Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Well, they don't miss a beat. Any rift or disappointment becomes a bright (polished gold) shiny object to attract bigots, PUMAS, trolls and their numerous sockpuppets back to MYDD. They despise Obama and know full well that they can lower the discourse at any moment and overrun the rec'd diaries with innuendo, lies, and hate. And why not? The moderators hardly seem to care.

I know they should be ignored, but this latest salvo is particularly infuriating.  Diary after diary is being rammed through to use the Rick Warren invocation at the inauguration to sow doubt about Obama's commitment to the civil rights.  I am not talking about appropriate anger that is found in thoughtful posts like Todd Beeton's yesterday; I am talking about crap diaries that proclaim that "Obama has always been against civil rights".

Look: I'm as annoyed as anyone with the Warren invocation.  I think it was tone-deaf and particularly insensitive to the LGBT community, especially after Prop. 8. Though I understand why Obama might have thought it was a good idea (reaching out, inclusion), I also think he could have found a better choice.

Nevertheless, I take offense at the attempts of people to use the banner of LGBT rights to mask their real agenda, which is to continue to hurl venom at Barack Obama.  These diaries and posts are a continuation of the gotcha game that goes back to the so-called Primary Wars.  As for LGBT rights, these people are fair-weather friends. Their commitment is shallow and opportunistic.

Yes, this decision is a disappointment.  Despite that, the man is not even President yet. His stance on LGBT issues is as good or better than any Democrat of national standing.  Certainly, his stances are better than his predecessors. For people who really care about LGBT rights, the task is to hold his feet to the fire and demand that he keeps his campaign promises and repeals DADT and DOMA. If he follows through with these promises, Rick Warren's three minutes at the Inauguration will be remembered for exactly what they were: three minutes.

Tags: LGBT, obama, PUMAS, warren (all tags)



Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

And let us not forget that he also invited Joseph Lowery ,  "Lowery is the 'dean of the Civil Rights movement', the man who founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr AND supports same sex marriage.

And couldn't agree with you more about how over run this place is with caos trolls.

by venician 2008-12-18 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

We are not all trolls.  There are some who will use anything to smear Obama.  However, there are others who truly believe that this is a big mistake for Obama.

To brush every one of us aside and label all as trolls is to marginalize further.

by Sieglinde 2008-12-18 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

I agree that it's a mistake.  I don't think everyone who says it's a mistake is a troll.  Rick Warren should never have been invited to deliver the invocation.  He's a bigot and a hack.

However, I think that trolls are taking advantage of this to spread their racist hatred for Barack Obama.  Just look at the number of PUMA sockpuppets who have made their glorious return in the past 24 hours...

by mistersite 2008-12-18 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

So what?  Does that make the issue less of an issue?

by Sieglinde 2008-12-18 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

It's not any less of an issue.  Just be clear on what is really some of these people's agenda.

by mikeinsf 2008-12-18 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Your diary is right on mikeinsf. REC

by canadian 2008-12-19 01:15AM | 0 recs says it best in his

last 2 paragraphs:

Barack Obama defends his choice of Rick Warren by saying that he wants to have a diverse Inauguration Ceremony. Diverse? Is that why he's following Christian Rick Warren's Christian invocation with a closing religious benediction by another Christian preacher, Reverend Joseph Lowery? If the Inauguration is diverse, where are the non-Christians in the ceremony? Where are the atheists? Where are the gays and lesbians? Hm. They're not in the ceremony.

For Barack Obama, diversity means making special room for bigots, while excluding the people that the bigots discriminate against. Barack Obama's idea of diversity is not diversity at all.

by suzieg 2008-12-18 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: says it best in his

You're actually taking issue with the fact that there are no atheists doing the "religious benediction"?  Is there ANYTHING he can do that you won't find issue with, that every other President has done that you were totally fine with?

You guys are twisted with hatred.  Just blind, mad, choking hatred.

by Jess81 2008-12-19 01:24AM | 0 recs
Re: says it best in his

Do you even know who Lowery is and what his history is?  Did you not notice that there are GLBTs involved with the official inauguration.

You're such a congential liar and a shitstirring troll.  Please go back to your friendly neighborhood white supremacist havens like NoKKKwarter and TexasDarlin' and leave the rest of us alone.

by Dreorg 2008-12-19 04:15AM | 0 recs
Truth must really hurt! Stop being so juvenile

but then again, seeing that I've got to respond to you like I would to a child who is having a bad tantrum,  ......let's compare his inauguration to the Olympics' opening ceremony.... he's basically asked a renowned unapologetic bigot and hate monger, who compared women who had abortions to nazis for having committed a holocaust against the unborn, to light the flame! Is this what you envisionned and hoped for, for his inauguration ceremony?  

As far as allowing one GLBT band to play along with other "straight" ones is nothing more than a token gesture to the GLBT community to assuage them for his overt betrayal. Lowery cannot make up for this affront, regardless of what he preaches because it's expected that someone like him would participate, therefore, you basically expect me to be placated by Lowery? You want me to believe that most of the prominent attention and reporting of the participants on that day, will be on the GLBT band instead of Warren? Sorry, it might work for you but it isn't for me and if I want to express my displeasure and shitstir, I have a good cause for doing so. Please be advised that I will do so wherever and whenever I want - it's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH, the bedrock of our DEMOCRACY!  

Obama has created a precedent, a bad precedent,  by opening the doors and welcoming the worse of the worse of the republican wing of their party and if you think I will shut up or go away while this calamity is happening, it ain't going to happen!

Allowing a GLBT band to play at his inauguration while giving a prominent SPEAKING role/position to Warren cannot be compared - if you cannot see that, then there is something fundamentally wrong with you or you're just not mature enough to comprehend the symbolism of Obama's action!

Irregulartimes, if you bothered to look, is one of many true liberal/left sites. Why don't you read the whole article before rudely calling me out on it! I defy you to find something I cited from any right wing or republican sites/blogs! Everything I write or refer to is from liberal blogs/sites, which I gather, irritates you - too bad! My DD was never an echo chamber before the Obama zealots invaded it - I've been coming here since 2001 and I'm not about to leave because you said so! Get used to it - I'm sticking around!

by suzieg 2008-12-19 08:05AM | 0 recs
"Truth must really hurt"

Point of fact, you said there were no GLBTs invited to the ceremony.  That was a lie.

by Jess81 2008-12-19 08:40AM | 0 recs
Geez, I'm passing on an article which stated a

person's point of view that I agreed with, I personally did not write it or haven't you noticed that I gave the site where to find it? Do I have to edit every article from now on, but then again you'll accuse me of something else - catch 22, how clever? Stop being so petty!

by suzieg 2008-12-19 09:12AM | 0 recs

and under the bus they go!

by Neef 2008-12-19 09:16AM | 0 recs
You bet and with pleasure too!

by suzieg 2008-12-19 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: You bet and with pleasure too!

We'd just be happy if you stop lying, thx.

by Jess81 2008-12-19 11:50PM | 0 recs
Just read the GLBT band association web site -

that someone was kind enough to post it. They are playing/marching in the PARADE, not playing on the dais during the hate monger Warren's invocation, as you purposely misled us! So technically, they are not represented/playing during the swearing in ceremony per se!

by suzieg 2008-12-19 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Just read the GLBT band association web site -

You're comment reminds me a little of this (from the movie Good Will Hunting:

Chuckie: [impersonating Will at a job interview] You're suspect! Yeah, you! I don't know what your reputation is in this town, but after the shit you tried to pull today you can bet I'll be looking into you. Now the business we have, heretofore, you can speak with my aforementioned attorney. Good day, gentlemen; and until that day comes, keep your ear to the grindstone.

by fogiv 2008-12-19 05:18PM | 0 recs
Go away! This has nothing to do with you and I

don't give a damn about your juvenile movie quote; I can't be bothered to read it because I know what the gist of it will be. You do realize, for your sake, that movies are fantasy? Maybe when you're old enough to live in the real world not in an imaginary one, you might just find out that life is in fact nothing like it's portrayed in a fictional movie. How ridiculous are you?

First of all, I was responding to someone who accused me of lying about the GLBT not being represented at the SWEARING IN CEREMONY and was told they would be playing beautiful music while the bigotted Warren was giving the invocation, which is a lie, per se -

Second, two can play at semantics just as well as one - case in point, being in the parade is nowhere as prominent as participating/playing at the actual swearing-in ceremony.  

I call it a draw!

by suzieg 2008-12-19 11:24PM | 0 recs
Call it a giraffe if you'd like.

Your hand-waving can't whitewash your distorted little vituperative.

by Sumo Vita 2008-12-20 02:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Go away! This has nothing to do with you and I

The real world?  Jesus, based on the mental acuity reflected in your comment history, I find it amazing you're able to feed and clothe yourself, much less type.

Good for you.

by fogiv 2008-12-20 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Just read the GLBT band association web site -

Seems to me suzie you're just as much a hate monger as Warren. You have spewed nothing but hate in this entire thread and are no better than Warren.

by venician 2008-12-20 06:05AM | 0 recs
I'm convinced

I have to say, I was totally against everything you said until I realized how many exclamation points you used!  That must mean you are really passionate about it!  Now I'm convinced that you must be right!  Thank you!

by ProgressiveDL 2008-12-19 08:52AM | 0 recs
I guess the Gay and Lesbian Band

that was selected from a very large pool of interested bands to perform in the parade carries no weight then?

by GFORD 2008-12-19 07:06AM | 0 recs
The band is LGBT??

Wow. All this interest in the situation, and I hadn't even seen that reported.

by Neef 2008-12-19 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The band is LGBT??

One of them, there are several bands in the parade.

Here's a link with the story:

I didn't even know there was a Lesbian and Gay Bands Organization until recently.  I'm so un-cool!

by GFORD 2008-12-19 01:11PM | 0 recs
As I've said before, it's a token gesture to

assuage the GLBT community for his overt betrayal! It's an affront of the worse kind and they can see right through it, as should you and shame on you, if you don't!

I gather that the symbolism is fine with you - basically, it's perfectly normal for Obama, a constitutional lawyer, no less, to invite and give a prominent speaking role to the biggest proponent against GLBT's civil rights as long as you invite them to play at your inauguration - pathetic!

by suzieg 2008-12-19 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: As I've said before, it's a token gesture to

I think that Warren is just a token to assuage the evangelicals!  He only gets to speak while the GLBT's get to play music!

I assume it's okay with you that Christians get thrown under the bus while a prominent spot is given to gays and lesbians!  Pathetic!

by Jess81 2008-12-19 08:37AM | 0 recs
Why do we have to assuage the Christians?

I'm a great believer in the separation of church and state. I'm getting extremely worried about where Obama wants to take the country regarding that subject more so now that he's shown his hand by inviting Warren to hold such a prominent spot -"It's the symbolism, stupid!".

I attended a convent for 12yrs. I know first hand what harm can be done by religion. Not only is it okay with me but I'm proud to state that I will gladly throw anybody under the bus, Christians or not, who believe and try to curtail the civil rights of anyone under the guise of religious teachings.  

by suzieg 2008-12-19 09:03AM | 0 recs
As per the gayband association web site:

"The 177-piece LGBA band will join groups from across the country as well as from the Armed Forces in the historic parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, which follows President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony on the steps of the Capitol".

It's here in plain view: "FOLLOWS" President-elect Barak Obama's "SWEARING-IN CEREMONY". No where will there be an openly gay person on the dais along with Warren, where the symbolism will be major - playing in a parade does not carry the same weight because Clinton already broke that barrier by having them perform in did both of his inaugurations.

If he really cared and wanted to send a strong message of support to the GLBT community, he would have appointed Maxwell, a lesbian, who was more than capable and had an excellent record on labor issues to hold the Labor cabinet position. He's such a political coward!

by suzieg 2008-12-19 04:45PM | 0 recs
I'm an atheist.

By your reckoning, any preacher is a total betrayal of my non-beliefs.  There's just no way to make everyone happy.

by GFORD 2008-12-19 01:07PM | 0 recs
Wow, another good point

Seriously. It really underlines the "squeaky wheel" theory, that the perception of injustice is proportionate to the outcry.

If atheists were to march in protest they would absolutely be justified. On that note, aren't there female Priests that could have given the invoc? He has two men.

by Neef 2008-12-20 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Oh, and let us not also forget that gay "marriage" DOES not mean EQUAL RIGHTS. Let us concentrate on the war, Equal Rights, instead of trying to win a battle with organized religion over the "right" to marry. Leave marrige where it belongs, in the churches.

by venician 2008-12-18 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

The obvious solution is to that government does only civil unions for everyone, gay or straight, and churches do marriages.  If the LDS won't marry me, then I'll find a church with less bigoted beliefs.

If "marriage" is such a sacred word, why is it even in the government's books? Government doesn't sanctify Bar Mitzvahs.

by mikeinsf 2008-12-18 09:20AM | 0 recs
I'd have to agree

The gov't should no more legislate marriage than they should legislate dating. Marriage is a religious relationship, not a secular one.

Of course, that does open a can of worms with polygamy and polyandry and such.

by Neef 2008-12-18 09:25AM | 0 recs
Marriage is both

secular first and religious second.

If you get married anywhere, you get a state licensed certificate, whether its in a church, mosque, city hall or wherever.

Whether or not a Religion recognizes it makes it religious second.

If a Religion decides not to recognize it (like Catholics with second marriages), then its still a secular marriage, whether you get married in the church or not.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-12-18 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Marriage is both
I think there's a dual meaning, and different people weigh it differently. There's the contractual arrangements which are properly the concern of the state. Then there's the question of two people making a spiritual commitment to each other, which is the concern of God. The OP is right, it's nonsensical for the state to be certifying spiritual commitments. Any adult American should be allowed to enter into the same contractual arrangements as any other. Any other meaning should be left to the churches.
by sneakers563 2008-12-18 12:18PM | 0 recs
Yes, that is a better take n/t

by Neef 2008-12-18 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Marriage is both

Yes, exactly, thank you! marriage is NOT in actuality a religious thing that "should be left where it belongs to the churches" as someone upthread said, it's a secular thing. The government provides the marriage license and the church part is merely a ceremony that ONLY means something religiously, not legally.

by Quinton 2008-12-18 12:25PM | 0 recs
Tell that to churches

If marriage is secular, then why do priests and ministers have the ability to pronounce people married?

The truth of the matter is that it's not a simple issue: there are legal rights and spiritual involvements to consider.

The core belief of myself and a lot of the people here is that we can give the word "marriage" to the churches while allowing any two people of any gender or sexuality to have a legal bond useful for things like visitation, custody, inheritance, and shared finances, for example.  Let's call it "civil union" just for kicks.  If straight people get civil unions just like gay folks, there won't be any of this "seperate but equal" nonsense.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-18 12:31PM | 0 recs

Frankly, I don't believe cruise ship captains or judges should be doing "marriages". Civil Unions, sure. But we get to a weird place when, as you allude, a Priest of the Church and a Judge of the State have the same functions.

by Neef 2008-12-18 12:46PM | 0 recs
"A weird place"

is where we already are. Preachers do have the power to perform legal marriages, if they are registered with the state. And so do cruise ship captains and Elvis impersonators in Vegas.

None of this is the problem facing us today.

The problem is this:

The state recognizes the boundaries of the church and does not force any church to perform weddings against its teachings. Some churches will not marry people who have been divorced, and some will not marry mixed race couples. Very few of them will marry people from different religious backgrounds, unless they have converted.

But this respect is not reciprocated. The Religious Right does not respect the boundaries of the state when it comes to determining who should or should not be allowed to marry. If the laws are changed so that gays may legally marry, it affects the Religious Right not one whit, they will never be forced to marry homos, just like they are not forced to marry mixed race couples today.

But this isn't good enough for them, they are not satisfied.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 06:30AM | 0 recs

the state does not recognize the boundaries of the Church, Catholic couples can still get a legal secular divorce.

Nor does the Religious Right have the ability to prevent anyone from going before a Justice of the Peace, or pledging themselves to a spouse.

What the Religious Right does have, is enough political clout to maneuver the state into putting marriage rights on a ballot. This will only be overcome with greater political clout, I don't see where "respect" comes into it.

by Neef 2008-12-19 06:44AM | 0 recs
Wait --

are you saying that it is a "disrespect" for the state to allow Catholics to get legally divorced?

Do you believe it is the duty of the state to enforce religious law?

I think I am beginining to see the problem ...

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 07:00AM | 0 recs
The problem

is you making huge leaps of logic. I observed that he state does not recognize the boundaries of the Church, a direct counterpoint to your assertion that it does. I didn't even use the term you quoted.

From that, you have me supporting a theocracy? Meh.

by Neef 2008-12-19 07:28AM | 0 recs
The state does recognize

the boundaries of the Catholic Church. Does the state tell the Catholic Church it must marry Jews, for example, or Protestants? No, of course not.

The Church is allowed to pick and choose who it marries.

But the Church is not allowed to pick and choose who the state marries. That's the difference.

If that's a huge leap for you then, man, I'm sorry. I don't know how to break it up into smaller baby steps than that.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell that to churches

Changing the system as you propose so that everyone straight or gay would get civil unions and then someone could have a religious ceremony called marriage performed if they liked is good in theory, but unworkable. I suspect it would be a much larger battle trying to change the understanding of marriage as you suggest than it would be to achieve marriage equality by simply expanding marriage rights to a couples of any gender.

I suspect that your suggested change would be seen as the more radical though I agree with it in principle wholeheartedly.

by Quinton 2008-12-18 12:47PM | 0 recs
It's unworkable -NOW-

It might not be unworkable in the future.  The Millenial generation, by and large, really could not give a crap who someone gets married to.  Someday they'll be in charge.

In the meantime, we can chip away at the bigotry and set the stage for future reforms.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-18 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: It's unworkable -NOW-

I hope you're right and agree about the Millenial generation being very progressive on gay rights (and also on race for that matter). It's also helpful that we are as a group a lot less religious. I'm all in favor of anything that reduces the encroachment of religion on everyone other than the person who chooses to go to church and keeps a private faith.

One's religious beliefs should only have an impact on that individual and should never be imposed on others or impact policy making or politics.

Something based entirely on an unverifiable personal faith and belief has no business being involved with government and policy making, which must be based on science, reason, rational thought, facts, and verifiable evidence.

by Quinton 2008-12-18 01:14PM | 0 recs

Why give up the word to the churches? It is the government which marries people.

The government should quit discriminating, and marry gay couples as well as straight.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-18 04:24PM | 0 recs
The problem is

that marriage is more than just the legal rights that come along with it.  You seem to recognize that, because you imply that "marriage" is qualitatively better than "civil union".

The reason it's qualitatively different is because marriage adds religious, moral and spiritual elements.  The problem is that by granting the state authority over those elements, in addition to the legal elements, you allow the state to make religious, moral and spiritual arguments against same-sex marriage.  If you don't grant the state that authority, the issue is a relatively straightforward case of equal protection.    

by sneakers563 2008-12-18 07:07PM | 0 recs
No, it doesn't.

A straight couple can go to the justice of the peace and get married. They don't have to go to a church. They are not in any way less married than a couple that does go to a church.

Letting the Religious Right own the language of marriage is a big mistake and it's not accurate.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 02:26AM | 0 recs
False thinking

It's not letting the "Religious Right" own the word "marriage," it's letting "religion" own the word "marriage."  It's only equivilent if all religion is the same to you.  Is it?

by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 04:32AM | 0 recs
The Religious Right

is who is trying to stop marriage equality. Normal religious people did not support Prop 8.

The Religious Right did not invent marriage, they don't own it. There is no reason to surrender that ground to them.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 06:11AM | 0 recs
Who said the Religious Right?

Not all religious people are Conservatives, just like not all gays are <insert stereotype here>.

by Neef 2008-12-19 05:24AM | 0 recs
Tell me something I don't know.

Normal religious people are not bigots.

However, the vast majority of bigots like to claim religion as their motivation for bigotry. It's convenient, and they think it puts them beyond repreoach.

It has always been thus.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Tell me something I don't know.

And what makes you think presume that all gay people want to get married? What I do believe we al want is EQUAL RIGHTS and gay marriage does not mean we have equal rights.

by venician 2008-12-19 07:39AM | 0 recs
Marriage rights are equal rights.

Take 'em or leave 'em, I don't care.

It's no dishonor for you if you don't want to marry, but it is a dishonor for America that you are not allowed to. That is my concern.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Marriage rights are equal rights.

Yeah, your "concerns" are noted.

by venician 2008-12-19 08:31AM | 0 recs
Ha ha

very funny.

If you could argue the points your snark would carry more punch.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Ha ha

Argue, you're just going around in circles trying to fight. I've already stated what a mistake it is to fight this battle over "marriage" when the war should be fought over equal rights.

by venician 2008-12-19 08:59AM | 0 recs
Marriage rights are equal rights.

If you don't get that, if you think separate-but -equal civil unions are going to solve anything, then that would account for why you feel you are going in circles.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 09:21AM | 0 recs
To some extent

we are talking at cross-purposes.

You are defending the right of gays to marry. I support you. I do not disagree.

I am protesting the increasing corporatization of marriage, for any persons of any orientation. Our disagreement is not gay versus straight, it is perhaps secular versus religious. It seems you see marriage as a State function, which is far FAR more power than I am willing to give away.

by Neef 2008-12-19 08:35AM | 0 recs

The hell is that? Now you're just making stuff up.

I've already said it, but if you are someone who personally does not want to marry, that's fine. "And this bird you cannot chain" or whatever.

Some people don't vote either, but it doesn't mean the fight to win universal sufferage was in vain.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 08:47AM | 0 recs
Next question

so if "civil union" is what you want to call what we have always called "legal marriage," are clergy members going to be authorized to conduct civil unions, in the way they are currently deputized to conduct marriages?

Because there are problems either way.

Either you say "no," in keeping with what I think is your line of argument, in which case the Religious Right screams because you have taken away their power to conduct legal marriages in church. A power they have enjoyed for centuries and not one I imagine they will surrender glady.

Or you say "yes," in which case they bitch and moan about "how the gays killed marriage" because even the poor preacher has to perform civil unions now, and he didn't have to before, and this just proves how oppressed they are.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 02:51AM | 0 recs
No-one said it would be easy

And nobody is suggesting that this get taken care of now, this year.  The seperation of union and marriage is a long-term goal that we need to work towerds as a society.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 04:33AM | 0 recs
It's a pointless goal.

What is the use of  "separating union and marriage" (whatever that means?)

Do you really think you can appease the zealots by calling gay marriage something other than gay marriage? You can't, they are zealots. That's what makes them zealots.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 06:17AM | 0 recs
It's not pointless

It's no more or less pointless than struggling for emancipation of slaves was in 1850.  Society can change, it just usually doesn't change quickly or without a lot of work.

But if you don't see the purpose of prying marriage from legal unions, then we're ramming our heads against a brick wall and we'd be more productive working some other angle.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 06:31AM | 0 recs
You are not arguing for emancipation.

You are arguing for "separate but equal."

It may seem like a feel-good compromise but it's not justice and it won't work.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 06:42AM | 0 recs
If you think that you're not listening.

You are arguing for "separate but equal."

No, I'm arguing for "seperation of church and state."

Marriage = Church
Union = State

Straight and gay folks would both get unions in the eyes of the government.

If I were arguing for "seperate but equal," I'd be saying that gay folks should get unions and straight folks should get marriages and then say that they all have the same rights, which we all know is bullshit in the end.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 06:51AM | 0 recs
Let's try this another way.

Currently straight people have the right to legally marry but gays do not.

What is the justification for not allowing gays to legally marry?

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 06:55AM | 0 recs
Don't change the subject

We're talking about the long-term goal of changing how marriage is handled by our society at large.

Gay marriage, while an important component, is just one part.  To us, there is no justification for gays not to marry, but the trick is getting the culture as a whole to understand and approve.

If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.  We now have more than a hammer, though... we have a giant toolkit known as "The Obama Administration."  We don't need to pound the issue like we would if we were out of options.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 07:04AM | 0 recs
I didn't think you had an answer to that one.

There is no need to "change how marriage is handled by our society at large." The way it is handled right now works fine, with one glaring exception, and that is that gay and lesbians are excluded from it.

What is needed is merely to extend the franchise to them. Abolishing legal marriage for straight people does not accomplish this, it strikes me as nothing more than procrastination.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 07:15AM | 0 recs
Everything's fine except it isn't.

I always get a chuckle from people who say that everything's okay except for one thing that's treated like the worst thing in the world.  Well, what about another person's viewpoint?  What if we fix your thing and men can get married to men and women can get married to women, but in the process of doing so, transgendered people get hit with some sort of legal loophole that classifies them as "none of the above?"  Or something to do with alien status, or heck, space alien status, if we're going for the long view.  

Yes, we can try to close the gay rights loophole and start the onerous process all over again with whatever new issue should come up, losing fights at first and eventually winning victories... but why not solve the problem once and for all?  Why not live up to the spirit of the founding fathers and seperate church and state even in this one last stubborn area?  

This isn't "abolishing legal marriage for straight people," it's correcting a glaring error in how our society considers marriage to be a legal issue at all.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 07:50AM | 0 recs
That still makes no sense.

"In the process of doing so, transgendered people get hit with some sort of legal loophole" -- why? Why borrow trouble?

Maybe it would help if you looked at how marriage actually works, today. The government does not tell churches who they must legally marry but it does tell them who they cannot legally marry. There are basically four categories -- they cannot marry 1) people who are under legal age, 2) people who do not want to get married, 3) people who are already married to other people, and 4) gays and lesbians (to their own gender, anyway.)

Now, of course there are churches that make "spiritual" marriages in violation of those rules all the time. Look at the FLDS church, for example, for violations of the first three, and the other extreme, the UU's and some liberal mainstream churches which perform "commitment ceremonies" for gays and lesbians.

The point is that these unions are not currently legally recognized. The ten year old third bride of a Mormon fundamentalist is no more entitled to social security benefits than Gene Robinson's partner of eighteen years.

The remedy is a simple one (legally) and that is to remove the fourth category. The law should be that churches (and justices of the peace, etc.) can marry any two consenting adults of legal age, who are not already legally married to someone else. Period. That's all you have to say.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 08:36AM | 0 recs

Marriage is not, and should not be considered, a State function. In 1948, the United Nations declared marriage a human right, not to be bartered, regulated or abrogated. To consider marriage a State function is to demote marriage to a privilege, abdicating it to the whim of individual states or sovereign powers.

The result of the Proposition 8 vote is irrelevant, the vote itself was a human rights violation, and should have been presented as such.

I will allow that the State has some interest in defining the powers of the couple relative to each other, but only so far as to protect the rights of each spouse, both of whom are still members of the society. In other words, it should still be illegal to beat your spouse, no matter what s/he says.

However, the ability to form a Union is and should be, beyond legislation.

by Neef 2008-12-19 08:50AM | 0 recs
Let me guess

you are coming at this from some sort of Libertarian point of view? You seem pretty consistent on the "government bad" angle.

I simply don't share that point of view. I'm a Liberal, I believe government is one of the most deeply human things we ever do. It is how people living in a modern, technologically advanced society organize themselves to share resources and protect one another. Just because we do it badly sometimes does not mean it is not a noble endeavor.

Because of this, I do not see government sanction of marriage as degrading at all, but the opposite -- a sign of collective support and respect.

On this, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Let me guess

I am quite Liberal when it comes to the schoolroom, the boardroom and the workplace. I am strongly Libertarian when it comes to the bedroom and the church. I believe in empowering the people, but I do not trust them with my rights.

Because of this, I do not see government sanction of marriage as degrading at all, but the opposite -- a sign of collective support and respect.

Government sanction of marriage is government ownership of marriage, as was amply demonstrated in CA. I don't really see how you can reconcile collective support and respect with that result. However, that's your dream to chase. As long as you stay out of my marriage (for I will surely stay out of yours), we have no issues.

by Neef 2008-12-19 11:18AM | 0 recs
For many people
the marriage license is merely a formality and the religious part is what matters. If the state somehow revoked my marriage license, I wouldn't consider myself to be any less married to my wife. I also wouldn't expect God to give a shit about what the state of Arizona has to say about it.
by sneakers563 2008-12-18 01:31PM | 0 recs
Then you've got it backwards.

It is not the church that gives you social security benefits, or privileged status when paying taxes.

There are 1,054 rights attached to marriage, and no church has the power to give them out. If these rights mean nothing to you, so be it, but that doesn't give you the right to deny them to other people who happen to be gay.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-18 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Then you've got it backwards.
Of course. Those are the legal contractual rights that I'm talking about! And where did I say anything about denying them to gay people? I quite clearly said that any American adult is entitled to enter into the same contract as any other. My further point is that there is a component to marriage that is separate from those legal rights that you mention and that the state has no right to try to regulate that. The state has no authority to determine whether my wife and I, or Dan and Steve, or anyone else you care to mention has made a spiritual commitment to each other. That's between those people and whatever higher power they recognize. Of course those rights you mention mean something to me - my point is that it's nonsensical, even from the perspective of the conservative Christian, to grant the state the authority to decide whether two people have made a commitment before God. It subjugates the authority of God to the authority of the state. The problem here is that the state is trying to overstep it's bounds by claiming authority to regulate BOTH the contractual and the spiritual components of marriage. I want the state to restrict itself to the contractual elements and recognize the right of all Americans, gay OR straight, to take part in them. The state should only grant civil unions, because by granting it authority over "marriage", we're allowing it to make "moral" arguments against gay marriage.
by sneakers563 2008-12-18 06:38PM | 0 recs
Sorry about the formatting - it looked ok before I posted. Don't know what happened.
by sneakers563 2008-12-18 06:40PM | 0 recs
Where are you getting the idea

that state "regulates" any spiritual aspect of marriage?

Marriage is not a contract between two people, it is a legal privilege. Historically, in Europe, it was a privilege for the gentry alone, because only they had property to inherit. Common people simply shacked up, which is where the principle of common-law marriage comes from.

Later in America, marriage was a privilege of white people, slaves were not allowed to marry. After Emancipation, they could, though of course only each other. Blacks and whites were not allowed to marry across racial lines until the 1960's.

Do you see the pattern here? It's about political power, and who has it. As the gay rights movement matures, it is only natural that they would want to win for themselves the same rights and protections enjoyed by straight couples, the same way former slaves were eager to have their unions legally recognized.

