Still more. Over at Slate, Christopher Hitchens takes aim, suggesting that Jews also should be appalled by the selection, in Shame on You, Rick Warren.
Updates:
Sorry, Jon, but yes he is.
Time magazine spells out just how offensive Warren's comments were:
Warren told Beliefnet that he thinks allowing a gay couple to marry is similar to allowing "a brother and sister to be together and call that marriage." He then helpfully added that he's also "opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage." The reporter, who may have been a little surprised, asked, "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?" "Oh, I do," Warren immediately answered. I wish the reporter had asked the next logical follow-up: If gays are like child-sex offenders, shouldn't we incarcerate them?
Writes Time's John Cloud:
Obama reminds me a little bit of Richard Russell Jr., the longtime Senator from Georgia who - as historian Robert Caro has noted - cultivated a reputation as a thoughtful, tolerant politician even as he defended inequality and segregation for decades. ... Obama also said today that he is a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays, which is - given his opposition to equal marriage rights - simply a lie. It recalls the time Russell said, "I'm as interested in the Negro people of my state as anyone in the Senate. I love them."
So why are so many thoughtful people so willing to give Obama a pass? And when is the veil going to fall from their eyes?
From libertarian-minded Reason magazine:
Oh LGBTers. Don't cry. I know President-elect Barack Obama's breaking your heart. It sucks, doesn't it, when you hitch your wagon to a political party, but the party is just not that into you? ... But you know who your real friends are, LGBTers. And we're going to help you get through this. Besides, who knows better than libertarians what it's like to be in a long-standing lopsided love affair with a mainstream political party?
And from columnist Richard Cohen:
Obama said, "we're not going to agree on every single issue." He went on to say, "We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." Sounds nice.
But what we do not "hold in common" is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.
Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue - the rights of gays to be treated equally - as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate.
---
Rick Warren is a new kind of evangelical leader - he supports bigger government with increased spending on social welfare programs. Of course, he also considers same-sex marriage an abomination, comparing the "redefiniton of a marrige" to let gays wed with legitimizing incest, child abuse and polygamy (here's a video of Warren urging support for California's Proposition 8).
That Obama selected him to deliver his inaugural innovation should be a warning of where the new administration might be heading - politically trying to bring evangelicals (especially younger evangelicals) into his expansive government, "share the wealth" fold. Is the new agenda fiscally profligate, redistributionist, and (moderately) socially conservative?
And are LGBT national "leaders," who turned their groups into fundraising funnels for the Democratic Party - and made getting out the vote for Obama their #1 priority (at the expense of fighting anti-gay state initiatives supported overwhelming by the huge minority turnout Obama triggered) - just beginning to sense this?
More. From Washington's The Politico:
Barack Obama's choice of a prominent evangelical minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration is a conciliatory gesture toward social conservatives who opposed him in November ...
[Warren] opposes abortion rights but has taken more liberal stances on the government's role in fighting poverty, and backed away from other evangelicals' staunch support for economic conservatism. But it's his support for the California constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that drew the most heated criticism from Democrats Wednesday. ...
In selecting Warren, [Obama] is choosing to reach out to conservatives on a hot-button social issue, at the cost of antagonizing gay voters who overwhelmingly supported him.
And from MSNBC FirstRead:
As for the pure politics of this, when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to.
Last month, you may recall, the incoming administration signaled that it won't seek repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" gay ban until some unspecified time when "consensus" emerges among military leaders.
Gays planning to attend the Obama inauguration are advised to take public transportation. Just remember to sit in the back of the bus.
44 Comments for “The New Middle: Fiscally Liberal, Socially Not So Much?”
posted by LeBain on
This is a major slap in the face to the gay community. Fresh from nationwide protests against California’s (and Florida’s and Arizona’s) marriage bans, Obama does this.
Gay and lesbian Democrats have been double crossed again, just like the were double crossed by Clinton twice. When will they learn?
posted by gary on
Let the whinning began. Oh, I see it already has!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In selecting Warren, [Obama] is choosing to reach out to conservatives on a hot-button social issue, at the cost of antagonizing gay voters who overwhelmingly supported him.
Talk about an “everything to gain, nothing to lose” proposition.
posted by Bobby on
When Obama was running for president, the liberals only saw what they wanted to see. Obama was a reflection of their dreams, ideals, like a mirror.
NOW YOU GET TO SEE THE REAL OBAMA.
I HOPE YOU LIKE IT!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
It is popular to talk about politics as if the supporters of candidate X considered him a creature of godlike perfection while his opponents considered him the devel incarnate. But in fact there are many people occupying the middle ground between those two stances. I have showered praise for Obama, but I have also noted his imperfections such as his opposition to civil marriage equality. I think his invitation to Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration is wrong, but I am not surprised because I have watched his other outreach efforts to evangelicals. With all of his imperfections, he was better on gay issues than the viable alternatives in the 2008 election. I see no reason to overconclude from a single gesture. But yes, of course, gays cannot simply expect Obama to hand us what we want. We have to get in there and work for it. I never expected otherwise. What is the alternative–to sit back and heap scorn upon Obama and anyone who supports him? To wish that McCain had won? Hillary Clinton also opposes marriage equality, and also had anti-gay people supporting her. Perfection is not an option. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bobby said “NOW YOU GET TO SEE THE REAL OBAMA. I HOPE YOU LIKE IT!”.
Certainly far better than the alternative. From the Obama transition web site:
“Support for the LGBT Community
“While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”
— Barack Obama, June 1, 2007
The Obama-Biden Plan
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees’ domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.”
http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/
posted by Pat on
Priya Lynn, I’m not willing to say that Obama is as bad as McCain on gay issues yet, but asking Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation was a slap in the face. I don’t feel particularly betrayed since I was only a lukewarm supporter of Obama. And I hope that this decision and his backtracking on DADT is not indicative on his leadership on gay rights issues, but it’s not looking good at the moment.
Bobby, I don’t think we will see the real Obama until he is president. It could be better, or much worse, than his choice of Warren. I’ll be looking how he leads in terms of proposing the gay rights initiatives he promised, or if he will pander to the fear and ignorance of the anti-gay crowd.
posted by Ashpenaz on
So, Sarah Palin is a worse choice for gays–exactly how again? Is there one single thing Obama has ever actually done for gay rights? Whether or not it was under pressure and against her own personal beliefs, Palin gave domestic partner benefits to Alaskan workers. And her pastor is no worse than Rick Warren. I guess throwing rocks at Saddleback or burning down a church didn’t help us after all. Who knew that violence and chanting could be so ineffective?
posted by Pat on
So, Sarah Palin is a worse choice for gays–exactly how again?
You may be right about that Ashpenaz. We shall see.
Palin gave domestic partner benefits to Alaskan workers.
It doesn’t count when she really didn’t want to, and was looking for ways to subvert the Alaska constitution to deny benefits.
I guess throwing rocks at Saddleback or burning down a church didn’t help us after all.
Cut it, will you? We don’t know who burned down the church. Okay?
posted by TS on
oooo, ZING! Nice last line.
I agree. Obama is no hero and no messiah. “Change” has not come to this country. It’s just another swing of the socioeconomic pendulum.
The more time goes by, the more tempted I am to say “fuck superpower democracy!” Let’s take over San Fran or Seattle or something and establish a gay city-state. Even though there will be little natural reproduction, the population will easily be sustained by new arrivals of gay kids kicked out of their Mormon homes. The only problem is no doubt there will be a strong temptation to nuke it.
posted by TS on
And gary, this is not whining! Obama took pleasure in choosing someone controversial to bolster his image as a great compromiser. He could have chosen any republican-leaning speaker, but he chose one that outspokenly holds ideas that are, if you temporarily suspend your sense of nuance and perspective, abhorrent and proto-genocidal.
posted by Bobby on
“Certainly far better than the alternative. From the Obama transition web site:”
—Any politician can put a bunch of promises on a website, it means nothing.
I’ll be honest with you, a lot of conservatives never liked McCain. He betrayed us on immigration, with campaign finance reform, gun control and by supporting the bailout. So those of us who voted for McCain did it without expecting much.
Obama is different, people expect a lot from him, his progressive base gave him millions of dollars.
We’ll just have to see how this love affair with Obama lasts. The fact that the obamabots are already bitching about Rick Warren shows that even his supporters are starting to dout him. Not to mention Obama’s desire to increase the war in Afghanistan and appointing Hillary Clinton and a bunch of other clintonites to his administration.
Looks to me like the emperor’s got no clothes.
posted by avee on
Priya Lynn likes to put up long excerpts from Obama’s campaign website to refute claims that he’s stabbing us in the back. But no one is disputing that the LGBT section of Obama’s campaign website said (mostly) all the things that might be expected to spur gay votes and dollars.
Rather, let’s remember that actions, not words, are what count. Words are cheap. As for actions, some of us pointed out during the campaign that Obama has, really, NO RECORD WHATSOEVER of spending political capital on bhealf of gay equal rights. He never spoke out vocally against the federal marriage amendment (as McCain did, at greater political risk), and even as Hillary did. So spare us further lengthly references to the Obama website, as if those words amount to anything.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ashpenaz, Obama’s record has been described on these comment boards before; how convenient for you to have forgotten.
Obama pushed a gay rights bill when he was in the Illinois state senate. A gay rights lobbyist came upon him in a stairwell of the state capitol dressing down anti-gay fellow senator Rev. James Meeks for not supporting the bill. When you catch someone doing the right thing, that’s a pretty clear demonstration of where he stands.
The Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard for the 109th Congress (covering 2005 and 2006) shows that Senators Clinton and Obama had identical LGBT voting records and identical HRC scores of 89 for that congress. HRC tracked 7 items in that scorecard, including the vote on the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, a vote which HRC triple-weighted. Clinton and Obama both voted AGAINST the FMA. Clinton and Obama both voted AGAINST confirmation of Judge William Pryor and Justice Samuel Alito. Both Clinton and Obama failed to co-sponsor the Uniting American Families Act (an immigration bill which affects my partner and me); Obama does say he supports this bill, and I haven’t checked if Clinton has stated a position on it, but I expect she supports it. A lot of Senators have failed to co-sponsor that bill (not that that is an excuse, of course).
In the 110th Congress, 1st session (2007), both Clinton and Obama were co-introducers of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, S. 1105, which was later included as Section 1023 in H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. In a key vote on this (a cloture vote on Kennedy Amendment Number 3035), both Clinton and Obama voted Yea, which is to say on the pro-gay side. This bill was transgender-inclusive.
Despite the constant repetition of the false claim that Obama has never given gays anything but lip service, he has a pro-gay record as a legislator going back to his years in the Illinois Senate. Why some of you think it’s clever to keep denying this I cannot fathom. I agree that the invitation to Warren is unfortunate, but it does not erase Obama’s pro-gay record. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
A gay rights lobbyist came upon him in a stairwell of the state capitol dressing down anti-gay fellow senator Rev. James Meeks for not supporting the bill.
A gay rights lobbyist paid by Obama and who is desperately trying to grovel for Obama’s favor, of course.
Meanwhile, Obama continued to publicly support and endorse James Meeks in every respect. Funny how Obama was so good at dressing down in private, but did exactly the opposite in public.
Clinton and Obama both voted AGAINST confirmation of Judge William Pryor and Justice Samuel Alito.
Not surprising; both Clinton and Obama oppose enforcement of abortion law and support allowing Planned Parenthood to circumvent the law in favor of abortion promotion. The fact that gays like Rosendall and HRC consider support and endorsement of abortion to be a “gay rights” issue only demonstrates their use of sexual orientation as an excuse for a leftist agenda.
As for “hate crimes” laws, there are plenty of gay people who, unlike you, Richard, do not believe it is right or fair to punish people based on who they victimize, rather than what they do. Your need to validate yourself by demanding that those who commit crimes against gay people be punished more than those who commit crimes against straight people has nothing to do with gay issues and everything to do with your own petty needs for revenge against heterosexuals.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Click here for a comparison of Obama and McCain on LGBT issues. Yes, yes, some of it concerns what Obama supports and opposes, but if those of you full of scorn will get over yourselves long enough to scroll through the entire document, you will also find items about what he did as a legislator. Not that I agree with the dismissals of campaign statements; there is no reason why Obama would rebuke homophobia from the pulpits of black churches (which he did more than once, including at Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church) if all he were doing was pandering to people. Telling a congregation something they don’t want to hear can hardly be described as pandering.
The insistent claim by some about Obama that “he hasn’t done anything for us” is just not true. Even what I consider his misstep on Rick Warren is grounded in his longstanding habit of reaching out to people he disagrees with, which is a welcome change from the attitude of the outgoing president. Far too much is being made of a gesture, as if it represents an abandonment and betrayal of the gay community or reveals Obama’s “true colors.” Rick Warren is also anti-choice on abortion. Does anyone seriously believe that Obama’s invitation means that he is abandoning his pro-choice position? This is just silly.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Actually, ND30, I don’t feel strongly about hate crime laws, and I think the justifications for them have often been implausible. For example, when the James Byrd and Matthew Shepard murders were cited a decade ago to justify the need for such laws, despite the perps in both cases having been brought to justice without the need for such laws. But as an activist, I do not always choose to rail against other people’s priorities.
What is the evidence for your assertion that Rick Garcia is/was paid by Obama and was groveling? Or did you just make that up? And how would that erase Obama’s record of having supported that bill? How is it even plausible that your caricature of Obama is accurate?
I believe I have spelled this out before, but here is a quick explanation of the connection between abortion rights and gay rights: The line of Supreme Court privacy-based rulings (which is to say, constructive due process) going from Griswold v. Connecticut through Eisenstadt v. Baird through Roe v. Wade to Lawrence v. Texas. You can object to those rulings and the reasoning behind them, but they illustrate the connection between the emancipation of women and that of gay people. Both have been seen as threats to heterosexual male supremacy. I personally think that elective abortions for convenience are immoral, but I do not think it either appropriate or helpful to use the power of the state to impose my views on others. Perhaps you prefer to keep abortion unresolved as an issue, since it gives you an excuse to condemn people. What does this scorched-earth politics accomplish?
And for the umpteenth time, I have a proven record of strongly criticizing the gay left. Kindly explain how I could have gotten several pieces published by David Horowitz if I were a leftist. To be sure, just because I am no leftist does not mean I cannot be wrong, but you just toss around terms with no regard for their accuracy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Rick Warren is also anti-choice on abortion. Does anyone seriously believe that Obama’s invitation means that he is abandoning his pro-choice position?
Yup.
The funny thing about this whole incident is that it simply demonstrates that Obama is a liar who cannot be trusted. The right is noticing that Obama has already broken numerous campaign promises to the left, and thus sees his maneuvers like this as nothing more than crass politicking. The only reason he still has any support at all is because of individuals like Rosendall who, desperate to rationalize their blind devotion, will excuse virtually any behavior Obama carries out.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, serious and honest belief is not something that you have demonstrated on these boards. There is no reasonable basis for your sweeping, unrelenting, operatic contempt for Obama. This is so much more about you than about him. As I have pointed out before, if I were blindly devoted to Obama, I would not criticize him for anything ever, yet I do criticize his opposition to civil marriage equality and his failure to co-sponsor the Uniting American Families Act. I also disagree with his invitation to Rick Warren, though I don’t make absurdly too much of it as you and others do for the sake of appearing to confirm your ridiculous anti-Obama caricatures.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, ND30, I don’t feel strongly about hate crime laws
Which is why you try to use them as an example of how “pro-gay” Obama is.
How is it even plausible that your caricature of Obama is accurate?
Read the citation.
As for Rick Garcia, you’re talking about someone who claimed that he had no idea whatsoever that Steamworks was a gay bathhouse or what went on there, despite the fact that he accepted money from them and that they’re located virtually next door to him. The man has a history of lying for political convenience.
I personally think that elective abortions for convenience are immoral
Why? Answer that one, Richard; why do you and your fellow Democrats like Obama think abortion is “immoral”?
posted by Jorge on
Maybe I’m just being stubborn, but I thoroughly do not care. I remember watching part of Rick Warren’s forum where he had both Obama and McCain. I’m not sure I understand why I’m hearing all this outrage now, but didn’t see anything on this site or others at the time about how Obama shouldn’t even associate with that man.
Obama signaled very shortly after he won the election that he was going to try to make inroads toward his political opponents. Having this pastor do an invocation is… rather symbolic. As in a cheap and not very concrete way to say Hi How You’re Doing to conservatives without really doing anything for them. I want Obama to reach out to find solutions to the problems facing this country. I don’t want him to be an ideological purist, because even if it benefits me on some issues, he’ll do a lot of damage on others.
I like Rick Warren for the service that he has done to this country by hosting an intelligent conversation between two presidential candidates. If he’s against gay marriage, if he thinks homosexuality is a sin, then that’s his right.
Thank you.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
In short, ND30, my activist work is not all about me. If I were in charge of legislative priorities, hate crimes would not be high among them, but I am not.
As I have pointed out many times. Hillary had her anti-gay supporters too, such as megachurch pastor Eddie Long of Lithonia, Georgia. That doesn’t make her anti-gay any more than Meeks makes Obama anti-gay. Your issues with Rick Garcia don’t change the fact that he’s done more good work for gay equality than I am aware of your having done, but then you’re pseudonymous.
I do not regard your question on abortion as serious. My point is that my personal moral views are not and should not be governing from a public policy point of view. In any case, if you persist in maintaining your patently unwarranted posture of treating every single thing I say as retarded, I have little interest in wasting more time on you.
posted by Ashpenaz on
At least Sarah Palin has gay friends. I don’t see Obama having any interactions with the gay community.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As I have pointed out many times. Hillary had her anti-gay supporters too, such as megachurch pastor Eddie Long of Lithonia, Georgia. That doesn’t make her anti-gay any more than Meeks makes Obama anti-gay.
Of course, the reason you were pointing them out was because you were trying to smear Hillary as being anti-gay, while covering up the associations that Obama had.
I do not regard your question on abortion as serious.
Oh, it’s quite serious; the problem is that the answer is very inconvenient, because it makes obvious that you consider the taking of a human life to be less important than promiscuity, unprotected sex, irresponsible behavior, and violating the law — and, of course, the millions of dollars that abortions generate for Democrat Party politicians and LGBT organizations are much more important to you and yours than any concerns for human life.
posted by Arthur on
Anytime anyone who votes against us and says they can’t be a bigot because they have gay friends, I would love someone in the media to say, “Name one!”
posted by Ashpenaz on
Sarah Palin’s answer: “Rosie O’ Donnell.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 writes, “Of course, the reason you were pointing them out was because you were trying to smear Hillary as being anti-gay, while covering up the associations that Obama had.”
Another absurd statement from ND30. Of course Hillary is not anti-gay. My point was that the over-the-top attacks against Obama by some of Hillary’s gay supporters were hypocritical. That’s all. During the hottest days of the primary season I always gave Hillary credit for her impressive mastery of policy matters. Just because you indiscriminately trash people you don’t support doesn’t make it true of all the rest of us.
I figured you were going there with your prosecutorial question about my moral views. Well, I don’t agree with your characterization. I have stated my views. Nothing I could say would satisfy you, because you are determined to heap your tiresome and ridiculous scorn upon whatever I might say. However, for the sake of any reasonable people who might be reading this: I support abortion rights; I do not let myself off the hook for that by pretending that no human life exists until childbirth. I just don’t think that seeking to prevent abortions using the power of the state will actually solve the problem, nor do I think that assigning legal personhood as beginning at conception is the answer. Making unwanted pregnancies more rare is the answer. You don’t agree. Fine. Call me names.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I just don’t think that seeking to prevent abortions using the power of the state will actually solve the problem, nor do I think that assigning legal personhood as beginning at conception is the answer.
That is because you apply an unrealistic standard. You and your fellow abortion supporters insist that, since banning abortion will not prevent all abortions, that abortion should not be banned at all — analogous to saying that murder should not be banned because doing so does not prevent all murders.
Making unwanted pregnancies more rare is the answer.
Ultimately, yes, just as an excellent means of preventing murder is making it clear to people that peoples’ lives and persons should be respected. However, we teach respect for lives and persons AND apply punishment for committing murder because it effectively covers both those who are receptive to doing what’s right because it’s right and those who are receptive to avoiding punishment for doing what’s wrong. Guidance and deterrence work well together, and are far more effective when both are applied.
posted by Rob on
Ashpenaz:
Palin gave domestic partner benefits to Alaskan workers.
Ashpenaz, how many times to we have to repeat that she didn’t, and that she actually supports repealing those benefits with another amendment? This is why nobody here takes you or your inane statements seriously.
Quite frankly, I’m really starting to doubt who you say you are because I’ve already noticed that you’ve outright lied about your identity. You’re behaving like troll, and I think you should be well on your way out. And go ahead, cry me a river about intolerance, no one here gives a damn.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
An interesting perspective from Geoffrey Garin in The Washington Post:
“The real story here is not that President-elect Obama has somehow blessed Rick Warren’s views on abortion or gay rights, but that one of America’s leading evangelical pastors has decided to bless the presidency of someone who is strongly pro-choice and committed to the civil rights of gays and lesbians. That’s a rather extraordinary development.
“… Rick Warren is the one who is making the bigger statement here. In no uncertain terms, the best known pastor of our time will be telling his followers and fellow evangelicals that there is nothing ungodly about a president who believes that government shouldn’t interfere with a woman’s right to choose and that gays and lesbians deserve the protection of our laws as much as any other American. That’s a moment progressives should celebrate.”
posted by Bobby on
Obama is a hypocrite, plain and simple. It’s ok for a republican to associate with Rick Warren, republicans are “pro-breeder family.” Democrats are supposed to know better, there is a reason why the democratic party has very few pro-lifer, it’s because the party has intimidated abortion haters from remaining there. A good democrat would have selected an “inclusive” pastor, maybe a unitarian, or one of those priests from liberal churches. That’s what Obama was supposed to do as Queen of the Progressives.
And yet, what he does is throw gays under the bus just so he can be inclusive. There is a difference between meeting with Rick Warren in private and giving him the honor of doing an invocation. What Obama is doing is giving Rick Warren approval and making him legitimate. The irony is that he would have never invited Louis Farrakhan to give the benediction, because unlike Warren, Farrakhan hates minorities that have street cred with the American people.
So Obama, do us all a favor and start acting like a liberal. You’ve never been a centrist, you’ve never been a uniter, you’ve always been a Karl Marx-loving liberal from the people’s republic of Chicago. I actually lived in your town, there was a communist bookstore 2 blocks away from my house, so I know how hard your dicks bet everytime you see a liberal cause. I understand that, so Obama, please be yourself. Wipe your ass with the second amendment if it makes you happy, just quit acting like a fucking centrist! Be the liberal you’re supposed to be so we can get rid of you in 4 years and elect our next Roland Reagan.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby, I’m sorry that the reality of Obama is disappointing you and others who invented him in their minds as a Marxist. And I’m sorry for the silly people who cry “betrayal” and “he’s throwing us under the bus” at the drop of a pin. I think he will be a fine president.
posted by Bobby on
Richard, just like some people are accused of being a Bush-apologist, I think you’ve proven yourself to be an Obama-apologist except for a few minor issues that matter to you.
If McCain had won and he had selected a racist preacher to give the invocation, we would not hear the end of it.
Either way, I have no respect for hypocrisy, on the left or on the right. And unlike you, I don’t give a rats ass if he’s America’s first black president. Maybe that means something to you, but it means nothing to me. I will not give him a break just because he’s black. He’s gonna have to prove himself to all Americans.
posted by Jorge on
Obama is a hypocrite, plain and simple. It’s ok for a republican to associate with Rick Warren, republicans are “pro-breeder family.” Democrats are supposed to know better, there is a reason why the democratic party has very few pro-lifer, it’s because the party has intimidated abortion haters from remaining there. A good democrat would have selected an “inclusive” pastor, maybe a unitarian, or one of those priests from liberal churches. That’s what Obama was supposed to do as Queen of the Progressives.
Bingo!
posted by Ashpenaz on
My point about Sarah Palin is not that she’s pro-gay–my point is that Palin and Obama are the same on gay issues. Obama has better words, but no actions. Her pastor and Rick Warren are the same on gay issues. So, I’m not sure why Palin draws the ire of the gay community in a way Obama doesn’t. As much as I like and admire Palin for being a successful, intelligent woman, I probably wouldn’t vote for her for President because I disagree with her. But I welcome her into the political arena. I never liked Obama–I supported Hillary.
posted by Bobby on
Ash, Palin may like gays in her personal life, but unlike Obama, she’s not afraid to say homosexuality is a sin. I’m sure Obama believes the same, but it’s politically expedient for him not to say so.
The issue here is about integrity. Obama inviting Rick Warren is the equivalent of a republican supporting gun control. If Obama wants to have dinner with Ricky, fine, I believe in freedom of association. But don’t glorify them by letting them lead the invocation.
Frankly, this election has been the worse in America’s history, a maverick republican vs. an articulate democrat. Style has won over substance. It’s just like that new reality show, “Inner Beauty” that features amazingly looking participants. What a joke, if they cared about “inner beauty” they wouldn’t bother with casting incredible sexy people.
And that’s what Obama is, a cute participant in the race for the ultimate reality show, the presidency.
The sad truth is that no matter what Obama says or does, there’s plenty of mindless drones willing to follow him.
posted by Pat on
I’m sure Obama believes the same, but it’s politically expedient for him not to say so.
Bobby, I think it’s more the opposite. I believe that Obama is really okay with same sex marriage, but it’s not politically expedient for him to say so. Obama, at least, stated his support for federally recognized civil unions, even though that strategy didn’t work four years ago.
If Obama wants to have dinner with Ricky, fine, I believe in freedom of association. But don’t glorify them by letting them lead the invocation.
Agreed.
Frankly, this election has been the worse in America’s history, a maverick republican vs. an articulate democrat. Style has won over substance. It’s just like that new reality show, “Inner Beauty” that features amazingly looking participants. What a joke, if they cared about “inner beauty” they wouldn’t bother with casting incredible sexy people.
Agreed. Again.
The sad truth is that no matter what Obama says or does, there’s plenty of mindless drones willing to follow him.
That’s true. But Obama doesn’t corner the market on this, unfortunately.
posted by Pat on
Hey Pat, glad we agree on some issues.
“I believe that Obama is really okay with same sex marriage, but it’s not politically expedient for him to say so.”
—I’m suspicious because of this. You know how many straight people claim to be gay-friendly nowadays? You tell them you’re gay and they say “no problem.” Well, someone at work is a drag queen, so he sends an e-mail about an upcoming show he’s doing. I tell a coworker about it, one who knows I’m gay, says he’s worked with gays before and has no problem with gays. And I said, “so, are you coming?” And he tells me no. After talking to him for a bit, the reason was that he would be uncomfortable in a gay bar with men hitting on him.
I suspect Obama is the same way. Maybe he’ll prove me wrong, but the only pro-same sex marriage politicians I know are either gay or really courageous. Obama is calculating, he has a set of priorities, he wants to unite the country. All you have to do is remember Reagan, Ronnie united democrats and republicans but ignored AIDS until Rock Hudson died.
That’s why I like politicians like Tom Tancredo and even Nancy Pelosi, they’re divisive, they’re “mean,” but they’re ideologues that are not afraid of pissing off people. They don’t seek unity, they seek a legislative agenda no matter what anyone thinks. Obama is like that, and right now gay marriage is too hot for Obama to be messing with that.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I would be offended because being a drag queen has nothing to do with being gay, as Tyler Perry, Marilyn Manson, Robin Williams, etc. prove. Gay is men loving men. It has nothing to do with dressing as a woman–many transvestites are straight, family men. This is another reason why I prefer to identify as a “man with homosexual attractions” as it doesn’t carry the distortions that the term “gay” does. It’s more accurate.
posted by Bobby on
Ash, a drag queen is not a tranvestite. A drag queen is a performer, they exagerate women, they tell jokes, sing, do routines, they’re extremely entertaining.
posted by Pat on
You know how many straight people claim to be gay-friendly nowadays? You tell them you’re gay and they say “no problem.” Well, someone at work is a drag queen, so he sends an e-mail about an upcoming show he’s doing. I tell a coworker about it, one who knows I’m gay, says he’s worked with gays before and has no problem with gays. And I said, “so, are you coming?” And he tells me no. After talking to him for a bit, the reason was that he would be uncomfortable in a gay bar with men hitting on him.
Bobby (I think that was you and not another “Pat” on Dec. 20, 5:00), we can’t immediately erase 2000+ years of tradition, and how people were brought up, and expect people to be totally comfortable with the gay thing. I’d expect even the most (really) gay friendly people will be reluctant to go to a gay bar. And would be afraid to be hit on by men. Heck, I get uncomfortable when I get hit on by women, but perhaps not for the same reason as your colleague. What I’m more interested is the straight person to believe that we should be afforded the same rights and privileges, even if the idea of gay sex is icky to them.
I suspect Obama is the same way. Maybe he’ll prove me wrong, but the only pro-same sex marriage politicians I know are either gay or really courageous. Obama is calculating, he has a set of priorities, he wants to unite the country.
Maybe Obama is similar to your colleague. Again, I’m fine with that. He may be uncomfortable at being hit on by men. I’ll agree with you that Obama is calculating, etc. He is, after all, a politician. I never bought the change thing. So when Obama has stated his position that he supports federally recognized civil unions, I believe he personally does. But the question is, will he actually state such a thing in a SOTU address saying he will propose to Congress such a thing. Even if Congress doesn’t budge on it, I’ll credit Obama for some leadership.
That’s why I like politicians like Tom Tancredo and even Nancy Pelosi, they’re divisive, they’re “mean,” but they’re ideologues that are not afraid of pissing off people. They don’t seek unity, they seek a legislative agenda no matter what anyone thinks.
I admire Tancredo for being open and honest about his positions. That’s about it. And I’ve never been crazy about Pelosi. Sure, I support some of her views. But she balked on some of the positions that the Democrats ran on in 2006. So I question her leadership.
posted by Bobby on
“What I’m more interested is the straight person to believe that we should be afforded the same rights and privileges, even if the idea of gay sex is icky to them.”
—True, I agree that’s more important.
“And I’ve never been crazy about Pelosi. Sure, I support some of her views. But she balked on some of the positions that the Democrats ran on in 2006. So I question her leadership.”
—Really, do you remember which positions?
I know that after 9/11, there was a bill to allow pilots to carry guns, and surprisingly, some gun-banning democrats voted for it. But that was before Pelosi got to congress.
You know what’s ironic, if Obama had selected a homophobic black minister (which is pretty much all of them), I don’t think gays opposing Obama’s pick would have been a big story. Anyway, I’m proud this is a big story. I’m happy to see Obama get some heat from his own party.
posted by Pat on
Really, do you remember which positions?
Bobby, ENDA and the Iraq War come to mind. I think the reasons were political expediency and/or holding out for a Democratic president. My view is vote on the bill, and let the cards fall where they may.
You know what’s ironic, if Obama had selected a homophobic black minister (which is pretty much all of them), I don’t think gays opposing Obama’s pick would have been a big story.
I’d like to think race wouldn’t matter, but you may be right.
Anyway, I’m proud this is a big story. I’m happy to see Obama get some heat from his own party.
Me too. I think it’s about time that gay Democrat supporters start putting the heat on people they donated money too and voted for.
posted by Frankie on
I really think that this entire issue was overblown. The guy is going to give nice a little speech as many people have done in past events. They tend to talk about similar themes. Period.
It has little or no real meanining in terms of public policy and the only real possible complaint I can see, is if the preacher want on some tirade against gay people at the event.
As for the Libertarians, they tend to have pretty nutty beliefs and have demonstrated that they are more then willing to sell out their civil liberties philosophy to break bread, or just sleep with, the far-right wing.