Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 23, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide





The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Head Cases

Head Cases

By Michael Paul Mason
$16.50

The Squandering of America

The Squandering of America

By Robert Kuttner
$17.79

more items

 
A/V Booth

Pastor Rick Loves Gays

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

Posted on Dec 23, 2008

Or so he says in a series of videos on his megachurch’s Web site. Among other highlights, Warren blames bloggers and talk radio for stirring up the controversy around his forthcoming inauguration prayer.

While the Internet is no stranger to vitriol, the good pastor can thank his own obtuse comments and the gays who were offended by them for this particular controversy. We don’t make the homophobia. We just report it.

Rick Warren via YouTube:

Boston Globe:

Noting that he has been accused of comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia (based on an interview he gave to Beliefnet), he says in the video, “I believe no such thing.’’ He reiterated his opposition to same sex marriage, but said he is in agreement with “the view of the vast majority of the world and the vast majority of religions.’‘

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
“Free speech has to be free speech for everybody,’’ he says. “Some people feel today if you disagree with them that’s hate speech…I’m neither afraid of gays, nor do I hate gays. In fact, I love them, but I do disagree with some of their beliefs, and I have that constitutional right.’‘

Read more


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.

Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 28, 2008 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

By Robert, December 28 at 7:14 pm

Sorry, Robert - I understand your feelings and I commend your patience. After all, Obama has not even been inaugurated yet. He has stated all along that he is against DOM laws. I think you will see gay rights making steady progress under his administration. Of course he can’t prevent states from passing DOM-type laws, as California did. His advice to the gay community in this case is to do a better job of organizing to defeat the churches. Meanwhile, let’s see how Jerry Brown does when Prop. 8 comes before the California Supreme Court this spring.

Report this

By Robert, December 28, 2008 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tony Wilcher said:

“I think progressives and gays will profit much more in this situation by showing that they can be as tolerant of evangelicals as they would like evangelicals to be of gays.”

Well the NY Times article referenced by George, below - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28rich.html?_r=1&hp; does speak of a new wave of Evangelicals coming along that are supporting civil unions.  That is a start.  We can be very tolerant of them as we help them move beyond that to them supporting full marriage rights. 

BUT….  this nut compared our relationships to incest.  We will NEVER be tolerant of anyone who would say such a thing.  As many others have pointed out here, had he said such a horrific thing against Jews, blacks, women or any other minority, he wouldn’t have ever been invited to the inauguration.

As others have said, you wouldn’t make the statement you did if the KKK had been invited during the civil rights movement.  You stated you would not suggest that.  That is fine now, some 40 years later.  But would you have suggested that in the 60s when it might have been more acceptable?  I think you might have since you seem to think it is okay to suggest such a thing in 2008 in regards to the gay rights movement.  40 years from now, nobody would make the suggestion you have. 

I do not see our community (the gay community) as intolerant just because this guy who has said terrible things about us has been chosen by a President Elect we supported to pray at his inauguration.  Is he the twit McCain and Palin made him out to be?  Or just a calculating politician who knows that it’s still acceptable to pull this kind of crap. 

I’ll wait to see what he does with nationalized gay civil unions, the ending of DADT, ENDA, and other things.  But until then, I won’t watch his inauguration, nor will I hope anyone in my community will sit at the table with the likes of Rick Warren.  There are plenty of other evangelical leaders, the new breed, that Obama could work with.  He didn’t need to do this to us by choosing this person. 

If Warren made a public apology - a repentance of sorts…well then I’d be open to him being at that table.  But until then no way.  And who believes he would do it?  He won’t.  He shouldn’t be given the prestige he has now been given. 

I shouldn’t have even voted at all.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 28, 2008 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

By Russian Paul, December 28 at 4:10 pm #

If a grand wizard from the KKK was invited to the White House during the civil rights movement, would you offer the same piece of advice?
——————————————————————————-
No.

Report this

By George, December 28, 2008 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here’s some MORE United States Citizens who maybe should be conferred similar honors, gosh, golly gee.

James Dobson
Pat Robertson
Thom Robb, mini Grand Wizard of the KKK
Bill White of the neonazis
...oh, it’s a long, sad list.

Gosh…don’t THEY have a voice?

Tony W., how can you seriously embrace such a brain-dead weak argument? Just because it’s the best Obama can come up with to justify either a major screw up or just an outright declaration of “screw the queers now that I’ve won”?

Report this
Russian Paul's avatar

By Russian Paul, December 28, 2008 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

I think progressives and gays will profit much more in this situation by showing that they can be as tolerant of evangelicals as they would like evangelicals to be of gays.

Tony, what we are fighting is a CANCER. You do not reason with cancer, you do not tolerate it, YOU FIGHT IT. There is NO tolerance in my heart for gaybashers, whither it’s Fred Phelps’ obscene demonstrations or if they are in a more palatable form like cuddly, teddy bear Rick Warren, they are both CANCERS. I firmly believe in their first amendment rights, but I completely disagree that they deserve to be a “legitimate part of our national political dialogue”. They deserve to be ostracized, not invited to the White House.

If a grand wizard from the KKK was invited to the White House during the civil rights movement, would you offer the same piece of advice?

Thanks for the support fellowdigger…

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 28, 2008 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

Russian Paul:
A word to the wise - don’t try to argue with the elders of the blog - they will eventually gang up on you till you submit to their opinion.

I am contacting you in support of your view - when the rights of others are taken away, which they actually are now, they will fully expect us to saddle up with them and help fight - we will be tired at that time - I just wish we could stop paying our taxes so none of my money goes to the Jan 20th “celebration”

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 28, 2008 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

By Russian Paul, December 27 at 1:05 pm

Rick Warren and the evangelicals are American citizens and a legitimate part of our national political dialogue. They should be included and not delegitimized.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 28, 2008 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

RE Ed Harges, December 27 at 11:51 pm

Is Tony Wicher really that stupid?
——————————————————————————-
Ed,

Most people here are saying that nobody who has such a belief should be allowed to give the invocation at a political event such as an inauguration. I can sympathize with this feeling and also with those who say that such religious rituals have no place at all in politics. But as long as we are going to have them, I think Obama has made an interesting use of it to build bridges between progressives and evangelicals. It obviously does not mean Obama endorses Warren’s theology or that he intends to implement any of it as state policy. It’s a nice gesture, it doesn’t hurt anything, and I for one think it will pay big dividends for Obama when push comes to shove on other issues.

I think progressives and gays will profit much more in this situation by showing that they can be as tolerant of evangelicals as they would like evangelicals to be of gays.

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 28, 2008 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

I love that article by Franck Rich - he may be the best voice we have at this time.  We all know that Andrew Sullivan will soon come out with his rant - I can not wait to see what that gay-bashing apologist has to say…..

Report this

By KDelphi, December 28, 2008 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

George—Yes he does. Thanks for the link

Report this

By George, December 28, 2008 at 4:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I want to marry him…he gets it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28rich.html?_r=1&hp;

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, December 28, 2008 at 12:51 am Link to this comment

Tony Wicher fatuously points out that “people have a constitutional right to whatever religious belief they please, including this one.”

That is completely beside the point. Nobody is criticizing Obama for allowing that the man has the right to such a belief. Is Tony really this stupid?

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 27, 2008 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment

By George, December 27 at 2:26 pm #


“Tony W—indeed. A marvelous idea. So why don’t we keep religion the hell OUT of the inauguration? That would be great.”

George - it is a lost cause to argue with these people - we are starting to see how people are really thinking about us - it’s not that shocking

You know the joke right
Q: When does a gay person become a fag
A:  When they leave the room

That joke is great - cause you can change the fag to any ethic or racial slur that you can think of.  I’m sure those jokes go flying around the Saddleback Church.  Obama is a fraud and the disappointment has just begun - we will see how sorry we are that Hillary didn’t win….

But just remember, at this point the Americans don’t even care about their own right - we are being spied on and profiled everywhere - Orwell was a seer - it’s time for them to get out of the malls and start to understand that we are being watched and ripped off.

We are acceptable when we are portrayed as in Will and Grace and Queer Eye - our version of Amos and Andy - yuk yuk yuk - just fairies and uptight clowns

Report this

By George, December 27, 2008 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tony W—indeed. A marvelous idea. So why don’t we keep religion the hell OUT of the inauguration? That would be great.

Rather than offer a profound HONOR to a bigot whose Church I would never attend any more than I would attend a neonazi or KKK rally. Hey, they can believe whatever the f*k they want, but why have one of them give the INVOCATION?

It’s like white people blind to racism. Oh, them uppity negroes getting all upset about where they sit on the bus. Such a fuss!

Except now it’s about same gender attracted people. Who are men, women, trans. Who are rich and poor. Who are of EVERY ethnicity…but it’s still OK to bash the crap out of us publicly and loudly.

Excuse me?

Report this
Russian Paul's avatar

By Russian Paul, December 27, 2008 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

Tony - yes, Warren and his followers have the right to believe what they want, but what they believe is based on hatred, ignorance and blind tradition. “Joining together” with groups like these only legitimizes them.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 27, 2008 at 1:33 pm Link to this comment

By michele hemenway, December 26 at 7:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

SO , the bottom line .. all anyone needs to ask him is this question.
Can gay folks now join his church?
——————————————————————————
michele,

The way I see it, Rick Warren’s church says that gay sex is against the will of God. People have a constitutional right to whatever religious belief they please, including this one. This is guaranteed by the principles of freedom of religion and separation of church and state. What I would like to know is why any gay person would WANT to go to Warren’s church, when there are so many churches nowadays where they would be welcome. It would also be perfectly OK to have a church for gay people only. I can’t imagine why a heterosexual person would insist on going to such a church. Nor yet can I see why people who have these different beliefs and practices cannot join and work together as Americans in all ways that have nothing to do with these differences.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 27, 2008 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

By Leisure Suit Larry, December 27 at 6:33 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Fellowdigger,

“I was making a joke you fool”

Fool?  Now just let us suppose I was also joking… Who is the fool then?
——————————————————————————-
LSL,

Looks like you made fools of each other.

Report this
Russian Paul's avatar

By Russian Paul, December 27, 2008 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

Liar, liar, pants on fire,
Preaching hatred to his choir,
Luckily, those he meets,
Fail to see his hooféd feet.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 27, 2008 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

SkeeterVT—See dihey’s explanation below. People always try to tout parts of Obama’s voting record (which is sparsse) as “evidence” that someone should have known how he would vote. Or, so someone can “see” how he has really been supportive in other ways,,,etc.

I saw a comment saying that someoone thought his record was..”, but didnt know about other votes. So, I put in stats of other votes.

True, it is off-topic somewhat, but, it is all part of a pattern, and, there are about 3 other threads here that are about Pastor Warren or Prop 8.

Report this

By SkeeterVT, December 27, 2008 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

What the (BLEEP) does Barack Obama’s record in the Senate have anything to do with Rick Warren and his position on same-gender marriage? This back-and-forth over his Senate record, the war in Iraq and other subjects is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the principal topic of this board. STICK TO THE MAIN SUBJECT, PLEASE, or take your discussions elsewhere.

Report this

By dihey, December 27, 2008 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

Senator Obama’s vote on FISA is a textbook example of his triangulating. “On the one hand this unconstitutional spying on US citizens is bad. On the other hand the ‘keep America safe’ crowd may prefer the Republican candidate if I vote no on FISA. On the third hand I am also not good at filibustering. Have no experience with it”.

Cyrena: have you surrendered to me?

Report this

By Leisure Suit Larry, December 27, 2008 at 7:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fellowdigger,

“I was making a joke you fool”


Fool?  Now just let us suppose I was also joking… Who is the fool then?

Report this

By KDelphi, December 27, 2008 at 5:07 am Link to this comment

I didnt just list the FISA vote. The facts remain—Obama voted for FISA , as it stood. He had promised to fillibuster it. He and Dodd’s Amendment didnt pass. He should have kept his word.

Report this

By cyrena, December 26, 2008 at 11:47 pm Link to this comment

Kdel,
Forgot to add the links for you, so you could study up on Obama’s votes, and the bills/amendments that he introduced or co-supported, (including the ammendment/revison to the FISA legislation that he wrote and supported with Chris Dodd, with the intent of preventing retroactive immunity to the telecoms…it didn’t pass).

And then, when I DID get to post them, I posted them on the wrong thread myself. (this stupidity might be contagious)

•  “An amendment from Sen. Chris Dodd that would deny telecom companies retroactive immunity for helping the government eavesdrop on phone calls without a warrant after 9/11 was voted down. As was an amendment from Sen. Arlen Specter that would have substituted the government for the telecom companies in pending legislation over the warrantless wiretapping program. An amendment offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein that would have made the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the sole authority for a warrantless wiretapping program also failed.”

(Sorry they don’t provide all of the revision numbers in this piece, since that might make it easier to follow. But then of course as long as there are no specific bill numbers or amendment/revision numbers, lazy journalists and ignorant bloggers can just easily blur the truth and fit them to your own interpretations.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/fisa_bill_poised_to_pass_senat.html

Obviously you’re unaware of his efforts on that (an amendment that would have made the telecoms accountable financially, (they can still be prosecuted on criminal charges), since you consistently avoid mentioning it, even though enough of us have. That wasn’t the only revision/amendment re the FISA mess. In fact, it had been in the Congress as a huge point of contention before Obama even entered the Congress. Since I’ve been watching that for roughly 7 years, I’ve got a record somewhere on EVERYBODY’S votes!! I’ll be happy to search it out for you, though it will take me a bit.

These several below should be helpful in the interim. They have all the votes for the entire Congress, back to 1991. Since you’ll only need to study the 109th and 110th Congresses for Obama’s votes, even you should be able to keep it straight.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/
http://en.wikipedia.org

/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org

/wiki/109th_United_States_Congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109query.html

http://www.house.gov/

Then again, maybe not.

Report this

By cyrena, December 26, 2008 at 10:42 pm Link to this comment

Kdel,

Is this post on Obama’s votes for a different thread? I’m confused. I thought it was about Rick Warren.

So, did you post the links to your incredible summary on Obama’s voting history on another thread? You mentioned you’d provide them, but they aren’t here. Only a mention of the Center for Responsive Politics, but no links even for that, since then we’d see the rather blatant lies.

How about the plain and simple horses mouth? The votes are all in the Congressional record, (available on line) and that would allow you to know how Obama managed to vote (or not vote) 568 times in 140 days.

NOW I know why so many people voted for him. He’s the only guy in the world that can be that many places at the same time.

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 26, 2008 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment

Rick Warren is a fat slob who should mind his own friggin business about what people do in private - - he should go on a diet - didn’t the bible say your body is a temple - his is a mall - I can’t wait til the scandle hits about him - you know he’s up to something funny

Report this

By KDelphi, December 26, 2008 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment

dihey—On Obama’s Senate votes—-he voted FOR the FISA Amendments (Hillary voted against them).He had been a US Senator about 140 working days, when he began to campaign for president. So, he was gone alot, plus he “voted” “Not Voting"many times also.

He voted “Not Voting” 228 of 568 votes. (In US Senate)(You, apparently, cannot vote just “present”) Of these , he voted NV, on Bills concerning: (he could have been absent, also—it just shows no vote, or “not voting”—it is confusing)US Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS and TB; on confirmation of Lt Gen Odierno to be General; Food, Conservation & Energy Act; College Opportunity and Affordability Act; Alternative Min. Tax;Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act.

If someone would like to go to the link and look up who sponsored these bills, whether they were good bills, whether you think that they were important, I can give the links.

 

He also voted to give the telecommunicatiosn corp. immunity in pending lawsuits.9After the original FISA Amends.)

According to Center for Responsive Politics, Senators McCain, Clinton and Obama are by far the top three recipients of telecom industry cash in the 2008 cycle, including tens of thousands of dollars each from AT&T;and Verizon. Here’s the breakdown:

Telephone Utilities: Top 20 Recipients 2008 Cycle:

1. John McCain $176,800

2. Hillary Clinton $106,300

3. Barack Obama $87,236

AT&T;:
2. Obama, Barack (D-IL) $43,483

3. Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $43,400

5. McCain, John (R-AZ) $23,700

Verizon:
1. Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $24,850

2. Obama, Barack (D-IL) $22,753

5. McCain, John (R-AZ) $

The largest recipient, was Sen. Rockefeller of WV. All of these donations were made after the Dems in the Senate had vowed to filibuster FISA Amend. They changed their minds I guess.

Report this

By T Adams, December 26, 2008 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

First, I write with limited knowledge of Rick Warren, and might feel differently if I knew more about him. 

I voted for Obama, and have served a few brief stints for Democrats in the past as a campaign volunteer.  (Which certainly makes my service more modest than that of others who log on here.)  However, I understand that there are millions of Americans who feel differently than I do, and who now are depressed and horrified at the prospect of an Obama administration.  They feel about Obama today as my friends and I felt about George Bush, when the Bush victory over Gore became certain. 

Obama and Co. could, for a time, thumb their collective nose at these millions, and make them pay for their defeat ... and what utter folly it would be to do so, and how harmful to the country as a whole.  I think the far wiser course is to be conciliatory, to try to unite the country, to repair some of the tremendous damage wrought by the Bush team since 2000. 

No legal sacrifice is made, no legal right is lost, by choosing Rick Warren for this ceremonial function ... and so many millions will be pleased to see him up there.

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 26, 2008 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment

By Victor Edwards, December 26 at 7:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

“Obama loses gay support? We could only hope. The gays are going to love it over in the Republican party.”

Maybe it is finally time for a new party - to break that mafia up - they are now stealing all of our money and giving to the greedy slobs on Wall Street and they put the car industry through hell to get help - the loans went over easy for those who take a shower in the morning but not for the poor workers who take their showers when they get home - the whole thing is a scandel and our country men and women have their heads so buried in the sand that these crooks can get away with anything
- Barney Frank should walk away in shame and take Paulson with him

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 26, 2008 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment

Dihey I totally agree with you about this statement;

“(1) The word “obvious” shows that you are guessing. This is an uncalled-for and vile statement which questions my integrity and perhaps shows something about the level of yours. My oh my do you appear have been massively insecure when you made this statement.”

Cyrena and Maani are complete reactionaires and say the most bold things to other people.  This is typical behavior from the narcissist that think they are always 100% correct- you have every right to feel attacked.  I was quite surprised when I read

Report this

By dihey, December 26, 2008 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena

You write “Now, if you think there is something ‘cute’ about his voting to fund the troops while he couldn’t singlehandedly get the war STOPPED as a senator, then you obviously haven’t had a child/spouse/parent blown to bits in Iraq or Afghanistan”.
(1) The word “obvious” shows that you are guessing. This is an uncalled-for and vile statement which questions my integrity and perhaps shows something about the level of yours. My oh my do you appear have been massively insecure when you made this statement.
(2) Am I to accept that Senator Obama could only have voted for the funding because he could not singlehandedly stop the war in Iraq? That is rich! How about the Senators that did vote “no” and could not have singlehandedly stopped the war either? Or Representative Kucinich who could not have singlehandedly stopped the war in Iraq? This is what I mean by “cute” arguments. Some people call it “triangulation”. “Double-speak” is another apt characterization.
(3) If you take the time to reread what I wrote you will find that my expression “cute” covered a massive incongruity of Obama’s statement. When one financially supports the troops in Iraq one financially supports what they are doing there and that is not searching for the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
Here is the rub. When you fund the conduct of war in Iraq you are an enabler.
I ask you: was I wrong to describe Senator Obama as a co-paymaster of the war in Iraq?
You posit that Senator Obama could not single-handedly stop that war. Fair enough because only President Bush had the power to do that. However, after the 2006 national elections Obama was supported on “stopping the war” by a sizable majority not only in the House of Representatives but also of the American people. He was no longer “alone in the desert”. Did he ever speak publicly at a large anti-war rally the way the Reverend King activated the civil rights movement? Sure, he voted for an Iraq appropriation with a binding timeline for withdrawal.  President Bush vetoed the appropriation. Then Obama must have concluded that an appropriation with non-binding conditions was a war-stopper and voted for it. As expected President Bush used the non-binding conditions to wipe his you know what with.
By calling me an Obama-basher you seem to believe that I make moral judgments on him. I do not. Look, Obama gets tons of greatly DESERVED kudos. To me it seems also necessary to point out where he seems to fudge, triangulate, or worse lie. I leave the adulation to others because that is not my cup of tea. I love my wife to the max but not Mr. Obama. He is in neutral territory for me.
Lastly, why did you not respond to my clarification of the 1999 US Supreme Court ruling in Campbell vs. Clinton in an earlier posting? You had asked for clarification. Was I correct?

Report this

By cyrena, December 26, 2008 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

dihey,

“...Senator Barack Obama has always defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war because he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war. That is cute to the max because funding the troops also meant funding what they were doing in Iraq. He would certainly have supported the troops if they had remained in the US. There is a non-trivial difference here….”

~~~

I’m already familiar with the votes reference emergency defense funding for the war. THAT (if I’m not mistaken…I’ll let you reread your own and other comments on this) is what we were talking about. The so-called ‘funding’ of a war that Obama vehemently opposed before it was launched.

Now, if you think there is something ‘cute’ about his voting to fund the troops while he couldn’t singlehandedly get the war STOPPED as a senator, then you obviously haven’t had a child/spouse/parent blown to bits in Iraq or Afghanistan. Otherwise, you probably wouldn’t think it was ‘cute’. At least I’d like to give you that much credit here dihey.

Just as a practical matter, (something to think about, NOT in terms of your blatant hostility toward Obama, since that isn’t new. No, this is something to consider based on minimal knowledge about how things work in the Congress, and just a teensy tiny bit of common sense.

When the Dick Bush Regime has requested each and every one of these emergency funding appropriations, (because, as I mentioned before, they’ve never included the expenses for launching two wars into their annual defense budget) there is no ‘breakdown’ in the way that money is spent. In other words, there is no way to authorize “X” number of dollars for Afghanistan, (which by the way, most bloodthristy Americans approved of that war) from what is spent on Iraq, or on any of the other 700 military installations/operations that the US maintains throughout the world.

Your suggestion here that Obama must approve of what is being done in Iraq (despite his vocal opposition of that war before and since) is despicable, and shows an ignorance of process that frightens me. It’s thinking like yours that has assisted the decline.

But ya know what Dihey? You and the others like you will still benefit enormously from our new Administration, just because that’s the way it works. So it’s a very good thing that your fellow citizens have exercised some good judgment in selecting an able person to try to interrupt this free fall decline before ALL of us are over the cliff.

Never mind, you don’t have to thank us.

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 26, 2008 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

By Leisure Suit Larry, December 26 at 11:03 am #

By Fellowdigger, December 24 at 5:08 am #

“BTW Cyrena - Politicians don’t work for us - we work for them - don’t be so idealistic”

This is the most disgusting comment I’ve read on this shitty-sloppy liberal website.
***************************************************

This is the most disgusting comment you have read on this website?  get a grip - I was making a joke you fool

Report this

By Leisure Suit Larry, December 26, 2008 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Fellowdigger, December 24 at 5:08 am #


“BTW Cyrena - Politicians don’t work for us - we work for them - don’t be so idealistic”

This is the most disgusting comment I’ve read on this shitty-sloppy liberal website.

Our politicians are our employees. They can’t fire us, but we are able to fire them.  IF and I say IF we are in fact “working for them” it is because the majority of “us” are sheep, and it is at that point I am removing myself from “we”

I am not agreeing with Cyrena, I have known all along that Obama is just a politician marginally better than Hill-the-business-shill, but the difference is very thin.

You can’t be on the side of the poor and take money from slum lords, you can’t be on the side of the middle class and bail out banks, and you can’t be with gays if you have some right-wing nut minister giving your appeal to god….of course he lost this athiest just by giving an invovcation at all… At least he’s paying for it out of campaign contributions… which includes NONE of my money.

Report this

By Victor Edwards, December 26, 2008 at 8:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama loses gay support? We could only hope. The gays are going to love it over in the Republican party. grin

Report this

By michele hemenway, December 26, 2008 at 8:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

SO , the bottom line .. all anyone needs to ask him is this question.
Can gay folks now join his church?
Because it’s ok to have members of the same church who disagree, right?
thats a constitutional right, correct? to disagree with someone’s beliefs?
Like people who used to disagree with being black or dark skinned?
we finally let them join, even though we disagreed. smile

Report this

By George, December 26, 2008 at 4:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Lowery has been touted as the “pro gay”, giving a “balance” by offering the benediction. Turns out he doesn’t believe in equal civil rights either (any more than Obama does):
http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Obamas_Inaugural_benediction_pastor_Lowrey_clarifies_stance_on_gay__1224.html

This is ultimately good for progressives seeking genuine change. Obama has made it clear he’s pretty much business as usual. This is reflected in his LGBT bashing—which has LONG been “OK.”

Those who would espouse views that would deny Jews or Muslims the right to worship, women the right to vote, interacial marriage, etc. are clearly not invited to the party. But bashing queers? Fine!

The notion that Warren represents “inclusiveness” or diversity is utter nonsense. He represents a homophobic, anti-women, anti-science form of bigotry. His presence (and Lowery’s) perpetuates the notion that an inauguration requires some CHRISTIAN ONLY blessing (some of us have HAD it with religion, period).

The views of the KKK or neonazis are relegated to the sidelines for damned good reasons—they should NOT be afforded the watered-down, tepid version that Warren (already) provides. Yet, gosh, by golly, aren’t their views “excluded”?

Yet, as I say, all to the good—we KNOW now how hard we will have to fight for EQUAL RIGHTS, HEALTH CARE, a fairer economy, an improved environment. Sadly, like Hilary, Obama is just another cheap politician. At least he is not as vile as the McSame/Palin nightmare that we may have had to face.

Report this

By Los Angeles Democrat, December 25, 2008 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Waren is fundamentalist bigot and Obama is a whore, trolling for the fundamentalist bigot community’s support.

Report this

By boarderthom, December 25, 2008 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and deny them privileges and opportunities given to all others.
Stop gay apartheid.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, December 25, 2008 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment

Warren tries to defend himself by saying, in effect, that it seems obvious to most people that gay marriage is wrong.

Well, it use to seem obvious to a hell of a lot of people that persons of different races shouldn’t be allowed to mate; the thought of a black person and a white person having sex was just “icky” —  what normal person couldn’t see that? Just give it the old “gut check”, right?

This kind of approach to moral questions is nothing more than sheer, visceral, mindless bigotry, and there’s no excuse for Obama choosing this man to deliver the invocation at this historic inauguration. Obama is defecating on his fervently loyal gay supporters, and there is absolutely no reason for him to do this. It’s incredibly callous of him. It’s unspeakable.

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 25, 2008 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment

Obama is a player - I think we know that by now - call me what you will - time will only continue to reveal the truth

Report this

By dihey, December 25, 2008 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

Cyrena

My research on the subject of Senate appropriations while Mr. Obama was a senator has turned up lots of confusing debates and votes in part because of a Presidential veto but the following appears to be certain:

Of 69 votes related to Iraq, Barak Obama differed with Hillary Clinton on only one: He voted for the confirmation of Gen. George Casey and she voted against it.

With regards to appropriations, in addition to his recent 2008 vote Obama apparently voted yes on:
April 18, 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense.
June 22, 2006 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
May 27, 2007 To provide funding for the Iraq War with non-binding benchmarks for Iraq progress included.
His only no vote was transient because he eventually voted for the watered-down appropriation bill on May 27, 2007.

By March 2007 Obama had voted for some $300 billion in war funding since entering the Senate in 2005. By now he has voted for all of the Iraq and Afghanistan war funding since entering the Senate in 2005.

Senator Barack Obama has always defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war because he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war. That is cute to the max because funding the troops also meant funding what they were doing in Iraq. He would certainly have supported the troops if they had remained in the US. There is a non-trivial difference here.
That is typical for Obama: fudge when a clear answer threatens to destroy your image as an anti-war politician among the voters. He already had his eyes on the White House when he entered the Senate in 2005. A consistent vote against funding the war in Iraq would have destroyed any chance he had to become the next President. Pragmatic? Yes. Unprincipled? Yes because that is what pragmatism nearly always ends up to lead to.

I repeat, I am not an Obama-basher. I am interested in what happened and will correct myself when shown to have been wrong. However, the inescapable conclusion is that Senator Obama has always been a willing co-paymaster for the war in Iraq.

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 25, 2008 at 3:24 am Link to this comment

by Tony:

“On the contrary, this act will help to heal the rift between gays and straights, evangelicals and progressives. Obama is teaching us tolerance.”

Once again you are ignoring what is right before your eyes - you know the joke right - “when does a gay person become a queer? A: When they leave the room”

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 25, 2008 at 1:34 am Link to this comment

Mr. Warren quote: “I believe no such thing.’’ He reiterated his opposition to same sex marriage, but said he is in agreement with “the view of the vast majority of the world and the vast majority of religions.’‘

>>But if Mr. Warren, in fact believes as he avers, how then can he qualify the “VIEW OF THE WORLD” with the teachings of Christ…?  According to scripture, John 18:36:

King James Version: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

American Standard Version: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

Wycliff New Testament: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my ministers would strive, that I should not be taken to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not here [now forsooth my kingdom is not of hence].”

New Living Translation: “Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”

Realistically, if one “FOLLOWS THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST”, one cannot be “of this world”.  Additionally, when one follows Christ, one does NOT put their FAITH in the workings of THIS world.  To claim that involving themselves POLITICALLY has any measure of validity concerning the teachings of the bible is pure poppycock, as Christ himself (if you believe) TAUGHT.  That is…at least, if one claims to BELIEVE in Christ’s teachings as they are recorded in the bible.

So….if Mr. Warren were legit in any manner of biblical thought, he would not be striving for political kudos in an arena contrary to the one Christ endorsed but also distained.

And this IS…. the CRUX of the matter.  If a person were to translate this to the MANY “false prophets” we see in the political arena… why..it would be an OUTRAGE to Christ…. that is “if you believe”.....

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, December 24, 2008 at 10:05 pm Link to this comment

Re Fellowdigger, December 24 at 4:15 am #

Not only will this invocation cause rift between gays and straights - but is also causing tears between gays in the Rev. Warren camp (LOL) and those against him…
The friends of gays who have joined the Rev. Warren side:  Sadly, too many to mention
————————————————————————-
On the contrary, this act will help to heal the rift between gays and straights, evangelicals and progressives. Obama is teaching us tolerance.

Report this

By dihey, December 24, 2008 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

The 1999 case of Campbell vs. Clinton was brought to the Supreme Court by a number of congresspersons (Kucinich was one of them; the official suit lists only Mr. Campbell). They claimed that Clinton had overstepped his authority by waging war on Serbia without a Congressional declaration of war. The Supreme Court ruling in essence said that the allocation of funds by Congress for a specific war (which had hapopened in that case) is the equivalent of a Congressional Declaration of War.

I myself think that was a poor ruling but that is neither here nor there, it is the law of the land. Hence Senator Obama has voted “indirectly” for a declaration of war which made the invasion legal under US law.

It does not matter when Senator Obama voted for funding of the war. With his first aye vote he declared that in his opinion the war was legal according to US law. He only had to vote yes once. His only no afterward is irrelevant. If he believed that the Congress had already approved the war why did he even vote yes on at least one appropriation? He could have voted no because this war is illegal. And, hey, it does not matter whether that was a regular or “emergency funding”. And what exactly, I pray, are the GAPING HOLES in my story?

Now, some more “international law”. According to the current Geneva Conventions on Warfare an occupier cannot change the social, economic, and political structure of the occupied land. Only the government of that land can do this. Within months after the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Bremer, a representative of the “occupying force” did just that. Clearly a violation of International Law. Can you tell me whether Mr. Obama thinks that this was a violation of the Geneva Convention of Warfare? I have not the foggiest idea what he thinks about that.

More on “international law” and double-speak, this time done by essentially every Government of Israel. According to the Government of Israel the above-mentioned section of the Geneva Convention does not apply to the West Bank because that is a “contested area” and not an “occupied territory” hence the founding of settlements there is completely legal. Can you tell me what Mr. Obama thinks the West Bank is: “contested” or “occupied”? I have not the foggiest idea what he thinks about that.

Have you heard Mr. Obama say publicly that the war in Iraq is illegal? If so, when and where did he say that? He had plenty of opportunities during the numerous debates!

I am not an Obama-basher and I have not called you a “Hillary-basher”, have I? Do you consider yourself a “Hillary-basher”? Why can’t you refrain from showing your weakness by throwing epithets at writers here. You are not that insecure, are you? In fact I voted for him.  I am not interested in bashing anybody. I am interested in history and whether it is told truthfully and completely. I may be factually wrong and will correct myself when shown factually wrong, but not because I am called an “Obama-basher”.

Report this

By cyrena, December 24, 2008 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

“..In fact, when you consider the US Supreme Court ruling of 1999 of Campbell vs. Clinton “double-speak” Senator Obama publicly approved the war and considered it to be legal under US law every time he voted aye to fund it while at the same time publicly avowing that he was against.”

~~~
Dihey, I’m confused here. What does the 1999 case of Campbell v Clinton have to do with Obama? Has Obama weighed in on that case with an opinion of his own? Wanna show that to us here somewhere? How does that connect to the illegality or stupidity of the War on Iraq. Where was Obama in 1999? Was he the judge in the case. (something else he must have ‘hidden’ from us, eh? A judgeship we never knew about)

Would you also mind showing us where Obama approved the funding of the war on Iraq, since he would NOT have had an opportunity to approve OR disapprove of ANY ‘funding’ prior to January, 2005…3 years into the war.

Can you help us close up some of those GAPING HOLES in your story here? Just to give you a little assistance in your research, you only have to find two of the many requests for ‘emergency funding’ that happened after Obama joined the Senate, and actually COULD vote on funding. One time he voted against additional emergency appropriations, (as an aside, the Dick Bush regime has NEVER build the extra costs of these wars into the Defense BUDGET, but rather has ALWAYS demanded the additional funding as ‘emergency provisions’.

So another clue for your research is that on one he voted no, and the other, he voted yes, seeing as how our troops were ALREADY THERE, and needing the money for important things like life-saving equipment that any other military would have, if they weren’t trying to run an illegal operation on the cheap.

As for your claim that Obama ONLY called the war ‘stupid’ but not ‘illegal’, could that be because YOU never heard him say it was ‘illegal’? IOW’s, just because you didn’t hear him, that means he’s never said it, right? Ok. That’s pretty much the standard thinking for the chronic Obama bashers. Since we can’t find anything WRONG with what he HAS said or done, let’s just look around for something (ANYTHING will do) he HASN’T said or done. And if you didn’t hear him say it, or watch him do it, then that means that he hasn’t. Sure…that makes sense. I have no trouble believing that you’ve heard or read every single public statement Obama has ever made. No doubt you follow him into the toilet as well. Curious to see what comes out?

Report this

By dihey, December 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena writes

He’s [Obama]considerably more informed on those issues, as well as International Law.

Well, let’s see. He thought that the Iraq war would be a “stupid” war. However, Obama has never stated publicly that “it might be an illegal war” let alone “it is an illegal war”. In fact, when you consider the US Supreme Court ruling of 1999 of Campbell vs. Clinton “double-speak” Senator Obama publicly approved the war and considered it to be legal under US law every time he voted aye to fund it while at the same time publicly avowing that he was against. Representative Kucinich, who was one of the co-signers of Campbell vs. Clinton (which Campbell et al. lost) knew better. He voted no every time. Kucinich is a true anti-Iraq-war politician. Obama is a fence-sitting fake.

As far as I understand them most experts on international law consider the invasion of Iraq to have been illegal because it was not an act of necessary defense on our part. Iraq did not declare war on us and the evidence that an attack on us was imminent was cooked up. Even Cheney admits now that we would have invaded no matter what the intelligence said.

Why then did this paragon of International Law Obama never even discuss with us, the voters, the strong possibility that the invasion was illegal under International Law?
Why then does this paragon of International Law Obama intend to continue an occupation of Iraq arising out of an illegal attack for at least three years?

I think that Orwell’s “double-speak” fits Obama to a tee.

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, December 24, 2008 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment

SkeeterVT….

Nice post and what you are saying condensed to a few words is the old adage, “Live and let live.”  In other words what people do that does not harm you socially, legally, or civilly is of no concern.  We should say to those people who want to impose their religious beliefs——if it impacts your sensibilities then learn to live with it.

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 24, 2008 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena - everytime someone writes something you jump all over them.  I didn’t write specifically to you at first.  I was sharing my opinion and you insulted me.  I don’t get to have a reaction do I?  Then you have the nerve to call me a bigot - I am black you moron.  Maybe you think I couldn’t possible be black becasue I don’t support Obama’s decision.  Do you think we are all that stupid. It’s fine for Hillary to be SOS, but Obama certainly didn’t think she was capable of it last year - Bill Clinton was right - the press joined Obama in creaming Hillary so he would win the race. He is all politics and what other decision will he make to play politics - the religious right is certainly the most dangerous since they are in support Israel so they can keep the Holy Land prepared for the Last Battle - a final battle with Islam…you have no idea how dangerous these people are…..

Also, yes I’m on a keyboard - it’s an internet blog - do you want me on the wing of an airplane - maybe then you can see me since your head is stuck in the clouds

Report this

By cyrena, December 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

By Fellowdigger, December 24 at 4:46 am #

You have to be one of the biggest blow hards on Truthdig - really.  I’ll dig as far as I like before I put my opinion down.  I don’t care if you agree with me or not.
~~~~

Testy, testy, testy, aren’t we Fellowdigger. And, it’s not about gay marriage, or ANYTHING other than your political partisanship, right? If I’m the biggest blow hard on TD, (now THAT’S funny ha-ha). And of course you don’t care if anyone agrees with you or now. That’s why you sit at a key board behind the curtain, still rehashing your venom over the fact that the black guy won. (and he prefers girls).

Ah, and you voted for Hillary. Hillarious!!! You were desperate for her to be President, but it’s NOT OK for her to be Secretary of State.

Uh huh…I understand perfectly…not that it matters to you. Have a wonderful holiday season shallow digger.

Report this

By dihey, December 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment

The Reverend Warren claims to “love gays” which implies that he loves pedophiles too. How can this unmensch change his position on homosexuality without wrecking his own church and going bankrupt in the process?

Report this

By dick, December 24, 2008 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In most other countries Warren would be considered a charlatan and crook.

Report this

By Folktruther, December 24, 2008 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

TAO Walker, you old primitive savage, you—this controversary over Warren isn’t trivial.  What has happened is that a spiritual event has triggered off the disquiet felt by Obaman’s massive sellout of progressive interests.  What actually ignites a political explosion is often out proportion and rather bizarre to the underly events.  A random political spark can cause a political fire.

I really like your writing although I disagree with almost everything you say. A spiritual worldview seems to infuse a glow lacking in more plebian souls like myself.

Report this

By SkeeterVT, December 24, 2008 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

Pastor Rick Warren clarified his comments on same-gender marriage and reiterated his opposition to it, saying that he is in agreement with “the view of the vast majority of the world and the vast majority of religions.”

That view being that to allow same-gender couples to marry would give legal sanction to what many religious conservatives denounce as a sin—namely, homosexual relationships.

By making that statement, Pastor Warren has confirmed what I have been arguing for more than two years now: That the fight over same-gender marriage is really a battle over gender equality—and the constitutional separation of church and state in this country.

Pastor Warren and other religious leaders who oppose same-gender marriage have lost sight of the fact that marriage is a secular civil institution created by the state. They have confused civil marriage with the religious sacrament of matrimony. The two are NOT the same.

That there has been this comingling of secular civil marriage with religious matrimony is what lies at the heart of the conflict. This comingling is, in fact, an unconstitutional entanglement of church and state, in violation of the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.

Churches have every right under the First Amendment to deny the sacrament of matrimony to same-gender couples in accordance with their religious principles, but they have NO constitutional right to bar same-gender couples from partaking in secular civil marriage.

Yet that is exactly what the Mormon Church and Pastor Warren’s Saddleback megachurch have done with their heavy bankrolling of the campaign in favor of California’s Proposition 8. With its passage, the Mormons and Saddleback have effective imposed their religious doctrines against homosexuality into state law.

This is not permissible under the Constitution—not only under the First Amendment’s bar on state endorsement of religion, but also under Article IV’s IRONCLAD ban on “religious tests” as a qualification for public office or a “public trust.” Civil marriage is a “public trust.”

Proposition 8, therefore, is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the separation of church and state.

It also violates the 14th Amendment’s guarnatee of equal protection of the laws by explicitly singling out same-gender couples for exclusion from partaking in civil marriage that opposite-gender couples take for granted. That’s gender-based discrimination, period.

It’s no accident that opponents of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s—which was intended to outlaw all gender-based discrimination was defeated in the 1970s, its opponents warned that the amendment’s passage would have legalized same-gender marriage. That argument led ultimately to the ERA’s defeat. 

Had the ERA been ratified, there would be no Prop.8. There would be no Defense of Marriage Act.

This is NOT about sexual orientation. This is about gender equality and the separation of church and state. Unless and until supporters of same-gender marriage see this issue as such, they will never win the battle.

Report this

By mendez, December 24, 2008 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

I wonder what would happen if Darwin were alive today and invited to the festivities.  Would some maniacs believe he is some sort of devil and try to kill him, and would those who understand his work defend him?  I doubt he’d be invited to the White House.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, December 24, 2008 at 9:43 am Link to this comment

Look, it’s one thing to invite Warren to the inaugural, maybe even seat him prominently.

But to have him be the one to deliver the invocation? That’s just like vomiting on gay people and asking them to smile and say thank-you. Obama has lost my good will.

I still want Obama to do well, because in our dire situation, no American can afford to wish this President to fail. But at this point, my misgivings about Obama have now become outright hostility. I don’t like this man, and I don’t trust him.

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 24, 2008 at 6:08 am Link to this comment

BTW Cyrena - Politicians don’t work for us - we work for them - don’t be so idealistic

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 24, 2008 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

One of the saddest things about the Obama presidency will be is that the Obamarites will become as rabid as the Bushies in defending their man - he can do no wrong - not!

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 24, 2008 at 5:46 am Link to this comment

You have to be one of the biggest blow hards on Truthdig - really.  I’ll dig as far as I like before I put my opinion down.  I don’t care if you agree with me or not.  I voted for Hillary Clinton - I wanted her to be president - I think she will make an excellent SOS - but that doesn’t mean that a person running for officemcan say anything they have to to get elected and then pretend “they didn’t really mean it”  - it’s on tape for christ’s sake.  Obama won be over - but it was only luke warm after what he did to Hillary (along with the press.) and the fact that McCain/Palin was the other choice.  And I started my statement using the Rev. Warren story - why don’t you read - what a person can’t digress? - what are the the holder of Truthdig’s operating procedures.

Report this

By cyrena, December 24, 2008 at 5:35 am Link to this comment

Fellowdigger writes:

“..Actually it wasn’t the pick of rev. Warren that turned me against Obama - it was choosing Hillary for SOS.  He beat the crap out of her on foreign affairs experience - claiming her to be a liar and a fraud..”

~~~

So, was it THAT that ‘turned you against’ Obama fellowdigger? JUST THAT?

Well that’s sad. NOT because you aren’t correct that he beat the crap out of her on foreign affairs. He did. He’s considerably more informed on those issues, as well as International Law. That’s why she’ll make an excellent SECRETARY!!

As despicable as Hillary may be in many respects, (and I suspect that my reasons for feeling that way are probably similar to yours - I hate liars, and she made up too much shit for no reason) Hillary is still neither stupid or lazy, and from what we’ve seen, some 60 million US voters were supporting her for President.