It's also natural that those who oppose them will claim religion as an excuse for bigotry, the same way they did when they a) used the Bible to justify owning slaves and b) again used the Bible to condemn "miscegenation."

In this case they have, unsurprisingly, gotten their facts all wrong.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 02:39AM | 0 recs
Marriage is exactly

a contract between two people, perhaps solemnized by their religion. That's all it is, is "are you going to be here", and "yes". That IS marriage.

Of course there is a secondary and implied contract with the outside world, that society will treat you as a unit.

It's this secondary contract that varies widely. There are states where you can look at each other and say "are we married?" "ya", and be done with it. There are states where I can marry you and your spouse as long as I'm your spiritual mentor (I need not be ordained).

It's appropriate for the State to have a say in this secondary contract, because one spouse is potentially relying on extraordinary powers OF the state (such as garnishing your wages for alimony, or being allowed to pierce the privacy veil and view your personal effects).

However, it's important to recognize that the external contract IS secondary, and supports the primary contract between spouses. Your marriage doesn't vary as you move through areas that give you greater or lesser spousal benefits.

by Neef 2008-12-19 05:52AM | 0 recs
No --

marriage is not merely a contract between two people. If it were, there would not be over 1,000 federal rights attached to the status.

You can see the list here:

Are you saying these rights don't exist?

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 06:19AM | 0 recs
You're being purposefully obtuse

You can have a contract with "over 1000 federal rights attached."

I have no idea where you're going with that.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 06:33AM | 0 recs
I'm not the one being obtuse.

A contract between two people does not give them over 1,000 federal rights, it is legal recognition from the state which does that.

You and I can sit down and write up a contract, and you can say I get your social security benefits. We can get a notary public to sign it and everything.

But it means squat. I cannot then take that document to the Social Security office and claim your benefits because we are not legally married.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 06:46AM | 0 recs
Yep, like banging my head against the wall


by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 06:49AM | 0 recs
Don't feel bad.

I didn't get it at first, either.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feel bad.

You still don't. The best solution is to bring back the E.R.A. with a little adjustment:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex,sexual preference, or sexual identity.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

by venician 2008-12-19 11:40AM | 0 recs

I would love to see the ERA given another go.

by mikeinsf 2008-12-19 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feel bad.

It's sexual orientation, not sexual preference. There's no choice involved so it's not a preference, it's just how people are.

by Quinton 2008-12-19 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feel bad.

Of course their is a choice weather you desire to sleep with men or women.

by venician 2008-12-19 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feel bad.

You're kid of off base with that one, with all due respect.

by mikeinsf 2008-12-19 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feel bad.

I used the term preference so that it would include bisexuals. Using orientation could be a tricky in a legal respect.


the act or process of orienting.

  1. the state of being oriented.
  2. an introduction, as to guide one in adjusting to new surroundings, employment, activity, or the like: New employees receive two days of orientation.  
  3. Psychology, Psychiatry. the ability to locate oneself in one's environment with reference to time, place, and people.
  4. one's position in relation to true north, to points on the compass, or to a specific place or object.
  5. the ascertainment of one's true position, as in a novel situation, with respect to attitudes, judgments, etc.
  6. Chemistry. a. the relative positions of certain atoms or groups, especially in aromatic compounds.
b. the determination of the position of substituted atoms or groups in a compound.

by venician 2008-12-19 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feel bad.

Wow. That's a really unenlightened statement that neither scientific research or the gay and lesbian community would agree with. People don't choose the gender of people they are attracted to. You're just attracted to who you're attracted to. I didn't decide to be attracted to the same sex anymore than any straight person decided to be attracted to the opposite sex.

In both science and the gay community there's differing ideas about whether sexuality is genetic or based of life experiences at a formative state ie. nature vs. nurture or if it's some combination of the two or one in some cases and the other in other cases. Your statement that people choose which gender they are attracted to is completely wrong though.

by Quinton 2008-12-19 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feel bad.

No it isn't. Bisexual people "choose" or have a preference which sex they want to sleep with on a daily basis. By the way I am part of the gay "community".

by venician 2008-12-19 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feel bad.

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. I took it the other way, sorry. It's more commonly said that bisexual people are attracted to both sexes or even that they are attracted to individuals regardless of their gender. I think that sexual orientation and gender identity would cover everything.

by Quinton 2008-12-20 04:19PM | 0 recs
The secondary contract

which I mentioned, has 1000 rights.

Put it this way, if you lose 500 of those rights, are you still married? Say you can't visit your spouse in the hospital for some reason. That's one right gone. Are you still married?

Continue down the list. Now your spouse is a political prisoner robbed of his own rights. Obviously your rights as a spouse are equally curtailed. Which right, taken away, nullifies your marriage?

If you can't pick a point, a certain level of rights, that nullifies the marriage, then you are saying that the marriage exists independent of external rights.

by Neef 2008-12-19 07:50AM | 0 recs

How on earth am I to be deprived of 500 rights? Can you even name the rights you are talking about, let alone how I am to be deprived of them?

You are grasping at straws now.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 08:38AM | 0 recs
Did I not specifically name one?

You can no longer visit your spouse in the hospital.

by Neef 2008-12-19 08:53AM | 0 recs
So by what mechanism

would the government take that away? And why?

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 09:34AM | 0 recs
Do me a favor

Are you married, yourself?

If so, go pull your marriage certificate out of the drawer and see for yourself what it says. See what seal is stamped on it.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 08:40AM | 0 recs
I am married, for 13 years

and I don't have a marriage certificate. I should think my views on that would have been obvious.

Pennsylvania recognized common-law marriage until 2005 (it still recognizes marriages established before that), which covers most situations. I have a solid Will. My wife gets my insurance via Domestic Partnership. Our daughter gets it by default.

We do wear rings.

I walk the walk. If They decide to come knocking on my door, telling me my wife isn't, I suggest They bring friends.

by Neef 2008-12-19 09:01AM | 0 recs
Then you are common-law married.

You have more rights and privileges than any gay couple that has been together that long, through no virtue of your own, simply because you are hetero. Congratulations.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 09:36AM | 0 recs
Again, backwards.

It is not the state which is overstepping its bounds, it is the church.

The Religious Right is trying to regulate who the state may or may not marry, based on religious arguments.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 02:43AM | 0 recs

Man it's amazing how widespread this pernicious idea is.

Maybe you have never been to a wedding in a church, but if you had, you would have heard the celebrant say "and now by the power vested in me by the state of ... "

They say that because it is only by the authority of the state that they can marry people.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-18 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree

Argh.  I'm so tired of the "OH NOES POLYGAMY!!" arguments.  I don't mean to call you out specifically, your post just reminded me of lots of other people who are afraid of it.  I'm going to go on record right now as stating that I fully support allowing polygamy.  If many people want to marry the same person, so be it.  I don't care what they want to do or with whom they want to live.  There is already a law against coerced marriage, and rape, and if we did a better job actually enforcing them, adult polygamy wouldn't be a problem.  It's really clear to me that most of the anti-polygamy bias is really just all about tax breaks.  So, let's stop giving tax breaks to married people (or civilly united people).  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-12-19 08:57AM | 0 recs
I don't mind you

calling out my comment, it was intended to be provocative, and I did want a response.

However, I'm not bashing polygamy, I just wanted to know if the idea that "all marriage should be respected" was really consistent, or if it was just "my type of marriage should be respected".

I applaud your answer, it's a refreshingly tolerant one.

by Neef 2008-12-19 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't mind you

Sorry, I get worked up about people (including liberals) who use polygamy as the slippery-slope response to marriage reforms.  Your post just happened to be the one to remind me of it.  I think the marriage tax benefits are one of the big reasons that people have problem with gay marriage.  They don't always say it, but I absolutely think it is one of the reasons that more than 50% support civil unions for gay people but less than 50% support gay marriage.  Yes, part is the name, but it's also about those tax breaks.  People say "Ok, ok, you can cohabitate and see each other in the hospital, but I'll be damned if you get to claim each other on your tax returns."  

Also, since I am being honest, I really don't think there would be very many voluntary/willing polygamist marriages.  I think the potential for abuse and coercion is very high, but I'd rather have us focus on that coercion instead of saying "Well, some of those marriages are bad ones so we should probably ban them all."

by ProgressiveDL 2008-12-19 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Some interesting history: Marriage itself has of course existed for centuries, but it wasn't instituted by the Church as a sacrament until the middle ages. I've heard Church historians attribute this in part to an attempt to secure property rights for women when their husbands passed on.

Having said that, I understand why the government needs to be involved in a union of citizens that has numerous legal implications. Which is why I too am heartily in favor of a clear separation between the legal and spiritual aspects - that will dismantle the nonsensical logic behind "defending marriage" and put paid to this wedge issue for good.

by Sumo Vita 2008-12-18 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

So then the non-religious aren't allowed to call themselves married?  I'm sorry, but screw that.

by bottl4 2008-12-19 05:17AM | 0 recs
If you buy this logic,

then, yes.

Thank God someone else here can see how bogus that is.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-19 06:20AM | 0 recs

It is the state which marries people, not the church.

Some people choose to have their marriages consecrated by a religious organization, but this is purely optional and not neccessary to effect a legal marriage.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-18 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Why is recommended diaries an issue. I agree with most all you have said but don't quite get this " our collective thoughts should outshine the dissenters opinions and their recommends"

Look you have a racist commentator here who has recommended your diary (i'll refrain from calling his name out, everyone knows who it is here it seems). BUT does that make your diary any less worthwhile? I don't think so, your point is well taken and mostly right.

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-18 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Fair enough.

by mikeinsf 2008-12-18 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

WEAK, Mumbai, or whoever you really are, trying to accuse me of racism.

by venician 2008-12-18 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

I edited it accordingly.  Still, the abuse of people who collectively swarm in from other sites to push their agenda has been a continuous problem (there were times when MYDD looked a lot like TD's blog). It looks to me like they are trying to do it again with this issue.

by mikeinsf 2008-12-18 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

MYDD is exactly as the what it stands for: My democratic democracy ( i think that's what it stands for :))

It's a large tent and it is silly to have this as a one stop shop for only single minded opinions and recommends. hey, if those diaries were not recommend, you would not written your thoughts out in dissent now would ya? :)

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-18 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

They were recommended by other caos trolls.

by venician 2008-12-18 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

it takes one to recognize another.

