Ok...name me one rev. who could give the invocation that is pro choice and pro gay marriage...

I can't think of a one....

I don't like Warren either, but in the rest of the US, he is pretty widely respected. There are many much more horrid choices he could have made such as Billy Graham's son... Any Catholic Bishop...

At least Warren and Obama have the same points of view on the poor and downtrodden...

I'd love someone like Nelson Mandela, or shit, Chris Rock.

Let's try something different.

I like Rev. Robinson, but that would never happen.

Do I get credit for trying? :)

I agree - that would be great.

That's what people always tell me. :)

That's what I keep telling people :)


:rofl:

:shrug:

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

She'd be happy to do it, I'm sure.

if we could have you three instead.

:hug: :hi:

Peace Patriot is cool, too. RevCheesehead doesn't come around anymore it seems.

Not sure of her choice stance, but definitely a GLBT advocate.

:rofl:

Thanks, Sha-sha!! :hug::loveya:

He is also an ordained minister.

even some that say that they are pro gay rights, are for civil unions only.

no UUs who aren't.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/11/local/me-gaymarriage11

to name three. The last one is the President of Obama's denomination.

I didn't know about Desmond Tutu - man I wish he could be my pastor - he absolutely is spot on with what I believe too.

I don't know Rev. John Thomas, but I take your word for it.

Definitely plenty in the Anglican communion who are pro gay and pro "gay" marriage (i hate that term gay marriage just call it marriage) But also there's plenty in the Anglican communion quite the opposite.

Mark.

Not all clergy are raging fundamentalists.

Bishop Gene Robinson, let's see, I'm sure there are more, I'm sure others can mention them.

from some little mainline church nobody's ever heard of from some town in the middle of nowhere. You know... someone who doesn't feel the need to repeatedly go on the record about everything. Basically, someone who has no record to attack.

but this is the church I'm going to when I go back home. I'm done with Catholicism. The pastor is Dr. Robin Meyers.
http://www.mayflowerucc.org/who/covenant.html

a bit of controversy also even though its Desmond TuTu

and he is against all forms of discrimination, including denying LGBTs the right to marry one another.

and he is against all forms of discrimination, including denying LGBTs the right to marry one another.

And the Communion's official position, as far as I know, is pro-choice.

And having nothing to do with anything (but it's a good story). . . . I went to college with his daughter, Naomi, in the late '70s and he was carrying crap into her dorm room just like all the other dads. He was a hoot too.

the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, John Chane, is a pretty cool guy...

http://www.edow.org/diocese/bishops/chane_bio.html

I'm not sure why the Warren thing, I'm really not.

At least he hasn't made a fortune railing against me and mine.

John Thomas, Sharon Watson, Gene Robinson, Katherine Jefferts Schori, John Spong, Andrew Young, Jo Hudson, me

Should I keep going?

You think Rev. Warren is controversial, try putting up Gene Robinson, (who i greatly respect btw) Obama will have 4 unproductive years dodging media BS and right wing wackos.

Please don't get angry, but some of you are making far too much out of this. It is the policies of the administration that are important, not who gives the invocation. Billy Graham gave it for Clinton... he is anti gay marriage and anti choice...

since I heard her speak at Quadrennial?

He is pro-choice and he supports marriage rights for gays and lesbians, as does his wife (who is also a rabbi).

there are hundreds

eom

I'm sure that some of these clerics are both pro-choice and for gay rights.

http://www.rcrc.org/about/members.cfm

This isn't a time to be picking idealogues.

Retired English professor and openly lesbian Unitarian minister, now recently retired from the latter position as well.

Or Bill Moyers?

A damn class act if there ever was one.

:hug::loveya: Yeah, I'd love to!!
and, thanks! :blush:

:hi: Hiya, Crusoe!!!

I'll just call Rahm up and let him know you're on board and to shove Warren over the side of the boat.

for one. I know quite a few more.

would have been a brilliant choice. He also lives in the D.C. area. He would have been perfect and non-controversial.

but you really don't care, and are just trying to make more excuses for obama's "soft" bigotry...

Because he's so well known for inclusiveness...

What did someone say earlier about Nazi's? Hello?

And Catholic doctrine doesn't believe being gay is a choice, which is an improvement over Warren.

Yeah, and Rick Warren is not Fred Phelps either.

It's all just a watered down dose from the same well.

and against oppression of women.

There is a HUGE difference between the Church hierarchy, and individual Catholics and priests/nuns.

I won't defend the Vatican hierarchy, but I will defend Catholics.

There are evangelicals who would prefer to be rid of being identified with divisive political positions.

You don't hear from them much, because they are not the attention seeking "leaders".

But, given some cover, you'd hear more from them.

I'm not a Catholic. I don't know many Catholics. So, I'm pretty much convinced Catholicism is just one monolithic hatefest with no internal politics of its own.

I don't hear a peep out of them when Ratsucker & co. make their pronouncements. So they must all agree with him.

People in an organization run by a Hitler youth must be pretty goshdarn understanding.

My family is all Catholic, and my friends are pretty much all Catholic or Jewish, with some Buddhists thrown in. I also know some priests pretty well (including a couple gay ones), and even the more conservative Catholics I know, still don't agree with most of what the Vatican puts out.

It's not really covered in the news, but get some Irish/Italian Catholics talking about you'll see they don't agree with the Vatican.

Okay - the Catholics you know are not bigots, just bigot-enablers.

I had not realized what an important vehicle the Catholic church has been for the LGBT and pro-choice movements.

The Catholics are once again, a perfectly acceptable group to hate on DU.

But I don't support a group opposed to civil rights, and run by an "ex" Nazi.

Two of the biggest straight supporters of civil rights on DU are Catholics.

I have no love for Pope Rat, but I'm not going to smear the whole thing.

A whole two!

Out of an estimate 1/6 of the world's population.

This is like Warren's fig leaf of poverty crap and AIDS crap.

I don't support oppressive patriarchies. Solly. Whatever shade of lipstick you want to put on them.

that are always 100% behind gay rights.

Hmmm...

Of which he admits, he doesn't even really know any.

So no, he wouldn't have had to look very far.

I used to be on a committee at the local Planned Parenthood and a retired Episcopalian Bishop was on it with me.

Also, why not Jim Wallis? He's evangelical (if you must have one) and a tremendously good person.

Hekate

I think that many on the far right have become one issue voters because they have no other expectations for their government.

They are basically low information voters, voting on limited info, most of it from a right wing religious perspective. And they would have ignored the inauguration.

If Obama can engage them, start to show them that there is a larger world, maybe we can turn some of them to a broader understanding of how faith and politics can relate in a positive rather than a negative fashion.

Working out great, isn't it?

I've been doing some reading here and elsewhere on the web, and it isn't Obama slamming the door. The problem, apparently, is that he's opened it a bit too wide and allowed in some riff-raff.

door.

And tons who are not active bigots like Warren. He is a Jerry Falwell in his bigotry and anti-gay foulness.

fact is - on this issue - Obama just does not 'get it". He has tin ears.

Such a huge disappointment.
I did not expect him to be much of an advocate but this is embarrassing. To give a bigot like Warren a pulpit for the world.

Shame.

You could include the whole country. The Inaugural prayer doesn't have to be the sole property of Christians.

My pastor is pro choice and pro gay marriage. I wouldn't be able to attend my church if she weren't. There are many gay pastors also.

VERY active in lying to push Prop 8.

This is more than marriage.

Katherine Jefferts-Schori

Including mine.

Most of the names floated here would not be particularly realistic choices.

In my mind, it's not so much the views as the recent active public support for Proposition 8. That's the kicker. That makes it a really questionable choice.

Obviously, I don't want anyone in the line of Fred Phelps who is vehemently anti-gay, or someone like Pat Robertson or John Hagee, who are just perversions to the Christian religion if you ever saw them.

But say the clergyman/clergywoman at issue either a) is neutral on the issue of gay marriage or b) may have some slight opposition to gay marriage, but doesn't make it a focal point of his/her preaching, and does not oppose things such as civil unions or the right of gays to adopt? Is that still too objectionable? Are we going to make it a requirement that the clergyman/clergywoman expressly endorse gay marriage?

What if the clergyman/clergywoman opposes abortion rights but isn't in favor of gay marriage? Is that still objectionable?

I am a practicing Catholic. I've been Catholic since birth, done the whole CCD thing, and an as adult, I still go ever Sunday. The priest in my parish in my old hometown is someone who I consider to be very progressive. He's almost single handedly organized a "Safe Nights" program for the entire county where different churches have taken in the homeless overnight on given days. He's a strong advocate for social justice, and has even called for universal healthcare as a matter of basic human rights. He's spoken out against things such as the Iraq War and the death penalty. Before becoming a priest, he worked on the Carter campaign and for the DNC, and in private when he's with just my family (as he's become a family friend of my parents) he's been extremely critical of Bush (although he does not engage in partisan politics from the pulpit).

Yet, he does oppose abortion rights, although not in the hellfire and brimstone "Abortion is Murder" type of thinking that some like to associate with anyone who is against abortion. And he doesn't favor gay marriage, although I do remember at least one sermon where he took people to task and compared modern society's treatment of gays and lesbians to the treatment of lepers in Jesus's day. And I frankly think that was a very brave thing to say to a church in an area that tends to be socially conservative.

So, if someone like that were called to give an invocation, is that still objectionable to people? Does the clergyman/clergywoman have to be on the board of NARAL or marching in gay rights parades in order for that person to be acceptable? What is the line that gets drawn here? Who is okay to some people and who isn't? I'm not defending Warren here because I vehemently disagree with the analogies he drew of gay people to incest or pedophilia, but in terms of the greater question, do we have to have an uber-liberal clergyman/clergywoman for some people to be happy?

It is God Hates Fags for the high donor market. The very analogies you correctly object to are that message, just gussied up for Irvine. If I'm missing something when he calls me by those slanders that is not conveyed just as well by a simple God Hates Fags sign, I'd like to know what it is.

As far as the other stuff, you know, I was around back in Reagan times, when AIDS was new and it was heavily stigmatized to the point where no one would take action for fear of being associated with such a thing. Many of the first to step forward and take action were religious people, ministers, famous singers, the works. Inclusive and well known people of faith are not hard to find at all. I know that. Lots of 'us' know that. It is odd that so many who are faith identified don't seem to know that. I have sat in churchs across America where I am welcomed, but the likes of Phelps or Warren would not be given any form of voice to speak such hate. To pretend that

And in fact, all that was asked for, and it was asked for, was no active anti-gay or anti-any minority should be given a place of honor. What we got was a hard core conservative who wanted McCain to win, but celebrated his own victory against my Obama family that same night. A man who talks his trash on the news and not jus the pulpit. And man who uses language that most people of faith, such as your own good self, find offensive.

And consider this, if you will. Jesus rather clearly says that public prayer is unheard by God, and says it is an excersize in worldly attention seeking. He says not to pray as the hypocrites do, in public, but rather to go into our rooms and pray thusly: Our Father, who art in...well I'm guessing you know the rest. Point being, that if anyone involved were actually following the religion they make a stink about, we'd not be in this position at all. My advice to Chirstians is listen to your savior like you ought to, as when you do otherwise you cause divisions, and you shame your teacher. Hurt done to others in order to honor Christians by doing something forbidden by the Christ. According to Jesus, God will not hear that hypocrite's prayer. But hey, what does Jesus know? He never even bothered to say God Hates Fags. Not even all gussied up for Jerusalem.

different beliefs? I don't think so.

As many have pointed out, there are literally hundreds of clergy who could have filled the bill without making a specific statment. Rick Warren just helped pass Prop 8 on the same night as Obama's victory. He uses horrible rhetoric that the majority of actual ministers would not use as it is not moderate in anyway. He equates gay people to pedophiles as part of his political activism. On the news, not from the pulpit.
So spin as you'd like, all Obama needed to do was pick a person who was not part of our defeat on Nov 4th. Warren was loud and hyperbolic about his hatred for gay people, and there is no reason on Earth for Obama to even appear to be doing a joint victory 'bash' with Warren at the expense of his actual supporters.
If Obama wanted to pick a clergy person who actually represents a changing mind, who is also famous in religous circles, I'd have gone with Frank Schaffer. I sure don't agree with him on all things, but he is open about his chaging thoughts on many issues, and active in his desire to end the rancor and start the respect. Frank would have been a far better choice.
I'd have been fine with dozens of ministers that I know personally, as well as rabbis, imams, and priests. I have worked for decades with churches and I know many great congregations. Among other things, your OP does a broad brush on the faithful.

I'd ever have been fine with one who does not support all that I support, just not one that was personally in the trenches slandering my family all over the media just last month. Can you understand that? As the christians on DU always say, they are not all like Rick Warren.

I'd go with Jenny Weber from Broadway United Methodist in Chicago, though.

I also would have gone with the pastor I grew up with, although he's passed now.

In the late 1990s, Bishop Cox of the schismatic Independent Catholic group (not to be confused with the Catholic Church) performed the ceremony of priestly ordination on O'Connor. The Roman Catholic Church believes that ordination of women is impossible, and that a person simulating the sacrament of ordination incurs latae sententiae excommunication. The bishop had contacted her to offer ordination following her appearance on the RTÉ's Late Late Show, during which she told the presenter, Gay Byrne, that had she not been a singer, she would have wished to have been a Catholic priest. After her service of ordination, she indicated that she wished to be called Mother Bernadette Mary.

Lots of ministers and rabbis out there that are liberals in every meaning of the word.