So fellowdigger, you have to learn to actually DIG beneath the surface of the pundit supplied bullshit, to see that this was actually yet another brilliant move on Obama’s part. Oh yeah. It’s like Louise said last week, it keeps her in his view, but out of his hair. Whatever she does in the name of her duties as Secretary will be as our/Obama’s secretary. He works for us, and most of us expect him to select shrewdly and wisely, the best people to get his agenda accomplished, and he wouldn’t do that (thank god) by playing silly games of who knows the most. We already KNOW that he does. That’s why we voted for him for Christ’s sake.

Meantime, just out of curiosity how did your reasons for allegedly ‘turning against’ Obama (thou doest protest a bit too much in your explanation(s) for the Obama bashing) come up in a thread on this asshole rick warren?

Just curious.

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 24, 2008 at 5:15 am Link to this comment

Not only will this invocation cause rift between gays and straights - but is also causing tears between gays in the Rev. Warren camp (LOL) and those against him- the score so far:

For Rev. Warren:
Melissa Ethridge

Against:
Rachel Maddow
Harvey Fierstein
Barney Frank
The folks at HRC


The friends of gays who have joined the Rev. Warren side:  Sadly, too many to mention

Report this

By Fellowdigger, December 24, 2008 at 5:03 am Link to this comment

Rev. Warren is a skunk - and obviouly backpedals as fast as a politican - at least a politician like Obama.  It is wonderful when these people literally saying something on video and then turn around and state that they never said it - it’s to funny - and very sad how many believe them.  Actually it wasn’t the pick of rev. Warren that turned me against Obama - it was choosing Hillary for SOS.  He beat the crap out of her on foreign affairs experience - claiming her to be a liar and a fraud - and then names her as the SOS - I couldn’t believe it - politicians are so full of it - I am gladly leaving the democratic party - I can’t beleive anything any of them say anymore

Report this

By mmadden, December 24, 2008 at 4:51 am Link to this comment

The gay community is now new kid on the block to be kicked around. I am looking forward to the day when all races, and gay people will be accepted like equals.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 24, 2008 at 1:49 am Link to this comment

davidperi—It is not what Warren says, so much as what it says about Obama. I , myself, would have preferred Rev. Wright. I did not agree with him , either. But, at least he wasnt full of crap.

I am not religious.

We are not a christian country. He couldve also picked someone more moderate. There’s a Billy Graham Jr., I think. Hell, “Rev” Pat Roberton complimented Obama today! Maybe he shouldve picked ‘ole “gays are to blame for 9/11”!!

How about Hagee? Swaggert? Joel Osteen, or whatever his name is…Warren is no better than the hating preachers that “liberals” have criticized for years. It will certainly be more difficult to do now…

Report this

By davidperi, December 24, 2008 at 1:39 am Link to this comment

I think Obama was right that he picked this man.  It brings out the diversity of opinion in a pluralistic society that we are living in.  Perhaps, another pick would have be his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright from Chicago.

If people cannot hear the opinions of other people, no matter how contentious it is, then, put in these `yellow-colored´ ear plugs in your ears.  I do when I go to sleep. It blocks out the noise of others!

Report this

By Godfrey, December 24, 2008 at 1:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All the comments are perceptive and welcome to my weary ears - but I single out Anthony Look’s post for my three cheers.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 23, 2008 at 10:02 pm Link to this comment

This guy can so kiss my ass..I dont have to listen to preaching by guys like this!

Plus, worse, he is a liar. He equated gays, pedophiles, and incest. Just listen to how conservative this guy is. Neo-conservative.

TAO is right about this being a diversion. If that was the intention, it worked…

I am going to “turn this guy off”. Another stupid white guy…the “change team” is full of them.

Who died and decided Warren should judge everyone? He say “the vast majority of religions”—-we are not a religious state.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Report this

By TAO Walker, December 23, 2008 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

This old Man happened to be in town visiting a younger Sister the night “Pastor Rick” jumped John McCain and Barack Obama through the hoops of allamerican religiorthodoxy.  Sister wanted to watch it on her new flat-screen TV, so we did. 

As made-for-media events go, that one was not particularly remarkable.  The performers stuck to the script, nothing was revealed, the talking-heads had another bland bone to chew-on for a “news-cycle.”  It was just another slap-happy “evening in america,” where there’s no business anymore BUT show-business.

When all was left unsaid and overdone, this old primitive Savage went away as determined as ever never to buy a used platitude from the Rick Warrens of the world.  Nothing “personal” against the guy, understand, but neither he nor his invited guests gave any indication whatsoever they KNEW what in hell they were talking about.

So it’s hard to imagine anything less worth having than the fella’s opinions about “gay marriage” or anything else….though his “constitutional right” to have and to hold them is surely his to assert ‘til the chickens come home to roost.  Wait, here they come now!

Anybody here have an opinion about how the allamerican obsession with trivial bullshit like this affects theamericanpeople’s chances of coming to grips with their ever-worsening self-inflicted predicament?  If so, better contact your “representative” right away.

HokaHey!

Report this

By Anthony Look, December 23, 2008 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s been the mantra of the GOP and the religous conservative right leaders. Never say you are wrong aobut anything and never apologize. Then start a propaganda campaign that blurrs the recorded hate speech and just outright lie until it blows over.
Warren is a bigot gay racist plain and simple who had to make changes to his web site for political expediency for his own gains. This man is like Bush, unrepentant and a liar. The spin coming from his camp is similar to a Rove run talking point campaign. Melissa Ethridge bless her loving heart may be ready to reach out and join fellow gay racists Rev Sharpton and Rev Rivers; but, the gay community has not and will not capitulate to the political maneuvers of the Obama Adminsitration. Warren has to either apologize or he should not participate in the inaguration. Obama has lost the support of the gay community on all matters from hence forth. This community will not forget and post Prop 8 win due to the overwhelming support of conservative Christian black voters, the scrutiny of black candidates will not soley depend any longer on if the candidate is a Democrat. The gay community is withnessing the solidarity of the black and white Christian conservative factions uniting agains gay rights interests. This defending of Warren by black ministers is enlightening the gay community to realize the inherent gay racists ideology of the conservative black community.

Report this

By Thomas Mc, December 23, 2008 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And I love born-again Christians.
My only desire is that they give up their vile religion of hate, and join the human race!

Report this

By Ralph Novy, December 23, 2008 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Am I alone in thinking this was nauseating, disingenuous, self-contradictory bullshit…permeated, in delivery, by constant “liar’s blinks”?

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.