Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 17, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Star-Spangled Baggage
Science Finds New Routes to Energy




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar
Why Americans Hate Politics

Why Americans Hate Politics

By E.J. Dionne
$14.00

more items

 
A/V Booth

Why Gays Are Upset About the Rev. Rick Warren

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 19, 2008
Rick Warren
Beliefnet via YouTube

Rick Warren’s work on the environment, poverty and AIDS make him hard to pigeonhole, but a recent interview, during which he compared homosexuality to incest and pedophilia, crossed a line.

Would anyone who made similar remarks about women or Jews be invited to have an important role in the inauguration? Would such a person be received at the White House?

The Rev. Rick Warren is a complicated figure, and his pairing with the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a civil rights hero, may ultimately serve some happy purpose.

But Barack Obama’s choice illustrates that outrages against gays are tolerated at an unacceptably high level. With the passage of California’s Prop. 8, this particular outrage could not have come at a more sensitive time.

Beliefnet:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By kihei, January 17, 2009 at 7:55 pm Link to this comment

Rick Warren and the (O)Abomination Inauguration
Surely, we can all find some love in our hearts for Rick Warren.  Wake up America. Not only has Pastor Rick likened gays to pizza and pedophiles, but he is making up his own reality in Syria and Uganda as well. Please enlighten yourselves with the following articles:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/the_truth_about_rick_warren_an.php

http://www.slate.com/id/2207554/

I think we are now in need of a PR campaign from Sir Elton John who is one that really understands how to deal with the AIDS epidemic. Perhaps he can appear on Larry King Live again and elighten everyone out of their Rick Warren disillusionment.

I am afraid it only gets worse.  He has deemed himself America’s new ambassador to the Middle East and Muslim world.  For one, he would like to assassinate world leaders like Ahmadinejad who was elected by the Iranian people.  Read the article:


http://iamjunius.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/rick-warren-supports-call-for-ahmadinejad-assassination/

Right now, Pastor Rick is taking a break from blamming the media for his grand faux pas,while Obama orchestrates a new red herring for the sake of his (Lincoln politics). Yes, that’s right folks enter the gay Bishop Gene Robinson to speak at the last minute at the inaugural ceremonies.  That ought to fix things, and he’s not asking Bishop Robinson at the last minute he planned to ask him all along it just happens that the timing coincides with pissing off the gay and lesbian community.  Hummm.  Gosh I feel alot like Dorothy from the wizard of Oz going to see the wizard (Obama) on inauguration day. Wasn’t that during the great depression too, and that’s right the Wizard turned out to be a fraud.  Why on earth in the geopolitical climate we live in (especially after the Bush Adminstration) would Obama choose a xenophobic, homophobic, bigot to pray over him at the inauguration. I know, so he can bring us all together, and its working right? But wait, Obama is not done yet, he will ultimately use the Rick Warren controversy to his advantage by proclaiming that bigotry simply is unacceptable to the American people ushering in more of the New Obama Culture.  The timing is still questionable, and remember he is being a politician.

Report this

By George, December 23, 2008 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What Obama is doing is pandering to the right wing. I think Juan Cole and Melissa Etheridge are merely case examples of how successfully charming this Warren fellow is.

But he is just another fundamentalist with an agenda that is not only virulently homophobic, it is anti-women, anti-science (he rejects evolution) as well as implicitly anti-semitic (their jesus is the only way), yet alone anathema to those of who us who are utterly sick to death of religion and all its inherent and manifest hypocrisy and nonsense.

For Obama to this is a nod to step-and-fetchitism. For those to defend this choice is to make me wonder why you aren’t pushing for him to have the KKK or a neo-nazi voice their “equal” opinions and views at the Inauguration. For Warren represents nothing more than a tepid, moderately watered-down version of their nonsense. Perhaps Sarah Palin can send her pastor to writhe about on the floor in a paroxysm of tongues.

It is a despicable reach that alienates, divides even as it destroys any hope I may have distantly held and makes mockery of Obama’s call for “change.” Nothing of the sort. Just spineless, corporate-obedient democratic business as usual.

And meanwhile, Cheney, Bush and all those liars, thieves and murderers will get away scott-free.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 23, 2008 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

KDelphi,

What can I say? You are as clueless about psychology as you are about politics.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 22, 2008 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment

Tony—If you think that pastor Warren is part of a “broad based progressive coalition”(yes, I’ve seen the term on all the neo-liberal websites—including The Nation), I would like to know your definition of broad and progressive. It is certainly different than, even, most Dems!

Warren’s self-interests are those of the elites. He is a “pastor”, so he is probably not taxed. He is a millionaire. (I dont care that he gives to charity—it should be paid in taxes to back reliable social programs)

You should give up, because, Obama screwed this one up, and, only his most strident supporters wil not admit it. It isnt just about “
gay marriage”, but, many who think that gay marriage effects them “not at all”, are just going to “let it go”. Wait until these neo-liberals do something that hurts them directly. Too bad we have to wait for that.

Hell, Warren is a downright neo-conservative.

And, the fact that neo-liberals dont get that, is what makes the DLC NOT a representative of any “broad” or “progressive” “coalition”. YOu guys lost gays. And, you lost alot of p[rogreswsive. Hell, Obama even lost some fellow Dems, most noteably, Barney Frank.

Keep it up. Maybe it will cause peopple to ask for REAL change next time.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 22, 2008 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi,

To repeat, what happened is that Obama is trying to forge a broad-based progressive coalition that includes evangelicals who have been voting against their own economic interests for more than 40 years. In order to do so he is asking his supporters to display the same tolerance that we would all like Rick Warren to have.

If you don’t get this, I give up.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 21, 2008 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

It is not that Waaren will or will not be making policy decision. It is the pattern. The pattern, after eight years of a twisted, selfish use of “evangelism” to justify much death and misery, that Obama goes for a friend of the Right Wing. Unbelievable

Doesnt anyone remember the dispute over the Saddleback Faith—whatever the hell it was? People were debating as to whether Obama should even participate. People even alleged that McCain had been “coached”. Now, its all copacetic..

What happened?

Report this

By dihey, December 21, 2008 at 9:17 am Link to this comment

Every day the “Warren-plot’ thickens and the minefield for Obama becomes seeded with more mines. Now Warren is on the record that “I love gays and straights”. I immediately noticed that he did not say anything about pedophiles which by his own opinion are as bad as homosexuals.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 21, 2008 at 2:08 am Link to this comment

Re Howard Mandel, December 20 at 7:00 am #

Picking someone to give a prayer is not a policy decision. I’ll be judging Obama’s presidency on the actual results of his policies.
—————————————————————————-
Howard,

My sentiments exactly.

Report this

By cyrena, December 21, 2008 at 12:24 am Link to this comment

By skmacksk, December 20 at 9:22 am
Cyrena,I appreciate your post and the information you provided regarding Obama’s letter on prop 8.
Very informative and I say that I stand corrected regarding my post under my full name Stephen K. Mack: at least in regard to Obama and his lack of support of Prop 8. I was wrong.

Hi Stephen,

Ditto the appreciation for your response here. I’m always happy when I (or ANYONE) can provide truthful facts and information. Not just in reference to politics, but to EVERYTHING that we all need to know and understand about the society that we live in and share with each other.  There is little to fear more than ignorance, but we’re all guilty of it to one degree or another.  So I think standing corrected is an admirable stance. I do it myself whenever the opportunity presents itself, which is often enough.

Actually, I hadn’t even read your post, prior to posting my response, which was a comment on KDelphi’s insistence that Obama was ‘opposed’ to gay marriage, because he was ‘in support’ of civil unions. It’s faulty logic/reasoning, and that’s how such totally wrong impressions form in the public discourse.  It also has everything to do with time, place, sequence, and especially semantics by people who have little or no knowledge of the laws that govern us.

In fact, this very same conversation has taken place on this forum before, and dihey responded with a comment very similar to yours, because he believed (initially at least) that Obama was equivocating on the subject of gay marriage. He said “Cyrena, you were right and I was wrong.” Now you’d need to know a bit of our history here on this forum to know how big of a ‘break’ that was. smile


Anyway, in our own culture/society we rely too much on the media to dictate the terms of our discourse and debate, and far too often, the result is either a complete LACK of factual information in context to the issues at hand, or worse; FALSE information is circulated, creating that much more ignorance. At the end of the day of course, people DO have a right to their own opinions, but they don’t have a right to their own ‘created’ FACTS, and uninformed or misinformed opinions can lead to disaster.

I DO ‘get’ your feeling that Obama could have done more than write an opinion against prop 8, (though that IS what legal scholars and politicians do…he is both) but in all fairness, he actually DID!!

No, he didn’t include it in every single speech or address that he made, just like he hasn’t referenced other crimes of this current administration –AS FREQUENTLY AS I WOULD LIKE-. But he DOES address this in his official campaign platform, - his intention to overturn/repeal the DOMA legislations –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Then.

“President-elect Barack Obama’s political platform includes full repeal of the DOMA.”

Now in all due consideration, THAT is pretty damn robust in the political climate of the past 40 years, at least on this issue!!

Seriously, in that respect, and in this long and on-going (but inefficient) discourse, he has gone where no politician or president has gone before, in his commitment to repeal all of these negative laws where they appear. (remember how twisted-up Clinton got in this, with his “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which certainly didn’t help the necessary public discourse along.)

Now I don’t know exactly how he plans to accomplish that, because it will involve (AGAIN) the Supreme Court. But, this has to be settled once and for all, and it is no small thing that he has committed to doing that.

I’ve also noted, (with great appreciation and enthusiasm) Obama’s choices for the Justice Dept, and I’m convinced that they will work HIS agenda, which is why it’s important to pay attention to what HIS agenda actually is, and not be distracted by side drama.

But yeah, I know that’s far easier said than done. wink

Report this

By KDelphi, December 20, 2008 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment

There were many other prominent pastors that couldve been chosen.

Keep supporting people like Warren. The Democrats can “start over”, with former GOP, and, now they are the party of money.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 20, 2008 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

Posters should read cj’s linik to the article in The Nation. They have been serious Obama supporters, but, they have plenty of problems with “Pastor” Warren.

Thanks, cj!

Report this
skmacksk's avatar

By skmacksk, December 20, 2008 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

Cyrena,I appreciate your post and the information you provided regarding Obama’s letter on prop 8.
Very informative and I say that I stand corrected regarding my post under my full name Stephen K. Mack: at least in regard to Obama and his lack of support of Prop 8. I was wrong. But perhaps you and other readers can understand,that as a gay man,a letter of support is less than robust and even might be considered the cowards way out,to put in its most unflattering light.
Perhaps what would have satisfied me and a great many others would have been a denunciation in each political speech specifically mentioning Prop 8 as a manifestation of the politically intolerable.Wishful thinking on my part,no!

Report this

By KDelphi, December 20, 2008 at 10:20 am Link to this comment

Purple Girl—outraged.
“although I ma not thrilled with a number of Obama’s picks for his cabinet, I am far less willing to compromise when it comes to the Christian Taliban.”

Amen!

If you support civil unions, how does that not mean that you do not support gay marriage.(He has said he believes in equal rights for them when asked about marriage) And, gay marriage is hardly the issue, “Pastor” Warren has plenty of other sexist issues , and, sone very strange ideas about gays , in the first place. Obama picked him. Lie down with dogs, get fleas.

If my opinion is stupid, it must be “in the water”.Tony called this a “broad protressive coaltion”. I just find that unbelievable.

Report this

By dihey, December 20, 2008 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

Let us not get carried away by claiming that “states cannot discriminate”. They legally can. A perfect example is the refusal of my state to issue driver licenses to persons younger than 16. That surely is a form of discrimination. In the past, the litmus test whether a state can legally discriminate has always been (and should continue to be) whether the discriminatory law provides, for example, a reasonable protection for ALL residents of the state. The discrimination cited above is a perfect example. Interestingly, nobody complains or brings this case to court.
It is my opinion that there is abundant evidence that same-sex marriage will not hurt or discriminate against anyone in my State (certainly not me), hence my State has absolutely no business refusing to give the normal legal marriage license to a same-sex couple willing to obey the conditions of this contract. Notice that the words God or Religion do not occur in my argument because they are irrelevant here. (Cyrena might say: do not make a shit of difference). Regrettably Mr. Obama’s training as a lawyer was a wasted effort.
I agree with Cyrena in that Proposition 8 provides a totally unconstitutional “safeguard” of what? Given the large number of people that voted against 8 it is also totally irrational and unreasonable.
I read that Mr. Brown has now allowed the case to go to the California court system.
A number of people have argued that Prop. 8 must not be rescinded because it is “vox populi”. I seem to remember a regime in Europe which not too long ago claimed that anything that was the “Stimme des Volkes” (Voice of the People) was good if not legal.

Report this

By cj, December 20, 2008 at 10:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There’s a good article on The Nation about Mr. Warren.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner?rel=hp_currently

Mr. Warren is a homophobic creationist twit exploiting myths from the pre-scientific age to justify his narrow minded and bigoted agenda. He may not appear the same as Jerry Falwell, but he’s cut from the same cloth.

Report this

By Big B, December 20, 2008 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

It is perhaps the most disconcerting thing about america that, while we all have the freedoms granted to us in the constitution and bill of rights, many of us, like the bible humping, gay bashing Rick Warrens of our nation, use these freedoms to infringe upon other peoples freedom. And once again, Barry is inviting the enemy to his table, thinking that if he makes nicey-nice with fundamentalist assholes that they will eventually come around to his way of thinking. This line of thought is incredibly misguided, for Barry is too smart a guy not to realize that the christian wackos are not interested a coalition with the rest of america. They are Dominionest’s waiting for the war between the christians and non-christians to begin. Unless you are born again(and give your money to the church of course) they BELIEVE you are going to hell!

Barry needs to ask himself this, how many times have the chiristian wackos allowed opposing views in their churches? Come on Barry, it’s time to wake up! The nation lies in shambles, and you’re busy appointing the same failed fuck-ups from the Clinton admin. that help put the nation into this malaise in the first place. We need you to think beyond token gestures like kissing Warrens fat ass. It will get you nothing but a bad taste in your mouth, and more distrust from the left.(in all fairness, we didn’t trust you before. but so far you’re doing a heck of a job confirming our worst fears, that you are yet another goddamn pragmatic Clintonian sell-out)

Report this

By P. T., December 20, 2008 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

Rick Warren also indicated he opposes polygamy.  The man sounds like a polygaphobe.

Report this

By Howard Mandel, December 20, 2008 at 8:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Picking someone to give a prayer is not a policy decision. I’ll be judging Obama’s presidency on the actual results of his policies. I’m even willing to shut up during the debate over his proposals, because endless debate and fear of sacred cows has led to a nation that is incapable of creating legislation that can produce the desired results. 

I’m gay and I am spoiling for a fight with guys like Warren. Most people don’t get to hear what these guys believe. Its pretty easy to tear apart their arguments. Losing Prop 8 may turn out to be the most important thing that happened in the gay community since Stonewall. It has galvanized us to confront the Warrens of the world.  Obama had to know there would be slot of debate about this. Only Nixon could go to China. Not all political calcultion is bad. Watch the results not the press.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, December 20, 2008 at 7:25 am Link to this comment

After 30 yrs of this Religious Fantazism and Oppression, we have to suck it up and offer them a seat at the table….We’ve heard their thoughts and idea for 30 yrs…They SUCK!
If Obama wants to Unite the country, having one of the culprits resposnible for our devision is an outraged.
although I ma not thrilled with a number of Obama’s picks for his cabinet, I am far less willing to compromise when it comes to the Christian Taliban.
I am sick of these Bilbe thumping Heretics having any voice in the Public square….Keep your Crazy haateful doctrines at home or confined to your Mega Churches.
What they Spew is not Only innately UnAmerican, it is Blasphemous.
This move has placed all other ‘Compromises’ in a far stark light. I worked my ass off volunteering for Obama, did verbal battle with these assholes going door to door, phone banking and Now we have to hear one of their Snake Oil Dealers at the Inauguration!!!!
it’s not that Religious Intolerance is the only issue that motivates me politically, But it is the Underlying ideology which it perpetuates…The ‘Worthy ’ and the ‘unworthy’. Much like what we have just witness between bailing out WallStreet and sticking the stake in the UAW’s heart for a Fucking Loan!!!! apparently Wealthy WallStreet Chrisitians are still worthy of a place at Obama’s table, but Average Faith americans Are NOT!
I am sick Of playing NICE NICE with these vile self servicing Evangelical ‘Christians’. if Obama wanted to exemplify Unity he should have asked a Buddhist monk, or A rabbi, or a Emam…. Hell even a Moderate Episcopalian or Presbyterian .....Anything but a Evangelical Christian the Most despised and divisive sect next to the Taliban!
You don’t ahve to be Gay to HATE what Rick Warren Stands for!

Report this

By cyrena, December 20, 2008 at 4:42 am Link to this comment

•  “Tony Wilcher—Obama DOES oppose gay maraige (he supports civil unions but, wont do anything to stand up to the neo-cons on it), and, if you defend Warren—you will defend anything Obama does.”
KDelphi,
I didn’t even have to read down to Tony’s comment to know that you’re off-logic again because of your issues with concepts of semantics, politics, and the law. That along with your constant accusations that people will ‘defend anything that Obama does’ despite the fact that you don’t even know what it is that Obama has supposedly done!! (the craziness can be pretty awesome at times)

So, here is the deal. Obama OPPOSED proposition 8, for ALL of the RIGHT REASONS.

So this either/or extreme position that you take using apples and oranges, is illegitimate. You can’t claim that Obama OPPOSES gay marriage based on the fact that he has previously supported civil unions, and will continue to support them. That’s STUPID!

Obama’s personal opinion on ‘what constitutes marriage’ or whether he agrees with Webster’s on the definition of marriage is NOT an indicator that he ‘opposes gay marriage’, because his opinions in that respect don’t matter to anybody but HIM. It doesn’t have shit to do with the rest of us, including people of the same sex that wanna consider themselves married in the eyes of the law.

What matters (since he is President-elect) is that he has vocally OPPOSED proposition eight before the people of California voted for it. He called it divisive and discriminatory, among other things. I would expect any scholar and teacher of Constitutional Law and the sub-category of Civil Rights Law to say exactly what he said in OPPOSITION to proposition 8, which was a direct response by the religious right and the homophobes to the earlier ruling by a Conservative (but knowledgeable on the law) Supreme Court justice.

Once again: President-elect Barack Obama is on record in his opposition to California’s proposition 8. (I have no idea if he weighed in on the other 2 states that passed similar laws.) That’s because this negative law legislation attempts to legalize discrimination, in violation of the multiple Constitutional Amendments, specifically those regarding Civil Rights.

Now I will say this KDelphi, you are NOT alone in this confusion of ‘opposes’ vs ‘supports’ (a different thing) vs the law, vs what he’s actually said, and the context in which the ideology is being offered.  We’ve had these conversations on TD before, and that’s why I’m posting this particular link. It’s another example of the confusion between what he’s said, and how that has been interpreted.

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html

Now this post is dated only today, though Obama has been opposed to proposition 8 in California before it was passed here.

This one is slightly older, (Just 4 days after the election) but says the same thing.

http://www.theliberaloc.com/2008/11/08/for-the-record-obama-opposed-prop-8/
THAT’S what matters.

So, Obama OPPOSES the banning of civil rights to ANY group or individuals, INCLUDING those of the same sex that wanna marry each other. Got that? And yes, I suspect that’s worth ‘defending’ Obama on, except that I keep telling you, Obama doesn’t NEED ‘defending’.

I swear to god KDel, if Obama was a physician and saved peoples lives using medicine, and people like me praised him for it, you’d accuse us of ‘defending’ him for saving lives.

You’re the kind of neurotic that will cuss somebody out for doing what you specifically asked them to do.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, December 20, 2008 at 4:16 am Link to this comment

Dave 24,

I’m wondering if the constitution allows invocations at an inauguration in the first place.  I doubt it.
I personally don’t even agree with that, so I can’t begin to think about Ricky Boy doing the honors.

It doesn’t take much reasoning to see that three hundred years of “trusting in god,” as this country has professed, hasn’t been to our advantage or to the advantage of most other people in the world, unless of course one believes we’d be in far worse shape had we not “trusted in god” all these centuries.

We need to intellectually grow up, start putting our trust in reason, do the right thing, and keep invocations in churches for the superstitous, where they belong.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 20, 2008 at 12:42 am Link to this comment

What an asshole! GAWD I cant stand this guy!

Many Democrats are sexist, Summers , for instance.(Log Cabin Democrats??) If anyone wants to know what I honestly think , I think Obamas “team” let some sexism pass, as some of it is inherent in the, born-again christian community. That is who voted in Prop 8. Many Af Ams are very conservative christians—they would probably be GOP, if they hadnt done so many blatently racist things (ie Reagan)

I d0 not agree that “blacks are the ultimate enemy of gays”, and are “gay racists”, But, I can guarantee you, it is going to be preceived that way by many in the gay community.

I also think that the Af Am Community has more misognyny. The reasons are totally socio-economic. But, they should be “safe” to point out, like it should be in any American “community”, to point it out without being called a bigot.

“No differecne between a Black Homophobe and a Conservative one” make no sense. If one is a “homophobe”’ one is a conservative. I do understand the anger. I do not think that you can equate very conservative christain Af Ams with all Af Americans.

Early on, there was classism, in this campaign, but “who cares”? “We can win without working class whites”, a worker at the local Obama campaign center told me. Now, I guess that they think they can win again without the LGBT community, the poor, etc. The Dems do not care. they just want to win.

I do know one thing!! The “democrats” had better stop this hatred, if they want to “bring people together”! Just read the posts! You cannot build freedom on other peoples’ enslavement.

More like “bring moderate Dems together with conservative GOP” or neo-con + neo-lib!

No one was talking about forcing “churches” to marry people! It is a matter of law! Who wants to get married in a church that doesnt want to marry them? Hell, I dont watn to get married again, at all!

Get you damn kids away from the tv, and talk to them about birth control or something!

“letting the opposition speak” at your own inaugeration?? Anyone who goes that far to defend Obama’s choices, must have some stake in it. What, are you being offered a job or something?

Tony Wilcher—Obama DOES oppose gay maraige (he supports civil unions but, wont do anything to stand up to the neo-cons on it), and, if you defend Warren—you will defend anything Obama does. Therefore, you are not to be trusted.“Brilliance” isnt everything—many of our presidents have been brilliant—none were classically “stupid”. But, being “briliant” without a heart, for those that have no voice, (or a “silenced” voice) and the courage of your convictions, is uselses…

What if Obama’s daughter turns out to be a lesbian?

I am tired of hearing that “he doesnt have a mandate”, except that “he has a mandate”. You guys are just conservaties. And, youre bigots.

Report this

By Folktruther, December 19, 2008 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

Just keep saying that over and over, Tony Wicker, and calling appontments like Warren ‘brilliant.’  we need people like you in the leadership of the Dem party.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 19, 2008 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment

By Folktruther, December 19 at 7:24 pm

F,

“Massively selling out” to you is “building a progressive coalition” to me.

Report this

By Folktruther, December 19, 2008 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment

No one expected Obama to sell out so quickly and so massively. It serves progressive purposes that he is doing it so publicly, pandering to bigotry against gays and women.  His appoinments have far worse long term implications, but his public endorsement of the perverted values of Warren help a progressive movement against the Dem-Gop bloc gain traction.

Report this

By Anthony Look, December 19, 2008 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

President Elect Obama is an enemy of the gay community. Black Americans are not friends of the gay community. It is gutterly understood that right wing fundi White Christians are truely enemies of the gay community; but, political correctness, especially this past election year, gave the gay community pause in uttering the fact of the inherent Christian based gay racism in the Black community. Not some, not few, not here and there; but, most Black Americans are gay racists. Black Americans must be viewed for the enemy that they are of the gay community along side with their Christian White counterparts. The gay community must work to impede Black political interests and rights insofar as that is what Black Americans are doing unto gay interests. THEY ARE ALSO THE ENEMY.
Just as the gay community would do no less to obstruct the interests and rights of any conservative republican white or otherwise; the gay community must direct the same vigor to obstruct, and impede any political gains of the Black community. They have no qualms about doing as much to the gay community. The gay community must rise above the political correctness of aligning itself to a fellow Democratic Party faction and recognize Black America is as much an enemy as is as the Conservative right wing American. Let’s work to vote against any and all Black American political interests at every level; be it school board or the office of the presidency. Work as hard as possible to minimize their hateful bigotted gay racist influence.
There is no difference between a Black homophobe and a Conservative one.
Ask yourself would have Hillary Clinton invited such a vile gay racist to her inaguration. Obama not only threw the gay community under the bus; he condoned gay racist speech.
I regret voting for this man.

Report this

By Robert, December 19, 2008 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Get Real said, “I doubt Rev. Warren is going to bash gays at the inauguration”
So.  I doubt anyone was worried that he would.  It is not even close to being the point. 

If it were just a matter of ‘everyone having their views,’ nobody would care.  It’s when people with a view of how the world should be based on their religious beliefs decide to adopt an agenda that prevents others from the same blessings they have. 

Why do I have to explain this?  Get Real needs to Get a clue. 

And Rhett…  Ga is correct.  You don’t have a clue what kind of society we live in.  We are a form of democracy (usually representative democracy) in this country, but we are primarily a constitutional republic.  And if a law passed by a legislature, or by a majority of voters violates the protections afforded individuals in a constitution, the constitution reigns supreme.  The justices of the Supreme Court are not bound to rubber stamp the will of the majority.  They took an oath to uphold their constitutions, not what is popular amongst the majority of voters.

No Constitution provides you the right to be free of whatever you deem offensive.  You do not have that right.  You have never had that right.  Thus you are not being denied a right.  You cannot be denied something you’ve never had. 

You want your children to be free from a world where men kiss.  Tough!  Your children live in the real world and will be exposed to it.  We are not going to crawl under a rock to accommodate your prejudices. 

I’m sick to death of you people comparing gay relationships to polygamy and adultery.  Do you have any reasoning skills?  Obviously not.  Are there victims in polygamy and adultery?  Can you see that there are?  Can you see that someone was cheated on and will be hurt by it?  Can you see a victim in a union of two people who want to love and support each other and spend their life together in a same sex marriage?  Do you have the ability to see that Polygamy and adultery are selfish acts that harm others and that gay people coupling causes no harm to them?  Please, come up with an intelligent comparison or argument, or just shut up already.

You’re also against throwing trash on the roadside or ‘allowing’ people to streak…. WTF?  Where did that come from and how is it pertinent ? 

Society upholding bigoted views is not how it works Rhett.  We all are born with a birthright… a birthright to equal treatment under the law… I don’t care if you ever change your opinion.  IF the CA Supreme court does right by us, a majority of you will learn a very important civics lesson.  Not to mention the Catholic and Catholic-lite (Mormon) churches.  We are not a theocracy and those of us not of those faiths should not in any way be affected by the decrees of their leaders. 

And lastly, I’d like to address Mighk…  ‘Let each church, couple or person determine for themselves what constitutes ‘marriage.’”  And are these churches, individuals and couples also going to bestow upon themselves and their followers the legal rights that come with marriage?  Of course not.  They don’t have the authority.  Only the government can do that.  It is appreciated those who try to take a safe course on this issue to say the government should get out of the marriage business.  But nobody I’ve seen offer that opinion explains how the very necessary legal rights that come with it will exist after it does.  Those rights wouldn’t exist. 

Instead, the Mormons and Catholics and Baptists and all those others who think we’re a theocracy or a democracy need to stop preventing the Unitarians and others who believe gay love is just as valid and just as worthy of marriage, from performing them.

Report this

By Hope Less, December 19, 2008 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Would anyone who made similar remarks about women or Jews be invited to have an important role in the inauguration? Would such a person be received at the White House?”

If every point of view should be considered, then why not ask a racist to speak at the inauguration?

Report this

By Ga, December 19, 2008 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

My God! (And I say that ironically).

The user named Rett has got to be the most horrific example of illogic that I have ever read on Truthdig. And I am not talking about just making a mistake, misspeaking, or of being illinformed; but of just absolute insanity.

“All of our laws are based on a morality of some form and restrict ‘freedom’ in some way.”

Ahem, just what, then, does this mean?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“I want my children to be free from a world where men kiss men on the street and TV sitcoms cram adulterous relationships down their throat every 10 minutes.”

Ahem, just where does this happen “every ten minutes?” It happens rarely in America, as in relatively very infrequently. Why must there be laws to prevent it? Shall we pass laws preventing on married couples from kissing in public? Shall we pass laws about how we should dress in public? (Which is just one small step away from your premise. Sharia law anyone?)

“Our laws don’t protect my freedom in this regard.”

Your “freedom” to what? To be “not offended?” Sorry, but you live in the wrong country. You live in a country whose laws you do not even understand.

“You, the democratic majority, have decided that I can’t have that freedom.”

What “freedom” is that, again? Is there some law that forces your to look at people in public? To watch certain TV shows?

“Your freedoms infringe on mine and mine on yours. That’s how a community and society has to work.”

Um, not sure exactly what is meant by that, but if that’s how a community and society has to work than what are you complaining about?

“We have heard your case.”

But you ignore it or do not understand it.

“We have listened to your concerns and we have decided that we do not want to call the commitment of a man to a man or a woman to a woman marriage.”

So, you—your “we”—must prevail under any circumstances and no matter what laws are passed? Ah, weren’t you just talking about democracy a minute ago?

“Such a redefinition is in opposition to what we, the people, think is in the best interest of our nation and society.”

So, you—your “we”—must prevail under any circumstances and no matter what laws are passed? Ah, weren’t you just talking about democracy a minute ago?

“We don’t hate you.”

Yes, you do. As is evidenced by many of your kind’s own words.

”“We don’t want to physically harm you.”

Yes, you do. As is evidenced by many of your kind’s own actions.

“We don’t want to make fun of you.”

You only want to make a mockery of reason, science and justice.

“We think you are valuable.”

You are—no “thinking” required—insane. No need to continue…

Report this

By Mighk, December 19, 2008 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

I’m all for gay rights, including marriage, but let’s remember that Obama doesn’t necessarily have the mandate some think he has.  Only one-third of adult Americans voted for him (though that’s much better than Bush II did; only a quarter voted for him in 2000).

So Warren is a bigot.  Nevertheless he, and millions more Americans believe what they believe (BS that it is) sincerely.  I think Obama is honoring their sincerity more than their belief.  Granted, one can only take that so far; one wouldn’t grant a Hitler the same opportunity; but letting the opposition speak is generally good practice.  BushCo did not let sincere dissenting voices speak.

Just as we don’t want to stoop to the level of terrorists to defeat them, we shouldn’t stoop to the level of cultural conservatives to “defeat” them.

As Sting put it:
Convince an enemy, convince him that he’s wrong
Is to win a bloodless battle where victory is long
A simple act of faith
In reason over might
To blow up his children will only prove him right

Report this

By TRUTHJUSTICE&THEAMERICANWAY;, December 19, 2008 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

I don’t hate you. You are one of God’s children, therefore I love you as I love myself. I am an imperfect being subject to make mistakes and commit sins. I don’t agree with the idea of gay marriage. I do believe that term should be used for opposite sex marriages, only. I believe gay marriages should have a separate name. I don’t believe the mistaken analogy between black civil rights and gay rights. My thougts and opinions are not meant to attack, offend, or shock anyone. This is simply how I feel. I agree with Barak’s selection og Warren. I agree with many things he says. There are many others who share this opinion. In 2009 and beyond, let’s work to find a way to work through our differences by pledging to understand a few key points:

-Just because we don’t share the same beliefs neither of us deserve to be called name.

-The President and the country needs to come together.

Happy New Year!

sw

Report this

By TRUTHJUSTICE&THEAMERICANWAY;, December 19, 2008 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment

I don’t hate you. You are one of God’s children, therefore I love you as I love myself. I am an imperfect being subject to make mistakes and commit sins. I don’t agree with the idea of gay marriage. I do believe that term should be used for opposite sex marriages, only. I believe gay marriages should have a separate name. I don’t believe the mistaken analogy between black civil rights and gay rights. My thougts and opinions are not meant to attack, offend, or shock anyone. This is simply how I feel. I agree with Barak’s selection og Warren. I agree with many things he says. There are many others who share this opinion. In 2009 and beyond, let’s work to find a way to work through our differences by pledging to understand a few key points:

-Just because we don’t share the same beliefs neither of us deserve to be called name.

-The President and the country needs to come together.

Happy New Year!

Report this

By tg, December 19, 2008 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Can you imagine the feather in the cap that Warren must think this is? I’m sure as far as he and his flock are concerned this is validation of his cultural and moral significance.

Maybe he can get Oprah, Elizabeth Gilbert, Doctor Phil, and Eckhart Tolle as well. Might as well appeal to the airheads and trailer park residents while he’s at it.

Pathetic choice from Mr. Obama.

Once Obama secured the majority of the progressive vote he veered right and has never looked back.

Just like the old song by the Who-‘Fooled Again’.

Report this

By Little Brother, December 19, 2008 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

Yeah, I’ve heard about Obama’s inspired genius and vision of a “post-partisan” US political Promised Land—it’s the Peacable Kingdom, the lion laying down with the lamb, the whole bit.

It’s all very high-minded and lofty.  But it breaks down considerably when one gets to the lame explanation for Obama’s enthusiastic and consistent cozying up exclusively with neoliberals, fat cats, and reactionary mountebanks and bigots like Warren. 

Apparently we are enjoined to believe that Obama is somehow welcoming a flock of Prodigal Sons back to the fold, and counting on progressives and other leftish constituencies to grin and bear it.

The Democratic Party has mastered the game of teasing and wooing progressives into supporting the party as the last refuge of Lesser Evils, then leaving them to twist slowly in the wind—until next time.  Obama’s supposedly groundbreaking and transcendental vision incorporates this same formula. 

I just don’t buy the pitch that we progressives have to be the Bigger Persons, and stand by reverently and respectfully while Obama sucks up to bigots and reactionaries in order to win the confidence and trust of retrograde troglodytic masses.  And I likewise don’t buy the second half of the pitch—that Obama desires and intends to implement a “progressive” agenda once he’s gotten the reactionaries on board.

It sounds good when it’s said fast, and looks good in a dim light.  But the highly improbable end doesn’t justify the means of dumping all over progressive and left constituencies while conspicuously embracing Wall Street and fundie sleazeballs.

Report this

By Jon, December 19, 2008 at 11:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rick Warren is a no-class bigot.  Obama has CHOSEN to morally, ethically, and intellectually cheapen the inauguration by having this right wing crank in attendance, playing a major part.  Obama has also chosen to demean his supporters by allowing Warren onto the program.

As for some who have said marriage between a man and woman is the hall mark or anchor of civilization and society,  I’d like to point out the we have historically high divorce rates in the bible belt, the very part of the country that supposedly is all about marriage ‘values.’

Last, people thought the sun and universe revolved around the earth—-this to was an ‘anchor’ of civilization, so much so, that people who believed otherwise—and could eventually prove their claims—were jailed, or killed.  Enough said.

I say, keep the right wing out of the inauguration, out of government, off the radio, and in their basements.

Report this

By Mighk, December 19, 2008 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

I say government should stay out of the marriage business altogether.  Let each church, couple or person determine for themselves what constitutes “marriage.”  That’s what’s called “freedom of religion.”  The government cannot dictate what constitutes a “sacred relationship.”

The Unitarian church I used to attend has married gay couples.  Why does the State of Florida discriminate against some of the marriages at that church?  Some anti-gay marriage folks have argued that marriage is for raising children.  What if most churches refused to marry senior citizens (after all, they’re not going to be raising kids) and states prohibited the churches that want to marry seniors from doing so?  Wouldn’t that be religious discrimination?

The question for me is will the states and the feds give the same financial benefits and uphold the same rights for consenting adults in committed relationships whether they are hetero- or homosexual.  The word “marriage” just gets in the way.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 19, 2008 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

If you have not done so, listen to Obama’s defense of his appointment at

http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn

I am a strong gay rights and gay marriage advocate. I was also disappointed when I first heard this news, but having listened to it carefully, I think Obama’s position and statement of it is brilliant. Give the man a chance, I tell you. Gay marriage is coming. Obama does not oppose it. But there is a bigger picture here, which is the need to bring the country together, the need to build a progressive majority coalition, and that coalition can include Christian Evangelicals such as Rev Warren who are progressive in many other areas. For this we need political discourse in which all Americans, gays AND Evangelicals are included even though they may disagree vehemently on social issues.

Report this

By CJ, December 19, 2008 at 10:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rett, I think the place you want to live in is called Lalaland. This, unfortunately for you, is the real world where the incidents that so disturb you are events that have occurred in every society (here I’ll qualify myself unlike the bigots who apparently believe they are masters of history) that I know of.

I hope you don’t raise children. I believe sexual preference to be genetically determined. Should you raise children and they are gay you will instill within them a great sense of self loathing.

Many of the bigots claim ‘well gosh this is how democracy works’. Does anybody believe the people in the south would have overturned racial segregation and allowed equal rights if it had been put to the ballot?

Report this

By choupachoup, December 19, 2008 at 10:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rett, I am a middle aged woman, married with two children.  While your concern for your children, and what they are exposed to is commendable, as I see it, my job as a parent is to help my kids identify LOVE, and celebrate committed love in whatever package it comes. 
It is really the same sex component which we have been culturally programmed from childhood to be repulsed by. In the same way we in the south were programmed to think that people of a different color were intellectually and emotionally inferior.
It should be the hate of love that is repulsive, and the belief that you or I have the right to tell someone else how or whom to love.
It is unjust to say you love another tax paying citizen, but want them to live out of your sight, and I disagree that most Americans feel the way that you do, I think most Americans feel that we should let other people openly define family, and we should stay out of the sex lives of consenting adults who are honestly loving in the way that they are biologically impelled.

Report this

By Little Brother, December 19, 2008 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

I want everyone’s children to live in a world that isn’t burdened by the tortuous and confused rationalizations for bigotry expressed here and elsewhere.

Whatever Breeders may think, gay rights are human rights; opposing gay rights (or gay, period) is not the legal and moral equivalent of opposing littering and streaking. 

(Streaking?  Where did that come from?  As former US senator and current imbecile Rick Santorum demonstrated when equating gay rights (marriage) with “man-on-dog sex”, reactionary straights sure have a gift for pulling wacky metaphors and comparisons out of their butts when attempting to justify bigotry and oppression by the tyranny of the majority.  Who exactly are the “deviants” here?)

This isn’t just a question of Warren having a right to his opinions, or Obama having the right to pick whomever he sees fit to satisfy public superstition.  Warren is not only anti-gay, he’s recently agreed with demagogue reactionary Sean Hannity that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad should be “taken out”—assassinated—and that this is consistent with God’s dictum that government was created to punish evildoers.

As Karl Popper wisely noted: 

”...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

Report this

By choupachoup, December 19, 2008 at 9:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The commitment that two people make to be each others helpmeet, to honor and to cherish, is a uniquely personal one, and shouldn’t be defined by anyone but the two people involved.
Most Americans agree with this philosophy.
The historical reason for official/legal/religious definition was that women,particularly, were considered commodities to barter for more political power or financial status, as well as breed stock.
I understand Obama’s nod to the evangelical block, in the same way that I can understand the comments made by Rev. Wright. Religion doesn’t belong in the equation at all, but it is. 
Obama may prove me wrong, but I still have faith in him that he will defend the human rights of all citizens, and their right to define family on love, not gender.

Report this

By CJ, December 19, 2008 at 8:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Warren is an overweight pathetic bigot that revels in the power he has due to his position.

Back in 1492 he would have been a zealot proclaiming ‘everybody knows the world is flat. Why all civilized men of all time have known that. To claim otherwise is to lead others into ruin!’.

Obama’s pick of this bigot is truly disturbing.

Report this

By Rett, December 19, 2008 at 8:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All of our laws are based on a morality of some form and restrict “freedom” in some way.  I want my children to be free from a world where men kiss men on the street and TV sitcoms cram adulterous relationships down their throat every 10 minutes.  Our laws don’t protect my freedom in this regard. You, the democratic majority, have decided that I can’t have that freedom.  Your freedoms infringe on mine and mine on yours.  That’s how a community and society has to work. 

In a democracy, the people get to decide their common morality and create laws to uphold their values.  We have heard your case. We have listened to your concerns and we have decided that we do not want to call the commitment of a man to a man or a woman to a woman marriage.  Such a redefinition is in opposition to what we, the people, think is in the best interest of our nation and society. 

We don’t hate you.  We don’t want to physically harm you.  We don’t want to make fun of you.  We think you are valuable. We don’t believe you are right about what is best for society and culture and we do not want to condone or legitimize your alternative lifestyle any more than we want to condone adultery or legitimize polygamy.  You are part of a culture and society and your freedom and mine are sometimes in conflict.

I want to be free to live in a nation without homosexuality, adultery, and polygamy, because I think all three are unhealthy lifestyle choices that have negative consequences on society.

I am also against throwing trash on the roadside and allowing people to streak naked across the outfield at baseball games.

I know that society upholding these views means that the freedom of some will be limited, but this is always so, and Prop. 8 was the place where we, the people, decided to draw the line on your freedom in order to protect our own.  We don’t live in a nation where every lifestyle choice is legitimized.  For the betterment of the whole dumping your trash on the side of the road and streaking are outlawed, even though we know that this limits freedom of expression and action for some.

And now homosexual marriage is also against the law. This is what is best for our society and culture. Or so we believe.

Sorry. This is how our democracy works.  Your being “ANGRY” doesn’t change our will or opinions about what we believe is best for our culture and society.  Who knows you might be wrong?  Most of us think you are.

Report this

By Stephen K. Mack, December 19, 2008 at 8:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am rather weary of the apologists for Rick Warren and Barak Obama! Marriage is a human institution, a matter of Law, another human institution and subject to revision. It is not immutable, it is not the property of the Abrahamic Tradition ,of blood and murder! I am also tired of complacent heterosexuals whose grasp of the issue is in its controversial aspect alone,a subject on which to opine.To see in my own community throngs of demonstrators on Poway Blvd. demonstrating for Prop 8, in affirmation of my “moral degeneracy” is indeed a sobering confrontation with American Political and Sexual Hysteria(an American Tradition spanning centuries). To my heterosexual friends and allies a question: Where were Boxer,Obama,Feinstein during the campaign on Prop 8? They played it safe, after all, they had a country to save.Don’t step over me on the road to victory and expect me to be quiet or complient!!!

Report this

By Little Brother, December 19, 2008 at 7:29 am Link to this comment

I think Shift’s thoughtful message would have been better received if the first sentence had been properly fleshed out, to wit:  “Traditional marriage is a pillar of civilization inside my head.”

Report this

By Jim Yell, December 19, 2008 at 7:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To the extent that marriage keeps couples from being isolated I think it is a good thing to extend the definition of marriage. However I have serious questions about if marriage is all it is supposed to be even for one man, one woman. Still I can’t see why civil marriage should be under restraint by the religous.

If one thing is clear about the religious they are not any better than the rest of us and frequently behave in a murderous and unpleasant and un civil way.

As Mr. Warren has expressed definate opinions that are in conflict with our protections Under the Bill of Rights I believe he is unsuitable for his role in the Obama swearing in. I want to believe that Obama will return this country to a balance that has been almost wholly missing for the last 8 years, but appointing such a man to speak before the nation is not encouraging and makes me an Obama voter wonder if my vote has already been wasted?

Report this

By get real, December 19, 2008 at 7:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I doubt Rev. Warren is going to bash gays
at the inauguration. What upsets me about
this article is that no one can do or say
anything anymore without offending someone.
Not just this issue but practically all
views anymore.Welcome to life folks, that
is how it is. Everyone has their views but
now they are scrutinized far more than they
should be. I am not saying I agree with Rev.
Warren’s views but it seems every time a
comment is made by someone it is dissected by
the media, even if it is only one word. This
just shows how defunct our media has become.
If they spent as much time on the crimes of
this administratioin and the issues that
affect the everyday life of people as they do
trying to avoid talking about it, we might not
be in the state we are in now. But I am way tired
of every single statement made by someone offending
someone or the media trying to say what they meant
or said. The next thing they will be saying is that someone is using the wrong toilet tissue. Obama has been under a looking glass with every appointment, every comment and all speculation. Where was the outcry about the current administration for 8 horrible years!

Report this

By Dave24, December 19, 2008 at 6:33 am Link to this comment

Dear Shift: With regard to your comment that “traditional marriage is a pillar of civilization,” let me say that you, and all those who think like you, should mind their own business.  Two consenting, tax-paying adults have every right to marry and to have that marriage recognized by their impartial, nondiscriminatory government.  Marriage was once a financial transaction orchestrated by parents; should we revert back to the real “traditional” marriage? 

It’s none of your business what other people do with their lives.  If churches want to deny marriage to people based on bigoted, superstitious nonsense, they have every right to.  Let them air their bigotry out in the open.  But our government cannot take away the rights of its citizens.

There are people starving in the world; there are people who cannot speak freely in their own society; science is being squandered; and yet the devoutly religious place their time and energy into an issue that does nothing but diminish people for living a lifestyle different from their own?  All of you should be ashamed.

Report this

By Dave24, December 19, 2008 at 6:25 am Link to this comment

Maybe they should read the Constitution and talk about how the separation of church and state permits religious diversity and freedom.  Religion and its influence on public policy is an internal cancer to the fabric of democracy.  Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and it’s quite clear where our Founding Fathers stood.

Report this

By Robert, December 19, 2008 at 5:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Shift,

Traditional marriage is a pillar of civilization.  But it is just nonsense to suggest that if the institution is extended to gays and lesbians the pillar is in peril.  Stupid and completely without merit.

Not once have any of you right wing bigots been able to argue or demonstrate how gay marriage would ‘rock the foundation.’  People on the right always use unfounded fear to justify their bigotry.  The Mormons just did it in California with this same argument.  They did it back in the 70s and 80s with the ERA when they claimed it would mandate unisex public bathrooms and force school districts to have single showers for boys and girls in gym class. 

And the people, like you, who buy into this nonsense don’t have the ability to think much deeper than the print on whatever propaganda you are reading. 

Whoever wrote this article, I’d like to applaud you for stating that this would never be allowed or acceptable in regards to any other minority.

Another interviewer recently ‘asked’ him if he’s homophobic.  Stop asking.  Tell him he is.  It’s like asking a racist politician if he’s racist.

It’s okay that Obama wants to have open dialogue.  But there comes a time when political leaders need to take a stand and not give a platform or press to bigots.  No matter what other good they may have done.

Report this

By George, December 19, 2008 at 4:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Having a big tent is a bullshit excuse. Why not invite the KKK to reflect on the African American experience?

This is utterly devastating. Picking Larry Summers, among others, was a sign of anything BUT “change”....but this sounds like the worst kind of pandering obsequiousness that characterizes a spineless, unprincipled, self-aggrandizing, 2-bit, hypocritical politician.

Obama—you are NOT the Change we need. Yet horribly? He’s still better than the McSame/Palindrone nightmare.
If only marginally so at this point.

Report this

By Kalliope, December 19, 2008 at 3:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What kind of logic is there in embracing hatemongers as a form of bipartisanship? By choosing a bigot and a homophobe to give the invocation address, Obama has sent the message that this destructive mentality is acceptable. He has effectively spit in the face of every gay person, woman, and people of other faiths with this move.

Report this

By Saddler, December 19, 2008 at 2:30 am Link to this comment

Is it just me or has the been an uptick in far right comments on progressive sites lately? Did did one of their demagogues put up the elephant signal? Hannity?

Report this

By Shift, December 19, 2008 at 2:21 am Link to this comment

Traditional marriage is a pillar of civilization.  Attempting to change that in favor of gay marriage rocks the foundations.  Gays choose to deny this but should not expect others to deny it as well.  This is why the resistance to gay marriage is so strong, it is a foundational issue.

Report this

By Saddler, December 19, 2008 at 2:14 am Link to this comment

I am truly disgusted with Barack Obama. I feel dirty for having sent him money.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.