As Lousy As Obama's Choice of Rick Warren Was, Threads Here Rationalizing & Excusing It Are Worse.

Last night I was truly disappointed to see how quickly some felt compelled to rally behind a very hurtful decision by Barack Obama against the GLBT community in selecting an outspoken bigot to be honored and spotlighted in front of the entire world next month.

Let's clear the smoke and the bullshit, shall we?

Rick Warren is not just a homophobe who keeps his loathing of my GBLT sisters and brothers to himself.

Rick Warren has built his career making horrible statements about my community. His hateful comments inspire discrimination and violence against a vulnerable group of Americans who still are denied fundamental rights in employment, housing, military retirement benefits, and even the right to a fair trial.

Rick Warren has used his power and influence and money to systematically oppress my family and my loved ones.

The threads that have appeared here at the DU in the last 24 hours to defend Obama's choice have grasped at every straw to defend the indefensible. And the threads have been all over the map in offering knee-jerk "rationale" to honoring Warren, and thereby insulting GLBT Americans.

Let me clear some of the air about some of these threads:

1.) Rick Warren did not help Obama win the election or help him carry Virginia.

2.) Barack Obama did not pick Rick Warren to win him over from his loathing of my community or his underwriting hateful campaigns against us.

3.) Barack Obama is not "balancing" the Inauguration with Rick Warren. If that was his intention, then he should also honor a racial bigot like David Duke, as BlueBear has pointed out.

4.) It's not just a "little thing" that some of us are "whining" about as a surprising amount of posters have said.

Are you interested in knowing what's almost as bad as being fired from your job because you are gay, being beaten in a parking lot because you are gay, being evicted from your apartment because you are gay, being discharged from the military because you are gay, being thrown out of your home as a child because you are gay, being bullied every day at school because you are gay, being kept from your companion in a hospital because you are gay, being denied a funeral because you are gay, and more?

You want to know what's almost as bad as all of that? Coming to a "progressive" blog and seeing how quickly millions of gay Democrats are rapidly dismissed by a heterosexual majority of pseudo cyber liberals who never miss a chance to weigh in about how my community should "prioritize" our concerns, how we "over-react" to events, how we "should focus on the big picture" instead of our "narrow agenda". Such pompous "advice" which is usually replete with homophobic giveaways in your language is, at least, informative of where you stand.

eom

It's disgusting.

That's been apparent since the Democdatic Primary Debates. It amazes me that people are surprised at this behavior on his part.

Certainly he's head and shoulders above McCain or any potential Republican nominee. And he will be head and shoulders above McCain for the Gay community as well, in my opinion. But to have imagined he would be somewhat of a transformative candidate who would finally right all these wrongs, well when was that in the cards?

Bryant

but you can depend on the Republicans. They tell you what they're going to do and they do it. That's much easier to prepare for and fight against.

With people like Obama, you can't depend on them. You never know whether they're going to support you or kick you to the curb. That's a shitty way to live.

gay people are among the first he dumps under the bus.

(Straight woman here)

If so:

Rick Warren is the current "it" man in God circles and Obama *obviously* has decided that when it comes to choosing who he's going to piss off on this matter, has chosen to piss off the 10% and their friends and family. He will spend the rest of his presidency choosing who he will piss off, as well.

I'm so sorry for everyone who's hurt by this particular decision.

If he does spend his presidency, deciding on a daily basis who to piss off, as you suggest, then he is a man without principles -- someone we can't depend on.

I'm sorry, but I cannot support someone I can't depend on.

After all, if you're going to kiss up to Jebus-lovers at the expense of "the base" (hmmm, maybe we need a new word/phrase there?) in the name of unity, far better to do it on day one than year 4, going into another election.

On edit. That's looking close to an excuse, which is not my intention. Overall, I can only say that if you didn't imagine Obama was capable of such cynicism, you weren't watching very closely during the primaries.

I just thought he would wait until he was in office before he pulled this shit.

Oh well, it frees up my day on Jan 20.

He won't win over any of the "Jebus-lovers" until he adopts their platform. Republicans will run a Huckabee or a Palin and every fundie will do what they've done for over 25 years now: vote Republican.

LGBT people and their families, however, might just decide to withhold donations and not volunteer the next cycle.

I don't think Obama can afford to keep burning bridges in hopes of winning over the Right. Clinton made the same mistake and look at how his second term went. Give the Right an inch and they'll take a mile.

No one in my family is gay and if Obama throws gays to the wolves I won't support him either and neither will my wife.

You have more friends than you know.

This is one of the strangest political decisions I have ever seen. The public has thoroughly rejected the right wing, the religious right has lost its power over people and Reaganomics have been repudiated. The people are through with that nonsense, why aren't we? Other than a hard core, 30% at most, who will never come around no matter how much kissing up we do to them.

There is no political need to cater to the right. It can only revive and rejuvenate them, with nothing to gain in return.

There are people who are going to vote against the Democrats until and unless the Democrats adopt the religious right platform, as you say. They can't be won over, everybody else already has - they voted against the right wing. One would think that it was the Left that had been repudiated and banished to the wilderness, rather than the right.

How could I? I'd have to be insane.

And Obama is well aware of that.

That's an approximation of the gay population in the U.S. Add to that the multiple millions of "straight" Americans that actively support civil rights for the LGBT community and you're talking probably 50% or higher. The fact that this comes on the heels of Prop. H8 -- wounds that are still open and bleeding -- he could not have made a worse choice. Piss off a million here, a million there and pretty soon your talking one-term presidency.

if the LGBT community is 10% of the population, (is that data in a Census report?) factor in friends and family members and the 10% percentage has increased substantially. Smart Political Judgment? hmmm... Not so much .

I'm irritated by the number of posts telling me to shut up and sit down and wait nicely for my human rights.

My early responses to the Warren thing were fairly mild. I said I thought it was a mistake and I was ready to move on, until I encountered dozens of threads and hundreds of posts telling me that (1) I'm a pervert, (2) it's my own fault I have no rights because I could always pretend to be straight, (3) it's my own fault I have no rights because I'm not willing to move to the one or two states that currently give me rights, (4) I don't deserve rights because I haven't suffered as much as some other people in the history of the world, (5) it's rude and arrogant of me to suggest that my rights are important as other people's rights, (6) it's bigoted of me not to want to welcome bigots, (7) if I would just make nice everyone would give me rights, they promise, (8) if I wait a couple of years I'll have all the rights I need unless I'm rude and ruin the surprise, (8) it's understandable that people don't like queers because we engage in perverted sex acts, (9) the Bible says I'm an abomination and if I disagree I'm guilty of religious intolerance, (10) my needs aren't important as those of other people's, (11) my pet issue is going to have to wait while smart people work on the real problems facing the world, (12) I must be racist if I disagree with Obama on anything, (13) I must wish that McCain was elected since I disagree with Obama about something, (14) I must have been Hillary supporter and this is nothing but faux outrage on my part, (15) I'm an Obama hater because I disagree with him about something, (16) I'm ruining it for everyone.

Repeat hundreds of times. Every single one of those statements has been made here on DU - most of them numerous times. That's why I'm in a bad mood about this.

just sayin

If on the other hand you think issues and performance are important, well, you'd better STFU.

I worry about my son constantly. In a country with people who could do to Matthew Shepard (and others
not so well known) what they did, I do not see how Obama could invite this bigoted phony "Christian"
to have a place in his inaugural. It indicates a complete lack of sensitivity to the war over basic civil rights that is going on in this country between the smug, self-righteous, hypocritical Christian bigots and the gay community.

It was an extremely bad choice.

And your son is so lucky to have you as his mom. I didn't have that, but I honor it whenever I see it. Thanks!

was made so much easier when he finally came out to us when he was in 10th grade. It explained everything. I wish he had felt comfortable coming out sooner; it would have saved a lot of anguish
for all of us.

A straight mom looking out for her gay kid is doing the most important work of all. The worst thing about being a gay child is the sense of isolation. Knowing that a parent is behind you all the way means more than you can possibly imagine. I didn't have it, but your son is so lucky he does.

You may not realize it, but you're making a HUGE difference in your son's life, both present and future. I can't praise you enough.

:toast:

Our community knows who stands with us.

You have no idea how powerful it speaks to my community when "straight dudes" and straight women stand with us. It is an honor to have known you all these years here. You've never felt a need to "lecture" my GLBT brothers and sisters: You just stand with us. Thanks.

:patriot: :toast:

This issue is far too important to be poked fun at or downplayed as I have seen here on DU of all places. It burns me up when I hear words like 'lifestyle' or 'choice'. Just a few days ago two brothers were attacked and one was killed because some hominids thought they were gay. Rick Warren is one of those guilty of planting the seeds of hatred that lead to such crimes and by catering to his ilk, Obama signals a lack of concern for the oppression of homosexuals, even though I'm sure he isn't a homophobe himself. This was not only a very dumb move, but also a cowardly and despicable one.

When I read someone on DU saying it isn't important or that gays should get their priorities straight, I hear, "Shut up and get to the back of the bus!".

We really still have a very long way to go as a species.

And a very, very well written OP.

he also did not work against him. That is a big improvement over the likes of Fawell and Robertson.

Obama and McCain. Was that is your idea of not working against Obama?

inflated, caustic, hate provoking, intolerant, self grandiosity, overweight and full of puffery, tv type Evangelical, manipulative, hoping to convert Obama, untruthful, fake, hoping to get more power. ALL of these struck me in regards to Warren's physical, facial and body language observations. This comes from someone who has done a ton of portraits and photographs people. I am straight, married and swing progressive on many things. I think Obama meant well but should have given this more thought. I hope to heck this man does not hang around the White House. Very sad. Is there not another Evangelical that could be found somewhere? Someone who is not power hungry??????

I think Obama wanted someone who was not super critical of the Right but I think Wallis would have been a better choice for sincerity.

Major recommendation

He would have done much worse without the cheating.

I understand Obama wanting to make the "right" moves as far as cabinet choices and the political chess game that he is constantly playing with the right and their media. However, I loathe Rick Warren and what he stands for. Warren's support for Prop H8 sickens me. I cannot help but think that Obama and his staff thought that they had made a political coup with this choice and were willing to upset their LGBT supporters. I will wait until Obama is in office to see what kind of a job he and his administration does before I say anything about the job that they are doing. However, that does not mean that anyone should be silent and not critical about the selection of Warren.

I am with the OP in my dismay, disgust and anger over this choice. I am straight, married and have an eight year old son. If my son were to tell me that he is gay one day I will not turn my back on, or be disappointed in him. He is my son, always will be, and the love that I have for him would not alter in any way. I believe that the LGBT community are entitled to all of the rights and respect that their heterosexual brothers and sisters have. To me Warren and his ilk are the antithesis to my beliefs and an affront to me as a human being. No excuses should be made for this decision IMO.

DU has been over run by a herd of "Centrists".
What do you expect from people who are proud to claim that they are Half-Republican?

I just don't get how the inauguration is a place for his whole reaching-across, etc. If he wanted to invite Warren as part of a group of religious leaders from across the American spectrum, that would be one thing, and I could go with that. This, however, just makes no sense.

I've been finding DU a less meaningful place to inhabit recently, but have read a few threads in recent days. What I read last night was troubling. There are many comments that I could make about Rick Warren and why he should not be participating in the events in January. I also have been tempted to respond to some of the more thoughtless things I've read here from others, including people that I have grown to both like and respect over the years. Instead, it's probably better if I just remain silent for the most part. However, your OP deserves an appropriate response -- and so I thank you, very much.

We know who our friends are and you are one.

If some people have a different, even wrong, idea, they need to be debated, and set on the better path. This should be done using their words. Not undermining the whole conversation by denying debate.

This is not one of those fabled political "grey areas" full of "nuance" that Democrats are so famous for. This is a straight-up, binary question: are GLBTers human beings, or something less?

I just don't understand how that's debatable (and I'm a straight white male, BTW). Maybe the HOW of the issue is debatable, as in "HOW does the government allow for the full spectrum of human rights to apply to the GLBT community in terms of legal documents, legal standing, etc.?" However, as far as I'm concerned, the WHAT, the WHY, the WHERE, and especially the WHEN (i.e "right fucking now") of the issue are not up for debate.

What constitutes full civil rights?
What constitutes equal civil rights?
What are civil rights?
What is full equal civil rights?

Is NAFTA for example attempting to step us into giving more civil rights to people from poorer countries, rights to a civilized wage compared to the rest of the world? If that could be a civil right, then is there to be no more debate because: "Either you're FOR full and equal civil rights for all humans, or you're a bigot."

EDIT ADD: I miss your coolzip dance videopic.

if someone isn't offended by Rick Warren, or even likes Rick Warren, it doesn't mean they are a bigot. Imho.

I agree that there is no room for debate about whether GLBT community is a community of human beings, however, the "debate" is about whether we are going to enforce civil rights. So far, the country has failed. Ironically, this is an issue of religious freedom as well as sexual freedom. As a UU, my religious freedom to participate in a wedding of two same sexed couples that is recognized by the state as marriage is violated. This is a powerful argument for the GLBT community. Why should the state allow a certain set of "Christians" define marriage? My church defines marriage as a union between two adults. Why should that union, and label, not be recognized? Why is the state getting involved in defining marriage?

It is commonly overlooked that not all Christians believe that marriage is between a man and a women. It is also commonly overlooked that not all religions believe the same. Thus, those religions should be allowed to practice their rituals and beliefs without state intervention. What we have here is the state establishing religion via the institution of the family. It needs to be exposed as such.

If any organizers want to holla I have some tactics and arguments that will be effective. I can model them to specific conditions. I am pragmatic and issue specific in my tactics and arguments, so don't expect any abstract heady rhetoric. Real organizers with appropriate information and goal specification only, please. I can't work miracles and will tell you if I don't see a viable solution. I won't be testing ideas or new tactics.

?

Live it up.

...Therefore no comparison.

Perhaps you're reading faster than you can comprehend.

You can show me the way!

There are people who will say anything. Our air is a solid, not gaseous. We don't torture. Saddam has WMDs.

There are others who through logic find common ground and build better unions.

You're one of the former, and hopefully falling out of a state of confusion.

"If some people have a different, even wrong, idea, they need to be debated, and set on the better path. This should be done using their words. Not undermining the whole conversation by denying debate."

But now you say "When one debater invokes bad logic, as you do, then it's not good."

Let me know when you decide which position of the two you're adopting. :-)

And yes, bad logic is not good. Does this seem remedial to you, at all?

Right now, for example, we're not having a good debate because of bad logic. I'm only continuing, not for the sake of debate, but for the sake of helping you discover your need for further help.

Alas, I must leave my computer connection for a while.

Night.

You are being schooled.

As to that second part, I'm only too happy to play the part of the teacher.

Night night.

Normally some presence of logic on both sides would be required for that.

which we can reach with real human feelings.

It helps to know their facts, and some facts they seem to ignore, but most especially, how to remind them of those facts. Then it can be a breeze.

The real problem is that political money has entered the mix behind the scenes in insidious ways.

If you disagree on even the most base issues, how can there be rational discussion? Hell, fundamentalists disagree on the idea of debate itself! There is no open inquiry allowed, so how would you even begin?

Referring to this as being a 'breeze' tells me that you've likely never had any real experience in it.

1. base issues
Sure, there can be discussion-ending issues, unless you realize there are really many paths to continue discussion. For Christians, the belief of in-errancy of the Bible for example might stop some people. But, instead of arguing errors, why not go to a rich book full of other points, some of which can support your position. Deeper example concerning gays, the story of Ruth, or "It is not good for man to be alone", and others.

2. debate itself, not open
Yes, they don't want to hear certain things about errancy ad naseum. Look at DU. We don't allow the CON posters who could start with.. That Bill Clinton, but instead start with.. That stupid, slime bucket, sex addict, .... (need I include more?). And so we ban them. Our debate is not open. Neither is theirs. (For the record, I'm a big fan of Bill Clinton, faults and all.)

3. doubt my experience
Fine. I doubt your sincerity in saying that.

If empirical knowledge is completely discounted from the start, what basis do you have to continue on? Once you start arguing over bible passages, you've accepted their faulty framework (as an attempt to 'reach' them, yes, I understand). It's like when people argue that the Iraq War was wrong because it was handled incompetently - that accepts the framework that the war would have somehow been okay if things 'went well'.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you don't argue the base issues (which are really what you disagree on in the first place), no real progress is going to be made.

"...you've accepted their faulty framework ..."

Well, you don't need to accept their faulty framework... You can, however, acknowledge it instead and treat as their empirical knowledge or dispense with further empiricism as unnecessary. You can even acknowledge it as false, but that you understand that it is theirs to hold. It's harder to debate that way, but no one promised it would be easy.

Who will be debating Rick Warren at the inauguration?

nwmhtt

I voted to exclude certain ideas from government, to exclude the people promoting those ideas from having access and influence, from having a platform, from being given any legitimacy at all.

I voted to exclude bigotry.

I voted to exclude torture.

I voted to exclude war crimes.

I voted to exclude corporate domination of the government.

I voted to exclude off-shoring of wealth and jobs.

I voted to exclude bailing out the wealthy and powerful.

I voted to exclude Reaganomics.

I voted to exclude privatization.

I voted to exclude the war on the poor.

I voted to exclude the destruction of organized Labor.

I voted to exclude profiteering on medicine and food.

I voted to exclude neglect of the homeless and the suffering.

I believe this is what the people voted for, as well.

"Inclusion" means welcoming in those who have been previously excluded, not welcoming in those who have dominated the media and the government for years.

Whether we like it or not, half this country are at least LGBT ignorant, if not downright homophobic - either on religious grounds or by simple bigotry.

What a bunch of people seem to be saying here, is that these people and groups of people like evangelical Christians for example, should have no place and the new president should not be "their president too" as he said he would be in his acceptance speech.

I guess some people feel like exclusion and disengagement is the way to move forward -- a huge number of people have wrongheaded and ignorant ideas, so let's just completely shun them, push them to the fringe, and marginalize them and expect that to lead to a social structure in which we really do move past homophobic ignorance and toward greater unity and acceptance.

I don't think that works. I think the more you disenfranchise people, rather than gently bringing them along in a process that they might even be resistant to, the worse divides become. Of course we look at prop 8 and other horrible acts and say "what do you think that was?" Well, it was disenfranchising, of course! Terrible. But guess what, we are the enlightened ones. And I know it sucks, and I know that we would like nothing more than to treat these assholes the exact same way they've treated us, and exclude them form everything, never try to dialog, never try to bring them along, never try to work together, never gently try to move them into less ignorance. But we know better. And we need to act better if its ever going to work. It's the only way it does work. Period.

Rick Warren may not have been the right call to represent the attitude that I've just described above. But because I strongly believe that the attitude above is what Obama is all about, I'm willing to give him a break. I also believe we have far more deeply serious matters to worry about than who gives a prayer at a ceremony. I say that only because I believe I understand what Obama wants to do - and even if this was an inexperience "noob" move, I still think his intentions are good. Therefore, I'm ready, if not eager to move back to the substantive and crisis issues that face us right now. Like economic catastrophe, and the big three among other things....

I would have no problem with working with people on the other side. This is different. This isn't work. This is symbol, and it is bad as a symbol, politically speaking. See what I mean?

For example, if Warren wanted to start a construction company, I think it would be OK if he paved roads under federal contract. That is, unless he used discriminatory hiring practices - which is not all that far-fetched to imagine. That is work. That is a contribution. But showcasing him - as a personality and as a symbol - and giving him a platform - he gains, and we lose.

This is a tacit legitimization of his views and career as a leader of the religious right. Giving him a contract to pave roads would not do that. The second is "working with all sides." The first is inviting the fox into the hen house.

I think you're confused about "change" ... domething different --

Bush could have had Warren ... any Repug could --

I notice a common pattern to those who try to defend Obama's choice of Warren, you tend to group everyone who opposes your point of view together. I, for one, am nowhere near to throwing Obama under the bus, but at the same time I see no point in remaining silent about how I feel. I hope Obama has not been deluded into thinking that he can do no wrong because this clearly should count as a mistake.

since I've seen a lot of people state that his on his own from now on, that he is a traitor, that he is this, that he is that and so on

So i am well aware there is a fair number here who hasn't tossed him under the buss, I'm simply saying Obama would have good company with himself since so many here have tossed him under it as well(and since you are not one of those tossing him under the buss then i was not referring to you :)

You said it much more clearly and rationally that I could have at the moment, since I'm still sputtering with outrage.

:hi:

here, and I feel we should be saying something about it.

For some reason it seems fashionable to say "I'm straight but I agree with this." There's some pathetic part of me that still says it too, but you are one hundred percent dead on right.

Who can argue with this?

We learn who our friends are in times of adversary. Thanks.

but maybe we have to - maybe it will make other people understand that this is not a Gay issue, it is a civil rights issue. If GLBT can have their rights limited, we could backslide to denying rights based on sex, race or religion or some other reason that makes no sense.

During the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s whites who were involved didn't have to say "I'm white and I support..." - people could see they were white. And I bet seeing some white people involved in the marches and other demonstrations made other whites take notice and join the cause. With this fight, we may have to declare ourselves verbally to help wake other straights up.

in the first place and enjoy being here.

Bookmarked for printing out.

i don't get it, either, but truth be told there has been a LOT of weirdness (even more than usual) on DU after the Obama win...it's looking like bizarro world sometimes

It seems that rationale on DU to excuse Obama is ever present. Obama may make a great president; he certainly will be a good one. However, he makes mistakes, sometimes egregious ones. This decision, regarding Rick Warren, was a very poor and in some ways thoughtless one. According to a report tonight on NPR, Obama and Warren have a history of respect for each other in certain areas of thought...assistance for AIDS victims in Africa, for example. FINE! After Obama is sworn in, he can invite the bigot to dinner at the White House. This so-called minister is no Christian; Christ went out of his way to cultivate the ones others despiseed and to salve their wounds. By placing Warren on the platform at his inauguration and allowing him to speak for the great founder of the Christian religion, whatever one's personal beliefs or non-beliefs, is offensive to me. Whether one is Christian or not, one is likely to agree that Jesus Christ's philosophy was/is one of great care and concern...as are most of the world's religions. It is man that perverts religion. Rick WARREN IS SUCH A MAN! It is irritating for sure for Duers to excuse anything Obama. Yesterday some were saying it wasn't Obama, but the Inauguration Committee of Feinstein, etc. that made this horrendous choice. No, DUers, this is the choice of Barack Obama and it is a hurtful one. He will not win one Evangelical vote with this ploy, but he may just lose many progressive ones. Progressives worked tirelessly for him and do not expect to be discounted. I may not be gay, but I understand the battle, and I am adamantly pro-choice. Note where the Warren idiot stands on that and many other significant issues. DUers need to stand united with each other on this despicable decision, and we need to let Obama know our dissatisfaction. Otherwise he will continue to ignore our ideas.

I also appreciate you mentioning the various knee-jerk rationalizations that 'Obama didn't choose Warren, but his committee did." That was yet another lame attempt at defending the indefensible.

Your comments were spot on and I appreciate them very much.

if there were a legitimate debate on the showcasing of promoters of denying basic human rights to a minority we'd be seeing much more interesting and debatable points coming from the other side.

it is that simple.

K&R my brother.

Much appreciated.

I don't think that the Warren choice helps those of us in the south who are trying to change hearts and minds either when it comes to treating EVERY American equally. :hug:

I saw a post yesterday, I think, and the author of the post mentioned trying to not be offended if a southerner was elected president and chose to play Dixie at the Inaugural. My brain short circuited for a while, and I thought of the hate groups who use that song as an anthem, and it would just set a horrible tone, as does Warren, IMHO.

We can NOT have the ""morality"" of this Rick Warren asshole be the guide by which we live our lives - and the fact that some DU'ers here are making excuses for it shocks me. I apologize for my other DU'ers and please know that me and my family stand AGAINST Warren and behind the GBLT community 100%!!

That IF Obama is doing this in order to get them to come to the table and begin ending the acrimony and begin restoring GLBT rights then it would be a good thing.

Having said that your post makes a lot of sense. Were Obama to withdraw his request, I would fully support that. But as a follower of politics I really do believe it is Obama's way of reaching across the divide in order to bridge it and end the divide. But I could be wrong, eh?

you know. The ones who will write self important screeds on almost any subject. But when it comes to GLBT rights ----- ((( crickets. )))

We know who they are.

As you say it perfectly: "The ones who will write self important screeds on almost any subject. But when it comes to GLBT rights..."

They are always absent and occasionally weigh in with their "advice" or with some idiotic insult that they don't think we pick up on.

Your post says it all.

And then, on the other hand, there are a number of straight DU'ers (men and women) who have no dog in the fight and yet, jump in on our side every single time. Those are people here that I have come to love.

You are a precious soul, ruggerson.

Maybe a proposition should be put on the ballot in California that gluttonous people cannot marry.

add sloth...

Think he maybe the proverbial Pharisee? I suspect a fair number of these evangelical ranters are modern day Elmer Gantrys--and possibly worse.

Excellent post.

It is outrageous.

The man is a hate mongerer in the vein of the Falwells of the world.

I am so angry at Obama right now I could spit.

peace~

There should be no place in this nation for bigotry to be applauded, much less on this grand a stage. Political points be damned, some things are not a game for votes. It's about the rights of all. For the same reason that it wouldn't be right to have a racist speak on this stage, back at a time when blacks weren't allowed to vote, this is so obviously wrong I am shocked that it is even being debated. And I feel silly saying so, but I must add that I am straight myself, and have been a big supporter of Obama.

Thanks for the reminder that this is about humanity, not politics.

The contortions and rationales are disgusting. I wish I could say I was surprised.

I've been reading on line but only saw a minute of some woman telling David Gergen that he was an idiot (in the nicest possible way) for defending this choice of Warren.

Can't wait for a thread bashing threads bashing threads bashing threads...

Rationalizing the actions and decisions of Obama just because he's Obama -- when he has clearly demonstrated a shallow, opportunistic side of himself -- at the expense of the rights of our fellow human beings is contemptable.

I stand with you, David Zephyr, and adamantly stand against those who would dismiss and trivialize the utter offensiveness of Obama's choice to give that smarmy asshole Rick Warren a place at his inauguration.

There's no covering up the stench of it, no matter how many DUers scramble to mask the odor with their "hope and change" scented oil dispensers.

sw

By what blithering delusion do people think that this guy is going to do anything but more of the same elaborate dancing and serial appeasement?

Having said that, the point is well made that callous as this act was, those who would justify it as either tactical brilliance or permissable cozying up to swing voters are fools or just plain mean. Whether enabling the ugliness is worse than the ugliness itself is something I have to take issue with, though: flaks and beards are disgusting, but leaders who make broad and smiling gestures of this sort aren't cut from very fine cloth themselves.

I'm glad I've been very busy of late; this is all just too revolting.

Who woulda thought that insisting on a "historical" candidate instead of a liberal one would cause this?

:sarcasm:

I object to any suggestion that ONLY homosexuals are protesting Warren ...

we are ALL protesting it I hope --!!

And hasn't Skinner committed the website to supporting homosexuals --

including gay marriage--??? That's my understanding ---

Posters here are frightened of criticism of Obama and Democrats ...

and that needs to change --

Thanks, David. Well said.

You don't have to be GLBT to be madder than hell about the Warren choice. Don't just ASSSUME that heteroes aren't pissed, too! I'll never give the s.o.b. another dime or another minute. Warren = HATE = I'M OUTTA' HERE! Just when he had a chance to show he really believed in diversity, the rotten, sleezy pol proved he's no different than the rest of the scum in Washington. I just KNEW I shouldn't give my heart away...and by God, I was right! Not another dime - not another minute!

:)

This asshole is bigoted against women and Jews, etc. Being lesbian, I'm two of the three....

And a LGBT military veteran to boot!

The thought that you can straddle both sides of the aisle on this issue, that you can be half-pregnant, simply boggles the mind. And it doesn't help that the appeasers of bigotry use scornful tactics such as "get over it" or "the phrase 'slap in the face' should be banned" or "Paul Wellstone is a homophobe!" prove they have nothing of substance to offer, unless blind obsequiousness at the expense of human decency is a virtue in itself.

Orange county is loaded with assholes like this guy - all Republicans of course

K&R

:kick:

Excellent post! I have been frankly stunned by the reaction of some on DU at this. Defending Obama on this one at the expense of the GLBT community isn't change you can believe in.

And this choice by Obama is so profoundly hurtful that I am now reconsidering whether I will watch ANY of his historic inaugaration. Apparently, he is no different from any of the other politicians who have come before him. This choice makes me think of Hillary's flag burning amendment, cynically calculating.

It is. And this is how he starts it all off. What a let down.

That way all certainly would be done perfectly. I am also glad to have it confirmed that any and all opinions that are contrary to mine are simply bullshit while mine clearly are pearls of wisdom.

:shrug:

Only then we can be assured that the exact right thing is being done.

obviously you don't get it. But Obama and his advisors, damn well should have been smart enough to avoid this kind of shameful cynical political ploy.

EVERYWHERE -- and certainly not limited to homosexuals ---

All people of conscience -- those fighting for justice and equality for all --

are calling out to say how wrong and pitiful this move by Obama is.

The invitation should be withdrawn.

Warren is an active campaigner against human rights, most prominently against those of gays and women. This is not about partisanship or unwillingness to be inclusive. This is about refusing to give a bigot *with a great deal of power* yet more legitimacy to build a movement of intolerance. If Kennedy or Johnson had a leading pro-segregation / anti-interracial marriage preacher in the same role in their inaugurations, we'd still be talking about it as a scandal today.

"Psuedo cyber-liberals." Exactly.

And as correct as can be.

k&r

K&R

:pals:

I know of DU women who were raped because they're gay.

she became pregnant because of the assault and because she didn't terminate the detective and Da assumed it was consensual(the guy was a temp employee where she worked) and would not go forward unless my daughter could get her rapist to admit during a taped conversation that it was not,
She was in no condition to confront this man and force him to confess. We did file a civil suit and won a paper judgment.

I give her kudos for even wanting to still be part of humanity.

:pals:

I just don't understand why so many on here want to legitimize in any way shape or form the Rick Warrens of the world.
My personal opinion of the man is he is an opportunist and nothing more than a charlatan making money off of hatred.
He no more believes the earth is 6,000 years old than I believe that it is flat. He is a snake oil salesman that have learned how to make money off of bigotry and hatred.

I know how difficult it must have been for her to deal with the day to day and the last ten years. I hope that she will continue to heal. My best to you and your daughter.

I raised my grandson the first few years but with a lot of help and love from friends and family she was able to take on the role of mother with the same fierce love for him that I have for her.

And what happened to your child makes me angry as hell. I know too many stories just like yours from first hand experience to just let it slide, to ever "get over it".

Thank you. You are a wonderful mom and person.

I'm straight but I believe this Warren was a horrible choice and a real slap in the face to the Gay community. After the things Warren has said about Gay relationships, he should never have even been considered. This was a major insensitive move by Obama and I am very disappointed.

Very, very good post.

We need you.

... is is OK for us to at least hope something good will come out of this fiasco?

Don

Let's keep oppression of women, homosexuals, African-Americans going and

you let us know when you see the "good."

We should also keep patriarchal religion's "Manifest Destiny" and

"Man's Domination Over Nature" going because that license to exploit nature

has delivered so much "good" ... like Global Warming --!!!

Thank you for speaking the truth, David.

K&R

It's looking like in 2012 I will be doing all that for a different Democrat.

I can't wait.

my daughter's rights are nothing more than a "new shiny distraction" for you to amuse yourself with.
Until you have dealt with the mentality of the Rick Warren's of the world on a personal level that almost destroyed your child...

Holy shit.

Take a pill. Many pills.

Save one for me.

Until this campaign, and the stuff about religion or whatever, I never even heard of this guy. Sure, he may be the cat's pajamas for the right wingers but I doubt any of my friends and/or students could identify him in a line-up.

Clearly, having him participate in the Inaugeration (sp?) is an error but it seems like its causing Warren more trouble among the fundies than he expected. I have no idea what was in Obama's mind when he signed off on this BUT I am willing to give him some slack on being an authentic human being and, therefore, capable of doing the wrong thing from time to time. I think the expertise with which his campaign operated (due in great part to people like populate DU) sort of obscured the fact that he is, at the end of the day, a politician.

I often tell people to consider how we view politicians, and then to consider that the President is usually the most proficient politician around at that time. Hardly a commendation.

At any rate, there is likely little we can do about this except raise a clamor and hullaballoo, loud enough to remind Obama that he can't do things like this without getting blasted for it, no matter how wonderful his amirers and entourage tell him he is.

If this is just a misstep then we should give him the benefit of the doubt and not try to do the GOPukes work for them by undermining the new administration from the get-go. If it is a deliberate move to the "right" then other actions can be considered. Let some Dems go down in 2010 because of a lack of support by the grassroots and I think things will snap to in short order.

At the moment, however, the greatest effect these complaints are having is giving the MSM more openings to attack Obama before he even gets to inaugeration day. You can see how gleefully they are all jumping on this and using it as a club to beat up the new guys.

Perhaps everyone should take a step back and consider whether our ability to shoot ourselves in the foot isn't coming to the fore again.

Just thinking, is all.

You know, nationally televised and all that.

Remember when he decided to screw Obama through that and how bad that was?

Now he's the darling of the Obamapologists.

I just saw two who were clearly trolls. Low post counts who addressing us as "you people" and "get a helmet, liberals." That doesn't excuse the regular DUers who are posting the rubbish, but there are trolls involved, too.

Obama said he would reach across the aisle and that is what he is doing.

When you talk about guaranteeing the right of marriage to homosexuals, how do you envision that happening? Do you think holding up a christian preacher as an object of derision and scorn is going to accomplish that? You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar.

It is the people of this country that overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage, not Rick Warren. The guy may be a complete asshole, but unfortunately it seems that many, many Americans agree with him. So, how do we change their minds? Do we compare them all to David Duke and the nazis? Do we think that will work to get them on our side?

I believe in the rightness of the gay and lesbian cause. I believe that marriage should be the right of every person in this country, and not just fake "civil unions." That puts me in the minority. I also believe that insulting the majority ofr their opinion on this isn't going to get gay and lesbians anywhere. The people that do not agree with us need to be won over, not shouted down.

I am surely disappointed in the choice of Warren speaking, but I have decided to be tolerant about it. Sue me.

Besides, I think this decision does far more to deflate Warren's power with his base than anything.

Stevie, you are the man!

I LOVE the name Stevie.

((((((big hug)))))

...is not going to make me feel sorry for the Gay and Lesiban Community. Gays and Lesibans are not the only people who have been picked on and discriminated against just because...

Gays and Lesbians want people to have an open mind about homosexuality and be objective but you can't be the same in the case of Rick Warren giving a one minute prayer... how hypocritical. You claim that Warren hates Gays but Gays hates him just as much. Warren have said some rotten things about Gays but Gays have said some pretty rotten things about him. You see where I'm going with this?

Warren's positions on homosexuality is what it is... positions. Obama doesn't share that position and trying to force him to prove it by recending his invitation to Warren, who happens to be a friend is wrong.

Am I being rational enough?

This is an issue of Human Rights, Civil Rights vs church teachings --

and nothing whatsoever to do with your personal opinion.

Not different at all from the evil things preached from "Christian" pulpits

and "Christian" writings in regard to women and African-Americans ....

No homosexual has a pulpit equal to the "Christian" soapbox which has been

preaching this evil and intolerance against homosexuals and claiming it as "god's" word.

This religious bigotry has for 2,000 years influenced government and, thereby,

secular society.

Gays and Lesbians want people to have an open mind about homosexuality and be objective but you can't be the same in the case of Rick Warren giving a one minute prayer... how hypocritical. You claim that Warren hates Gays but Gays hates him just as much. Warren have said some rotten things about Gays but Gays have said some pretty rotten things about him. You see where I'm going with this?


Evidently you would have an "open mind" about racists and those who fight

equality for females -- !! Again, Warren has a pulpit, a 2,000 year old Bible

and a TV show/audience.

Warren's positions on homosexuality is what it is... positions. Obama doesn't share that position and trying to force him to prove it by recending his invitation to Warren, who happens to be a friend is wrong.

This support for Warren -- this HONOR bestowed upon him -- puts Obama's "position"

in question --

You see where I'm going with this?

I think it's sadly clear --


MEANWHILE, let's again remind ourselves that SKINNER has firmly stated that all

DU members are expected to support homosexual rights -- including gay marriage --

**********************************************************************************

Mull that over for awhile ---

There is so much wrong with Warren. I don't get it at all.
Should he have an anti-Semite give a speech? How about a white-power racist?
Neither would be an intelligent choice or do anything to get more support for him.
So why add this level of support for a bigot? Just doesn't make sense to me at all.

outrage by posting new threads. They have no argument, so pushing threads off the page is their solution.

Are we going to have to start forming camps to out-post them?

My mother voted republican, as she has done all of her life, because she is pro-life. Should I demand that she be exiled from holiday gatherings this year? Will that help her see the light?

My father voted for a democrat for the presidency for the first time in his life when he voted for John Kerry. People can change their opinions. It happens. But I don't think they are as likely to change when they are being insulted for their positions. When they are being called names, they get defensive and become more entrenched in their positions.

Barack Obama campaigned on the idea that he would welcome people from both sides of the aisle. I guess you all didn't believe him? I guess you all thought he was lying about it just like Bush?

Maybe it never occurred to you all who the people on the other side of the aisle are? Maybe you were thinking of them in some abstract way, the good republicans that just need to be shown the light and they will instantly become democrats? That's not the way it is. The people on the other side are the same people we've been screaming about for the last eight years. They haven't changed.

The challenge here is to not be just like them. We can be better than them. We can let them have their say, even if we hate what they are saying. We can attempt to win them to our cause. It can happen. It has happened in the past. But we must act like the sane, rational side and not a mirror opposite of crazy right wing talk radio DJs, spewing hate and derision at them because they don't agree with us.

Firstly, I was born into a family that is pretty high in the reich-wing hierarchy, so I'm intimately familiar with the mindset of the true believers. The fact that I'm broke and on the edge of homelessness is the mostly due to the fact that I cannot do what they demand and live with myself.

Obligatory preface; There are always exceptions to any generalization, but a nation has to be run based on generalizations.

Those that believe, will continue to believe until the results of their delusions kick them in the ass and they personally feel the pain (How many homeless people did you ignore today?). They are not, and never have been, swayed by argument or compromise. The last 40 years should have made that clear by now.

The "swing voter" has no allegiance and will vote to retain the status quo until they feel betrayed by it, thus Obama's win. If you believe we won this election because of some spontaneous rise in the consciousness of Americans, you are fooling yourself. If the economy isn't turned around or some other unlikely circumstance, the republiks will pick up seats in 2010 and 2012 will be worse (note that the states that flipped, did so by very slim margins and those that didn't remained about 60-40 for McSame). This election was much more a rejection of _shrub than acceptance of Obama.

So, you are right, they have not changed, and "Reaching across the isle" will just get your hand chewed up. They respond to strength and force, not logic or compromise, again the last 40 years should have amply demonstrated this.

When faced with an implacable, violent foe being "the better person" just gets you killed. It is interpreted as weakness and invites attack.

Your mother will "see the light", or not, on her own and nothing you or I or anyone else does or says will make a bit of difference. People do change, but they do it themselves, so for the time being we have an opportunity to make some positive changes and if we let it slip by trying to convince totalitarians that totalitarianism is wrong we will wake up in a few years, right back here, having made no progress and less able to try again.

Let me ask you this, what arguments or conciliations has your mother made that convinced you that a woman's body does not belong to her? Same with them.

Obama is making friends and forging alliances in order to effectively tackle some MAJOR HUGE problems.

I anticipated exactly what he will need to do and I trust him.

Wrong person, wrong place, wrong time, wrong message.

But if giving the guy a minute in a half to say the equivalence of "grace" means giving the Obama the latitude to actually implement positive LGBT policies, then beyond the 90 seconds of "Dear God, please give me a pony" from this shithead might be worth it.

All I know is that people have bitched about a lot things Obama has done throughout this campaign and each time it seemed to work.

On the face of it, it's a bad choice. However, if there is an impact in policy, it will be a positive one, and ultimately, that is what is important--The invocation is trivial at best, as it the benediction. Hell the whole ceremony is pretty trivial. What matters happens afterward.

Why do we as a nation have to keep winning this battle over and over? We try to end slavery, someone justifies it. We try to outlaw lynchings, someone justifies it. Women's sufferage, white male dominance of the work place, voter repression, immigration, segregation... It's like we win one battle, and the forces of evil have to find the next group to beat down. And they always phrase their arguments in pseudo-logical, pseudo-compassionate language, or twist the argument with false analogies (bigamy, incest, beastiality, in this latest battle), as though they are on the side of right, or as though their arguments have moral equivalency.

Warren is against a free and equal society. For Obama to call for such a society and then give legitimacy and voice to a major force fighting against it is wrong.

When did we as a nation win the battle for equal rights for gays and lesbians? In case you guys didn't notice, the Republicans weren't the only ones that had their agenda completely repudiated by the voters on election day. Perhaps it's time for both the Republicans and gays to realize that their message is not resonating with the American people and either try to work on that message or try other ways to get it across. Or they can both just stamp their feet like children and bitch about how it's just not fair. Which is what they will both do, accomplishing nothing.

Gays and Lesbians lost the vote. They lost it everywhere it was on the ballot. But I guess since Obama won they are going to try and piggyback their agenda onto his as if they, and not Obama, were the ones with a mandate.

Are you saying I said that? Because that's the opposite of what I said.

He opposes same-sex marriage, but he supports complete legal equality in all other respects. So our agenda did not lose on November 4th. A lot of people here have failed to realize that truth, however.

To add to your comments, one thing that has been bothering me is that PE Obama is giving Warren's beliefs a political legitimacy they do not deserve. Ministers such as Billy Graham were given this same sort of public approval by politicians in the past. I really believe that Obama should have chosen someone whose views are less vitriolic toward gays and women, and who showed a passing knowledge about science--this would be a good way to signal that the new administration was really about changes that would bring us into the 21st century.

While I feel that I've held some level of realistic perspective for an Obama administration, that is I never expected Obama to "pander" to progressives as some in the media have put it.. when I heard him at yesterday's press conference assert the notion that Rick Warren is an example of what he meant by reaching across, and that we should disagree without being "disagreeable", I found myself screaming words (at Obama on the tv screen) nearly identical to words I've screamed at Bush, which I won't repeat here, except to say, words not very flattering to his intellect, political judgment, or common sense.

I'll eat my words and lick the bottom of Obama's shoe if Rick Warren immediately holds a full court press not only to apologize directly to the LGBT community, but to RECANT every single evil word, thought and deed that he is ever uttered and carried out vis a vis political campaigns. But I won't be holding my breath.

Thank you!

If Obama invited Warren to "bring us together," as Nixon used to say, then this was a dismal failure. I hope he does not use this same failed strategy in health care reform by bringing Big Pharma and Big Insurers to the negotiating table, or that he deludes himself into thinking that he can bring peace to the Middle East by sheer force of will. The world is not like that!

"I hope he does not use this same failed strategy in health care reform by bringing Big Pharma and Big Insurers to the negotiating table"

But that's exactly what he said he would do. He said he would give drug and insurance companies "a seat at the table."

Zephyr, who appointed you the spokesman for all gays? Has it occured to you that all gays don't agree with you?

the spokesman for all gays; Except of course the Log Cabin'ers

I AM WITH YOU

utters and does Obots, or Obomatons. We have representative government and while I worked to get O elected I will not stand by some of the decisions he has made; The worst being FISA, the second, this heap of shit he has called on for his invocation. I am not down with that even slightly. Why didn't he just call on the grand wizard of the KKK which would be tantamount to what he has done. Unforgivable. This jerk is not only a proselytizer of evil he works to get laws passed to make his evil the law of the land. I worked my ass off for this election for O, I will not do it again. Is he better than any Pug, sure, but is that all we can ever hope for, just someone better than the pugs.

I guess when I want to know what's being said by the rightwing I can just come here. Full circle. ;)

O right or wrong....I call that robot freeper. We are not robots and we must continue to question what is being fed to us and when it is patently wrong as in this case, we must push back.

it certainly looks like it.

I hope he has some hidden goal, like pulling warren aside and privately telling him to "shut up". I would be willing to compromise on some significant "agenda" goals to enforce civil rights for those with alternative sexual preferences.

The loyalty oathers have been working overtime the past few days.

I cannot figure this out for the life of me!

:shrug:

We deserve this one day for ourselves, Democrats and progressives. Its our turn. Screw inclusiveness.

I say we try it!! Breeders overpopulate. Ha! and I say this as a breeder but I am sick of my fellow breeders bitching about gay marriage. I like attacking there marriages in conversation. First, it confuses them, because I'm a breeder. Second, they get to feel what it is like to be attacked. Third, my mocking tone and humorous insults amuse me which stops me from violently assaulting them. I have a lot of gay friends and am tired of seeing them in pain. Peeps need to stop fucking with my peeps.

I am so ashamed of breeders right now. Getting divorced at high rates and denying others the right to marry. Maybe they think they are doing gays a favor. I can just hear the twisted logic in their heads, "Really, its not that great" Ha! So many people in this country practice mental gymnastics you would think it a class in primary education and maybe it is. The only thing i can see that separates me and frankin is that I proudly blame America first.

symbol; the wrong message; an unnecessary insult to many millions of Americans, let alone Democrats; and a man of bigotry who should not have THE pride of place for PRAYER on Inaugural Day.

eom

There was the immunity for telecoms vote.
The let Joe Liebermann stay as chairman of an important and powerful committee.
Now I’m going to have a gay bashing evangelist conduct a swearing in ceremony on a world stage.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I voted for and still support Obama. No one should be beyond criticism. No one.

That Obama would consider him to lead prayer is disappointing and it's insulting to far to many that were instrumental
and vital to his election. Obama very clearly and meticulously executed a brilliant campaign that was catapulted from
obscurity by the Progressive Community. It was THAT community that kept the momentum and passion present so that
the country as a whole could appreciate an Obama presidency. It was the progressives that sustained him NOT the party faithful,
not the swing voters.

Obama is not a progressive. He may prove to be a good, even great president, but he is a moderate. That's OK Mr. Obama, the people
that made all the difference before the election are paying very close attention.

Look that one up in the urban dictionary its there And that is what this guy is ? Now if ya'all don't believe in in Jesus an put $$s in my church Ill blow your ass up!! (BUSH ISM MABAY?),This guy is a worthless piece of crap just like his cone of silence worked I am really disappointed in OBAMA about having this jerk. I am praying the folks keep demonstrating around hes place of worship..or what the hell he calls it.. I cant stand this pompous asshole Im a straight person an i am on the side of the folks against this Bigot.. Believe in Jesus or ill kill you... Good thinking huh?

I contributed to his campaign, not Rick Warren. The inauguration should be a uncompromising "thank you" to supporters. This choice is a slap in the face.

indeed. Thankfully, so far, (and yes I recognize he hasn't been sworn in yet) thisis the only thing he's done to raise my ire, but I was CONTINUE to rapplerouse. It is the nature of my democratic party.

I don't think other presidential elects have kissed up so royally to their opposition.

Maybe he just keeps campaigning hoping to win over a few fundies.

Meanwhile we endured Bush for 8 years who believed he had a royal mandate even when he did not capture the popular vote in 2000.

I was originally against his decision to have Rick Warren give a prayer, as I think he should be against what Rick Warren is for, but this is a step toward "reaching across the aisle," is it not? The way I see it, one of these statements is true:

1. Obama is throwing all the GLBT community under the bus because he has asked a hatemonger to give a benediction.
   
2. Obama has made a calculation error in his politicking. A terrible misstep which has backfired
   
3. Obama is attempting to reach across the aisle and show that he's not just the derogatory slur du jour for supporting gay rights and/or that people who support gay rights can also support evangelicals, that the two are not mutually exclusive
   

In the context of the last point, it hardly seems fair to criticize. Too many people fall into the trap of hate; Yes, there are people in this world who deserve it, but unless that hatred will make them go away, it serves no purpose but to widen the gap. This is the premise of "winning hearts and minds." No, Obama will likely not change the mind of Pastor Warren, but perhaps by reaching out to him, he will start to shake loose some people who don't really believe in him, and are just afraid of the "other side."

Isn't this the diplomacy we want to see across the world? Winning hearts and minds instead of using hate to widen a gap in the hopes that the enemy will fall in? "Whosoever diggeth a pit // shall fall in it ..."

Now, you may disagree, and believe that the case of statement #1 or #2 is correct, but while I believe #2 is possible, I'd like to think that the correct answer is #3. Now, does that mean I want people to STFU or what-have-you? No, of course not. It's important that we consider our options and not think in lock-step. But please, let's try to be big about this, talk like adults and not degenerate into name-calling and needless vulgarity. Please?