imagine that they had no opinion on whether he should put segregationists in his cabinet.  No one is threatening to drop their support of Obama based on Rick Warren giving the invocation.  They're just expressing their disapproval of that decision.

The modern Democratic Party is a "big tent" on GLBT issues much like the Democratic Party of old was a big tent on racial issues.  A lot of good, progressive stuff may get accomplished by that sort of coalition, but it hardly means no one gets to grumble along the way.

by Steve M 2008-12-17 06:41PM | 0 recs
But by allowing Warren to speak...

Obama's inauguration will EXCLUDE all the LGBT people who supported him because he supported us. Why must this be a zero sum game? Why must an "appropriate" pick to pray at the inauguration be someone who hates queer people? You know, there are many ministers out there who don't hate people for their sexual orientation or gender identity.

by atdleft 2008-12-17 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Does having a gay/lesbian band \

there are evangelicals who are not anti gay as Warren is. You demonstrate the problem. Why the either/or. Either he chooses a religious leader who is a bigot or he chooses no leader at al. And for the record a band is not the same level as what we are discussing here. You are simply being insulting with that one. It's a little like tellin gme as a black guy that you included me in on on the party , but required me to come as the wait staff.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: He did

There is much he can do about it,a ndyou are making excuses for which history will judge you a de facto bigot. Everything you say here is exactly what was said to justify jim crow down to the use of faith.

Here's some of quote I gave as examples the other day:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the
interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. " -- Statement by Virginia trial judge in 1959 case that led to 1967 U.S. Supreme Court striking down laws in 16 states that prohibited interracial marriage

Here's how it was used to justify discrimination against women:

"Who demand the ballot for woman? They are not the lovers of God, nor are they believers in Christ, as a class. There may be exceptions, but the majority prefer an infidel's cheer to the favor of God and the love of the Christian community. It is because of this tendency that the majority of those who contend for the ballot for woman cut loose from the legislation of Heaven, from the enjoyments of home, and drift to infidelity and ruin." -- Justin Fulton, 1869, in opposition to women's right to vote.

Here's how it was used to justify slavery:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God... it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation... it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." -Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

Finally, no , it does not have to be this way or accepted. You say that as someone for whom this causes no harm, and that makes you worse than the bigot who does it because at least they imagine it does.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello

your sexual orientation is irrelevant. there are plenty of gay men who are more than willing to be the supporters of the opression.

i am a black gay man- that gives me a certain perspective of history. ther ewere a plenty of blacks who supported jim crow, and were harshly against martin luther king jr.

and your claims about being in the streets do not matter to me. i am uninpressed. what i care about is now, and what happens going forward. the past is what it is- the past.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: How am I supporter of the oppression?

No you have made your self plainly clear. You accept this into your life so the rest of us should as well. But as I said below, what change this country was not to accept this bigotry and not accept throwing hands up in the air saying "what can I do about it." I am sure you can rationalize anything, but that does not make it a sound judgement. It's like by analogy Sullivan rationalizing why he's against the Courts being involved in gay issues. His explaination was that it took people to become accepting of interracial marriage to accomplish racial equality. but this view of history is really the naive one. What it tookw as a lot of people fighting both int he courts, on the streets, and every chance they got to make sure that racial inequalities were not the acceptable stance. You accept it because of your baggage. it accepts it because of his- he's a conservative so government can never be in the right and thus he rewrites history. You do the same for different reasons. Its no less wrong.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I never said

If you say its okay one place, it's okay everywhere in public life. Which is wha we are discussing. He's going to a public event of which he represents all Americans. If you don't understand why that's a problem here, then of course, you will see that as overrreacting rather than responding appropriately to the circusmstances.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: He did

by the way- to make myself perfectly clear. To allow people like this a platform for legitimacy of their bigotry is to allow that bigotry to propectuate itself. This is at the heart of how de facto discrimination and bigotry happens. People simply let it continue through intertia saying nothing can be done.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing can be done

then you are in favor of jim crow when it was around too?

by bruh3 2008-12-17 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I wasn't born yet

I asked you were you in favor of Jim crow. Its a yes no question. You seem to be really good at rationalization,b ut not so good at direct questions that invite no additional explaination. I believe the baggage from the compromises you made to "keep" your family and friends are showing. I am glad my friends and family requires no such destructive thought processes.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: No that's not what you asked me

And thus ou don't get it. if you give them the public stage by the official endorsement of the presidency, you support it. i know you think you don't but thats why i mention de facto. sullivan would also ignore de facto impacts of actions.

i didnt bring you friends and family into th emix. you did. if you want me to keep my views of them out of it don't use them as an excuse here as to why the next president bringing a bigot into the public sphere and endorsing that person makes sense.

as i said, it's the equivalent of bringing someone form the kkk to the inauguaral and saying that does not send a  message as to the public official endorsement of that persons position.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not endorsing Warren's beliefs

He's the president of the US. By bringing him on the stage, he's endorsing him and  his beliefs. Especially in this rule as spritiual leader. You seem not capable of addressing reality here. He's not doing this as a private citizen. He's doing this in the capacity of an official act of state.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not endorsing Warren's beliefs
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Obama's cabinet and Presidency is full of people whom he does not agree with 100%  on, nor does he endorse all of the views of every person who is part of the inner circle.
That's the whole point of an Obama presidency. Working with people on common issues.
You want to throw Rick Warren under the Bus because of his views on homosexuality, and with it goes his progressive views on helping poor people. This is short-sighted, Rick Warren's views on helping the poor along with Mike Huckbee is the key to cracking open the wedge between evangelicals and the Republican party.
But because they they agree with you 100%,  you want to take your toys home.
No good.
You want to know why 60 Senate votes doesn't matter in an Obama Presidency?
Because the whole point of the 'Change' mantra is to get votes form the other side without having to comprise your own views. ....
by xodus1914 2008-12-18 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I wasn't born yet

Oh,a nd by the way , even then, during FDR's era, AAs were fighting against it rather than going "oh, it's not big deal." So yes you are historically wrong, because what changed things was the non acceptance of it. Rather than acceptance of bigotry.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: and yet

they did not do so by ignoring what he was doing on the issue of race. you are the purist it seems here. we can't disagree with obama here and still support him on other progressive issues? we must accept the bigot to accept the other policies? that's an odd position to take.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: and yet

oh, and the effective way to "move public support" is for the president of  the US not to endorse the bigotry. It's the starting point for persuasion. Persuasion does not mean accepting the intollerant and it does not mean we have to have this guy speak. it means saying that I disagree with this position. and here's why i will not endorse this guy speaking for me.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: No that's wrong

He endorses warren by selecting him for this event just like he would endorse the KKK if he invited them. Your position is counter to common sense. But then most libertarian thought requires one to deny part of the facts in favor of fantasy.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Not true

neither did clinton support the beliefs either. but he was a politician. so is obama. his actions now create the environment in which he governs.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: No that's wrong

If you look at several of the posters here- they already are taking this as a basis for running with this as an endorsement of what they believe. This is the naturea of the presidential power.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: No that's wrong

final nail int he coffin about impact:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary. do?diaryId=8661

read how the right is now using this like they did Obama's statement pre No on 8 against us (they ran and fliers and ads using Obama's positioning) to take away real rights. You can spin this as not mattering all you want, but they know better even as you try to convince yourself otherwise. They will use this as an endorsement of the right's position on gay rights regardless of the counter positioning by Obama after the fact.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: They used Hillary and Bill against us too

your belief is not proof of future action

by bruh3 2008-12-17 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: They used Hillary and Bill against us too

this is pastor dan expousing the religious left fall out of this:

http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2008 /12/17/222551/81

you can believe what you want. I am certain of my position based on reality.

by bruh3 2008-12-17 09:49PM | 0 recs
Re: But by allowing Warren to speak...

But those ministers don't run big-time mega-churches and write bestselling books. Saddleback is the 4th largest chuch in the nation and Warren is a media darling. Obama picked Warren because he is the current it-boy of mainstream Christianity.

by LakersFan 2008-12-17 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: sorta like

I don't know. I don't know Joel Osteen.

I personally dislike anyone who chooses to get stinking rich by pimping out God. But then again, I'm not a Christian, so I really have no respect for anything Warren, or any other evangelical has to say.

But I am a strong believer in the Constitution, so I'd really prefer it if there weren't any religious people involved in the inauguration.

by LakersFan 2008-12-17 03:36PM | 0 recs
It's Like Many of us said

Mr. Obama isn't fully committed to the civil rights of gays and lesbians -- never was and never will be. All the talk of the campaign amounted to "just words" to get elected.

I voted for the Democratic Party this year because I'm a Democrat and committed to certain values to which I thought the Party and its leaders were committed.

Hillary was my candidate in the primaries and she was fully in support of gay/lesbian rights -- visits were made to gay/lesbian organizations, bars, etc. throughout the country by Hillary, Chelsea, Bill and lots of members of her campaign. She herself marched in Pride parades -- and Mr. Obama did not, never has.

I'm disappointed but not surprised. And I'll wait and see just how many more times he spits in our faces, ignores our issues, and refuses to support the civil rights of his homosexual sisters and brothers. And then I'll decide where my vote goes next time.

As the wise soul said: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

by cuppajoe 2008-12-17 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: If she did

She has, is, will always get a pass for her homophobia.

by Jess81 2008-12-17 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: If she did

Wow, that's a new one on me.  But frankly I just want to find the first person in this thread who started with reopening the primaries and strangle them.  I'm presuming it wasn't you or I.

by Steve M 2008-12-17 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: If she did

That's an easy one to find.

Strangle me instead for taking the bait.

by Jess81 2008-12-17 02:57PM | 0 recs
Here you go



Show me Obama's Gay Pride pictures?

by twinmom 2008-12-17 03:31PM | 0 recs
Hillary has a proven track record with the LBGT

community. Obama did not. Why do you have to smear Hillary in order to get your point across?

Stop acting trollish.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-17 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop fucking lying

Lived in Arkansas in the early 90's. I personally knew a gay man who worked fairly high up in state government. Bill was being pressured to fire him as he had been outed. Hillary steped in and demanded that the guy stay. She won.

She worked with the gay community in Arkansas to create a safer sex program that would be effective. And recognize the needs of gay kids. My late partner worked as a volunteer presenter in this. He spoke at high schools in rural Arkansas. Demonstrating how to put a condom on a cucumber. Explaining the mechanics and dangers of anal sex. This would have been 90 to 94.

Hillary worked with our community to add health care for PWA's into the system she set up. People from ACT-UP DC visited us and as they saw the program, they were impressed. They told us that this was one of the very best in getting treatment to PWA's in the nation. Hillary began doing this beginning in the mid 80's.

In 1993, some right wingers were preparing to out one of her staffers as a gay man. He wrote a letter of resignation. She refused to accept it, he remained on her staff.

Hillary has always had openly gay staffers, going back to Arkansas. Her ties to our community are deep and personal.

by DaleA 2008-12-17 05:02PM | 0 recs
It's too bad

That her "ties to our community" weren't "deep and personal" enough for her to fully repudiate DADT before she decided to run for Senate and still aren't "deep and personal" enough for her to fully repudiate DOMA.

What with me not being one of Clinton's employees, her much-lauded loyalty to them does nothing for me, so I'm left with her positions on the issues, which might.  I suspect the same is true for most Americans.

by Drew 2008-12-17 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: What?

Just can't admit it when you are wrong, can you?

by realtarheel 2008-12-17 03:49PM | 0 recs
Is that why she supported DOMA

When Obama opposed it - because she "was fully in support for gay/lesbian rights?"

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Exactly.  Clinton promised equality, and delivered DADT and DOMA.  So why would anyone trust her?  Because she marched in a parade?  Because she - like Bill before her - gladhanded a bunch of credulous gay supporters?  They did that in 1992 and 1996, too.

What bullshit!

Anyhow, everyone knows what these posts are about, and it's not support for equality.  It's about Clinton supporters looking for a pretext to say "I TOLD YOU SO."  So here they have it.

by Drew 2008-12-17 04:16PM | 0 recs
For the record

This has nothing to do with Clinton for me.

I simply posted the pictures of her in response to the poster who completely inaccurately stated, "If she did she didn't do it in New York. I've never seen her at any of our events. The only person of note I've ever seen with us was Eliot Spitzer."

I've been at NY gay pride events. I've seen Clinton with my own eyes (and Giuliani and Bloomberg for that matter).

by twinmom 2008-12-17 04:50PM | 0 recs
If You think

that's why I posted what I did, you're mistaken.

I did so because I am deeply disappointed.

If you think there's an "I told you so" in there, then you are agreeing that there is need for an "I told you so."

But that's not what I said nor what I intended to say.

My interest in is gay/lesbian rights and our continuing civil rights struggle. I have been laboring in that field a long time. I know who our friends are and who are just giving lip service. But I allowed myself to be fooled this time.

I understand why Bill Clinton offered DADT as a compromise (and I have written about that before but if you want the full lecture, I'll be happy to provide it.) I wasn't happy with it and still am not -- but it avoided a worse conclusion to the whole affair. Jimmy Carter's administration was the one that wrote the anti-homosexual provision into the uniform code and no one was aware (at the time Clinton made his promise) that it is Congress who controls that and not the President. So, DADT was a most imperfect solution to a problem. Hillary said she'd get rid of it, if elected. So did Obama.

I see now that Obama has gone back on his word to abolish DADT -- until maybe 2010 -- why not immediately as he promised so many times?

My intention was not to say "I told you so" but to express deep disappointment in believing, against my better judgment, that someone who was always lukewarm (at best) about gay/lesbian rights would have our best interests at heart.

by cuppajoe 2008-12-18 08:08AM | 0 recs
You are wrong

Hillary and her people were present at a lot of gay events in NY, including the parade.  She usually makes a showing.  That's just good NY politics.  You say you "left America" anyway, so how would you know what she does in NY?

by orestes 2008-12-18 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: If she did

Patterson, too.

by Koan 2008-12-19 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

It's a poor fucking choice to say the least.  For a lot of reasons.  Thing is though, that this is probably the last place I would expect people to have an honest discussion about it.

This is the only place on the internet I can get called a faggot AND a "bot", by frequent posters.

by Jess81 2008-12-17 02:11PM | 0 recs
take a chill pill

Keep in mind that gay marriage isn't accepted yet by voters in at least 40 states.  Instead of whining about Rick Warren, let's push harder for marriage equality.

Rick Warren wasn't the best choice for the inauguration, but there's a lot of America that isn't ready for gay marriage yet.

Obama will turn out to be a hero to the LGBT community in time.

by esconded 2008-12-17 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: take a chill pill

keep in mind the same arguments were made ab out race

by bruh3 2008-12-17 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

Rick Warren is also against reproductive freedom and stem cell research -- so why the hell would I give him a pass on Prop Hate, as well?

by judybrowni 2008-12-17 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

He must rescind this! If he does not have the Rude Pundit deliver the invocation, then I WILL NOT support him for re-election!

by QTG 2008-12-17 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

Rick Warren's five "non-negotiable" political issues:

When endorsing Bush in 2004, Warren said there were five "non-negotiable" political -- opposition to abortion, stem-cell harvesting, gay marriage, "human cloning", and euthanasia  ---  http://www.brucegourley.com/writings/inr esponseto/rickwarrenbible.htm.  

by tyva 2008-12-17 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

I'm horrified.

Can't even summon the strength to give a shit anymore actually.

by twinmom 2008-12-17 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

I would like to point out that the LGBT community was the only demographic that had a statistically significant increase in McCain support. It was something like a 10 point swing.

by MNPundit 2008-12-17 03:23PM | 0 recs
Warren's a Biblical ignoramus

From the vid: "Every culture for 5000 years, and every religion for 5000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman."

The Biblical patriarch Jacob had two wives and two concubines.  King David of Israel had a few wives.  King Solomon of Israel had 300 wives and 700 concubines.  And so forth.

More recently, the 19th-century Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints allowed one man to have several wives.  Had no idea that happened over 5000 years ago, did you?

by RT 2008-12-17 03:46PM | 0 recs
More evidence of his hateful ignorance...

There are examples in the Bible of loving same-sex relationships which could be interpreted as being more than "friendships".

Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe the relationship between Ruth and Naomi.

Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read at both same-sex and mixed-sex weddings since it so beautifully describes a "marriage".

"Wherever you go, I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

More examples here (David and Jonathan / Daniel and Ashpenaz):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bm ar.htm

by twinmom 2008-12-17 03:57PM | 0 recs
If anybody thinks it is fine to have Rick

Warren as part of the inaugural ceremony, sorry, you're not a liberal, not a progressive, unfortunately you are reading the wrong blog..

by louisprandtl 2008-12-17 04:01PM | 0 recs
ill never understand obama

kissing this idiot's azz. for all of the money and attention we threw at the evangelicals i doubt we gained many votes. he needs to understand that most of these people are always going to consider him some foreign manchurian candidate. this is really pathetic.  

by highgrade 2008-12-17 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

Anyone wonder why all the marriage props across the country went against gay marriage on election day? Its simple, he majority of american do no support gay marriage and see it for the sin it is....

by adb67 2008-12-17 05:09PM | 0 recs
No that just proves that the

majority of Americans are ignorant as to the difference between a civil union with the state and a religious ceremony that means NOTHING to the state. You can get married at a church all you want but you STILL have to apply for a marriage license with the state. By denying this you are essentially attacking someone's civil rights not necessarily their religious rights. Why people can't decipher the difference is beyond me. I am fine with churches not wanting to marry gay couples because the state can't make a church do that, but the state is obligated to give equal rights under the law. Therefore, gays should be afforded the same marriage rights as hetereosexual couples in the eyes of the state.

by SocialDem 2008-12-18 11:17AM | 0 recs
Join Stop Rick Warren Group at My.BarackObama.com

Join the Stop Rick Warren Group at My.BarackObama.com

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/Sto pRickWarrensHateNOW

by pleahy 2008-12-17 05:15PM | 0 recs
You guys werre warned

So suck it up. Pun intended.

by usedmeat 2008-12-17 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

Warren is a self righteous wind bag.  I can not judge his spiritual status but I see no Love for people like me in him or any of the evangelical churches, but Obama is of the world as President and governing takes 50% + 1.  Remember that.  

In the church I attend, New Hope in Pearland, Texas, there is no room in the inn for gays.  If one even mentions, as I have several times now,  that the church embrace gays they are decried as an agitator.  But the bigotry and hate of these churches can not keep us from embracing them to get things that need to be done, done.

Remember  50% + 1.

Jesus walked among the common man.  He accepted the unacceptable, and there I take my lesson.  Because I am unacceptable does not mean I should unaccepting.  Intolerance in God's name defines only the intolerant, not God.  

Ii is not do unto others as they do to us, but as we would have done to us.

50% + 1

by repearwo 2008-12-17 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

I've read this site for a few years and have hardly, if ever, commented.

I disagree profoundly with Rick Warren's views.  That said, it is time for gays to take a breather.

Let's remember, one can make a salient argument that Clinton's presidency was killed by taking on gays in the military out of the box.  It led to the 1994 mid-term debacle, which led to everything else.

Obama is trying to enact big policies out of the gate that will help all Americans:  education, the environment, international relations and strengthening American security, health care and so on.

He can absolutely not pass these big ticket items without the support of people who support Rick Warren.  In fact, there are more people in this country that support Rick Warren than are homosexual.

Obama has been clear about his support for gay rights.  There is no question his moral compass is well-directed.

To the gay community, I say this is not all about you right now.  Let Obama do his work, and trust that your time will come.  

Sure, it is deplorable that that time is not right now, let alone 20, 30, 40 years ago or more.

But there is a reality in this country:  there are many good, productive, loving, upstanding people who find your lifestyle an abomination.

You of anyone should know that the way to change people's hearts is not through ostracizing and exile, but through working together.

Rick Warren at the Inauguration is an understandable choice because it signals that Obama is willing to listen.  I'm sure that his Inauguration speech will indicate that he is also willing to disagree.

Change is coming.  But in many instances, Obama is not changing clothes, he's melting icebergs.

Everyone, especially the gay community, needs to cool out.  

by johnnybilo 2008-12-18 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

I agree with you 100%.

I just hope you're fireproof.

by xodus1914 2008-12-18 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: A Spit In The Eye

Look I get the politics behind having him in the inauguration.  My bigger concern, which I've said time & again is Obama nominating people and/or making certain policy decisions in an attempt to appear moderate - that is nothing but moronic & it is a move that wouldn't surprise. If this is all of it, then fine whatever let the bigot speak then if it makes his hateful followers happy (although why we have to act like they are legitimate is beyond me - stop paying attention to them maybe they'll go away!)

by jrsygrl 2008-12-19 02:51PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads