Over at Box Turtle Bulletin, Tim Kincaid has an interesting post ("A call for a nuanced view of religious leaders") about Joel Osteen, pastor of Houston's huge Lakewood Church, who gave an opening prayer at the inauguration of Annise Parker, the newly elected lesbian mayor of Houston. Osteen, a best-selling author whose uplifting Sunday service is broadcast nationwide, says he welcomes gays to his church but believes scripture elevates heterosexual marriage as best.
He's wrong, we may strongly believe, but Osteen, unlike Rick Warren, has never endorsed an anti-gay marriage initiative or signed an anti-gay declaration. So why was he lumped in with the worst of the religious right haters and condemned as an "anti-gay ridiculous person" and a "smiling bigot" recently by the popular leftist gay website Queerty?
As Kincaid writes of Osteen, "We can be, at times, too quick to denounce and drive away some who could in the future - or currently on some issues - be incredibly valuable allies if we only would let them." But it's so much more fun to shout "bigot bigot go away," isn't it. And, by the way, what exactly is the difference between Osteen's remarks and those of Barack Obama, who similarly cites scripture as the basis of his belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and gets standing ovations at HRC dinners?
26 Comments for “Disagreement or ‘Bigotry’?”
posted by Debrah on
“And, by the way, what exactly is the difference between Osteen’s remarks and those of Barack Obama, who similarly cites scripture as the basis of his belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and gets standing ovations at HRC dinners?”
********************************************
A most excellent question.
And one few can answer to any satisfaction.
I’m not tethered to religion closely enough to analyze most of those religious “leaders”; however, from the few times I’ve seen Osteen being interviewed, I really don’t see the man as a “bigot”.
He’s about the only ultra-religious one I can listen to without heaving.
The reality is that there are people in this world who are well-educated and politically-aware constructive contributors to society who simply do not see “marriage” between two people of the same sex as anything but comical.
A grotesque Procrustean-ization of the word “marriage”.
Why do gays want to “marry”? Isn’t that too heterosexual for comfort?
Isn’t there some better word?
Perhaps this element is what keeps many from accepting something more than civil unions.
I like to pull quotes from favorite actors, even though this may be a gross analogy.
In “American Gangster”, Denzel Washington’s character was imploring (in the streetwise sense) Cuba Gooding’s character not to dilute and alter the “brand name” of heroin Gooding was buying from him.
The stash was called “Blue Magic” and everyone knew it would be a certain quality if they were buying that “brand”.
Denzel explained to Gooding’s character that if he wanted to change it and make it into something different from the original, that he needed to call it something else.
**** ” I don’t care what you call it, put a choke-hold on the m*therf*cker and call it Blue Dog Sh!t.” ****
This is perhaps how many feel about the word “marriage” being used.
That word is a real obstacle.
More than you know.
posted by Amicus on
These people, like Olsteen and other politicians, don’t even defend their views, yet we are supposed to show them some special recognition because they seem rather like Switzerland?
Meh.
True or false: At some point, in every struggle, you have to risk acceptance, make waves, in order to make the final beachhead. You don’t ask and cajole, you push and take.
posted by DragonScorpion on
“Queerty” is a forum discussing homosexual issues. I’m assuming this is what was meant in regards to the “blogger”?
Anyway, Joel Osteen and his ‘prosperity gospel’ is clearly a farce. But then, I’m not one to follow superstitions, so…
At least he’s not pushing some social engineering agenda like Rick Warren is, nor is he, so far as I can tell, secretly working to undermine homosexual causes whilst pretending to be some sort of tolerant ally, like Rick Warren is. For that, I suppose I could give him credit.
As for the bigotry label, it most definitely does apply to some, including some around the forum here, but quite often I think it is applied where it doesn’t fit. We should be more mindful of this. There are distinctions between being willfully ignorant, prejudiced, and deliberately insulting (bigoted), and simply being misinformed, inexperienced and/or ignorant of people, lifestyles, facts, reality.
To sum it up the most succinctly, I’d say you can safely bet that if they are disapproving but generally apply an attitude of ‘live and let live’, they’re not a bigot.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Osteen… says he welcomes gays to his church but believes scripture elevates heterosexual marriage as best.
He’s wrong, we may strongly believe, but Osteen, unlike Rick Warren, has never endorsed an anti-gay marriage initiative or signed an anti-gay declaration. So why was he lumped in with the worst of the religious right haters … by the popular leftist gay blogger known as Queerty?
There are two characters in “we,” but ten characters, counting spaces, in the phrase “some of us.” Meaning that it would have taken Stephen Miller all of eight extra keystrokes to acknowledge that there is some diversity of opinion among gay people, and that a few of us might have given at least a partial and qualified endorsement to Osteen’s claim that heterosexual marriage is “best”?
If Miller, writing on a forum that is ostensibly “Independent,” cannot be bothered to expend EIGHT additional keystrokes to write “some of us disagree” instead of “we disagree”, how on earth can he find fault with the rhetoric on an avowedly leftist site like Queerty, which at least doesn’t make the pretense of being “independent”?
posted by Throbert McGee on
a few of us might have given at least a partial and qualified endorsement to Osteen’s claim that heterosexual marriage is “best”?
Now that I’ve had more coffee, here’s my “partial and qualified endorsement.” The reason it has to be “partial and qualified” is that I don’t know anything about Osteen as a preacher, or the overall history of his pronouncements on gay-related matters. So it’s possible that he was only saying what he thought would sound palatable to secular media figures (including Larry King), and that his inner feelings are more overtly anti-gay.
But with that caveat aside, let’s take Osteen’s words at their face value. BTB quotes him as saying on The View: “what I believe the Scripture teaches is that homosexuality is not God’s best.” Miller paraphrases Osteen’s opinion as being that “Scripture elevates heterosexual marriage as best” — which I’ll grant is close enough to what Osteen said, though with somewhat different emphasis.
My first reaction is — what a remarkably understated and modest assertion, particularly coming from a conservative Protestant! For one thing, Osteen stops short of saying dogmatically “here’s what God thinks,” and is instead careful to say: “here’s what I think Scripture says.” Of course, some Christians more or less believe that “what Scripture says” and “what God thinks” are interchangeable terms, but Osteen seemingly isn’t one of those Christians.
And then there’s Osteen’s striking choice of words with “(not) the best.” The word best implies a hierarchy of goodness: there’s the merely good, there’s the better, there’s the best. Now, if you’ve got hang-ups about the term “hierarchy,” then “best” can have an excluding, elitist sound — “Osteen says homosexuality is excluded from the ranks of ‘the best’? Well, that’s the same thing as saying that homosexuality is something inferior, so obviously Osteen thinks that homosexuality is bad.”
But while “the best” is, in one sense, exclusive, looked at in another way it’s a highly inclusivist term, because it logically requires that in between “the best” and “the bad” we recognize “the good” and “the better”. Of course, Osteen doesn’t go so far as to explicitly locate homosexuality in the expansive territories of “goodness” and “betterness”.
So possibly Osteen believes, inwardly, in the inherent badness of homosexuality and was only using softer words because he was speaking on secular talk shows. Still, on at least two occasions, he avoided saying “according to Scripture, homosexuality is not good” and instead claimed that “according to Scripture, homosexuality is not the best.”
posted by Jorge on
And, by the way, what exactly is the difference between Osteen’s remarks and those of Barack Obama, who similarly cites scripture as the basis of his belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and gets standing ovations at HRC dinners?
Very nicely put. I’ve already bashed Obama lots of times here.
I heard Olstein give his own view about a month ago and I knew he would be treated as if he had failed a litnus test, and that no one in the mainstream society would care.
I can’t think of a better example of someone who should be tolerated than Olsten.
His religious view is squarely in the center, and perhaps is even more progressive, than most Americans’ on this issue. It’s one thing to categorize him as yea or nay in our personal and social relations with him–what Box Turtle Bulletin fails to note is that some of us do treat our famlies in black-and-white terms. It’s quite another thing when you get into social politics, where the goal is not personal liberty or satisfaction but social and political change. Here you must make alliances and take actions that can move the center toward our side.
Blogs mix the two up, the personal and the political, and this has been a bad trend for years. Why is it my business what one pastor I don’t know thinks? Either I don’t like him and I keep him out of my life and myself out of his, or I make it my business to be sociopolitical and lobby or talk to him. Those are the only two options.
posted by Jorge on
The reality is that there are people in this world who are well-educated and politically-aware constructive contributors to society who simply do not see “marriage” between two people of the same sex as anything but comical.
…
Why do gays want to “marry”? Isn’t that too heterosexual for comfort?
Isn’t there some better word?
Perhaps this element is what keeps many from accepting something more than civil unions.
Being that you distance yourself so greatly from the gay community and are so willing to use the word “comical” to describe our marriages, this is not your concern, and you shall not be enlightened.
This topic reminds me of a long conversation I had with a co-worker I know well while he was driving me for an errand. (Too late, I remembered you’re not supposed to come out when someone’s driving!) I knew he would not be supportive of gay marriage religiously. But when you speak honestly, you invite honesty from others.
I learned that there is a cost for being tolerant, and this is only the beginning. He’s not going to be persuaded. When I get married, it will become even more difficult. That is when many people draw the line and do not attend, for anybody.
So far, I think it’s still worth it.
posted by Lori Heine on
Who cares whether everyone accepts us? What a waste of time it is to obsess over that.
We are expected to continually worry about what other people think because we live in a statist, socialist country. It is a majoritarian tyranny.
I don’t give a damn what people who use scare quotes around my marriage might think of me. They probably wouldn’t like what I think of them, either.
Either each of us, as individuals, own ourselves, or else we are owned by “society.” Which is a polite way of saying we’re the property of the government.
We are expected to get the permisison of the collective in order to be recognized as fully human so we can marry. Thus are we obsessing, now, over semantics (call it this, but don’t call it that, because the Hive will be upset.)
Thus saith the Borg: “Unacceptable!”
We got ourselves into this mess by picking up on whiny leftist language about rights. Five-year-olds talk like that. Rights, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. Like Santa Claus, they exist for some, but not for others.
We have even distorted the concept of freedom. Thus all the ponderous ruminations on the subject. I will simplify it now.
We either own ourselves, in which case we have freedom to enter into contracts with other consenting adults and live our own lives unmolested from force and fraud. Including government force and fraud. Or else we are owned by the collective — whatever it’s choosing to call itself these days.
Those straights that come over here and lecture us about “marriage” — always in scare quotes — come as representatives of the collective. They can use scare quotes for other people’s relationships now because the collective told them they can.
Next year, when it’s their ownership of themselves in question, and their very existence challenged, they will be totally without a clue how it could have all happened.
Gays are the canaries in the mine. And these foolish straights, who just don’t give a damn what happens to us because they’re too self-absorbed to recognize (or too ignorant of history to understand) that a state that assumes ownership of one group of people also assumes it owns the rest.
It hasn’t felt the need to tell straights yet, in quite the same sort of arrogant and dictatorial way that it has gays. Wait ’til they see what else King Barry and his minions have in store for them.
After all the scare quotes around the very concept of my ability to protect my deepest relationship in life, protect my property, and live a decent, truly human life, I can’t say I’ll find it very easy to care.
posted by Lymis on
On the one hand, yes, people like Osteen are much to be supported and preferred over their far more closed minded compatriots. In fact, I would go so far as to call this particular set of quotes “heterosexist” or “heteronormative” rather than “bigoted” – for the reasons others have shared. At least we get to exist in his world.
The problem with it, though, as a moral judgment, lies in the simple concept that when you call one thing better than another (or “the best”) you are implying that there is a functional option. It’s better because there is a choice.
It is meaningful to opine that a monogamous lifelong relationship is “the best” for straight people, better than serial monogamy or sleeping around. The individuals involved actually have a choice among those options.
But to say that opposite sex marriage is “the best” for everyone is to say that it is the best for gay people, which is manifestly not true. In fact, the only way for it to be best for everyone is for gay people to suddenly cease to exist, which is the thinly disguised message in what Osteen says.
I don’t think he sees the homophobic overtones in what he says, but essentially it is “you are welcome in my church, but I wish you didn’t actually exist.”
To expect gay people to agree with the “straight marriage is the best” idea is to ask us to agree that it would be best if we didn’t exist. Golly, how welcoming.
posted by Grant (GMRinSAN) on
Lymis – very well put.
Until the heterosexual majority comes to grips with the fact that sexuality is not a choice, we will continue to go round and round with these discussions.
posted by BobN on
Just a couple minutes of googling and you can find the Mr. Osteen uses the words “best” and “better” a lot. See, you’re called by God to be “your best”. You have duty to God to be the “best” person you can be.
He has said that if you came to him with unwanted sexual desires for someone of your own sex, he would pray with you and provide you scriptural lessons so you could work “to become your best”.
Why a newly-elected gay person would choose him to take part in her inauguration is beyond me.
posted by JP on
Regardless of what this man believes, it seems clear to me that he is trying to say what HE believes without implying that he speaks FOR God. He is also trying to do it in a compassionate way and not be judgmental. I give him applause for that. It is a bridge that we need to keep building together, which some of you don’t care for. It’s amazing to me that some of you are displaying the same type of attitude that you are so quickly to judge in the christian community.
I know there are many gay people that don’t give a damn about christianity, but maybe some of us other gays do. I also know what I believe the bible says and let me tell you the only way you are going to win people’s hearts is to get them to understand that what they believe is overshadowed by years and years of prejudice that places a very strong skew on their interpretation of the bible.
posted by Lori Heine on
Evangelical Christians are slowly changing on the gay issue. They’re doing it very gradually, but it is happening.
I went to a Gospel concert several years ago — sort of a who’s who of contemporary Christian music. Bill Gaither himself welcomed Marsha Stevens, the lesbian Gospel singer, onstage to sing her signature song. Many of the biggest names in hetero Gospel were up there with her, hugging her and singing along. They knew who she was, and they — in a sort of shorthand way — paid tribute not only to her, but to us.
Of course some of the idiots in the crowd later Googled her, found out she was gay and raised a hissy. Gaither had to issue the standard disclaimer about “hating the sin and loving the sinner.”
Nonetheless, the gesture he made onstage would have been unimaginable only a few short years before.
Most of the prominent Evangelicals who say nothing about the gay issue one way or the other remain silent because they know better than to condemn us. The time will come when they will support us openly. That may not be enough for many of us, but we should at least be aware that it’s happening, just under the radar, and that a lot of them don’t hate us, wish us dead or believe we’re all going to Hell.
I still have many good friends from college. I went to a Southern Baptist university. Not a single one of them abandoned me when I came out — every one of them had stood by me.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a man totally devoid of character or personal integrity. He belonged, for years, to a church in a denomination that boldly champions gay equality (the United Church of Christ). His pastor performed same-sex unions. Then, while running for president, Obama gets up there and tells everybody he believes “marriage is between a man and a woman” — because he is a Christian.
However one feels about gay marriage or gay equality, this can be seen as nothing other than shameless. He has no scruples or decency whatsoever.
I should have seen that, but I didn’t. In 2012, I won’t make the same mistake.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âWe got ourselves into this mess by picking up on whiny leftist language about rights. Five-year-olds talk like that.â ~ Lori Heine
Surely this is not how you would sum up the black civil rights movement? I don’t recall much agitating for libertarian principles among that struggle, rather, it was quite primarily a struggle about recognizing intrinsic rights. If you would agree, I cannot imagine why you would choose to characterize us differently.
Lori, I know you have a great deal of anti-government sentiment. I share some of it. And I know that you have a lot of misgivings about marriage and the legal benefits provided through marriage. I’d like to see âmarriageâ become merely a religious institution and âcivil unionsâ become the legal contract, but I really don’t see what any of this has to do with an overreaching government.
Moreover, whether you believe civil marriage should be abolished or not, I believe it is most definitely an issue of rights and equality when same-sex couples are being denied that which opposite-sex couples are afforded almost freely. And regardless if marriage is abolished in someway, someday, in the meantime I firmly believe we should be striving to ensure that homosexuals are recognized as first-class citizens on every front; that same-sex couples are respected in the same manner that opposite-sex couples are.
And by the way, drop the âKing Barryâ stuff, ok? It’s very difficult to take a person seriously when they resort to such juvenile antics.
As for the âHe has no scruples or decency whatsoever.â I completely disagree with Mr. Obama’s characterization of same-sex marriage, but unfortunately it is a common one. And one, as far as I know, that he has long maintained. He’s not accountable for what his preacher or his church thinks of same-sex marriage.
Unless you can point to an example to where he’s actually done an about-face on the issue, then outside of disagreeing with him and anyone else who shares similar views of same-sex marriage, it isn’t indicative of being without scruples or decency.
posted by Aubrey on
To DragonScorpion,
Though I often share your sentiments (to paraphrase you), I guess I’ll note what is ‘common knowledge’.
Obama, in @ 1997 (1998?)when running for the Illinois state senate in a district with a large gay population (and a very liberal straight population), answered a questionnaire from the local Chicago gay publication.
He stated that he supported gay marriage, using words like “unequivocal”, etc…
His statement was an incredibly progressive one for the date it was written (circa ’97).
However, when he ran for the US Senate in ’02 (?), he noted that he was now for ‘civil unions’ – but only because the opponents of marriage equality had hijacked the word. He said he wanted to bypass the controversy over the word “marriage” and ensure equal rights. A lot of observers (and supporters) in Illinois thought he was trying to play to the more conservative Southern Illinois/rural/farmer population. Never was religion mentioned as a reason for the change. (I was living across the Mississippi in St. Louis, MO at the time, and his campaign was covered daily in the St. Louis Post Dispatch.)
Then, when he ran for president, he suddenly announces that ‘religious reasons’ require him to oppose gay marriage, but support civil unions.
His “change” over time has been well documented. But unfortunately only well documented after the 08 election. The publisher of the Chicago publication that had the original questionnaire kept the piece from public view until after the election.
This publisher was a big supporter of Obama – and might still be. And he didn’t want the ‘flip-flop’ to be held against Obama in a general election.
I suppose Obama could claim his views have “evolved”. But I don’t think anyone has directly asked him why he answered one way in the late 90s, and another way today.
So, to the point, he has done an “about face” on the issue. I’m surprised you are not aware of this matter. Or perhaps you are and have a different perspective (?).
posted by Jorge on
We either own ourselves, in which case we have freedom to enter into contracts with other consenting adults and live our own lives unmolested from force and fraud. Including government force and fraud. Or else we are owned by the collective — whatever it’s choosing to call itself these days.
Remember, until 2003 we didn’t even have the right to enter into our own private contracts in every state. I do think continuing the concept of marriage “rights” is a mistake, but I also think it is our prerogative to do our own part to exercise ownership of society.
Until the heterosexual majority comes to grips with the fact that sexuality is not a choice, we will continue to go round and round with these discussions.
That may be for a while yet. What I see as the implicit message is either to be celibate or become an ex-gay. These are choices a gay person can make, that gay people have made.
In particular I don’t think we as a community have come to grips with the fact that the ex-gay movement as a philosophy and overall assumption is becoming more credible, not less. It’s part of the way Protestant leaders have become more tolerant, it’s part of the way they’ve faced the fact that they have gay children in their own communities. Hate the sin and love the sinner. Unconditional love. Praying for the gay people in their communities. The realization that there are gays in every community was supposed to change people’s basic assumptions about homosexuality and then we’d be accepted. But they are accepting the gays in their own communities now. Do not underestimate the value of this. They didn’t have to change their views on homosexulaity, only on homosexuals. And some of them are starting to learn how to separate religion from politics, the religious value judgment from a respect for other people’s citizenship.
posted by Lori Heine on
As for Dragon’s passionate defense of President Obama, I believe Aubrey dealt with it nicely.
I will, however, throw in one more observation. One’s presence — over several years — at a church generally indicates one’s agreement with what that church teaches. Especially if one takes one’s children.
So when one then takes a position that is dramatically different from that professed by one’s longtime church, it is, to most reasonable people, generally recognized as a cynical and hypocritical act for him so say it’s because he’s a Christian.
If he left that church because of a disagreement over the practice of celebrating same-sex unions, he has left absolutely no record of that.
He bailed on Reverend Wright because he wanted to win the election, and his former spiritual mentor had become a political liability. You can think what you will of that. I don’t think much of it at all. Again, he didn’t leave because he disliked what Wright said, but merely because it might cost him his chance to be The One.
Jorge, I do get what you’re saying, but the fact remains that your way of viewing things is very different from mine. I own myself, so I shouldn’t need to care whether or not Reverend Cranky — whose church I have chosen not to attend — thinks I’m a sinner.
Either we own ourselves, or we are the property of the collective.
The government has no inherent right to issue marriage licenses and determine whose marriage is or is not valid. That was a privilege claimed by a collective that does not believe that human individuals own themselves, but rather that it owns us.
One of the early motives for state-licensed marriage was to keep blacks and whites from marrying. That has been conveniently forgotten, by the theocrats, over time.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âSo, to the point, he has done an “about face” on the issue. I’m surprised you are not aware of this matter. Or perhaps you are and have a different perspective (?).â ~ Aubrey
No, I was/am really not aware of this matter at all. And one would think by now that those who like to throw the claim around would have came up with a direct quote or at least a vague reference to a previous stance and a current stance, as you’ve done here. But oddly enough, no. In all my discussions about the ‘craven hypocrisies’ of âThe Oneâ, this is the first time I have witnessed anyone make any mention of same-sex marriage support from Barack Obama.
And so I’ve never found it at all fitting to label the man a hypocrite on same-sex marriage. In my opinion, the fact that someone doesn’t agree with me on a very important issue isn’t enough to brand them a hypocrite (indecent, without scruples).
