Obama Video: I disagree with Rick Warren, Invite does not mean shift on gay rights

Source: PageOneQ

President-elect Barack Obama says his decision to invite conservative, anti-gay evangelical Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration does not demonstrate a shift in his views on gay rights issues.

Obama, who opposes gay marriage, says he has been "consistent" on his support for otherwise equal rights to gays and lesbians.

"I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans," Obama said during a press conference Thursday, fielding a question about Warren. "It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency."

Read more: http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Obama_Views_on_gays_consistent_despite_Warren__1218.html

blame it on Hoyer, blame it on Boner, i don't care. get this BIGOT out of OUR Inauguration!

i'm feeling that Bill Clinton betrayal feeling.... and it took Bill a LOT longer to get there. not even inaugurated and throwing women and gays under the bus. NOW i get it that he's a "hold your nose and vote" Dem.

and it's true, the knuckling under didn't stop...

Of course, we still need to see what actual legislative proposals Obama will fight for...

as far as the legislative proposals go, i'm beginning to get the feeling that we might as well have gone with Hillary, it all makes no difference.

There is no such thing as "otherwise equal rights;" either you support equal rights or you do not.

"I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans." Except with regards to what the United States Supreme Court itself, in the ruling that decriminalized the marriage of his own parents, asserted was "one of the fundamental rights of man."

In his vocal opposition to equal marriage, Obama has stated where he stands on equal rights for gay men and lesbians.

Warren is just the latest mutation of the Ayn Randian garbage that masquerades as Christianity in America.

Rick Warren is the disease. Real and True Separation of Church and State are the cure!

though there are precious few major politicians who have a different stand.

Why the hesitancy about real equality? I mean, I know all the political "reasons", but really - does the CU dodge make any difference with people who are going to be angry about any civil rights for GLBT? So why not take the intellectually honest position and just say so?

and it's DISGUSTING...

and disturbing that so many ASSHOLES on DU (look in the mirror) are still trying to excuse or defend this shit...

on my first day of being President" and then I will fight for you?

by having Lowery do the closing AND having The Lesbian and Gay Band Association march in the parade, so sounds like he is being meaner to the evangelicalists if we judge using that standard

And I have gay family members and they feel the same. While I/we do NOT like this turn of events one bit, we've seen enough years of the Right Wing way of doing things. So far, Obama has proved genius in the way he handles "the enemy". So, as for me, I'm going to trust him and wait and see. I do agree that this, on it's face, seems pretty shitty. But every time I would have handled the "enemy" by grinding them into the ground, Obama approached it differently and got better results.

I am sure he is going to push hard for most of what we believe once he is nominated. I certainly don't believe that he is some rabid Right Winger hiding in a liberal body.

this is driving a bus over your friends.

I absolutely support his going to speak at Warren's church, working with him on causes on which we unite, and other similar things. Those activities are bridge building. They provide opportunities to work side by side on issues on which we agree - which inherently provides an opportunity to dialog on issues on which we differ in a safe setting.

Honoring him by giving him a generic, but important role (i.e. not one related to the causes with which Obama unites with him) at the inaugural is driving a bus over your friends.

Edited to add: Had he chosen to include him in the inauguration in a role related to common issues, that would have been fine with me - providing a blessing at a breakfast in which the focus was whatever common civil rights issues we have in common, for example.

i DO think this is a bad call on his. Like I said, I have gay family members, friends, etc. But, I am much more interested in results like eliminating "don't ask don't tell", pro 8 being overturned (yeah I know Obama has nothing to do with that), liberal judges that will rule for gay rights, etc.

It's not so much that I am defending his decision (I hate it) but that I'm still willing to give him some time/a chance in spite of it.

But, again, I do agree with you that it's pretty egregious.

and I am willing to give him time on those, and on his policy issues. I do not believe I have posted even a single critical word about any of his appointments.

On this issue, I am not. This invitation is a direct insult to people who were already not fully able to celebrate his victory because it came joined at the hip with their marriages (or those of their friends and family) being declared illegal.

He has plenty of time to rethink his decision, and to select another evangelical preacher (if he feels the need to) who does not actively hate, and has not actively worked against, the families of his supporters, who are already in deep pain.

nt

NT!

I hope Obama can hear them - I wrote his transition team last night, and after his explanation today I may well write again.

It tells me that he is just a little bigoted, and he talks a good game of inclusion while slapping us in the face.

supported Obama in every possible way for a solid year, but his position on this issue stinks. So does his choice of Rick Warren.

