Openly Gay Man Backed For Obama Naval Secretary

Openly Gay Man Backed For Naval Secretary
Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times
Dec. 18, 2008



*****

More at above link.

Not a set thing yet, but I hope he does get chosen. It could do a lot towards gaining support for getting DADT repealed, among other things.

To throw my meager support behind Mr. White. :toast:

Then, I hope he follows up by eliminating the stupid DADT crap and just lets GLBT people serve their country without harrassment.

If I were, I'd get him to change that as his first act, assuming that he was in a position to do so.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Obama has him testify for the repeal of DADT. Powell wrote DADT when he was considering running for President as a Republican. Now that he's come over to the side of sanity and added to the fact that it's now 2008 and not 1993, I would not be surprised if he has changed. A lot of people who supported DADT back then have come around.

appoint an "openly gay man" to the position of Secretary of the Navy? Or is that not considered a "military" position?

on edit: Typo

The SECNAV, though, does not make any operational calls. He's the person who is the "civilian control" of the service on behalf of the SECDEF, but it's the JCS that makes the operational decisions. The SECNAV is the chief "booster" of the Navy and this guy is well-suited to that kind of role.

My question, though, is, how can they dust off all of the "DADT Repeal" work that we did back when we thought Al Gore was going to be President, and implement it, when people like Rick Warren are being intimately associated with this Presidency?

And how are they going to resolve the issue of marriage benefits at the FEDERAL level, particularly in light of the California stiff-arm? Will every gay Servicemember take leave to wed in marriage-friendly Massachusetts? Will the Services pay them at the "married" rate? Will gay couples get base housing?

Or will they say "Yes, you can serve openly....and you can even get married in states and countries where it's permitted...but we're NOT gonna recognize it. NO 'married money' for you--SEPARATE and UNEQUAL."

It's an interesting road to go down, now, isn't it?

I hope I'm in error and merely sardonic...but I think he'll go with the "safer" Quid Pro Quo pick, myself, and give this guy an Undersecretarial role in the DON. It avoids this whole issue, for a time, anyway:

...makes Rick Warren intimately associated with the presidency.

And if someone who gives a short prayer is intimately associated, then what about the other people that will be working with Obama every day? People like Nancy Sutely, for example, an openly gay woman who is heading his environmental council.

As for your other questions, they do warrant some thought. I would hope that gay couples and servicepeople would get all that you mention, but it may be another battle that has to be fought after they are allowed to serve openly.

I sent a message at Change.Gov letting them know of my support for Mr. White. If more people do this, perhaps he'll get better than an Undersecretary post.

Rick Warren is being touted as the New Billy Graham--Pastor to Presidents of the 21st Century. Is this Inaugural event his audition?

Time will tell. The Rick Warren business isn't "change," though--it's business as usual, seamy, sleazy, and entirely deliberate. Not terribly surprising if one paid attention during the campaign (the South Carolina primary, particularly). It's just one more expectation-lowering exercise ahead of the Inauguration.

And Obama's got a way to go to match Clinton's record of gay appointments.

Bush appointed a lot of gays, too. The only difference is that most of his appointments were closeted!

If I were betting, I wouldn't bet on White, not for the top job...but anything can happen. It would be nice, but I think Garcia has a slight edge.

Interesting old article (only encompasses Bush's first term) with a few statistics, here: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/9-17/news/national/gayrebs.cfm

Lest we forget, Warren OPENS the ceremony with an invocation and Joe Lowery CLOSES the ceremony with the benediction. From a symbolic standpoint, Warren is emblematic of the outgoing Cheney/Bush years and Lowery (GLBT friendly) is emblematic of the incoming Obama/Biden years. FROM anti-gay and TO pro-gay.

The outrage being voiced by people of conscience (and some of self-interest) on the 'left' has attracted the attention of the M$M and the Obama 'team' ... and that's GOOD. (Dissent is essential.)

You mean the way Bill Ayers was intimately associated with Obama? You might have a point if Obama was appointing Warren or another homophobic bigot to a position in the civil rights division at Justice, but he's not, and my guess is that he won't.

I don't like Warren at all. He IS a bigot. I should know. I was one, and mayhap still am one, as are most of us. He's also a manipulative idiot, and his writings are trite pap for the stupid and spiritually bereft. But by defining him simply as "the bigot" and nothing more is only slightly more palatable to me than defining a homosexual only by their homosexuality.

Having grown up in a place where bigotry of all forms was rampant (against homosexuals, minorities, and women to name a few) I have always maintained that isolating and denigrating hardcore bigots only reinforces their bigotry, but that there is a fine line between accepting the person and accepting the bigotry. Warren's got his platform now. I hope he'll put it to good use, but I'm not holding my breath.

On the subject of gay marriage, you know as well as I that supporting it is the political equivalent of sarin gas in American politics. The fact that something as odious as prop 8 could pass in a state as ostensibly liberal as California should leave us no illusions about what we are up against with these fools.

"God Damn America" while he stands on a flag? Or did his invitation get lost in the mail?

That's a lame attempt on your part to confuse the issue totally, and convolute a media effort (Obama/Ayers) with an effort that Obama is actively FOSTERING ON HIS OWN. Obama doesn't have to "appoint" Warren. He personally, actively chose him to speak...at HIS Inauguration. It IS an endorsement of sorts, like it or not.

If he invited Ayers to speak, would you see THAT as a "signal?" How about Rev. Wright?

No one held a gun to Obama's head and insisted he invite this homophobic, anti-choice, Dino and Fred guy to speak at the Inauguration of the President, after all. If he wanted to be passively inclusive, he could have just given him a front row seat, maybe let him sit close to Michelle so the cameras might pick him up.

Letting him speak is a signal, and it's a decidedly Right-of-Center one. It's not "change" either. Obama is busily lowering expectations, formally moving to the right, and the far left are looking at a pile of crap and still thinking there's a pony in there.

There IS no pony. Just because Obama has a bit more melanin than previous office holders, that does not make him more liberal. And there ARE liberals who aren't "getting" that, as a function of their own bigotry (erroneously believing that black MUST equal liberal). They're refusing to see the obvious. Again, though, I don't "blame" Obama--he's made it clear, since as far back as the South Carolina primary, that he's against full rights for gays. I guess they're expendable, or something.

I don't think isolating and denigrating bigots reinforces them. Shunning WORKS. The Aryan Nation are less strong since people decided enough is enough with that "tolerance of bigots" crap, and we're better off for it.

If he invited Ayers to speak, would you see THAT as a "signal?" How about Rev. Wright?

Not particularly, no. Furthermore, you're focused on one person out of a pantheon who will be speaking or performing at the inaguration, and has been noted elsewhere the other religious figure chosen for the silly religious element of the program is a strong proponent of gay rights. Does THAT send a signal? I think a lot of people here are trying to divine things from tea leaves which are not really there for the divining.

Just because Obama has a bit more melanin than previous office holders

It's interesting that you should bring up race. I don't recall any other Democratic candidate's stance on equal rights being questioned to the same extent as Obama's, even though his position is effectively identical to every other Democratic Presidential candidate in the last three cycles, and his goofy religious advisors are no more goofy than the others'. Wonder why that is.

I don't think isolating and denigrating bigots reinforces them. Shunning WORKS.

Shunning IDEAS works. Shunning individuals is a sure way to fail. And in seeing Warren only as a homophobe and nothing more, you're giving him far more power than he deserves.

Look, I understand that you're upset. And I sympathize. Given the circumstances (like the recent passage of prop 8) I think we've got every right to be pissed off. But let's temper it with reality.

He has repeatedly said he hardly knows Ayers, even when that's not terribly true, and he's played down, and later repudiated, his relationship with Wright.

He's NOT DOING THAT with Warren. He's giving the guy a place of honor.

I bring up race because all of the caucasian apologists for Obama here make the assumption that BECAUSE he has melanin, that, why, he MUST be liberal. It's caucasian bigotry, you see. Or maybe you don't. He's NOT a liberal--he's a center rightist, and he'll tack as far right as he can get away with, until his "base" starts screaming and shrieking in real anger.

I am not talking about "other Democratic candidates" because they are not the President-Elect. IF they were, and they hired that Bigot Preacher to do the Invocation at their Inaugural, I'd have a problem with THEM, too. That dog ain't hunting. Let's stick to the guy who got the job, not "What If" scenarios.

I'm also not questioning Obama's "stance on equal rights." At all. See, he's not surprising me, here. I KNOW how he feels about our gay friends and relatives--he doesn't think they should have the "equal right" of marriage. He has SAID SO. And I've had a problem with it, all along. This isn't a big secret, and it isn't UNFAIR to note it just because he has a bit of melanin. See, my problem isn't so much with Obama, who was clear on his bigoted stance, as it is with the Faux Liberal (except for those queers, who are expendable) caucasian cheerleaders who insist that he doesn't MEAN what he says. He does mean it. He's not stupid, he's not helpless, he's not being "controlled by powerful forces" or bullied in any way. He's large, in charge, and he's running the show. NO EXCUSES. If you want the title, you take the hits.

I've never once seen anyone here "excuse" George Bush because, awww, he wasn't really in charge, he had "other forces" telling him what to do, and "other GOP candidates" were "just as bad." I mean, come on. There are people here who actually believe that Bush has the power to make law, and is the Devil Himself. Yet Obama is a helpless puppy, "put upon" by evil, unnamed forces who want to make him look bad. He should be excused, because, awww, he's cute...and, uh...CHANGE!!! Yeah!! And he fist bumps!!! Hope, Change!! Come on. If he was your candidate, you own him--and his policies, which, as I have said, were NOT a secret. The man does not think gay people deserve equal rights under the law. That's just FACT. He wants to throw them BS bones, but he wants them to remain Second Class Citizens when it comes to marriage rights. That's intolerant. It's bigoted, too. No matter what hue he sports.

I don't think it's enough to just shun ideas. Hating people deserve the stiff arm, too. We shun the PEOPLE in the Aryan Nation, as well as their ideas--and that works. We ridicule the "God Hates Fags" jerks--I didn't see Michael Moore trying to "understand" those assholes in his clever "Awful Truth" segment on them. The ones who want to come around and see the error of their ways, why, they LEAVE the group. You don't Kumbayah with haters, or even deal with them (unless you're Phil Donohue or Geraldo Rivera and want cheap ratings) --it's how you get your head blown off, or your rights abrogated. You don't give an inch to haters. It simply makes you an enabler and a collaborator if you do.

Rick Warren IS a hater. He's a hater who smiles, and wraps his hate in sweet words. He encourages others to hate, too. Obama made a big mistake. Our gay brothers and sisters are MAD. They also vote, and they have money, too--money they'll use to support candidates who don't think they belong under the bus.

I don't blame them.

And you accuse other people of being bigots? Take a look in the mirror.

:shrug:

Twice, in fact, to make sure I wasn't dreaming when I read the phrase "caucasian apologists." And the bizarre stereotype that this poster appears to have invented because Obama is black. (See how easy that was to say without repeated melanin references, eh?)

Bigotry is bigotry regardless of the political agenda to which it is attached. I don't particularly blame the poster, as I'd be pissed off to (and am pissed off, but not in the same way.)

Calling me names doesn't advance the discussion--it only makes you look petty.

Though I struggle to see how you can defend characterizing the opinions of a group of people based on their skin color as anything other than bigotry, and that is exactly what you have done. To wit,

I bring up race because all of the caucasian apologists for Obama here make the assumption that BECAUSE he has melanin, that, why, he MUST be liberal.

If you can explain to me how characterizing the opinions of an entire group of people based on their skin color is anything other than bigotry, I'm all ears.

Edit: I don't consider calling someone a bigot to be an epithet. Most people ARE bigoted. As I have said myself, I bear some taint from the hardcore bigots amongst whom I grew up, and I do struggle with this. However, I think acknowledging one's own bigotry is the surest path to defeating it. You obviously have some blatant bigotry, as do I, as do most people, and it's certainly nothing to be ashamed of. But let's not pretend it's something other than what it is.

And again, read for comprehension. You're not doing that, if you think I'm "characterizing the opinions of an ENTIRE group of people." I'm not--I'm characterizing the opinions of a small subset of people, actually.

If you are going to "artfully bold" to make your point, you'd better bold the entire salient phrase, to wit: all of the caucasian apologists for Obama here.... I underlined the key word that you apparently missed in your eagerness to excoriate me.

FYI, Most DUers ARE white. We've done polls over the years, surely you've seen them--the result is not a reflection of the general population, but rather, huge numbers of tree hugging whities. And the people here at DU, most of whom are white, are OVERWHELMINGLY eager to forgive President-Elect Fist Bump for dissing gay people. If that doesn't work, they suggest that he's being manipulated, or they'll blame someone else (It's Cliiiinton!!! The Dee El CEEEE!!!!!) for FORCING him to invite Warren, or insist he has a secret plan...or some stupid EXCUSE. They infantalize him, strip him of responsibility for his actions (and they ARE his actions), paint him as a victim of dark forces, (and in effect, suggest that he's not "really" in charge) and they refuse to acknowlege that his attitude is...BIGOTED.

I'm not being "bigoted" by stating these facts. They're facts, you see. Look around, they're being expressed. An overwhelming number of white people here are angered at the gay people, and the friends and family of gay people, "harshing their mellow" and calling out Obama for...oh, what's the word? Yes--BIGOTRY.

Being deliberately obtuse doesn't change the reality of what is happening, and what is being signaled to the Christian Right, with this Warren Invocation.

But nice try, trying to push the issue off onto a discussion about me, and how I'm evil and bigoted because I don't happen to go along with the Bullshitting Cheerleaders with their shovels, looking for that pony and getting angry at anyone who dares speak a truth--that Obama, as he has OFTEN said, doesn't believe that gays deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.

That's not on. I don't play that game.

Facts are pesky and persistent things.

Whatever. And I've gone out of my way to point out that I in no way consider you evil, bad, or unreasonable. But there's no point continuing discussion with you on this topic because you're simply pissed off and venting, which is fine, but I'm bored of it now.

You went out of your way to call me a bigot after not bothering to read what I wrote, and then you get angry because I give Obama a knickname that decisively identifies him--as though THAT, TOO is somehow "evil" or wrong. He fist bumps. No one else does, except Mrs. Fist Bump. And you portentiously repeat it, as though I'm a naughty child to be scolded. Gee, it would seem YOU are the one with the Fist Bumping problem, here--why get mad about it, unless you think there's something WRONG with fist bumping?

Or are you of of the attitude that elected officials should be worshipped, like Gods? Nicknames are verboten, eh?

But again, you aren't reading for comprehension, or you have a singular and profound inability to understand the written word.

I'm not at all "pissed," nor am I "venting." I was having a discussion, actually.

You were busy defending the indefensible and tossing the occasional snark and invective at me for not going along with your viewpoint.

You have a nice day, now.

many in here are as bigoted as those they crow about.

I don't recall any other Democratic candidate's stance on equal rights being questioned to the same extent as Obama's, even though his position is effectively identical to every other Democratic Presidential candidate in the last three cycles

Said something pretty close in another thread myself... mmmm hmmmm...

1. Obama won the Democratic nomination.

2. Obama won the election.


What, we're supposed to examine John Edwards' or Hillary Clinton's specific views and subject them to the same scrutiny? To what end, precisely?

If they got elected, instead of Obama, and invited Rick Frigging Warren to do the Invocation...what? They'd be given a "pass?" That it's only poor Obama that would be subject to questioning of such a poor choice of speaker?

I hope I'm misinterpreting, and not reading the "Ewww, he's getting grief ONLY because he's blaaaaaaaack" whine in your comments.

He's not getting grief because he's black. He's getting grief because he's the frigging President-ELECT (those other candidates, you see, are NOT), and he's RESPONSIBLE for this choice of speaker.

That's the bottom line. Mmmmmm hmmmmm, indeed.

and within certain segments of the gay community for participating in a forum with none other than Rick Warren.

"Ewww, he's getting grief ONLY because he's blaaaaaaaack" whine in your comments.

The audacity of you calling my comment a "whine" but if I did this to you and every single out of control poster on this board screaming for Obama's head because of a 120-second speech you'd be huffing and puffing so hard you wouldn't be able to see your monitor.

The hypocrisy, dishonesty and hysteria over this issue is RIDICULOUS. I have seen people on this board go so far as to even try to pretend that "MLK never dealt with people he didn't agree with!!1" and "MLK never compromised1!!" to prove their point denying every single thing that the civil rights movement and MLK worked for in order to try to justify the idiocy over all of this.

And you can scream, hoot, holler and do whatever you like to try to say "it's not because Obama's black. We promise!1!" and that may well be the case. But for too many folks watching all of this in shock and awe, we cannot think of a single PLAUSIBLE reason for this level of panic and hysteria over someone who was a friend of (certain) Democrats not even 12 months ago.

And on that I say ---- MMMMMM HMMMMMM...

The bill of goods that the American people were sold was as follows: Hope and Change. And the Change was supposed to be of the variety you can BELIEVE IN.

The man is falling short.

Hillary Clinton isn't the President. If she were, and she hauled Rick Warren up to kick off her party, I'd want a to kick her ass too. MLK was likely a bigot when it came to this issue, and he's DEAD, too.... so any speculation on what he might have to say is pointless. I don't think any discussion of what Lincoln, or Socrates, might have thought is germane, either.

It's not hypocrisy, dishonesty or hysteria to be PISSED OFF ABOUT THIS. Apparently, your ox, or the ox of those you care about, isn't being gored, so you don't give too much of a shit about it. But this Rick Warren clown is a vicious, mendacious asshole who waxes eloquently about the inferiority of women and Jews in addition to his belief that gays are evil.

You don't consort with people like that--you just don't. Particularly after you run on an INCLUSIVE platform of Hope/Change/Believe that apparently has turned out to be bullshit. The only "audacity" I see is Obama's, thinking he could get away with that shit and that no one would pipe up about it.

I don't scream, hoot, or holler. I express my opinions in a straightforward fashion. If you don't like them, try not to burst a blood vessel--no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to accept them--like this country is holding a gun to the heads of gay Americans, and telling them to "get over" being second class citizens because, like, you know, Hope-Change-Believe...mmmmm-hmmmmmm?

MLK was likely a bigot when it came to this issue, and he's DEAD, too.... so any speculation on what he might have to say is pointless.

But I'm singling this point out because this was the one that ended our discussion. You are every bit as hateful, simple-minded and disgusting as the folks you scream about.

But this Rick Warren clown is a vicious, mendacious asshole

It sure as HELL takes one to know one. The reason you brayed so loudly when the other poster told you to "look in the mirror" when you frothed endlessly about bigots was because you knew what he said was the truth. And I'm just as bored with your useless, pointless, indiscriminate hate and anger as he was.

Best of luck to you and the 6 other idiots running endlessly around this site screaming at people who HAVE YOUR BACK. Fools...

...who needs a toilet brush?

So it looks like you might still need that toilet brush...

I thought you said you were done with this shit?

:hi:

That was a rather clever retort.

You seriously think MLK was FOR the rights of gays to marry? Get REAL. Grow up. Stop digging--there IS NO PONY. His church, to this day, is BIGOTED on this issue.

He was an AME MINISTER. Go on, call them up and ask them about church policy on this matter. Since you're unlikely to do that, here, let me give you a LINK and a cite (see, that's the way you have a DISCUSSION if you're an adult-not by stomping your foot, getting excessively dramatic, and calling me names): http://www.hrc.org/issues/4957.htm

“The official position of the African Methodist Episcopal Church is not in favor of the ordination of openly gay persons to the ranks of clergy in our church. This position reaffirms our published position papers, public statements and prior rulings, all of which indicate that we do not support the ordination of openly gay persons.”

Marriage Rights
At the AME national convention in July 2004, delegates voted to forbid ministers from performing marriage or civil union ceremonies for same-sex couples. The vote was unanimous, and there was no debate on the topic. The decision marked the first vote on the issue of marriage rights for same-sex couples by a predominantly African-American denomination.

Earlier in the year, before marriage became legal for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, the Rev. Gregory G. Groover Sr., an AME pastor in Boston, explained why AME preachers opposed the move. He was quoted in the Boston Globe on Feb. 10, 2004, as saying:
As black preachers, we are progressive in our social consciousness, and in our political ideology as an oppressed people we will often be against the status quo, but our first call is to hear the voice of God in our Scriptures, and where an issue clearly contradicts our understanding of Scripture, we have to apply that understanding.”


So tell me, Bright Eyes--who's being stupid or dishonest, now? You go on now, look in that mirror, dear.

You've made a fool of yourself.

Speaking the truth isn't hateful. Knowing your subject matter isn't hateful. And calling someone who is bigoted against gays a bigot isn't hateful either. Pity you have to paint reality with Rainbow Bright Lies about deceased civil rights leaders to get through the day. That says something interesting about you, doesn't it?

I find the truth preferable. Even when it's painful.

You might want to check the rules of this board on the issue of Gay Marriage. The policy of DU is to SUPPORT it. So kindly cease "braying" about what I should or should not do.

I suggest you get ahold of yourself and exercise a modicum of decorum, instead of calling people idiots and fools when you differ with them.

I assume you're referring to my comment here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4687770&mesg_id=4687889

Please tell me how it is untrue.

Doesn't matter anyway. I'm done with all of this bullshit

:hi:

I was waving goodbye at you, because you said you were done. Guess you're not. So, hi again!

:hi:

No one to wave or talk to you, eh?? Gotta start up something with someone who has no idea who you are and why you keep replying to them? I got it.

I love a charity case. C'mere you (obviously) friendless and lonely son of a gun!!

:hi: :* :hi: :* :hi: :* :hi:

Maybe love can fill your heart if not the gaping hole in your head.

Are we done yet?? Good! Bye now! :hi: (FYI This is a wave bye bye and not hello)

:hi:

and how it is played.

Their primary job is to advise the President and the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of the Navy oversees the operations of the Navy according to the wishes of the President and the Secretary of Defense.

And to answer your question (I posted a thread about this last night) there is nothing inconsistent about having Warren at the inauguration and repealing DADT. Obama is a politician which means that by nature he is in the business of getting votes. It makes sense that Obama can get the LGBT votes by repealing DADT as well as some religious conservatives by having Warren give the benediction at his inauguration. Not that I approve of Warren (I certainly don't) but I almost guarantee you that that is how Obama as well as any other politician that plays at this level makes such decisions.

Obama isn't a homophobe, he's a politician. He's going to play both sides of the issue until he can't do so anymore. That's simply how politicians act.

The authority rests with the President in his role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

However, if he gets bad advice from the Joint Chiefs (and he will ask them, and filter everything through the Chairman, who has a dual chain of command, reporting both to the President AND the SECDEF), they take the blame. Ask William Westmooreland!!

And when one says "The SECNAV oversees the OPERATIONS of the Navy" that doesn't mean the tactical and strategic work of ordering people to war. It means the gas for the ships, the PCS orders, the tooth stuff and the tail stuff, the beans and bullets, the stuff needed to make them a viable fighting force, the day-to-day "operations," that sort of thing. It's really "administrative," his job--it's all about ship and station MANAGEMENT, not "sending troops into battle."

Again, I think Obama will give this SECNAV job to his law school buddy who is out of work. We'll see.

Obama may not be a "homophobe," but he has stated that he does not believe that federal marriage benefits should accrue to people who are not heterosexual. He HAS said it, and he's cited RELIGIOUS justification in making his case. I think he does mean it. It's a "problem" with his gay constituency. They apparently didn't believe him the first ten pr twenty times he said it--the Warren Invocation is somewhat of a wake up call, and they're starting to believe he DOES, in fact, "mean it." I imagine if Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize it, he'd not stand in their way, but he will not be an advocate for Federal Marriage Benefits for homosexuals, and anyone who is hoping for that is whistling in the dark. If it happens, it will happen despite--not because of--him.

In any event, that issue isn't going away:

I say this because about 99% of the people who I have met that consider themselves a Democrat has absolutely no problem with gay marriage. Hell even the deeply religious people I know who consider themselves Democrats don't have a problem with gay marriage. The only Democrats who seem to have a problem with it are the ones who are elected officials.

In order for me to believe that Obama actually has faith based opposition to gay marriage I would also have to believe that being an elected official suddenly makes one have faith based opposition to gay marriage.

worry about what others do with their fiddly bits. I also can't understand why, in a country that flaps their gums so much about separation of church and state, that we even have lunatic traditions like Invocations and Benedictions anymore, never mind the offense of paying the salaries of House and Senate CHAPLAINS.

I'm just going on what Obama has said in the past. And as I note, I don't blame him--he didn't lie and he certainly hasn't "changed" his position on this subject. He stated a view, people insisted it was a "nudge wink" and he didn't mean it, and then they got annoyed when he hauled out his fundy buddy Pastor Rick.

As for the gay marriage bit, there are, apparently, a LOT of people who are opposed to it, and some of them have to be Dems. Otherwise, that ghastly abrogation in CA would not have been possible. It's a shame, really.

Do you know anybody or have even heard of anybody that opposed gay marriage while simultaneously opposing Proposition 8? Such a stance is so counter-intuitive that it's just logically impossible for it to be based on actual beliefs. You can't possibly be against legalizing gay marriage but simultaneously believe that a referendum supporting your beliefs should not be passed. Only someone who is seeking political office, such as Obama, could possibly arrive at such a stance.

let's weigh this with the Rick Warren fiasco. Obama is smart. If he appointed all left progressives and kept Warren out, the right wing would go crazy.

Sometimes you make concessions. Having Rick Warren speak placates the right wing and keeps the focus on this while he nominates White for Naval Secretary.

Sometimes I wonder if DUers just react emotionally to everything and NEVER stop to think deeper than the surface.

to include the neonazis in America.
same thing.

Bring. It. On.

:rofl:

Look at the job he holds. He interacts with retirees on a daily basis.

I'm betting Obama doesn't appoint the guy, though.

just askin.

A ballistic missile sub, of course!

..um, couldnt resist, you set yourself up for that one

"marriage" is a religion-centric condition.

"Civil union" is a government-centric condition, which would grant equal rights to the parties within.

Some religious groups want the use of "marriage" to remain as it always has. Why get immature and militant about it?

There are numerous words to describe what is essentially the same partnership. A pamphlet is a reading material. A magazine is a reading material. Both are reading materials. Some prefer the name 'pamphlet' and others prefer 'magazine'.

What if that's Obama's point of view?

What has he said about civil unions?

Indeed, Elton John is gay - go look up what he has to say on the issue of "marriage" vs "civil unions"? He's an interesting character, but unlike many on DU, he clearly understands.

http://www.celebitchy.com/21719/elton_john_is_against_gay_marriage_says_civil_unions_are_for_same_sex_couples/



And if people don't understand after this, I'll become a trooper of the Reality Police and get foul-mouthed and militant on their asses*.


* I won't for I am too civilized, hence this response, definitions within, and links to direct quotes as well instead of petty one-liners which are all too common by too many people, regardless of web sites visited.

In the UK, you can get married in the church (marriage) or you can do it up at the town hall (civil union).

The RIGHTS are the same.

In the US, the word "marriage" has a non-religious meaning at the Federal level.

That needs to be sorted out.

No one WANTS to sort it out, though. The Warren crowd want to deny FEDERAL "civil union/marriage" to gay people. They don't see a difference between getting married by the judge, or getting married by the preacher. They don't want those gay folks to have the opportunity to go in front of a judge and obtain federal benefits--THAT's their gripe. If it were simply a matter of being allowed to exclude gay people from getting married in their churches, why, they already can do that. If you don't follow the tenets of a church, you don't qualify to be a member.

See, civil partnerships only accrue benefits at the STATE level, not at the Federal level. So, your "civil union" spouse dies, and you can't access social security benefits based on his or her income, like heterosexual couples can--that is just one example.

It's separate, AND it's unequal.

Background:

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/get_informed/marriage_basics/why_marriage_matters.php

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070807/OPINION02/70806007/1037/OPINION02

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

civil unions do not afford as many benefits as marriage.

Answer: According to Lambda Legal Defense, more than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights. Even in the state of Massachusetts, the only US state with legalized gay marriage, most of the benefits of marriage do not apply, because the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government only recognizes marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife".

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

reason to take out your loneliness and bitterness on others.

Secondly, in his country, CUs really ARE about the same as a marriage, wrt rights.

That's not the case here. So long as federal benefits accrue only to those married, CUs do not in any way represent an equal condition. Not to mention that CUs are only in force in a handful of states.

If people are all skeeved by the term marriage being used for couple who are somehow different from them, well, really, they just need to get over it. It's not the fault of those seeking equality, after all - it's those feeling skeeved who have the problem.

Either the term marriage is only used for the religious ceremony and all civil unions are just that - and believe me, you'd hear far more straight people screaming about not being "married" - or marriage is the term for all.

Anything less may be a necessary evil on the way to equality (as happened here in CT), but we shouldn't kid ourselves that it in any way IS equality.

Marriage in this country is a civil institution. A religious ceremony carries absolutely no legal weight. A couple is not married until a certificate of marriage is filed with the government.

If religious fucknuts are so skeeved out about sharing the word "marriage" with a bunch of homos, then THEY CAN COME UP WITH THEIR OWN FUCKING WORD. I have just as much right to the word "marriage" as any god-worshipping retard, and a much better argument for keeping it. It is not immature or militant to expect the same rights as everyone else. It is immature and militant to attempt to deny others those rights.

Your support for separate but equal is noted. Doesn't matter if you can't use the same drinking fountain as long as you get your water, right?

Civil unions in England are not the same as civil unions in America. And Elton John is NOT the Queen of gay people. His opinion, like yours, is noted.

would be terrific, boy. That would send quite a positive message!

Pardon me for being cynical about Mr. Obama and GLBT people right now.

I will be hugely shocked if this happens. Hugely.

:evilgrin:

he picked him because he highly qualified to do the job.

DU you are slipping!

I'm disappointed.

-Hoot