By the way, I did a search for some quotes pertaining to this and came up with nothing. So this factoid of yours, while perhaps true, apparently isn’t that âcommonâ of knowledge. Maybe in St. Louis it is â I live about 150 miles from there â but apparently it hasn’t gotten outside St. Louis much.
Even the conservative Christianists don’t bother to cite the quote. Speaking of which, Mr. Obama certainly seems to have convinced those in the uptight, anti-homosexual camp that he is âThe Oneâ with a ‘radical pro-gay agenda’. This, while many of us have obviously written him off as a ‘sell-out’…
I’ll make up my mind on the latter in 2012.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âOne’s presence — over several years — at a church generally indicates one’s agreement with what that church teaches. Especially if one takes one’s children. So when one then takes a position that is dramatically different from that professed by one’s longtime church, it is, to most reasonable people, generally recognized as a cynical and hypocritical act for him so say it’s because he’s a Christian. â ~ Lori Heine
Hmmm… Not in my neighborhood. And don’t tell those âCafeteriaâ Catholics!
posted by Aubrey on
DragonScorpion,
You must not have searched very well. The Advocate covered this series of ‘movement’ in Obama’s thought, as have other gay press outlets. It has even been discussed in IGF (by contributing authors, not only in the comments section.)
Obviously you don’t have to take any of this as fact. But don’t put your head in the sand.
I forget the name of the Chicago publication (the weekly gay paper at the time – again, @97), but I’ll look it up and post it.
I didn’t say he was a ‘hypocrite’. I don’t know that. What I do know is he signed a statement in his run for the IL state senate seat in a Chicago district claiming to support gay marriage.
As to why it hasn’t been discussed so often – well, it has in some ways. But beyond that – I can only guess.
I voted for Obama in 08. I was not convinced it was the best choice, and that thought has probably won out given his actions this year.
But I only wanted to address your question about the ‘about face’ movement he made.
I don’t comment much on this site, I like to read the contributing authors, and some comments. So I didn’t come prepared with supporting links, etc… But if I have a few minutes I’ll get you the links, since you can’t find them yourself.
posted by Aubrey on
DS,
Ok, I googled ‘Obama’s early support for gay marriage’ and the first site listed was a Towleroad.com article dated 01/13/2009.
Please forgive my embarrassing lack of skills, I am just going to copy the text below. But hopefully this will help you find what you were not able to a little earlier.
From Towleroad.com 01/13/2009:
Chicago Paper Reveals Obama’s Early Support for Same-Sex Marriage
After research in its archives, the Windy City Times uncovered copies of Outlines newspaper and an IMPACT survey which were published in 1996 and summarized in various news articles during the final weeks of the 2008 presidential campaign. The articles, which contain quotes related to Obama’s position on same-sex marriage, have been revealed in a Windy City Times article:
“During his run for Illinois state Senate in 1996, Barack Obama stated his unequivocal support for gay marriage, according to an exclusive story in the Jan. 14, 2009 Windy City Times newspaper. President-elect Obama’s answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: ‘I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.’ There was no use of the phrase ‘civil unions’. [Outlines purchased Windy City Times in 2000 and merged companies.] This answer is among those included in this week’s Windy City Times feature on Obama’s evolving position on gay marriage. Windy City Times also includes his answers to the candidate questionnaire of IMPACT, at one time a gay political action committee in Illinois. In that survey he also stated his support of same-sex marriage.”
(endquote)
I don’t know why you weren’t aware of this. The Advocate covered this ‘transition’ in Obama’s thought in an early 2009 issue on Obama. As has most of the gay press (both local and national) with which I am familiar.
I also recall the Boston Globe referencing the Windy City Times article.
As to what this ‘means’, I don’t know.
You can obviously come to your own interpretation of the ‘about face’ of Obama on gay marriage.
But please don’t disregard the facts of the issue:
Obama ran (and won) 3 elected offices while in Illinois: State Senate, US Senate, then US President.
In each of those 3 elections he provided different answers to the question of his support for gay marriage.
Were any of those answers “real”, in terms of his actual thought?
Were they all purely expedient – given solely for political gain, with no regard to an actual belief?
The editor/publisher of Outlines (Windy City Times) who received the questionnaire from Obama in 96 (sorry for being off by a year) had discussions with Obama back at the time of the state senate run, and believes that Obama supports marriage equality.
But being a little more of an existentialist myself, I would say what one does is all there really is.
posted by Aubrey on
A quick addendum to this whole ‘about face’ matter.
If memory serves me, Obama used the term ‘unequivocal’ re: his support for gay marriage in the Impact statement referenced above.
I realize the WCT uses ‘unequivocal’ as an adjective, but I remember reading Obama’s answer and being struck by how pronounced he made his stance.
According to the editor/publisher of Outlines (Windy City Times) at the time of the questionnaire, Obama’s wrote the answers by hand, and signed the piece.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âI favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.â ~ [attributed to Barack Obama]
If this quote is to be believed â and I have no reason to suspect it isn’t other than the fact that it has received little, if any real coverage anywhere â then I think Mr. Obama needs to explain it.
The only explanation I could imagine, outside of a total ideological change or sheer political expediency, would be if he believes that this is a State’s issue and/or that he believes that while he may not personally approve of same-sex marriage, that state law should not discriminate on such a basis.
~âI don’t know why you weren’t aware of this. The Advocate covered this ‘transition’ in Obama’s thought in an early 2009 issue on Obama. As has most of the gay press (both local and national) with which I am familiar.â ~ Aubrey
I could venture a guess â because it has obviously received little exposure… It may have been in the Advocate. I don’t read it. I’ve only posted at their website once or twice.
While I don’t know what you mean by the âgay pressâ, this is the first I’ve seen of it anywhere, including among homosexual community-based media.
Or perhaps it is because the âfactsâ surrounding Mr. Obama’s stance among the media are so inconsistent even by their own reporting
I don’t doubt that you’d been aware of this apparent contradictory stance, obviously you were or you wouldn’t have brought it up in the first place. But if there was such wide coverage of it, as you have characterized it here, I’m sure it would be quite easy to find references to this at various homosexual community websites and I would think I would have been made aware of it by now.
As for the mainstream press, I follow it very closely and have for years and I’ve never see anything about this. Ever. So this controversy takes me by complete surprise.
Perhaps you would rather assume that since you were keenly aware of this then everyone else should be as well and anyone who isn’t is being dishonest. In my case, you’d be wrong.
~âBut please don’t disregard the facts of the issue:â ~ Aubrey
I really don’t, when they are presented to me. Please don’t expect me (or others) to automatically accept your assessments as âfactsâ when you have presented no actual evidence.
In your initial post on this issue you did not include any facts or cite any sources. You merely claimed that Barack Obama had said something which seemingly would contradict what he’s been saying over the past several years. I need something more than someone once saw something somewhere before I’m willing to take that as a statement of fact.
It’s up to you how you take my sincerity, all I can say is that my sincerity is genuine. I try to be as fair dealing as I can, and honest. That includes being brutally frank at times. I have no reason to avoid any discussion about most any topic nor to pretend that facts don’t exist. I just need to be made aware of them, and they need to be legitimate.
posted by Aubrey on
DS – I realize I did not cite sources on my first comment. I usually come to IGF to read the contributing authors, and peruse some of the comments. (I think I have only posted 2 comments total on IGF prior to this series.) When I saw the exchange between you and Lori, I impulsively thought I would answer your question re: the ‘about face’ of Obama.
Obviously I should be better prepared when I comment – I can only plead to being a novice at posting comments on any site as to why I didn’t offer ‘evidence’.
I only mentioned The Advocate (and the Boston Globe) to show that it was covered by some major news outlets. IGF had a contributing author discuss the matter. The local weekly gay pub in Boston, MA where I now live (Bay Windows) and the DC weekly gay pub (Blade) also dealt with this matter. And I recall the NY Times had a contributing editorial in spring 09 mention the change in Obama’s thought. (There I go again, without the appropriate links. But this is only to say…)
So I don’t think it was unreasonable of me to think most people on this site would be aware of the matter.
More to the point, though, I had looked at the link to your blog. And my impression was that you were (are) a person who took a serious effort to stay aware of political matters, perhaps even more so in regard to issues of particular interest to the gay community.
When I expressed surprise I did not mean it as a criticism, or to belittle you. I was genuinely surprised.
But just as it might not be unreasonable to expect someone to know about this, it is not reasonable to expect everyone to know about any topic.
I think this is an example of how an online post can come across so differently from what one intended. Or at least this comment struck you in a manner I did not intend. There was no insult in my mind.
To another point – I asked you to not disregard the facts only after I provided the copy of the towleroad.com text, and the name of the original publication and date of article (Windy City Times, 01/14/2009).
I would never expect anyone to accept anything from anyone online as fact. Even when links are supplied. It is always the better idea to go and read the source material for oneself.
Perhaps I am misreading you, but it seemed to me you were resisting the possibility that Obama might have made such an ‘about face’.
That is the only reason I asked you not to resist the facts. That and I had read the story behind all of this.
When reading the comments from the editor/publisher of Outlines (Windy City Times) it seemed very evident he was not trying to discredit Obama at all.
Finally, as to your question of why this wasn’t covered more extensively – well, I guess my first reply would be that it was. At least in the area I live in. And as I mentioned, by at least some major news outlets, as well as some of the gay web sites (towleroad.com), local gay pubs, etc…
But thinking beyond the initial reply, I can only give you my guess.
I think for most people Obama’s stance on gay marriage is a settled matter. Obama and his admin. have made it pretty clear this community is not a major focus of theirs.
Questions as to why, and how, Obama made the move from supporting legalized gay marriage to not believing in gay marriage due to religious reasons might not be important.
Or maybe it is that a ‘religious reason’ seems to settle the matter for most people. Any further rationale is not required.
Hopefully this clarifies matters. And I regret that this series of comments got so off topic from the original Galileo post. That wasn’t my original intent either.
posted by Aubrey on
Oh god, I flubbed the last line. I meant the original post on ‘Bigotry’. I have been reading the 2 postings in a cross fashion (going back and forth between the Galileo and the Bigotry articles when time permitted).
So, yes I know the difference between the 2. I think the comments from Lori, etc.al… on both articles provided another easy path for me to cross myself.
My bad. Sorry about that.
But the point is still the same. I didn’t intend to go so off-topic.
posted by DragonScorpion on
@Aubrey
It’s always difficult to read these things online, but I had detected condescension from some of your comments, including: âThough I often share your sentiments (to paraphrase you), I guess I’ll note what is ‘common knowledge’â, âI didn’t come prepared with supporting links, etc… But if I have a few minutes I’ll get you the links, since you can’t find them yourselfâ, â(There I go again, without the appropriate links. But this is only to say…)â.
But I think I can put that suspicion to rest with your latest statement, âWhen I expressed surprise I did not mean it as a criticism, or to belittle you. I was genuinely surprisedâ. You seem very sincere and I appreciate that.
I, too, am very surprised that this matter doesn’t or hasn’t gotten more press and that it hasn’t come up in discussions I’ve had with homosexual bloggers or even heterosexual critics of Obama.
Even those who claim that he has a âpro-gay agendaâ only cite his support of repealing DOMA and giving same-sex couples the same protections as marriage. Quoting an actual endorsement of same-sex marriage would have been very effective to fence-sitting same-sex marriage opponents during the presidential campaign.
As for the search, I’m really not trying to be difficult here. I don’t know what you use, but I use Google. And when I queried things like ‘Obama support same-sex marriage’, adding qualifiers like â1997â and âquoteâ, or ‘1997 Barack Obama pro-gay marriage’ and checked various links I found nothing addressing any quote or stance he had ever made in support of it. Perhaps I should have went 4, 5, 6 pages deep.
Knowing more of the particulars of where it has been covered and in what year it actually took place greatly improves the quality of the search.
~âMore to the point, though, I had looked at the link to your blog. And my impression was that you were (are) a person who took a serious effort to stay aware of political matters, perhaps even more so in regard to issues of particular interest to the gay community.â ~ Aubrey
I really do. Though I will admit that I have followed mainstream domestic and foreign issues much closer over the years. I’ve not been immersed in ‘gay culture’ nor the ‘gay press’ for a variety of reasons, location is one, and a lack of options and substance (which has significantly improved) over the past few years, is another. But I have read articles at homosexual community blogs and news forums, including this one, for several years. I rarely contributed to them until recently.
I appreciate your reading my blog, too. I hope you found something of interest there.
~âPerhaps I am misreading you, but it seemed to me you were resisting the possibility that Obama might have made such an ‘about face’.â ~ Aubrey
Actually, I simply found it very difficult to believe considering I’d heard nothing about this before and, if true, I certainly should have by now. And given that no evidence was provided. Frankly, no, I didn’t find it particularly credible. Not without something more to go on.
Now, thanks to further detail from you, I have places to look. And I intend to get as much of the full story as possible.
By the way, I definitely agree with you that the “religious reason” seems to settle the same-sex marriage question for most people. Including those who pretend to have other, rational reasons for opposing it.