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-18 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

No, it just takes someone who is observant and who can spot sockpuppets. Like you for example, my guess is KNOW VOX!

by venician 2008-12-18 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

and he reaches into his fab five circle of vocabulary to comes out with word number 3.

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-18 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

And onece again SwissFun starts with his T.R. ABUSE.

by venician 2008-12-18 11:17AM | 0 recs
&quot;chaos&quot; n/t

by aggieric 2008-12-18 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues


by Denny Crane 2008-12-18 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Great diary.  But I disagree that Obama was being tone deaf of insensitive.  This is a clear political calculation.  He wants to send a message that he's a big tent guy.  Our hope is that he uses maneuvers like these to advance progressive elements of his agenda.  

He wants evangelicals to support him on some issues.  He wants evangelicals to feel like they have access to him even though he differs with them on central issues.  Lincoln was not a committed abolitionist.  Johnson supported status quo segregation.  Yet one signed the Emancipation Proclamation and the other signed the Civil Rights Act.  Let's hope that pattern repeats itself with Obama on Gay marriage.  

But again, I don't think the Warren invite was a political blunder.  I think it represents a political calculation.

by Strummerson 2008-12-18 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Dunno. Perhaps I'm in the gay bubble. I think the LGBT community is full-on behind him and most of us are pretty pragmatic about all of this.  Still, we got knocked down pretty hard this last cycle. I think we could use something else besides more bad news. I'm optimistic that we will, but this thing sucks.

by mikeinsf 2008-12-18 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

I agree that it sucks.  I also agree that it's being exploited by the haters.  My only disagreement is that I think it's a calculation.  I don't know if that makes it better or worse for members of your community.  But as I wrote in a diary a little earlier, I don't think that it proves anyone has been discarded from this coalition.  If inclusion of Warren helps gain support for an economic agenda that stabilizes and equalizes things, support for more diplomacy and development in place of militarism, support for the expansion and improvement of health care, these will benefit LGBT Americans as well.  And if it gives some cover to continuing the civil rights agenda, even better.  But we need to wait and see.  

I'm not gay and I am very upset about Warren.  I don't think all opposition to gay marriage is motivated by homophobia, but a lot is.  And we know that Warren is a very INFLUENTIAL hate monger on these issues.  Politics is hard and messy.  It just makes more sense to take the long view, if we can.

by Strummerson 2008-12-18 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

I think that saying that not "all opposition to gay marriage is motivated by homophobia" is just as ridiculous as saying that all opposition to black people isn't motivated by racism both positions are those held by bigots. There's no other reason but bigotry to be opposed to marriage equality or to people of a particular race of ethnic background.

by Quinton 2008-12-18 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

That is exactly the kind of reductive argument that inhibits progress.  

I truly believe that one can oppose gay marriage without hating or fearing homosexuality.  This may emanate from traditional commitments with which some people wrestle, or from a lack of understanding of how the lack of access to marriage impairs social recognition and impedes the lives of gay Americans in countless painful ways.

You don't persuade anyone by calling them a bigot.  If you are so deeply committed to your own simple purity that you cannot recognize the complexities of other people's realities, I salute your sainthood and revel in my own bigotry against self-righteousness.

The fact that I see gay marriage as a clear, cut and dried civil rights issue, does not mean that everyone who disagrees with me is a brutal oppressor who sees things just as clearly from the opposite perspective.

by Strummerson 2008-12-18 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

If I were trying to persuade someone to be supportive of marriage equality or some other gay rights issue then I certainly wouldn't do so by calling them a bigot. You're right that doing so would certainly not be all that productive. That doesn't change that there's no reason bar bigotry to be against same sex couples being able to get married or to oppose equal rights of some sort for any other minority group.

Surely some decades ago you wouldn't have said that there were reasons aside from bigotry for those who opposed inter-racial marriage or giving women or african-american's the right to vote and then made excuses for their "traditional commitments" or "lack of understanding". Sadly, it's all bigotry plain and simple.

by Quinton 2008-12-18 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

While I think there are significant similarities between between the prohibitions on interracial marriage and the restriction of marriage to heterosexuals, the parallels are not complete.  People who opposed the former did so out of a desire to inhibit interracial sex and children, but more broadly to restrict the participation of African Americans in society.  While some opponents of marriage equality think that its restriction will discourage homosexuality, there are indeed opponents who accept gay Americans in society and have no interest in enforcing a closet or eradicating a particular sexual orientation.

Some opponents of marriage equality do not understand the degree to which its restriction inhibits rights.  Some accept gay Americans and their relationships but think that restricting marriage equality will somehow preserve heterosexual marriage against a crisis that is as old as the institution itself.  People have been decrying the demise of marriage and family since antiquity.  I mean that literally.  Anyway, I think they are wrong.  It doesn't make them bigots.  And there are more enabling ways to draw these parallels than to oversimplify them as I think you do here.

by Strummerson 2008-12-18 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

The thing about being inclusive means everyone is going to have to deal with some decisions that suck. But having Rick Warren do the invocation doesn't actually do anything to the GLBT community or its agenda.

We all need to get use to the idea that while Obama is President everybody but the truly heartless, gutless, and inane are going to have a voice. And I hate to break it to everyone but disagreeing on issues does not make a person any of those things.

by JDF 2008-12-18 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Regarding those who write objectionable diaries, ignore them. Entering comments, even negative ones, only serves to reinforce the diarist. Don't even troll rate them. Do nothing, nada, zilch. Writing a followup diary like this one is also self defeating. The "moderators <who> hardly seem to care" are setting an example everyone would be wise to follow.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-12-18 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

It's probably good advice, but the net effect of the admins' policy, or lack thereof, is that it makes a lot of topics taboo.  Any criticism of Obama is impossible on this site because it's immediately coopted by people who come here because no other site would put up with that kind of disruptiveness.

by Jess81 2008-12-18 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

I'm not sure ignoring them was very effective when this corner was Alegre's Corner, but OK.

by mikeinsf 2008-12-18 09:59AM | 0 recs
You're dead on

I'm pretty tired of all this hand-wringing from the gay community (or rather, people claiming to be from the gay community) over things that are largely meaningless.

There's an "ex-gay" gospel singer (in quotes because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist) that sang at some of Obama's faith rallies in the south before the primaries?  Obviously McClurkin will be Obama's civil rights advisor!  Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration ceremony?  Clearly Obama will put gays in concentration camps!

I get it.  All of us who are here in good faith worked damn hard to get Obama elected in one way or another, be it by donating time, money, or our strong voices as part of the netroots.  We feel invested in his victory and want him to be our champion.  

Thing is, he was elected not to be our champion, but to be the leader of the government of the United States of America.  That doesn't mean that he can't be our champion, but it does mean that he needs to take into consideration the entire country.  Like him or not, Warren is a very influential figure that himself had a hand in the election (remember the Saddleback forums).  Just like Obama worked with far-right Republican Tom Coburn on issues of government accountability, in some areas he and Warren have the same goals and it is entirely appropriate for him to seek allies in all areas.

Remember, the Republicans between 1994 and today sought to exclude people that don't agree with them from any participation in government.  If we just become a liberal version of the Contract With America, we'll likely eventually suffer the same fate of obscurity that they are suffering now.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-18 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: You're dead on

1000% agree.

It's a prayer. That's it. For the life of me I can't figure out why this is a big deal. Do I agree with Warren? Not at all. It's not like he'll be dictating policy.

We cannot foster understanding among different groups by exclusion. If we want evangelicals to become more accepting of the LGBT community then we need to include them, not shun them.

Maybe then they'll realize that these people aren't so bad after all.

by PSUdan 2008-12-18 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: You're dead on

Wow, so should we now also expect neo-Nazis and other fuck-ups to be part of the celebration of the new leadership of the government of the United States of America?

In my opinion, there are, like any other value, two kinds of diversity: positive and negative.  To put a pastor with insulting views up as a representative of religious people should be insulting to everyone, not just to gay and lesbian Americans.

And by insulting views, I mean his explicit and unabashed belief that two people of the same sex getting married is equivalent to pedophilia and incest.

by Sieglinde 2008-12-18 01:53PM | 0 recs
Rick Warren isn't equivalent to a Neo-Nazi

And you must be pretty damned hurt to lash out and make (or imply) such a comparison.

You can bitch all the way to equality for gays if you like.  The only way we see it in my lifetime is if we try like hell not to incense the religious right while we win the argument.

Showing respect to your enemies makes sense if it helps you to co-opt them.  And besides, not everybody on that side of the issue is your enemy.  Some may change their minds in time.  Having Warren speak at the inaugural honors the views Obama obviously doesn't share.  Might that not make it easier down the line?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-12-18 06:16PM | 0 recs
I'm curious

Do you support polygamy (assuming age-appropriate partners of course)?

by Neef 2008-12-18 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: You're dead on

I think what the commenter was saying was that if you stopped focusing on figuring out new ways to get outraged and started trying to speak to the people at Rick Warren's church instead of pissing them off, you might actually get somewhere.

As it is, you all look like nutters when you pull this kind of shit, and then it looks like the whole goddamn liberal community is beating up on Barack Obama because of a fucking symbol. Christ.

by vcalzone 2008-12-18 09:59PM | 0 recs

the reason im annoyed is because - while i agree with this diary - many are trying to suggest that criticism of this or any other political issue (see: kennedy as senator in NY) are tied to PUMA etc.  

yes - many trolls have crawled out of their holes - but there are many that never even crawled in that are use any issue to rehash primary grudges.

by canadian gal 2008-12-18 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Mike, You

 Nailed it. Rec'd.

by QTG 2008-12-18 10:47AM | 0 recs
Well said--to put

it charitably I'm not a fan of this decision, but any President is going to disappoint me on one occasion or another.  But, the NOBAMA morons try to take every perceived mistake on his part and turn it into a hanging offense.

by Geekesque 2008-12-18 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Well said--to put

It tells you something about their motives

by iohs2008 2008-12-18 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Well said--to put

I've seen a million diaries on Obama's fucking prayer pick, nary a word on his stock market picks, which are completely crucial to the future of this country. And I wonder how the fuck we managed to win this year and how the fuck we can win again if so many keep acting like a symbol is all we can achieve anymore.

by vcalzone 2008-12-18 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Also, if I might just suggest the possibility that Obama is being extremely smart (who could have known?) and that we should all see that this tiny gesture of 'respeck' towards the only rabid right wing nutcase kirstchen whackjob that possesses 2 braincells to rub together should be understood by us all as a brilliant move.

If you feel like it's required to have a prayer, it seems like to me that you might as well use it to some actual effect, if you catch my drift.

by QTG 2008-12-18 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

I agree with what you say in this diary.  Nevertheless, I am very disappointed in Obama for selecting this douchebag to speak.  I can't imagine that selecting Warren will actually give Obama any cred with the Fundamentalists; rather, it just pisses off some of his most loyal supporters.

Having said that, Obama's light years better than any Republican on LGBT issues, and policy matters more than symbolism.  

Electing good people is just the first step.  Now we have to force them to deliver.

by Captain Bathrobe 2008-12-18 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I'll bet you a dollar

(not all of you, but one dollar)* that the prayer this tool delivers pisses off the Right Wingers.

*(unless I win, then everyone pays up)

by QTG 2008-12-18 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

I'm having a difficult time stringing words together today.


by Jess81 2008-12-18 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Good Diary.

My thoughts exactly.

People who want to criticize Obama should pick something with more substance than this.

by SuperCameron 2008-12-18 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

You nailed it, Mike.  REC'D.

by fogiv 2008-12-18 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Actually, i AM a fan of this decision (to invite Warren), but I still disagree with your diary.  I have seen a lot of great supporters of Obama, such here, including some who traveled out of state to campaign for him, expressing their views on this matter.  Even though I happen to agree with Obama's decision, I also support the right of others to criticize it without being labeled as a troll or an Obama-hater or of having a "secret" real agenda to destroy Obama.

All that being said, I do think this was a good decision.  At this point in time, the left evangical movement is not strong enough to displace the right evangelical movement.  Instead, we need to reach out to and bolster the centrist evangelical movement, even if we disagree sharply with some of their positions.  Smart move by Obama.  (But I still welcome people to voice their views in opposition, if they feel like it.)

by markjay 2008-12-18 11:41AM | 0 recs
Hold on a sec.

Even though I happen to agree with Obama's decision, I also support the right of others to criticize it without being labeled as a troll or an Obama-hater or of having a "secret" real agenda to destroy Obama.

Mike isn't impinging on the rights of people to criticize the decision, he's telling the trolls, Obama-haters, and people with a "secret" real agenda to destroy Obama to stop using gay rights as a cover.

So far, nearly all of the diaries about this non-issue have come from obvious trolls, Obama-haters, and people with a "secret" real agenda to destroy Obama.  You see the distinction?

by Dracomicron 2008-12-18 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Hold on a sec.

I see your point. To be honest, I can't recall everyone who had diaried on this, but I don't doubt that at least some of them fit your description.  However, I have seem some really good people who have written comments on this issue in some of those diaries indicating their strong disapproval of Obama's decision, and who I do not consider trolls, Obama-haters, or people with a secret agenda.  So if Mike is only referring to the diarists, it may or may not be true (I don't recall who is in the list), but I can say with confidence it doesn't apply to all the commenters.  

by markjay 2008-12-18 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re-read Mike's diary

The first and second paragraphs make it pretty clear who he's going after.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-18 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Is there ANYONE that the "what's the big deal, it's only a 3 minute prayer" people would have a PROBLEM with delivering the invocation?

I'm getting a little tired of having my community marginalized by fellow progressive minimizers. There's a symbolic importance to these sorts of choices. This is a high profile event, about as momentous as they come.

So please, I'd really love to see a few names of some preachers or pastors that you feel would be too much because of some position or stance or history with some issue or group. Surely there is someone you'd find personally a too objectionable.

The point is, that this is a big deal, is a slap, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that Obama could have found someone without this kind of anti progressive, anti democratic stamp on them.  I think it's crystal clear that he's giving some quiet reassurance to all the people in CA who voted for Prop 8 or those who support similar measures in other states.

And no, I'm not happy at all about that message.

by sarany 2008-12-18 12:54PM | 0 recs

Is there ANYONE that the "what's the big deal, it's only a 3 minute prayer" people would have a PROBLEM with delivering the invocation?

Zombie Jerry Falwell.  He might try to eat Obama's enormous brain.

Your problem is that folks like you are so vain that they think this song is about you.  It's not about you, it's about us.

What you see as a slap in the face is a hand offered in friendship to people that also live here and deserve a say in things.  The fact that you see it as an either/or proposition is proof that the Republican method of dissecting voter blocs has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It's going to take a long time for us to get past the idea that we don't have to agree with every single belief of another person to respect them or acknowledge their importance.

I hate to break it to you, but Warren doesn't need this opportunity to legitimize him.  He's got a huge following as it is.  And by the simple act of letting what you would see as a political enemy hang out with him on a big day, he gains some support from that huge following... he didn't even have to make any concessions.

Trust me, you want Obama to be popular, because he's the guy that's going to go to the mat for you, someday soon.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-18 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure

he's a gay bashing anti choice guy, and he's not that good about the Jews either, but sure, let's give him a nod, a wink and the big spotlight.

Everything's groovy in Obamaland. We love Lieberman and Warren and anyone who has a constituency, 'cause we include EVERYBODY and we love you all. We just love your constituency.

Nope, this one is too much for me and it shows a dismaying willingness of Obama to reassure people who are, at the least, QUEASY about The Gay, and at WORST, well, there's a lot worse than just a bit QUEASY.

The people who passed Prop 8 united the worst with the queasy, and VOILA, someone lost a right they had for a few short months. That's what a wink, a nod and complacency will get you. Real tangible results.

But Oh Yes, Let Us Reach Across the Divide. By all means.

by sarany 2008-12-18 01:24PM | 0 recs

But Oh Yes, Let Us Reach Across the Divide. By all means.

Glad we have your blessing.  Let's get some work done. :)

by Dracomicron 2008-12-18 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure

No what it shows is Obama killing two birds with one stone. He proves that he really is inclusive and he exposes Warrens radical beliefs. By putting a spot light on Warren now more people are curious to find out who he is and what they'll find is how out of touch he really is. It's a way to reach more moderate christians.

by venician 2008-12-18 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure

Clearly, inclusiveness is unacceptable to some. And I ask again, how do they expect to win an election when they just tell half the country to sit down and shut up. Obama would love to put gay rights at the top of his agenda, but it isn't politically feasible yet. Whose fault is that?

by vcalzone 2008-12-18 10:24PM | 0 recs
Per your sigline:

"I had OD'd sniffin' airplane glue. First thing I remember when I came to, the guy asked me if I was hooked on airplane glue and I said, 'No, I'm stuck.'

I had three tubes of airplane glue wedged in my mouth, so I could sniff and sleep at the same time. Course, my mouth was all stuck shut from the airplane glue. He took a ball peen hammer and said 'this is gonna hurt'.

And then they charged me for it.

--Townes Van Zandt

by fogiv 2008-12-18 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure

inclusive is inviting someone that hates you in the most vile way to dinner?????    sorry, I've got some self respect, and that's where I draw the line. >there are more appropriate ways to be inclusive.

this is a pattern, and I don't like the pattern.

by swissffun 2008-12-20 01:22AM | 0 recs
Best of three:

Jerry Falwell.
Pat Robertson.
James Dobson.

And the sad fact is: Warren became famous following the Atlanta court shooting, when his "Purpose Driven Life" book was influential in getting the killer to surrender. I think you'd be surprised to learn that - until the inevitable media circus, just how few people were even aware that Warren supported Prop 8.  

by Sumo Vita 2008-12-18 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Best of three:

so Warren loves his mother, remembers her birthdays and pets kitten too.  That doesn't change his bigotry. He hates gays and Obama's own feelings about gays are, I suspect, not quite as "fierce" as his talk.

This is a show me moment, and he just did.

It's not that hard to understand: Obama should not give this guy the honor of this.  Obama should fix this now, and figure out what "fierce" means WRT LGBT issues and start walking his talk.

by sarany 2008-12-19 02:25AM | 0 recs

1.  Fierce  336 up, 72 down
 A term that gay men used in the late 1990s and early 2000s to describe absolutely everything that was of "exceptional quality".

How was that circuit party?
Oh my god, it was fierce.

Obama is pretty fierce.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Fierce?&quot;

not so fierce on gay. pretty vague, pretty lackluster and willing to throw LGBT under the bus to score conciliation/unity points

it sucks

I don't quite see what the gay dictionary definition has to do with Obama, BTW

by sarany 2008-12-19 07:00AM | 0 recs
You throw yourself under the bus

Stop being a martyr.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: You throw yourself under the bus

oh please

by sarany 2008-12-19 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Fierce?&quot;

"Fierce" is the word Obama used in his statement defending the Warren pick yesterday

by sarany 2008-12-19 07:01AM | 0 recs
Yeah I got that.

My comment stands.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 07:05AM | 0 recs

Or, if he appoints William White, an openly gay man, as Secretary of the Navy, that would be Fierce!

by mikeinsf 2008-12-19 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: fierceness

yeah, a friend pointed that out to me.  It would help a bit.

by sarany 2008-12-19 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Billy Graham.

by Jess81 2008-12-19 08:49AM | 0 recs
David Duke to headline HRC Annual Fundraiser

It's not because the HRC dislikes Black Americans; rather it's to show "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" for a diverse spectrum of viewpoints.

On a more serious note, sometimes the old adage about being unable to please everybody is highly apposite.  It's great that Obama wants to show that he is everybody's president, but when you have a demographic that will not enjoy your presidential status no matter how many bones & scraps you throw at them, it's time to divert those bones & scraps to people who actually do support you.  

by BPK80 2008-12-18 01:01PM | 0 recs
How does he know they won't?

What makes you think they won't support him if he doesn't treat them like enemies right off the bat?

by Dracomicron 2008-12-18 01:06PM | 0 recs
Clearly not evidenced in

his 79% approval rating.

by Sumo Vita 2008-12-18 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: David Duke to headline HRC Annual Fundraiser

Hell, they might as well, doesn't seem like those fundraisers are accomplishing all that much, do it?

Sorry, that's a really snarky way to say that Rick Warren represents a vast majority of the country's opinion. You can't expect Obama to cater to 20% of the country in a spot like this. He wants to be everyone's president, and if he was starting out by specifically writing off the sizable majority of the country who disapproves of gay marriage, the country would be worse off.

This is a war for hearts and minds and needs to be treated as such. The GLBT movement is losing because they aren't doing enough legwork before making the big moves. Just because one civil rights war has been fought and won doesn't mean you can piggyback off of it. Instead of expecting the courts to give out rights, there should be a focus on convincing people to WANT those rights granted.

But besides that, it's a fucking minor incident. Warren isn't the headliner of the day. And he will have minimal say on GLBT issues. And you know what else? He knows this already!!! You know why he doesn't care? Because he knows he still is winning over the public by default.

by vcalzone 2008-12-18 10:34PM | 0 recs
You've got nerve

How dare you tell LGBT people to beg for equal rights.  What kind of progressive takes that kind of view with regard to human rights?  Should victims of domestic violence try to embrace their abusers because that's the only way they may change their abusers' views?  Of course not.  You fight to put a stop to spousal abuse by gathering like minded people into a force that must be listened to.  The LGBT community should do the same thing.  It appears from your comment that you are not on board for this fight.  That is, of course, your prerogative.  But don't try to dress up your lack of concern or interest in gay rights as a problem with gay people.

by orestes 2008-12-19 12:10PM | 0 recs
He said nothing of the kind.

Where did he ask LGBT people to beg for anything?

Screeching hyperbole of this sort only loses battles like this one. Prop 8 lost precisely because gay marriage isn't widely regarded as a moral imperative. Comparing this situation to the often-deadly scourge of spousal abuse is a non-starter, because it doesn't come with fatal consequences - one reason why curbing domestic violence is a widely acknowledged public prerogative.

Warren's rationale for backing Prop 8 was that this wasn't a civil rights issue, because gay partners in Calif. already had partner benefits. "You've got nerve" and "how dare you" don't make for very compelling counter-arguments.  You must attack the problem at its source - public perception. The righteous indignation may feel good, but it accomplishes little or nothing when it comes to winning over hearts and minds.

by Sumo Vita 2008-12-19 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: He said nothing of the kind.

Prop 8 passed with 21% less of a margin than the same issue passed (Prop 20) only 8 years ago.

Enormous swing in public opinion.  It's amazing how easy it has been to decontextualize Prop 8 from the history of marriage equality.  While still a (very narrow) loss, it represents a huge change in less than a decade.  

by BPK80 2008-12-21 10:17PM | 0 recs

Obama isn't going to win the far right hate crowd.  See the election results from Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and the inland south for instance.  It's not a demographic he needs.

Also, I don't know where you're getting this bizarre figure that only 20% of the country supports gay marriage.  Further, there's a big difference between ordinary citizens who have an opposition to gay marriage and pastors who are leading the charge against a large segment of the nation's population (LGBT Americans).  

by BPK80 2008-12-21 10:13PM | 0 recs
Makes perfect sense

When someone suggested that black people are genetically programmed to have lower IQs than other races, he became a pariah in his community.  (James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix)

When someone suggested that women are not neurologically equipped to handle complex science and engineering problems compared to men, he got eased out of office.  (Lawrence Summers, ex-president of Harvard and now Obama's economic adviser.)

When someone proclaimed that homosexuality is a genetic defect, and gay marriage is equivalent to pedophilia and incest, he gets a prominent spot during Obama's inauguration.


by Sieglinde 2008-12-18 02:07PM | 0 recs
Doesn't follow

The first two were involved with cultures that could easily do those things to them.

Can we ease Warren out of office?  What's that you say?  He has a huge following and significant influence that can't easily be taken away?  Why don't we encourage him to throw his substantial weight into opposing us, creating a vicious circle that will keep us at odds with everyone else until the end of time?  Answer: Of course!  Let's do that thang!

by Dracomicron 2008-12-18 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Doesn't follow

No, I don't care if he gets elevated to sainthood in his megachurch.  I just don't want to see him during the inauguration.

And I see by your statement that you're really, really threatened by his immense power-- that you would cower to his perverted views just so you can avoid the cataclysmic fight.

You're so brave.

by Sieglinde 2008-12-18 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Doesn't follow

No, YOU are the one threatened by his power. So much so that you treat this clear bone tossed at the religious right like it's a fucking cabinet post. Do you even care that you are hurting your cause by insulting the majority of the country that isn't already on your side?

by vcalzone 2008-12-18 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Doesn't follow

Note how you call it my cause, and how my simple disagreement with Obama on this one as hurting my cause.

It explains a lot.

by Sieglinde 2008-12-19 03:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Doesn't follow

It is your cause, though. I have no stake in it other than my own sense of decency. If gay marriage hit a national ban tomorrow, my life would remain unchanged. I support your cause, and yet you are attacking me. Gee, I wonder why you're running into a wall.

by vcalzone 2008-12-19 06:45AM | 0 recs

I just love that we're all about throwing bones at some group who believes I'm a genetic defect (an unnatural creature, queer in every respect), and that I'm at par with pedophiles, polygamists, and incestuous people if I've even dreamed of getting married to my partner.

by Sieglinde 2008-12-19 03:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Moreover

You say "some group" as if they don't outnumber you in spades.

by vcalzone 2008-12-19 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Moreover

National polls show that a very sizeable minority of people support either full marriage equality or civil unions. The percentage of those in support has also been shown to be increasing over time. So, even those who oppose marriage equality/civil unions don't out number those who support it in "spades".

And you're saying that the people who conflate same-sex couples getting married with beastiality and incest and pedophilia out number equality supporters "in spades"? The people with such extreme views represent only a loud and angry slice of the population, not a large part of it and certainly not enough to out number anyone.

by Quinton 2008-12-19 12:14PM | 0 recs
Let's play &quot;Let's Compare&quot;

Let's compare your feeling insulted to being tagged as equivalent to a pedophile.  Let's compare your hurt feelings to being part of a group that has been marginalized and deprived of basic human rights. And lest you and yours are next to be thrown under the bus, I suggest that we all stand together against this sort of cynical political ploy or "bone-throwing." And there's another game we can play: You're next in the "When They Came For Me, There Was No One Left" game. Tag.

Warren is unacceptable to your brothers and sisters. To us, he is horrific. He is equivalent to (insert YOUR choice of horrific, unacceptable honoree here).

Try to understand and feel the outrage.

We're all Jewish. We're all gay. We're all women. We're all every trampled minority. Or we're selfish hypocrites.

by sarany 2008-12-19 04:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's play &quot;Let's Compare&quot;

I can understand disliking the man, but he's not driving policy. Showing this sort of outrage NOW dilutes it in the event that Obama reaches out to Warren on something of actual importance.

by vcalzone 2008-12-19 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's play &quot;Let's Compare&quot;

okay, severe disagreement about this.  the inaugural invocation is a high profile, highly symbolic event.

I don't like this symbolism one bit, and it's nasty, cynical politics to elevate Rick Warren. He's a poster child for anti gay.

Good lord, I guess the apologizers will get mad when their own ox gets it.

by sarany 2008-12-19 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's play &quot;Let's Compare&quot;

Ok, I'll bite.

Who gave the invocation for George W. Bush?
Who gave it for Clinton?
Who gave it To Bush, the first?

If it's such a high profile, highly symoblic event, then you will have no problem coming up with the correct answer in a split second.

by PSUdan 2008-12-19 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's play &quot;Let's Compare&quot;

that's silly...  the point is, what is getting into the minds of the public consciousness NOW, and more importantly, into particular constituencies? The message will live beyond the memory of Rick Warren, Gay Hater, Evolution-Denier, Anti-Choice, and Proponent of Assassination.  You know very well what that message is. And it's a BAD one for LGBT folks (not to mention those other things).

Plus, in his world, Jews are a goin' to hell, along with most of us here, I suppose.

by sarany 2008-12-19 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's play &quot;Let's Compare&quot;

You're giving the public way too much credit if you believe it will sink into the general consciousness. About 2% of Americans will even remember who gave the invocation a month after it happens, and of that 2%, 95% will be gay.

by PSUdan 2008-12-19 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's play &quot;Let's Compare&quot;

You say the "message will live beyond the memory of Rick Warren" and yet who remembers that Clinton had Billy Graham? Not many it seems.

by venician 2008-12-19 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's play &quot;Let's Compare&quot;

I think another point is being lost here. We, are rightfully I think, Hopeful, that things have progressed since Bill's Inaug.

The optimistic and stirring message of Hope, Change We Can Believe In, and Yes We Can seems diminished by this dumb or cynical or tone deaf move (however you wish to view it).

Believe it or not, actual Obama supporters (like me), can disagree with him when he makes a boneheaded move, without it being, um, traitorous.

by sarany 2008-12-19 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's play &quot;Let's Compare&quot;

Good point, the inaugural invocation is high profile, so the gay and lesbian band chose to perform there should get a lot of attention

by KLRinLA 2008-12-19 04:11PM | 0 recs
No other Dem Pres would have invited this bigot

for invocation. Even the so-called centrist did not invite Falwell for such an honor. Plus this just reinforces the lingering suspicion that people had about Obama's less-than-enthusiastic support for gay issues (remember the refusal to take a photograph with Gavin Newsom). No I am sorry, that you are defending this really despicable decision of Obama is beyond comprehension. Maybe you are taking your Obama-infatuation a bit too far.  

by ann0nymous 2008-12-18 03:23PM | 0 recs
Don't be a fool

Bill Clinton had Billy Graham deliver the invocation in 1996.

by JJE 2008-12-18 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

How dare you question the motives of people who are upset about this issue? How dare you call any of them fair weather friends?

I have been working in the gay/lesbian civil rights movement since the early '70s when I was a late teen. I have spent money and time working on advancing the rights of my sisters and brothers. I have watched friends jailed, kicked out of their homes, fired from their jobs, and die of AIDS. None of it was easy.

I have never flagged in the fight and I challenge you to call me a fair weather friend in this battle.

I am greatly offended by Obama's lack of sensitivity, even hostility in this matter.

I knew from the first that HE was the fair weather friend to gay/lesbian people. I knew it but I voted for him anyway once Hillary had dropped out of the race.

And now I see that I was not wrong in my assessment.

He is not friend to the gay/lesbian community. This move went way beyond insensitivity.

He says this is part of his desire to bring people together. Who is he bringing together here: a bigot and the people he hates. Who will change in this encounter? No One.

I'm deeply disappointed and ashamed of my Party.

You, sir, are the fair weather friend to people and causes -- you now expect us to fall into line and never complain when we see injustice.

Well, that ain't gonna happen.

by cuppajoe 2008-12-18 04:42PM | 0 recs
Now, slowly

OK, one more time, the Clift Notes version:

I am not talking about appropriate anger that is found in thoughtful posts like Todd Beeton's yesterday; I am talking about crap diaries that proclaim that "Obama has always been against civil rights".

That means I am differentiating between the true outrage of thoughtful people and the opportunistic shit-stirring of trolls.  The absurd "Obama has always been against civil rights" quote is from a diary posted yesterday.

Look: I'm as annoyed as anyone with the Warren invocation.  I think it was tone-deaf and particularly insensitive to the LGBT community, especially after Prop. 8.

That means I don't like it either.

For people who really care about LGBT rights, the task is to hold his feet to the fire and demand that he keeps his campaign promises and repeals DADT and DOMA.

That means that though the symbolism of this hurts, it's the tangible actions he takes after he becomes president that matter. The task at hand is to hold him to his promises.

And, as far as me being a fair weather friend to people and causes... whatever that means... you don't know me. One clue: it might just turn out that you are not The Only Gay In The Village.

As for me telling you to be quiet and fall into line, can you find in which sentence I said that?  

by mikeinsf 2008-12-18 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Now, slowly

Well said.

by fogiv 2008-12-18 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Now, slowly

It really isn't necessary for you to explain yourself -- you were clear the first time. But there are still things in your diary that I disagree with.

I'm sure we agree on more than we disagree about. And I'd be happy to have a discussion some time.

But I still find your arguments about people being trolls somewhat inflammatory and unnecessary.

You didn't say we should all fall in line -- not in so many words. But, it seems to me that you only want us to criticize Obama in certain ways.

How are we to "hold his feet to the fire" if we don't speak up -- and speaking up can't be within the parameters that anyone sets up. If you think a post or a diary is written by a troll, then either ignore it or give a good lengthy comment but don't stifle people.

The more I read and hear about the Warren issue, the angrier I become. I feel it's a complete betrayal.

It's more than insensitive. If Warren had made remarks to the effect that blacks and whites should not marry, he would not be up on that platform no matter what other good works he has done.

My previous post was probably "hotter" than I'd have liked to appear (but I'm angry about this issue and I fired it off faster than I usually do these things).

by cuppajoe 2008-12-18 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Now, slowly

I know it's usually best to ignore troll diaries.  But by last night I was catching whiff of a trend among the obvious trolls and felt I had to call it out before some of these people really ran with it. They are being disingenuous with an issue that is close to me.

That said, I think it's clear I don't think everyone who is pissed is a troll.

Also, I think making a stink is perfectly fine. The infamous Kos made a good point over at his blog that "the silver lining" of this whole Warren business is that it led to Obama today to proclaim himself a "fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans." There is going to have be some follow-through after that statement.

by mikeinsf 2008-12-18 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

the task is to hold his feet to the fire and demand that he keeps his campaign promises and repeals DADT and DOMA.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Obama is just Bill Clinton with more people believing that he's not triangulating.

It's disappointing, but it's reality.

by reggie44pride 2008-12-18 06:27PM | 0 recs

should be a provable fact. As of yet, this is simply your prediction.

by mikeinsf 2008-12-18 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Reality

A prediction based off some early actions.  I'm not just making things up about him.

by reggie44pride 2008-12-19 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Reality
like hiring numerous gay and lesbian to is staff, like choosing the all gay and lesbian band to play at the invocation.
You are not making things up, but you seem to ignore a lot of relevant things as well, which to me seems a bit dishonest.
by KLRinLA 2008-12-19 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

A very thoughtful and well written post. Especially in comparison with some of the mindless blabber I've seen written on here by pseudo-Republican Obama haters.

by wjpugliese 2008-12-18 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

Great post. I spoke last night to SF Supervisor Bevan Dufty on this. We're both disappointed obviously but he also said let's express our disappointment and move on to fight more important battles than a silly invocation. Frankly on that score, I'm against even having an invocation. Not my cup of tea that deadly mix of religion in politics.

by Charles Lemos 2008-12-18 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: a thought on &quot;Faith&quot;

This is a missed opportunity for Obama WRT to "Faith." There is a perception among some on the left that the majority of people of faith are intolerant on gay rights and reproductive choice. Obama could have tapped someone who is truly inclusive, tolerant of diversity in all flavors.

According to Rachel Maddow last night, Obama AND Warren are getting hits from the right, because Warren's other views are not popular on the right. So, there goes the argument that this is an effective "bone" thrown right ward.

This is an enormous screw up and miscalculation, PARTICULARLY just after Prop 8 dealt such hurt to gays.

by sarany 2008-12-19 04:24AM | 0 recs
Eh, no

I saw that bit on Maddow, and while I love her reporting, she's not objective on this.

Warren and Obama are taking hits from the lunatic fringe right.  The moderate social conservatives who Warren appeals most to aren't up in arms.  They're probably pretty happy that Obama isn't going to exclude them like Bush excluded anyone with a whiff of civil rights background.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-19 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh, no

do tell, why is she not objective on this?  Hmmm?

Is she objective on anything?

by reggie44pride 2008-12-19 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh, no

snark: I guess she can't be objective because she's a Lesbian.

that's crap.  She was spot on last night, along with the tsunami of other progressives who are decrying this mega stupid (or mega insulting) move of Obama's

by sarany 2008-12-19 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh, no

Oh so now it's O.K. to quote Maddow, but before she was nothing but an Obama sycophant to the Clintonistas.

by venician 2008-12-19 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh, no

are you talking to me?

by sarany 2008-12-19 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop making excuses for Obama

Be truthful, had you known how fast his views had become centrist/right after his election, would you still have voted for him? Had you known that he would reach out to the most blatant bigots and hate mongers a la Warren of the right wing of the republican party, would you still have stuck with him? The man ran a fraudulent campaign, PERIOD!


by suzieg 2008-12-18 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop making excuses for Obama

gibberish as usual.

by Jess81 2008-12-18 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop making excuses for Obama

Yes. In a heartbeat. He continues to be precisely what I'd hoped he would be. Live with it.

by vcalzone 2008-12-18 10:39PM | 0 recs
Fall in line!

Don't criticize the Messiah!

by KnoxVow 2008-12-18 08:04PM | 0 recs

I'm almost honored you are here!

by mikeinsf 2008-12-18 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

This was either a very stupid move by Pres.-elect Obama, or... a particularly brilliant one.

Time will tell.

The right is now mobilizing and looking to exploit rifts between the Obama coalition. Thoughtful critiques of Obama should be just that.. thoughtful. Let's not play into the other side's fodder.

Obama needs to ensure that his promises to the LGBT do not go ignored. And the LGBT community needs to be open and ready for an organized national dialogue with ALL sides at the table. That's how adults get things done, would you agree?

by devoted1 2008-12-18 09:22PM | 0 recs
Good stuff Mike, rec'd n/t

by Koan 2008-12-19 04:53AM | 0 recs

Thank you.

by kevin22262 2008-12-19 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

If a white Democratic President invited a racist pastor to give the invocation, would there be a single progressive who wasn't outraged?

Homophobia is no better than racism as far as I'm concerned.

My hopes for Obama are still sky high, i guess this is just Obama bringing me back down to earth.

And, slightly off topic... I don't like the LGBT term. Transexuals were born into the wrong body, its an issue of gender identity. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, they don't have gender identity issues. Grouping transexuals and gays together plays into the old prejudice that gay people are simply confused about their gender identity.

by liberalj 2008-12-19 11:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

The problem  with this comparison is that homophobia, like racism, comes in many shades of gray.

Warren's infamy here stems from his support for Prop. 8 (and subsequent remarks) that you and I are well aware of, a point virtually unknown to most of the country. His following tends more centrist than right-wing conservative, unlike Dobson's or Robertson's flock. Going after these people with the "separate but equal" analogy would yield far better results than demonizing them all as homophobes.

I wish that this choice hadn't been as controversial, but in trying to build a bridge to this demographic Obama may actually be closer to winning the battle of hearts and minds. If gay marriage is to find wider acceptance - if we wish to avoid future Prop. 8 styled routs in states other than California - this could be the more prudent choice.

by Sumo Vita 2008-12-20 03:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

he compared homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. Sorry but thats more than enough for me to decide that he's a rabid homophobe.

prop 8 wasn't a rout, it was close. close in the wrong direction but it was still close.

i'm all for Obama keeping Gates, i'm all for him listening to Republicans and seeking consensus but this is unacceptable as far as i'm concerned.

Warren can be anti-gay marriage, after all so is Obama, my problem is that he's homophobic.

by liberalj 2008-12-20 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

SORRY, I'm with Taylor on this one:

Warren in his own words disqualifies him as an example of appropriate 'inclusion' by any stretch - at least for a Democratic president. Civil rights extends to the GLBT community, and I'm disappointed with the repeated slights from Obama over the course of this campaign. I hope he'll surprise me and come out with a MAJOR step forward for the community - but based on evidence to date, he's been iffy.

by swissffun 2008-12-20 03:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues

I hope you're right. My fear is that Obama is walking the line where the queasy-about-Gay stand, and that he has calculated the controversy will earn him points on the right, come to nothing in the queasy-ish middle and lose him points on the far gay left, but we don't amount to much, and where else are we going to go, anyway?

That's the cynical argument about this choice.  He may be calculating that even progressives who are basically THERE on gay rights, are going to forward the "it's not that meaningful a choice" argument.  Which, sadly, is turning out to be correct as evidenced by This Very Diary and thread.

by sarany 2008-12-20 04:32AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads