Something to think about. Many of us are PISSED at Obama re: Warren but draw the line. . .

. . .at some of the unwarranted attacks on Obama being homophobic, anti-gay, etc. I'm going to celebrate MY ASS OFF ON January 20, 2009, BUT I WILL ALSO TAKE SOME TIME THAT DAY TO RESPOND TO WARREN'S PRESENCE.

Here is a situation where we can build a coalition to deal with and do something about Rick Warren appearing at the inaugural, yet it seems that instead of us finding common ground on this issue we become divided over how pissed we are at what it means.

NOTE TO EVERYONE: There is strong consensus that the Warren decision is wrong, CAN'T WE PLEASE FOCUS ON THAT AND MOVE TOWARDS some type of effective response.

That is a stupid response -- right up there with the freepers who deflected every criticism of Bush's war with "would you rather have Saddam Hussein in charge?"

It didn't work for me when they did it and it doesn't work for me now.

Is that going to be the rallying cry for the next four years every time Obama does something we don't like -- that he's not McCain? Pretty low hurdle for him to overcome.

as in ... What Was He Thinking??!!?

If it's not too cold, Warren's speech could be greeted by a "Million Man Moon" (Women, too, but alliteration won out over correctness).

:hi:

;-)

But cold. Chilly Cheeks for Rick.

and positions supported for years are a lie?

And doesn't actively oppose gay marriage either. He opposed Prop 8, voted against the FMA, opposed DOMA, and has stated that he would work against any attempt to ban same-sex marriage.

But claiming that Barack Obama is anti-gay because he picked Warren is guilt-by-association, which is an ad hominem fallacy. By the same logic, his association with Joseph Lowery makes him pro-gay, and his association with Bill Ayers makes him a domestic terrorist.

This debate is becoming circular. I respect your position, and understand your reasoning, but I don't personally agree.

He selected him because he is a conservative evangelical. It is a conservative evangelical selection. It isn't an anti-gay selection.

He's given Rick Warren mainstream cred and raised his public profile. Warren has taken a victory lap on every news network, where he has reiterated his disgusting views about GLBT Americans.

Obama may not personally oppose us (although his stated view on marriage rights mimics the religious right, and is bigoted) but his actions show apathy to our cause and advance a dangerous moral equivalency that elevates hate to an "opposing point of view."

At some point, one's actions indirectly cause harm, and enablement becomes endorsement.

Believe it or not, but until a week ago, I had never heard of this guy. I'm willing to bet that a great many, on DU and in the world at large, had never heard of him. And among those that had, many likely thought him to be a moderate or had only heard of him through his books.

But now? Now everyone on DU knows who he his. Everyone on DU knows he's a bigot, against gays, women, Jews, and probably many others that I'm regretfully forgetting. More people, every day, find out the truth about him and his church. It's brought equal rights back to the forefront for a great number of people, and Rick Warren is being exposed to the world for what he is. (I'm also hoping that in all the investigation on the man that is likely to follow, something is discovered that makes him have to withdraw in disgrace; I have my money on necrophilia.)

Raising his public profile will influence a few people, yes. But the people who would be influenced by Warren in this position are people who would never have been on our side to begin with. And just as many, if not more people, will be influenced against him. That is not to say the selection is a good thing - it isn't, even if it's a clever political tactic in the end - but I have a bad habit of looking for silver linings. ;)

Enablement becomes endorsement if it continues to happen, but I think (read: hope) that the outcry that has erupted from this will prevent Obama from doing anything else quite as stupid. He's a smart politician, and I'm pretty sure he knows he's fucked up with this, and that he has to do something to make amends - advocates for full equal rights will be watching closely now. I doubt Rick Warren will be given any other honours like this, even if he is brought in to help combat poverty or whatever good qualities the asshole is supposed to have. (A side note: I just read this article on HuffPo, which has some ideas on what to do now that the LGBT community and their supporters have the attention of the transition team and the PE.)

The invocation is a place of honour Rick Warren does not deserve, and should never have gotten. But places of honour have also been given to Joseph Lowery, Aretha Franklin, Yo-Yo Ma, Gabriela Montero, Itzhak Perlman, Anthony McGill and Elizabeth Alexander. This does not make up for Warren, but elevating his presence over them, as the controversy has done, is a great disservice for all they have achieved. ( that may just be my Yo-Yo Ma fanboyism talking; a performance by him is a religious experience Warren couldn't hope to compare to.)

Apologies if this got too wordy. It's a bad habit I have.

You know, gay people's biggest ally. :shrug:

constructive that sends a message, but also encourages obama to be more sensitive and pro-active regarding glbtq community (and the people who love them dearly). my friend and his partner are attending the inauguration and he is thinking of making a simple sign on a piece of paper he can fold up in his pocket.

his idea: OBAMA = CHANGE (with the equal sign being the symbol from the human rights campaign)

i would like to do something as well (even though, i'll actually be in class that day). any ideas??

I suggested that those attending the inauguration, especially those who would be visible from the podium, simply turn their backs when Warren speaks. Could catch on among the crowd...

at http://change.gov/, That to me speaks volumes about what will be discussed and what won't.

Sure you can send in an e-mail, but there will be no blog or further response from the O team. Out of sight, out of mind.

Maybe when a few million people boo for two minutes on January 20th in Washington DC, they will have heard us NOW.

What's at stake here are civil and human rights. Religion is being used as the vehicle for hate and oppression, personified by Rick Warren at the moment.. a very sick and hatefilled minister who happens to represent a very sick and hatefilled following.

However marriage may be defined by any one particular religion.. whether "christian" or not.. is idiosyncratic to that religion. In other words, that definition is held just for that group for whatever reason.

Therefore, we must look beyond religious views for what's really at stake with the issue of gay marriage. It's how marriage is defined by the state and the society at large, and it concerns with the rights and privileges conferred by the marriage contract, including benefits, management of assets, wills and heirship agreements.

That is why we must look beyond religion to get to the heart of this issue, that it is one of basic civil and human rights.. and that brings us to the core issue of consideration of humanity.

Remember that I pointed out how the mindset that drove the Three-Fifths Compromise, Plessy v. Ferguson, and the idea that some people are not as human as others or not as worthy as others because they are in some way not human or less human, is also driving the anti-gay agenda.

If we consider all humans to be fully human in every way, then there is NO way that we can justify oppression or restriction of rights to anyone.

Sue

I don't care what his statement was. If Obama wants this thorn out of his side, he'll have to do the right thing.

I will not stop speaking truth to power just because that annoys you.

. . .YET SINCE I DON'T TAKE YOUR HARD LINE I AM SOME HOW THE PROBLEM.

I'm ready to walk with you in this struggle but unless I adopt your hardline I am somehow the enemy.

also, questioning Obama's motives is healthy. I call Obama bigoted on the issue of marriage equality, but not "homophobic" or "anti-gay" in general. Others may feel differently.