I don't think he is lying.

His responses to the HRC questions back in the primaries when most of the candidates were still in the race kept him from being my first choice. Although his literal position was virtually the same as most of the other candidates, his back story to the answers he gave made it clear to me that he was not yet open to do the growing he needed to do to get past a theoretical but superficial support for my family's rights (so long as it didn't sound too much like heterosexual rights) - to a deep understanding of how his family and mine are more alike than different.

Edwards, on the other hand, I would have classified as open to learning - uncomfortable both with where he was and where I wanted him to be - not there, but teachable.

This selection confirms where he is internally. If he were at that teachable stage, he would have realized how deeply and personally painful this particular selection would be; in contrast, his comments to the press clearly indicate he has no comprehension that the opposition to this particular selection is anything other than theoretical/political. Yes, the personal can also be political, but unlike the purely political - it is always first and deeply personal. I do not believe he would deliberately rub salt in our wounds - he just doesn't get it.

Thanks, Ms Toad. You've given alot of depth to my thinking.

Honestly, evangelicals and fundyism infuriate me so much, I've pretty much turned my attention elsewhere, so I wasn't aware of HOW extremely sickening WARren is in his preachifyin.

I was having some discussion with NoElephants, which then led me to read you. I'm glad I did!

One cannot be "a fierce advocate of equality" and oppose the central measure of that equality, i.e. the right to enjoy the same marriage benefits as straight couples. Saying so doesn't make it so.

no idea. A Constitutional law professor who is also the son of an African man and a white woman who met at the height of the civil rights movement. Unreal.

He's never been an advocate, fierce or otherwise, for equality. Only an advocate for segregation.

..... I think it IS important to keep our eyes open. We elected Obama, and unlike the chimp demographic, we pride ourselves (most of us) on our informed thinking.

So, to my mind, it is good to stay awake and aware....
but do I think picking Warren indicates some treachery within Obama?

No, I don't.

I think it indicates awareness that there are a ton of fundies in this nation, and it is a nod of inclusion to them. Doesn't mean he will be taking policy from the guy.

Imagine what would happen if he said what we're all thinking about those fundy idiots? It would turn into such a shitstorm and for what? Total worthless distraction, and end up playing right into their poor persecuted demands for recompense.

It may just be a demonstration of courtesy now, so that he can do what needs to be done later with a bit more ease.

..........

So, as crazy as this may sound:

the inauguration is PAGEANTRY, nothing more.

Snubbing the christofascists would be shooting the important business of leadership right in the nuts. Let them think they've gained presidential access because of, basically, a fancy floral arrangement at their buffet table. Biig fucking deal.

I don't in any way believe that letting this posturing preacher do his shtick for his mentally compromised followers therefore implies that Obama has just signed up for a weekly policy planning phone call with the guy.

member of the clergy was totally unnecessary. All Obama had to do was pick a moderate clergyman of any faith--Catholic, Jewish, Episcopal, Methodist, Buddhist--whatever. No fuss, no muss.

You have created a false dichotomy. There was absolutely no need EITHER to dump evangelicals OR to honor a hater.

Since evangelicals like Warren equate Democrats with Satan, I doubt they ever expected to be included in the Inauguration. Therefore, I disagree that having a more moderate cleric give the invocation would have shot "the important business of leadership in the nuts," or anything remotely like that.

Where on earth did you get that notion? There are more Catholics in the country than there are evangelicals. Are you suggesting that Catholics refuse to be led by the President whenever a Catholic has not given the invocation or benediction at an Inaugural? When has that ever happened in the history of the nation with Catholics or with any other religion?

or maybe not....

I didn't say that having a more moderate cleric would shoot leadership in the nuts; I said snubbing the fundies would lead to problems. I admit, I am assuming that fundy groups were putting on pressure to be represented at the inauguration. I don't think that's an unrealistic assumption; in fact I think it's very likely.

"Are you suggesting that Catholics refuse to be led by the President whenever a Catholic has not given the invocation or benediction at an Inaugural?"---I think you're drawing an irrelevant conclusion. I was not making inferences about any other religious group reaction to who offers the inaugural benediction. And, I said nothing about fundies or anyone else refusing to be led--they can refuse to be led as much as they want.

My point was that the evangelical community, which has been pointedly trying to overpower politics in this country, is known to be loud, obstructionist and prone to tantrums. Could be very smart to let them have their big honor--and Warren, who is so indisputably committed to the conservative religious cause, leaves no room for them to whine about not getting their way!

(Hee hee I can just imagine Obama enacting equitable legislation on any number of issues, and them pitching a biiig foot stamping fit, like little boys not getting the cookie they thought they're entitled to, and the Obama camp saying, "tsk tsk, what's this? After all the respect we clearly have for you <<reference Inauguration>>!! My goodness what a bunch of nasty greedy piggies!" :rofl: HAAAAAA!!! god, wouldn't that be fun?? What a great scenario!!! :rofl:)

It is only spectacle, not enactment of law. Giving them this "big coup" could be useful to shut them up later, when they scream about being persecuted again.

politics. Of course, they would love to be in control of all politics--who wouldn't? But I don't think they had any expectation whatever of controling Democratic politics or starring in the Democratic Inauguration. On the other hand, I don't think this (or anything) is going to stop them from claiming persecution.

While the inauguration is spectacle, it is a very great honor for a clergyman to have been chosen to participate in it. There was no reason to honor Warren that way. None. It's a slap in the face to Democrats, women and gays for no reason whatever. And, now he has had to backpedal, so he irritated his base with his choice, then irritated the fundies with his backpedaling. NONE of that would have happened if he had simply chosen a moderate in the first instance. Sad to say, it was very bad judgment, which is supposed to be his strong suit.

As far as spectacle/symbolism, I would not underestimate it. Hitler didn't. The Catholic Church didn't. And, I certainly don't think Obama does (campaigning behind a facsimile of the Presidential seal, the Greek columns at the Convention, the Lincolnesque train ride nto the Capitol, etc.)

to showcase their hotline to gawd!
It would be so totally in character for them!!

Haa, now I can't get the picture out of my mind of my fundy bro-in-law, insisting he give the blessing before any family dinner. He doesn't see that no one was ASKING for a blessing, and that his parents don't want one--they just let him because he has such a tantrum (which I have actually witnessed! :eyes:) if he doesn't get to be Simon in a game of simon sez...... and he's in his 60's, folks!!

Oh, yes, spectacle and ritual and symbolism are extremely important; And it is used with an end in mind. Sometimes the goal is inspiration, sometimes it is malicious control as with Hitler or any other tyrant. Still, I just don't believe that the symbolism here is acquiescence to the religious right's agenda. But holy cow, won't it just shut them the hell up? I think it has alot of leverage to it--very smart indeed.

I guess, though that we just have differing perspectives here....
I'm ok with that if you are. :toast:

to have one of their own give the invocation at the inauguration of a Democratic President. And the inauguration is my issue, not reaching out or building bridges.

Realistically, Warren's speaking is not going to shut up anyone on the right about any issue. Why would it? However, it HAS started a flap on the left. I think Obama may be trying to start bringing neo theos back into the Democratic fold, but this is the wrong man at the wrong momemt.

How do I know? Look at this board and the news stories. Because of the flap, Obama has had to backpedal and try to distance himself from his own invitee while re-affirming his commitment to equal rights for gays. So, he's now pissed off the left, gays, Warren and the right. Bad idea all around.

Of course, I am okay with differing persepectives. Message boards would be very boring if every post after the opening post said "I agree!" Nothing personal at all in disagreeing on a message board, at least not for me. And you in particular seem like a very nice person.

That message boards would be pretty dull without disagreement...
but in my personal life, I wouldn't mind at all if everyone agreed with me!! Haaaaaa!!! (work scenario: the prick manager who screwed me over big time:
Me: "You dipshti!!"
Everyone Else: "Yeah, you sphincter!!"
Him: "OMG! You're right! You are brilliant and have made me see the light! I AM a total good ol' boys club, favorites playing, hypocritical, imaginary conclusion jumping, micromanaging, ASSCLOWN! I vow to rectify everything! And I promise never to be a rectum again! And to put you at the top of my favoritism list!"


anyhow....
No I don't have any evidence of the RW (religious wrong) putting pressure...it's just something that I would totally believe is going on in hallways and watercoolers like the relentless drone of wasps colonized in the rafters. Not the kind of thing that can be evidenced, but it sure would be standard behavior for them.

Hmmm...you may be right about WARren's speaking not shutting them up; afterall nothing seems to do that. Still, Obama could press the issue if they wanted a mile more for their inch, so he may actually be able to use it to advantage.......

WARren makes me puke--and I try to just turn my attention from that which makes me puke. He's not just a hater of gay people, he also believes in forced childbirth, save the fetus, throw the mother into the pit, though that hasn't been getting the public outrage it deserves.

Well, I appreciate you making me think some more..... :)
and thanks, I do at least try to be respectful (yet firm....hrrrmmmm that sounds suggestive)--- I give all credit to the meds :D

I guess the baseline here is, I just don't know, though I will hope for the best possible outcome.

Why legitimize the Catholic church and its opposition to gays and women?

Catholics should have NO place at the table.

"I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans," Obama.....unless they wish to marry, then I'm not.

problem. He is against choice, against equal rights for women, against separation of church and state and preaches that voting for anyone who is pro-choice (read: most Democrats) goes against God.

The fact that Obama has to come out with this statement, which is going to tick off the fundies, proves what a mistake this choice was. So much controversy for no good reason. He could have had anyone, from the Dalai Lama to a rabbi to a nice, moderate, uncontroversial Episcopalian give the invocation. But no. He has to go for Rick Warren. And that accomplished what?

...he's doing that not exactly because he approves that crazy, sad, lonely and so inside his closet that he can already see Narnia, man.
He called him, because he's trying to calm down the religious nuts.


At least, that what I think.

that reqauired calming down? And what makes anyone think that having Warren speak would calm them down?

Now have a nice kick to the throat in return!

I politely suggested he tell Rick to shove it and find a pastor from some small town church to take his place.

n/t

Exactly how he's coopted the DLC -- by absorbing them, and preventing them from forming a coherent opposing power-bloc.

It's pure 'Art Of War'. It's how he's thinking. It may seem like a blow to gay rights, but I really do believe his intent is to intelligently dissolve opposition to gay rights. I bet it works, too. Barack has been damned prescient with his strategy, since the beginning.

If Bush had behaved in this fashion at the beginning of his term, we'd have a solid Republican government right now, and most of his evil legislative agenda would have been passed long ago.

Again -- this is a merciless strategy designed to dissolve the right wing power-bloc.

A clear exception to the prevailing rule on this topic.

n/t.

Purists. Ha.

lol

Hey, I'd love to see this turn into a chance for warren to "see the light" - but you know that's not the case.

We are not pawns to be sacrificed on the grand chessboard of political expediency. You abuse us, we stop supporting you. Period.

So you would rather have nothing over having a partial victory? That is what folks seem to be saying.

have been okay with separate drinking fountains? Brown v. Board of Education held that separate but equal was inherently discriminatory. Loving v. Virginia held that marriage, even mixed race marriage, was a basic human right. Put them together. The man's parents got the benefit of Loving v. Virginia; he got the benefit of Brown v. Board of Education and he is a Constitutional law professor. Beyond that, he is a Democrat.

This issue was not a matter of risking his election or his political future. Who he chose for the invocation was totally optional. He did not have to start a controversy by choosing a sexist, homophobic, anti-Democratic bigot. He went out of his way to do that. He made a very bad choice.

most historic inauguration this country has seen since Washington's. It's tantamount to endorsing Warren's views. Don't you remember the flap about Wright? "But, he married Obama and his wife and he baptized their children. How could Obama let a minister do that unless he basically agreed with him?" Ceremonies ARE important and so is symbolism.

As far as his appointments, I am not so sure that Obama, all by his lonesome, is going to be on top of all the DLC'ers with whom he has seeded his government. (And then each of them ill hire people like them to work under them.)

I hope so, but I don't know if that is even his strategy, much less that he will succeed at it.

I trust him. Not just because of his 'aura', but because of his history. He has an ability to co-opt the right wing by walking into the heart of the enemy camp and confronting them. His actions as an Illinois State Senator are very telling -- the 'videotaped confessions' bill he authored was DOA in a fully Red State, until he walked into every GOP stronghold and talked sense to them.

It passed unamimously. It's his style, it's how he does things. Me, I'm a hater. I hate all of them, passionately. But I recognize Obama's style as a strength I don't possess, and respect it for its apparent effectiveness, and hope like hell he can make a dent.

Inauguration was not the moment. IMO, he misjudged that badly.

In the great "reaching out to each other"

that is taking place between Obama and Warren...

I wonder who thinks they are converting the other to their point of view?

and

Which one is correct?

but I have to figure that like most megachurch pastor-charlatans, Warren likes nothing more than to see his own star shine brightly. By giving him that, Obama also can take it away some day.

That's the only rationale I can come up with for this choice.

Stop pretending it does, Obama. Your views on this are bigoted, and you have slapped us in the face with this invitation.

Rick Warren was an advocate for your economic rights as a human being who shouldn't face poverty and be a pawn to the corporations, and as a human being who deserves to live on a Earth not ruined by man-made global warming?

Not enough.

And then you insist that his presence does not mean a shift on gay rights.

A great many in the GLBT community -- the people most offended by the invitation you extended to Warren -- have to agree with you on this one. After McClurkin, Warren's presence is a continuation of your endorsement of religious based bigotry, not a shift.

Edited for spelling.

is to bite the extended hand is insulting.

He's reaching out to extend his base just as he has always done through religious groups. That's not change and that's not good for all Americans.

The dude just has to read some formal stuff out of a book.

Was there outrage when President Kennedy was sworn in by a Roman Catholic Cardinal? Not that I recall.

Kennedy was very clear that he was going to keep them separate. For that matter, the Catholic Church was pretty clear about it at the time. On the other hand, as I said, the wedge issues were not on the table then, so it was relatively easy for the Church to keep out of politics.

Things are actually getting better.

the early 70's. Even Griswold v. Connecticut (contraceptives and contraception education)was not decided until 1965.

Apart from the general dissolute Democratic lifestyle , those seem to be the wedge issues today. So, church and state seemed separate because churches already had what they wanted. Maybe divorce had been a church/state problem. I don't know about that one. The big fear (supposedly) was that the Pope was going to control the Oval Office. However, no one had any specifics on that one. Kennedy simply said it wasn't going to happen, also in a very general way. Still, his victory was very narrow. Whether we can attribute that to his religion or not, we may never know for sure. He sure was a heck of a more appealing candidate than Tricky Dick Pumpkin Patch Nixon, but Nixon had been Vice President for 8 years and may have been seen as better qualiied. Don't know. I was still too young to vote then.

I support Obama, but he has not been a "fierce advocate" for gay rights. He may be in the future, but, as of now, he's not. He should have chosen a bishop from a mainline Christian denomination to deliver the invocation.

As long as they weren't outspoken homophobes like Warren, I would have no problem.

as they haven't made a big stink about denying gay people their rights, then I don't care what views they privately hold. If Pope Ratzinger delivered the prayer, I would have a problem because he is outspoken about denying women and gay people rights.

Caroline Kennedy should do this immediately.

And an excellent way for Kennedy to stir up controversy and potentially lose the support of a number of Catholics.

Frankly, I despise the Pope and the Vatican - I can say that because I am NOT running for public office, nor am I a member of the Catholic clergy.

I'm not a practicing Catholic anymore either, largely for the reasons you've pointed out. But making blanket statements such as "Catholics have no place at the table" is a good way to throw the baby out with the bathwater and insult a great many people who probably have views very similar to your own.

That being said - flame away. The blanket contempt that so many here seem to have for Catholics in general is absurd bigotry that I am ashamed to see on DU.

...if you're inclined to see any "group" as the Borg, instead of a collection of individuals - every one of them a unique person.

But that would involve thought. Thinking hard. Brain hurt.

On how you define the Catholic church. If you feel that it consists solely of the Vatican, members of the clergy and his high stupidness, then you may be accurate with your statement regarding blanket contempt.

If you are suggesting that Catholics in general hold blanket contempt for gays - then you couldn't be any more inaccurate. Particularly among the younger generations, some priests and the Vatican have driven many (myself included) younger Catholics away from the church due to their bigotry.

When you say "Catholics have no place at the table." You are referring to every Catholic - which might include myself, depending on how you define Catholic.

Which brings me to my point. If you want to dislike or despise anyone - or any group, that is your right. Yet in my opinion, it is far more intellectually honest to despise the particular individual/s you happen to disagree with or resent.

Catholics in general are not the problem. The problem is the irrelevant institution referred to as the Vatican, and the old fool who thinks he's God's voice on earth - and the fools who agree with him.

Ohhhh, my poor brain... it hurts... the agony... agghh

(edited for spelling)

:toast:

The evangelicals will look on this as Obama being soft and they will try even harder to get their way. Invite him to the inauguration but not as the one giving the invocation. This is a very odd choice by Obama.

may seem scanty now, but it was a big step forward for gays during the time Clinton engineered it. It was the best he could get and a big step forward. It may not have been long ago, but it was eons for gay rights. Obama has demeaned the progress with this one invitation.

For a man who doesn't like drama, he's sure managed to unnecessarily stir some up....

And legitimizes him in the eyes of a lot of people. I for one am not going to listen to this clown.