"Civil Rights are non-negotiable."

I have seen this and sentiments like it posted in numerous threads today.

Let me start off by saying that I agree that marriage equality is important and that this is a civil right's issue. My problem is that some people here are now using that as a boiler-plate response to any thread or post that sways from the standard 'outraged and furious' post. That response is offered anytime someone provides an alternative view to the Warren choice (other than it being a horrible decision).

Here is what I am reminded of when I see responses like that (shutting down any chance at civil discussion and resorting to name calling like 'homophobe', 'bigot', etc.):

pro-lifers.

Life begins at conception. End of story. There can be no rational alternative to that viewpoint. You disagree with that? You are a baby-killer. You hate life.

I am by no means implying that those who are outraged here are illogical or don't have a right to be angry. Marriage, like I said, should be a right for everyone. Period.
The problem is the response. It is over the top, frankly. The name-calling is out of hand, and it basically seems like if anyone has any view of the Warren choice other than pure outrage, they are against equality for women and gays.

It gets us nowhere.

A large portion of this country is against gay marriage. That is a sad fact. What Obama has written about, and talked about, is finding the common ground with people to move forward. Warren and his followers could be the best shot at pushing Evangelicals in a new direction (granted it may be gradual). A direction that begins to look outward to the world, with more compassion and empathy. Yes, there is nothing compassionate about denying gay people the right to marry their loved ones (I am envisioning the first response to this thread right now)...but it is undeniable that he is the only major right-wing/evangelical pastor who seems open to a different interpretation of scripture.

Maybe Warren is the right guy, maybe he isn't. Maybe he isn't different from the other right-wing blowhards and is only doing this for the money. Maybe he is truly sincere in his wanting to expand the definition of what an evangelical christian is and what he/she cares about. Who knows.

All I know is that this was not a surprising choice on Obama's part. He has been consistent about his intentions and want to see common ground and bridge divides. Maybe this will be an opportunity to open up some of Warren's followers to even more compassion and understanding of their fellow human beings.

Someone on Thom Hartmann made an interesting point. The invocation is being done by Rick Warren. He is a leader in the Evangelical movement who, while flawed in his beliefs on many issues, is open-minded in areas concerning the environment, poverty, and AIDS. He represents a step (the size of which is debatable) in the right direction for the conservative Evangelical community.
Now look at who is giving the benediction; someone who is a leader when it comes to civil rights and someone who supports gay rights.

One represents the present, one the future.

As a gay man who is sick and tired of being told that. You know what? Freedom of speech is a civil right. So are freedom of association and freedom of religious belief. I suppose you wouldn't mind if they were negotiable, too.

Very important distinction there.

Teh Warren apologists are suing the same logic as the segreationism apologists used.

and voted down we would not be reading all these smarmy platitudes about "reaching out" and "finding common ground" and such.

It's pretty much the same as me declaring that since I have tenure, unemployment is not a serious issue and I wish all these people would stop whining about losing their jobs.

As long as it is not YOUR civil rights up for negotiation, nothing is unacceptable.

Civil rights ARE non-negotiable.

whether or not a fetus is a living human being is most definitely debatable. Whether or not a LGBT person is a living human being is NOT debatable.

There can be no rational alternative to that viewpoint.

PERIOD

What the heck is a "gay right"? No one can name to us one gay right. Look, I'm straight and you don't see me running around asking for straight rights. All I ever hear about from gay activists is demands that the governments in the United States only recognize their inalienable rights: the right to marry, the right to bequeath property, the right to raise their children, the right to equal access for health care and insurance coverage.

I'm pretty sure those are my rights, too.

That is what makes them "gay rights."

Just as Blacks once did not have the same rights as whites, or women the same rights as men, these are civil rights.

You already have your rights and so you have no need to run around asking for them.

They are not negotiable.

If more people agreed, you wouldn't have Prop 8. But more people don't agree. It's probably time you start trying to convince them.

The difference between GLBT rights and RKBA is the former is unenumerated in the BOR but RKBA is enumerated in the Second Amendment.

Fifty years ago, "a large portion" of this country thought interracial marriage should be illegal.

Outrage and drawing a clear moral distinction didn't 'get us nowhere', it got us where we are today.

Personally, I don't think we should have an Invocation OR a Benediction. If we should be honoring anything that day, it should be the Constitution of the United States, not a sectarian Deity.

1) How the Civil Rights movement actually moved populations on segregation is a matter of considerable dispute. To present the case as cut and dry is dubious at best.

2) Where we are today can certainly be favorably compared to where we were 50 years ago, but only in some aspects. Poverty and oppression by the State is still disproportionately located in African American communities. So even the premise of some substantial "victory" based on the rhetorical strategies you're naming (supposing these played a role at all) is a question without easy answers.

3) The LGBT Movement has been remarkably successful over the last 20 years at shifting cultural attitudes. It will be considered one of the most rapid shifts in public thought ever experienced, I expect, when the histories of the 20th century are written down the road. But that success has to be analyzed carefully. It's easy enough to say that the strategy you're currently employing is a successful one, voila. It's much harder to demonstrate such a claim with evidence. It's harder still to show how it is the correct strategy for the current conjuncture. Just saying it makes us all feel better, because we can align our sentiment with our tactics. But that doesn't necessarily make it so.

The year 1990 was the year that the majority(51%) finally supported interracial marriage.

Cannot disagree with him on anything or the entire movement might fall apart....Must Worship and defend Obama even when he does something insanely stupid.

It's mighty damn easy to be gracious about such things when one's own world is not being crushed.

Election day was a big slap to gays, at a time when it appears America is turning a corner. Gays are rightly outraged and enraged. Telling those who suffer such discrimination that their responses are "over the top" is outrageous and demeaning. YOU need to check yourself. That's where the tune up is needed, from the neck up.

:puke:

How tragic. TRAGIC that you don't get it.

Perhaps you remember the brilliant Martin Luther King Jr., who said: