NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you who forget me, I supported Hillary Rodham Clinton during the presidential primaries. I was bitterly disappointed when she was defeated by Barack Obama, whom I later voted for in the general election. One of the arguments I made against Obama at the time was the argument that I was unsure about his commitment to Democratic values. While I do not consider myself to be a bitter partisan, I nevertheless insist on a Democratic candidate who not only shares my values, but ACTS on them.


And then this happened:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html

This only further emphasizes the concerns I already had about President-Elect Obama going into the election. I have long feared that his desire for moderation will override his willingness to fight for Democratic principles, such as equal rights for gays and lesbians, and for a woman's right to choose. Now we are confronted with the very real possibility that Obama will cede the troublesome social issues to the Republicans in order to achieve political victory in other areas.

I do not consider myself a partisan, but the Democratic Party has won sweeping victories in two consecutive national elections. We have control of the congressional and presidential venues of the national government. While this does not clear us to chart a far-left course politically, I think it IS time for the Democratic Party to wake up and understand that is is now the Democratic agenda in Washington, not the GOP. I did not vote for Obama and the Democrats because I want to concede policy ideals to conservatives. I voted for them to change trajectory from right to left politically. If the Democrats do not start to grow a spine really quickly, I will withhold my support in 2010 and 2012.

You realize not compromising tends to hurt the Democratic platform more than compromising does?

Admittedly, Warren shouldn't have been picked for this, but I can see why he was, and after all, it's only a speech.

For those of you who forget me, I supported Hillary Rodham Clinton during the presidential primaries.

That pretty much rounds it up.

I'm calling the Oregon State Hospital.

That pretty much rounds it up.

I'm calling the Oregon State Hospital.

What is that supposed to mean?

Damn, there goes my bet on Ayatollah Khatami

Let's see, what policy position is Warren appointed to again? State? Interior? I think I missed that part.

as I said before and elsewhere as a voting block African American democrats are not your usual democrats as seen in last 20 years. you will likely see decreased support for Israel an decreased support for gay rights. it will be an interesting presidency to say the least.

Damn, there goes my bet on Ayatollah Khatami

I wonder how much money was lost on that one.

Ok... so we have the President-elect who spent a great deal of time on the campaign trail talking about reaching across the aisle to find a middle ground, who noted time and time again that it is possible to disagree with someone's views and still work with and respect them, and who had a major part of his victory speech be about how he is the president of every American, even the ones who disagree with him and how we are the United States; putting his money where is mouth is and you're going Librarian poo over it?

Give me a break, it's the man's inauguration. I'd be worried if Warren becomes a presidential adviser, or be put in charge of homosexual issues, but going bananas because he's leading the opening prayer in a meaningless ceremony?

Let's see, what policy position is Warren appointed to again? State? Interior? I think I missed that part.

That much-lauded position, "prayer giver at inauguration."

As a civil libertarian, I am definitely upset about the fact that an Obama victory in California also resulted in the destruction of gay marriage in that state. African American voters pushed it over the top. Even when gays win, they lose.....I cannot help but feel very sorry for them.

I wonder how much money was lost on that one.

In the spirit of partisanship, I bet in shekels.

To the OP, I don't think it's a great choice myself, I want change to be about citizen involvement not acquiescing to outdated views, it doesn't trouble me too much but, yeah, not a good choice.

Ok... so we have the President-elect who spent a great deal of time on the campaign trail talking about reaching across the aisle to find a middle ground, who noted time and time again that it is possible to disagree with someone's views and still work with and respect them, and who had a major part of his victory speech be about how he is the president of every American, even the ones who disagree with him and how we are the United States; putting his money where is mouth is and you're going Librarian poo over it?

Give me a break, it's the man's inauguration. I'd be worried if Warren becomes a presidential adviser, or be put in charge of homosexual issues, but going bananas because he's leading the opening prayer in a meaningless ceremony?

Agreed.

Let the man have his first day at work before you start to criticize him.

Ok... so we have the President-elect who spent a great deal of time on the campaign trail talking about reaching across the aisle to find a middle ground, who noted time and time again that it is possible to disagree with someone's views and still work with and respect them, and who had a major part of his victory speech be about how he is the president of every American, even the ones who disagree with him and how we are the United States; putting his money where is mouth is and you're going Librarian poo over it?

Give me a break, it's the man's inauguration. I'd be worried if Warren becomes a presidential adviser, or be put in charge of homosexual issues, but going bananas because he's leading the opening prayer in a meaningless ceremony?

Do NOT underestimate the power of symbolism.

As a civil libertarian, I am definitely upset about the fact that an Obama victory in California also resulted in the destruction of gay marriage in that state. African American voters pushed it over the top. Even when gays win, they lose.....I cannot help but feel very sorry for them.

I think the ban would have happened no matter who won california. Most of the candidates on both partys running in this past election were opposed to gay marriage (not civil rights) but marriage.

I've found most of Barack Obama's picks to be about the best person for the job, this pick, irrelevant as it is, is purely political in motivation, it certainly bugs me.

I've found most of Barack Obama's picks to be about the best person for the job, this pick, irrelevant as it is, is purely political in motivation, it certainly bugs me.

It shouldn't there really is no secret meaning behind all of this.

Barack Obama surrounds himself with experts and intellectuals. They don't have to agree with him to back his decisions and he can listen to them without agreeing with them. That's the kind of man he is, and I have to confess that in the late election, It was his choice of advisors and policy coaches that convinced me that he was the better of the two candidates. That hasn't changed now that he will be President. He is surrounding himself with learned men and women and not sycophantic yesmen. I approve. If he governs like a statesman and not a left-wing demagogue, he could be a great President.

I'd also like to point out that he has a lot more riding on his shoulders than the Democratic Agenda. He'll be the first African-American President. Unlike our current President, He has a lot riding on his performance in the White House and unfortunately, will be held to a much higher standard.

Do NOT underestimate the power of symbolism.
And when that symbolism starts making policy, come talk to me about it. Until then, it is meaningless symbolism.

"To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn -- I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too," he said.

Perhaps he's sending a message to the right-wing that he values them despite their differences. I don't know, I find that kind of refreshing in politics. But like others have said - it's just an inauguration... not a cabinet appointment. No one will care who gave Obama's inauguration invocation four years from now.

Unlike our current President, He has a lot riding on his performance in the White House and unfortunately, will be held to a much higher standard.

Impossible standards in some cases, given how some people are screaming about his picks, are still blathering about how he's not an American citizen, and how stock fluctuations in Wall Street are his fault.

I've found most of Barack Obama's picks to be about the best person for the job, this pick, irrelevant as it is, is purely political in motivation, it certainly bugs me.
Well, he is a politician. And a cunning one at that.

What really bugs me about this thread is the word "Republican-lite." Why is it that whenever people are complaining that X is similar to Y, they use an analogy to diet soda? Why can't this decision make Obama a "Republican with a Twist of Lime," "Salt-Free Republican" or "Black Cherry Republican."
Ok, so that last one could be construed to have rather objectionable implications, but the other two would be just as good, wouldn't they?

Well, he is a politician. And a cunning one at that.

What really bugs me about this thread is the word "Republican-lite." Why is it that whenever people are complaining that X is similar to Y, they use an analogy to diet soda? Why can't this decision make Obama a "Republican with a Twist of Lime," "Salt-Free Republican" or "Black Cherry Republican."
Ok, so that last one could be construed to have rather objectionable implications, but the other two would be just as good, wouldn't they?
Naw, because as everyone knows, a twist of lime would be a GOOD thing while salt free, while not as good per se as regular, is acceptable due to health concerns, though we all grumble about it.

Lite now, THAT is just a spawn from the darkest pits of Hell inflicted upon us to steal our souls and suck them into everlasting pain and anguish and STILL not be nearly as good as the real deal.

It shouldn't there really is no secret meaning behind all of this.

Certainly don't think it's secret or that it reflects on his agenda, I just think he could have made a better pick. I'm sure there's plenty of outstanding pastors working at grassroots to make people's lives better,

Impossible standards in some cases, given how some people are screaming about his picks, are still blathering about how he's not an American citizen, and how stock fluctuations in Wall Street are his fault.

Most people are bleating sheep looking for a good bleat to mimic. But like slinkies, I can't help but giggle when one of them tumbles down stairs. :)

I don't see what the problem is, so he's an social archconservative preacher, Obama, could have made much worse choices. For instance he could have had Pat Robertson or Jerry Ferwell doing it.

I do not consider myself a partisan, *snip*

If the Democrats do not start to grow a spine really quickly, I will withhold my support in 2010 and 2012.

If you are willing to abandon the Democrats over nothing more than who delivers the invocation at the inaugration, then don't worry that you are overly partisan. To the contrary, you are one of those puritans that object to any attempt to share common ground.

as I said before and elsewhere as a voting block African American democrats are not your usual democrats as seen in last 20 years. you will likely see decreased support for Israel an decreased support for gay rights. it will be an interesting presidency to say the least.

Not just foundationless racial generalizations, but an attempt to pigeonhole the President-elect based on those generalizations.

You've reached new depths.

While I do not consider myself to be a bitter partisan, I nevertheless insist on a Democratic candidate who not only shares my values, but ACTS on them.
May I ask what these values are, apart from removing the citizens' right to self-defense?

May I ask what these values are, apart from removing the citizens' right to self-defense?

I hope you are trying to characterize Shalrirorchia's values (accurately or not) and not those of the President-elect or the Democratic Party.

For the record, the 2008 Democratic Party Platform states:

Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we
will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that
the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in
Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense
laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background
check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of
terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we
can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children
safe.

Ok... so we have the President-elect who spent a great deal of time on the campaign trail talking about reaching across the aisle to find a middle ground, who noted time and time again that it is possible to disagree with someone's views and still work with and respect them, and who had a major part of his victory speech be about how he is the president of every American, even the ones who disagree with him and how we are the United States; putting his money where is mouth is and you're going Librarian poo over it?

Give me a break, it's the man's inauguration. I'd be worried if Warren becomes a presidential adviser, or be put in charge of homosexual issues, but going bananas because he's leading the opening prayer in a meaningless ceremony?

^^This^^

I think the ban would have happened no matter who won california. Most of the candidates on both partys running in this past election were opposed to gay marriage (not civil rights) but marriage.

For the record, Obama opposed Prop. 8 (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html).

As a civil libertarian, I am definitely upset about the fact that an Obama victory in California also resulted in the destruction of gay marriage in that state.

There's not any evidence for that. It seems highly unlikely, judging that both Obama voters and first-time voters were much more likely to oppose Prop. 8 than to support it.

African American voters pushed it over the top.

No, they didn't. (Well, if every one of them had opposed it, it wouldn't have passed. But that's true of every group.)

Give me a break, it's the man's inauguration. I'd be worried if Warren becomes a presidential adviser, or be put in charge of homosexual issues, but going bananas because he's leading the opening prayer in a meaningless ceremony?

Yes, it is enough reason.

The prayer should be led by a black Muslim lesbian woman.

May I ask what these values are, apart from removing the citizens' right to self-defense?

How about "not being a homophobic asshole who thinks same-sex marriage and pedophilia are morally equivalent"?

[snip] ...are morally equivalent"?
So you oppose legalizing shota, but not loli?

So you oppose legalizing shota, but not loli?

WTF? Talk about the ultimate non sequitur.

WTF? Talk about the ultimate non sequitur.

And if you understand what he's talking about, you see that it's a straw man.

I don't see what the problem is, so he's an social archconservative preacher, Obama, could have made much worse choices. For instance he could have had Pat Robertson or Jerry Ferwell doing it.

He should have got fred phelps to do it!

WTF? Talk about the ultimate non sequitur.
If pedophilia is as bad as gay sex and gay marriage, then shota is twice worse than loli, and shota in marriage is thrice worse.

If pedophilia is as bad as gay sex and gay marriage, then shota is twice worse than loli, and shota in marriage is thrice worse.

Even if that logic worked, did you not notice the "not" in Soheran's question?

He should have got fred phelps to do it!

Not familiar with Fed Phelps, but Pat Robertson is the local crazy fundimentalist around where I live, runs CBN, Regent Univesity and such. Blamed Katrina and some other hurracanes, 9/11 and few other calamaties on God's wrath on America for our decadent ways and because of the gays.

Not familiar with Fed Phelps, but Pat Robertson is the local crazy fundimentalist around where I live, runs CBN, Regent Univesity and such. Blamed Katrina and some other hurracanes, 9/11 and few other calamaties on God's wrath on America for our decadent ways and because of the gays.

Are you sure? Fred Phelps is the old decrepit head of a Kansas family/church that's famous for picking funerals with a variety of "GOD HATES [Want Your Ad Here? Contact the Westborough Baptist Church For Details]" signs.

Another point is that this might annoy Rick Warren's base as much as anything, will he influence some to move just a smidgeon to the centre?

Rick Warren is not a bad choice, I just think there could be a better choice.

Are you sure? Fred Phelps is the old decrepit head of a Kansas family/church that's famous for picking funerals with a variety of "GOD HATES [Want Your Ad Here? Contact the Westborough Baptist Church For Details]" signs.


Sorry afriad not, its likely because Pat Robertson makes the news more around here because he's local. Comes out with predictions every year about what way God's wrath will strike the US next after going on retreat to speak with God. Evently he thinks he's the Pope.

For the record, Obama opposed Prop. 8 (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html).

I know, but he was quoted in saying that he was against gay marriage, but was for civil unions.

For those of you who forget me, I supported Hillary Rodham Clinton during the presidential primaries. I was bitterly disappointed when she was defeated by Barack Obama, whom I later voted for in the general election. One of the arguments I made against Obama at the time was the argument that I was unsure about his commitment to Democratic values. While I do not consider myself to be a bitter partisan, I nevertheless insist on a Democratic candidate who not only shares my values, but ACTS on them.


And then this happened:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html

This only further emphasizes the concerns I already had about President-Elect Obama going into the election. I have long feared that his desire for moderation will override his willingness to fight for Democratic principles, such as equal rights for gays and lesbians, and for a woman's right to choose. Now we are confronted with the very real possibility that Obama will cede the troublesome social issues to the Republicans in order to achieve political victory in other areas.

I do not consider myself a partisan, but the Democratic Party has won sweeping victories in two consecutive national elections. We have control of the congressional and presidential venues of the national government. While this does not clear us to chart a far-left course politically, I think it IS time for the Democratic Party to wake up and understand that is is now the Democratic agenda in Washington, not the GOP. I did not vote for Obama and the Democrats because I want to concede policy ideals to conservatives. I voted for them to change trajectory from right to left politically. If the Democrats do not start to grow a spine really quickly, I will withhold my support in 2010 and 2012.


Wait, what? Because he picked some Evangelical Leader to speak at his inaugeration, hes suddenly anti-gay and anti-choice?

Look, Ive been less than pleased with some of his decisions, but honostly, lets wait till he does something policy wise before we go off the deep end, k?

EDIT: Just be honost with me now. For the next 4 years, will you be jumping at every little thing as a sort of "SEE WE SHOULD HAVE ELECTED HILLARY! I TOLD YOU SO!"? I just want to brace myself.

I know, but he was quoted in saying that he was against gay marriage, but was for civil unions.

As is Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry. The mainstream Democratic party has decided that gay marriage is a losing issue.

The mainstream Democratic party has decided that gay marriage is a losing issue.

The "mainstream Democratic party" is much more supportive of same-sex marriage than it was under Clinton, when the Democratic President and the majority of the Democratic Senators backed DOMA.

The trend is toward greater support, not lesser.

Give me a break, it's the man's inauguration. I'd be worried if Warren becomes a presidential adviser, or be put in charge of homosexual issues, but going bananas because he's leading the opening prayer in a meaningless ceremony?
It's like: if he invited a Christian Identity preacher to bless him, he could forget about any Jewish supporters.

If Rick Warren gives the invocation, I am scraping the Obama sticker off my car. Forget it.

The "mainstream Democratic party" is much more supportive of same-sex marriage than it was under Clinton, when the Democratic President and the majority of the Democratic Senators backed DOMA.

The trend is toward greater support, not lesser.

I fail to see the point. Support for gay rights has increased throughout the whole country. But the Democratic Party is not expending political capital to push gay marriage on the national level. They feel that it would only help the Republicans with their "culture war."

I dislike this as much as anyone else. But to hear Clinton supporters complaining about Obama's lack of "Democratic values," when Clinton (and the other viable candidates) took the exact same positions, is just irking.

Not familiar with Fed Phelps, but Pat Robertson is the local crazy fundimentalist around where I live, runs CBN, Regent Univesity and such. Blamed Katrina and some other hurracanes, 9/11 and few other calamaties on God's wrath on America for our decadent ways and because of the gays.

Phelps pickets military funerals with such choice signs as, "God hates Fags" and tells mourners that their son/daughter 'deserved' to die and will go to Hell because the USA gives gays rights.
Even Robertson wouldn't do that. Heck, Phelps makes Robertson look downright rational and reasonable (indeed, Phelps thinks Robertson will also go to Hell 'cause he won't picket funerals).

As is Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry. The mainstream Democratic party has decided that gay marriage is a losing issue.

I know thats what I've been saying.

But the Democratic Party is not expending political capital to push gay marriage on the national level.

Not all-out, no. But both Clinton and Obama said that they would repeal the substantive provision of DOMA, and Kerry voted against it in the first place. All three also backed federal rights for same-sex couples.

Admittedly, it remains to be seen whether they will actually follow through.

It's like: if he invited a Christian Identity preacher to bless him, he could forget about any Jewish supporters.

If Rick Warren gives the invocation, I am scraping the Obama sticker off my car. Forget it.
I cannot quite figure if you are being serious or facetious. If the former, I look in askance at just what your expectations of President-elect Obama are.

How nice of him to pick a token white guy. I bet he's shattered that Jeremiah Wright has too much of a profile to do it.

How nice of him to pick a token white guy. I bet he's shattered that Jeremiah Wright has too much of a profile to do it.

Sure he is Potato Boy, sure he is...

Obama parts with Trinity church (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/01/nation/na-obama1)

In a letter dated Friday to the pastor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, Obama said he and his wife, Michelle, had come to the decision “with some sadness.” But they said their relations with Trinity United Church of Christ “had been strained by the divisive statements” of the retiring pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., “which sharply conflict with our own views.”

The Illinois senator’s decision to break with the church that he has credited with shaping his faith came after months of controversy over racially charged remarks Wright made to the 8,000-member congregation on Chicago’s South Side.

I know you miss Bush, Blair and Howard but at least let Obama be sworn into office before you emosturbate about how much he's a failure, mmkay?

Go borrow some more money for your bailout, American.

Go borrow some more money for your bailout, American.Right, because the average American is absolutely responsible for the government deficit. :rolleyes:
And don't forget, we have the ability to borrow billions of dollars to pay off America's debt. Damn, I didn't know my credit was worth that much.

hasn't rick warren done some pretty nice things?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/46165/output/print

i may not agree with him on issues like gay rights, but neither may obama, but he's a good guy, and its such a small part, theres really nothing to get worked up about.

For those of you seething about the decision to have Rick Warren give the invocation at Obama's inauguration, it seems you may have overlooked the other pastor who will be involved in the inauguration ceremonies.

It's been announced the Rev. Joseph Lowery will be giving the benediction at the inauguration.

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2008/12/17/lowery_obama.html

I think, given Lowery's stance on LGBT rights and his involvement in the civil rights movement, this should go a long way to assuage worries, silly as they may be, about Rick Warren's appointment. Obama is not pandering to the right, but rather striking a fine balance between two sides at odds with one another. As any good statesman should do.

Of course, more important is the fact that this likely wasn't even Obama's decision, but rather the decision of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

You realize not compromising tends to hurt the Democratic platform more than compromising does?

Admittedly, Warren shouldn't have been picked for this, but I can see why he was, and after all, it's only a speech.

Obama realizes that the Republicans have had their asses handed to them because they couldn't compromise and hold the center.

He wants to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to the Democrats.

Obama realizes that the Republicans have had their asses handed to them because they couldn't compromise and hold the center.

He wants to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to the Democrats.

Obama doesn't realize shit.

Obama didn't actually have a hand in choosing the appointments for the inauguration, and while he may have made his own suggestions, the actual decision fell on the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, a bi-partisan committee selected by the current VP.

Go borrow some more money for your bailout, American.

Go troll elsewhere, troll.

So basically, you're not going to vote for the Democrats at the next election because of what Obama's done when he hasn't even taken office?

Obama doesn't realize shit.

Obama didn't actually have a hand in choosing the appointments for the inauguration, and while he may have made his own suggestions, the actual decision fell on the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, a bi-partisan committee selected by the current VP.

Is this so? Because that changes everything then. Seriously. Please tell me more.

Not just foundationless racial generalizations, but an attempt to pigeonhole the President-elect based on those generalizations.

You've reached new depths.

Didn't think it was possible, did you? I didn't.

Is this so? Because that changes everything then. Seriously. Please tell me more.

http://inaugural.senate.gov/cmte/committeehistory.cfm

If Rick Warren gives the invocation, I am scraping the Obama sticker off my car. Forget it.
Dogmatic partisanship has worked so well for the Democrats in the past 30 years or so. I can see why you'd withdraw your support and attempt to reactivate the minority party status that they've held most of my political life.

Obama realizes that the Republicans have had their asses handed to them because they couldn't compromise and hold the center.

He wants to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to the Democrats.
I ... I can't believe ... I'm agreeing with Hotwife.

I cannot quite figure if you are being serious or facetious. If the former, I look in askance at just what your expectations of President-elect Obama are.
Of course I am serious. Warren is my personal enemy, at a profound level; friends of his are not friends of mine. Symbolic moves like this are intended to send a signal, and this sends a very strong signal. Message received.

Now the question is raised as to who is sending this signal: if it is not Obama, of course that changes things.

Of course I am serious. Warren is my personal enemy, at a profound level; friends of his are not friends of mine. Symbolic moves like this are intended to send a signal, and this sends a very strong signal. Message received.

Now the question is raised as to who is sending this signal: if it is not Obama, of course that changes things.

And what of the fact that Joseph Lowery will be giving the benediction?

Obama doesn't realize shit.

Obama didn't actually have a hand in choosing the appointments for the inauguration, and while he may have made his own suggestions, the actual decision fell on the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, a bi-partisan committee selected by the current VP.

Given the fact that Obama had apparently already spoken to Lowery about having him take part in the ceremony, I'd say it's very likely that the committee is taking his suggestions into account.

I don't see what the problem is, so he's an social archconservative preacher, Obama, could have made much worse choices. For instance he could have had Pat Robertson or Jerry Ferwell doing it.
Jerry Falwell would have been a much better choice, since he's dead, and therefore unlikely to say anything really offensive.
Dogmatic partisanship has worked so well for the Democrats in the past 30 years or so. I can see why you'd withdraw your support and attempt to reactivate the minority party status that they've held most of my political life.
If there is no difference between the parties, what do I care? I never felt like a citizen at all in Bush's America, and am still waiting to see whether I will be a citizen in Obama's America: I have seen no sign. Renewing my efforts to emigrate to Canada remains an attractive option.
And what of the fact that Joseph Lowery will be giving the benediction?
If Lowery is Obama's choice, and Warren was not, that of course changes my view of this considerably. I await clarification.

Given the fact that Obama had apparently already spoken to Lowery about having him take part in the ceremony, I'd say it's very likely that the committee is taking his suggestions into account.

It's entirely possible it was his decision that Warren do the invocation. It seems like both picks were the ultimate decision of the Committee, and it's likely Obama provided them with a list of suggestions, and that this list could've had Warren's name on it (as it likely has Lowery's).

Still, I don't see the problem in this, especially in light of Lowery's selection.

He doesn't agree with him. He is trying to open a dialogue with them

The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues," Douglass said. "But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues."


What the heck is wrong with that just because we disagree does that mean we should never talk with them. This is politics, you have to talk to people you don't like, don't respect, don't want to, all the time. You can not say he is not accessible.

That is the mark of a good statesmen being able to talk to people you can't stand and have them leave feeling all warm and fuzzy ( and possibly missing their wallet) jk on the last part

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Sun-tzu

Changeeeeeee


Gay rights groups call Barack Obama's inauguration pastor 'disrespectful'
President-Elect Barack Obama is facing his first bitter protest among gay and liberal supporters after choosing a leading evangelical pastor to read the invocation at his inauguration next month.



By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 5:42PM GMT 18 Dec 2008

Gay rights advocates described the choice of Rick Warren, a best-selling author and leader of the Saddleback megachurch in southern California, as disrespectful to a constituency that strongly supported Mr Obama's campaign.

"We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination," said the Human Rights Campaign, the largest US gay rights organisation, in a letter asking Mr Obama to reconsider.

Though some Left-wingers have been disappointed at the conservativeness of Mr Obama's cabinet selections, their protests have been muted until the Warren announcement.

Like other evangelicals he is a staunch opponent of gay marriage and abortion. But he is the best known of a new breed of evangelicals who stress the need for action on poverty and protecting the environment, and who has not tied his ministry to the Republican Party.

The Rev Warren broke new ground by inviting Mr Obama to speak at his church two years ago, knowing that the then presidential outsider held views on key issues that were antithetical to those of his followers.

During the election campaign, the Rev Warren interviewed Mr Obama and Republican John McCain in a widely watched television programme that focused on religious concerns.

At a press conference yesterday in Chicago, the president-elect said the choice was designed to promote national unity, and added that his "dialogue" with the Rev Warren "was what our campaign was all about".

"We're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans," he said.

Mr Obama's selection of the Reverend Joseph Lowery, a veteran of the civil rights movement, for the lesser role of delivering the benediction at the inauguration however failed to mollify Left-wing Democrats.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3834265/Gay-rights-groups-call-Barack-Obamas-inauguration-pastor-disrespectful.html

Copy paste spam is against the rules.

The same Rick Warren who said that we needed to assassinate Iran's leader?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/rick-warren-bac.html

Last night, on Fox News, Sean Hannity insisted that United States needs to "take out" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Warren said he agreed. Hannity asked, "Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?" Warren responded, "Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped.... In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers."

False Teachers will be judged more harshly, Ricky. Maybe you should rethink your opinions.


Also, shame on Obama.

Oops. Whether Warren was Obama's choice or not, he is adopting the choice as his own (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_minister).
He claims that he is already known as a "fierce advocate for equality" for us: except, he's not. During the transition, he hasn't said a thing (while inside sources indicate we shouldn't expect him to push for anything, not even a no-brainer like DADT). This is his very first signal, and a disturbing one.
He doesn't agree with him. He is trying to open a dialogue with them
No, he's not inviting the guy over for dinner. That would be completely different (he is likely to sit down and talk with some very hostile people, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Raul Castro for example). He is choosing this guy as the opening statement of his administration to me and every other gay person who has been waiting for a sign of his intentions.

I do not consider myself to be a bitter partisan

Yet you quite obviously are.

This is pathetic. Really, really pathetic.

Look, Im a left wing partisan who thinks that we shouldnt even pretend like we care about the religious right's point of view, and even Im not freaking out over this.

Its a symbolic gesture to the right. Not gay people, no matter how much you want to make it one.

For God's sake, comments like "OMG I NO LONGER SUPPORT OBAMA!" before hes even had his first fucking day in office are stupid. No nicer way of putting that.

Its a symbolic gesture to the right.

Exactly. My enemies are his friends.
Not gay people, no matter how much you want to make it one.

He has made no gesture to us at all. He will be friendly toward the religious right, and not toward us. That's the message he sent.

The same Rick Warren who said that we needed to assassinate Iran's leader?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/rick-warren-bac.html



False Teachers will be judged more harshly, Ricky. Maybe you should rethink your opinions.


Also, shame on Obama.

You know, Warren actually has theological grounds for his comments. The Bible does say what he says it does. The Bible also contains instances of "rightous" Jewish heros assassinating their enemies.

So, lets not pretend like assassination is unchristian, mk?

Exactly. My enemies are his friends.


Friends? Hardly. He is just showing he's their president too. After 8 years of Bush and his "real America" crap, it should be a breath of fresh air.


He has made no gesture to us at all. He will be friendly toward the religious right, and not toward us. That's the message he sent.

No, thats not the messege sent. What about the other pastor speaking? Hes a very pro-LGBT rights activist. This has been brought to your attention twice. You are choosing to ignore it.

Exactly. My enemies are his friends.

He has made no gesture to us at all. He will be friendly toward the religious right, and not toward us. That's the message he sent.

By this logic, Obama's choice of Rev. Lowery is a big "fuck you" toward the religious right.

One could conclude he is sending a message that common ground should be looked for rather than dividing everyone into "enemies" or "friends."

Or one could conclude Obama is deliberately trying to offend everyone. :rolleyes:

Or one could conclude Obama is deliberately trying to offend everyone.

Thats my conclusion.

He has made no gesture to us at all. He will be friendly toward the religious right, and not toward us. That's the message he sent.

He has Lowery speaking as well. What is that, if not a gesture towards the LGBT community?

Friends? Hardly. He is just showing he's their president too.

Inviting this guy to dinner would be saying that. Putting him up front says that he is their president first and foremost.
What about the other pastor speaking? Hes a very pro-LGBT rights activist. This has been brought to your attention twice. You are choosing to ignore it.
I have not ignored that: RTFT. I expressed the hope that Lowery was Obama's choice and Warren was not.
Their level of involvement in LGBT issues is not parallel. Warren just recently "invaded Poland" (his church's involvement in Prop 8 was second only to the Mormons), while Lowery has been "very friendly to Poles in the past". Their roles in the inaugural are also not parallel: Warren is given the place of honor. His choice is a pointed insult, given that Obama has said absolutely nothing to us until this.
I will not, of course, scrape Obama off my car before Jan. 20. It is still possible that Warren will be dumped (er, express how gratified and honored he is, but regret that he has a prior engagement to visit a mission in Paraguay), or even that he would use the occasion to apologize for Prop 8 (although I wouldn't hold my breath). It is also possible that Obama will make some indication that he is willing to act substantively on our behalf.

Inviting this guy to dinner would be saying that. Putting him up front says that he is their president first and foremost.

No, it doesnt. Use your brain.


I have not ignored that: RTFT. I expressed the hope that Lowery was Obama's choice and Warren was not.
Their level of involvement in LGBT issues is not parallel. Warren just recently "invaded Poland" (his church's involvement in Prop 8 was second only to the Mormons),

Well, his church is at least in Cali.

Their roles in the inaugural are also not parallel: Warren is given the place of honor.

Because the religious right is currently feeling the most slighted and irrationally terrified. Hes trying to chill them the fuck out. Its politics.

His choice is a pointed insult, given that Obama has said absolutely nothing to us until this.

Yes, Obama was sitting in his dark board room all night with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fred Phelps, Ron Parsely, and John Hagee smocking big, fat, Cuban cigars while kicking kittens and thinking "How can I insult the LGBT community?" when he came up with this.

Their roles in the inaugural are also not parallel: Warren is given the place of honor.

How is giving the invocation more of an honor than the benediction?

This is pathetic. Really, really pathetic.

Look, Im a left wing partisan who thinks that we shouldnt even pretend like we care about the religious right's point of view, and even Im not freaking out over this.

Its a symbolic gesture to the right. Not gay people, no matter how much you want to make it one.

For God's sake, comments like "OMG I NO LONGER SUPPORT OBAMA!" before hes even had his first fucking day in office are stupid. No nicer way of putting that.

It's not pathetic. The guy is a religious extremist. I mean, no self respecting LGBT person would be ok with him in the presidential inauguration. And we shouldnt be.


WARREN: Well, again, I would just say I think to me the issue is, is it natural? Is it the natural thing? I mean here's an interesting thing I have to ask. How can you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution and homosexuality at the same time? Now think about this.

If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool.
....
WARREN: No, I think the difference is do you like food or not, not what flavor of food because you can't live without food. Now you can live without sex. It's possible. Lots of people do. So, I wouldn't even put it in the same category. A lot of people live without sex. It's not an essential for life.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/02/lkl.01.html

So typical xtian shit. Homosexuality is not natural and homosexuals shouldnt have sex and love. It's not only stupid and wrong but also ignorant* and selfish.

*http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

It's not pathetic. The guy is a religious extremist. I mean, no self respecting LGBT person would be ok with him in the presidential inauguration. And we shouldnt be.


I see. What you are saying is you wish for Obama to be as divisive as Dubya? Sorry, thats not why I voted for the guy.

Copy paste spam is against the rules.

Nova's thread merged with the existing one on the topic.

I see. What you are saying is you wish for Obama to be as divisive as Dubya? Sorry, thats not why I voted for the guy.

Of course, he'll be divisive in favor of the left, not the right, that automatically makes up for it.:rolleyes:

So typical xtian shit. Homosexuality is not natural and homosexuals shouldnt have sex and love. It's not only stupid and wrong but also ignorant and selfish.
And completely non-Darwinian.

*sigh*

I wish folk would stop quoting Spencer or Lamarck as if they were Darwin.

I see. What you are saying is you wish for Obama to be as divisive as Dubya? Sorry, thats not why I voted for the guy.

Well, I understand Obama and but I'm also saying that I understand LGTB groups. Personally, I think that no LGTB people should attend that ceremony if they have self respect. So its not pathetic that people criticize Obama.

Nova's thread merged with the existing one on the topic.

Thx. I noticed this one after I posted my thread.

By this logic, Obama's choice of Rev. Lowery is a big "fuck you" toward the religious right.

One could conclude he is sending a message that common ground should be looked for rather than dividing everyone into "enemies" or "friends."

Or one could conclude Obama is deliberately trying to offend everyone. :rolleyes:

Common ground in what? How come can u find common ground when two sides are so incompatible?

I dunno. I guess this is also related to personality. Some people try to "settle". And some just say fuck it and disengage. I guess I may be in the latter category.

*snip*


Yes, Obama was sitting in his dark board room all night with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fred Phelps, Ron Parsely, and John Hagee smocking big, fat, Cuban cigars while kicking kittens and thinking "How can I insult the LGBT community?" when he came up with this.


Except Obama was petting his. You have way with words, well done!

Common ground in this case is getting them to shut the &^*&%% up.

Common ground in what? How come can u find common ground when two sides are so incompatible?

I dunno. I guess this is also related to personality. Some people try to "settle". And some just say fuck it and disengage. I guess I may be in the latter category.

Obama campaigned on a theme of common ground and not the politics of diviseness. Did you think he was lying?

Let's look at this again:

President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday defended his pick of evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration next month as one of "a wide range of viewpoints that are presented."

"And that's how it should be, because that's what America is about," Obama said responding to a question at a news conference about his and Warren's differences on social issues. "That's part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated."

...

Obama in the news conference also defended his record on equality for gays.

"I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans," he said. "It is something that I have been consistent on, and I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency."

....

Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama, defended the choice of Warren, saying, "This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history."

"The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues," Douglass said. "But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues."

Douglass also noted that Obama and Warren agree on several issues, including advocating on behalf of the poor, the disadvantaged and people who suffer from HIV/AIDS.

Obama pointed out that Warren had invited him to speak at his Saddleback Church two years ago even though Warren knew that he had views "that were entirely contrary to his."

"We're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere when we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."
linky (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/obama.warren/) (emphasis added)

So common ground on several issues including treatment of those with HIV/AIDS, but with respectful disagreement on other issues. Exactly what Obama has been saying for years.

Common ground in what? How come can u find common ground when two sides are so incompatible?The ability to compromise? I imagine it's something along the lines of "Who am I to let your ideas stop me from agreeing with you on some things, just because we don't agree on a few others"?

Problem is they are really close to making it a Federal issue. Prop 8 in Cali, Arizona already has one 107 er something. Several other states are following desperately close.

I think they will force the fight whether we like it or not. It is the only thing keeping them in the limelight without this issue they have to go back to church and preach.

He is trying to say for F sakes can we please talk about something else for change?

The ability to compromise? I imagine it's something along the lines of "Who am I to let your ideas stop me from agreeing with you on some things, just because we don't agree on a few others"?

But you are generalizing differences in opinions. Clearly, opinion differences about things like which sports team is better differ from differences like what one side considers human rights violations while the other side considers freedom of religious expression.

I mean, from my point of view, my rights are not negotiable and hence not open to a comprimise.

And from their point of view, they have this book which says certain stuff which is not open to a comprimise.

But you are generalizing differences in opinions. Clearly, opinion differences about things like which sports team is better differ from differences like what one side considers human rights violations while the other side considers freedom of religious expression.

I mean, from my point of view, my rights are not negotiable and hence not open to a comprimise.

And from their point of view, they have this book which says certain stuff which is not open to a comprimise.Oh, you have the "them versus us" thing going on, huh? OK, that's fine.

How is giving the invocation more of an honor than the benediction?
The invocation is "summoning God". The "God" that will be summoned is the one who wants me tortured forever.
Look, I would rather there were no religious figures at governmental functions at all, but Madison lost that fight in the First Congress. But if he had to pick a preacher, couldn't he at least have picked someone who doesn't equate me with pedophiles?
I see. What you are saying is you wish for Obama to be as divisive as Dubya? Sorry, thats not why I voted for the guy.
I think there is a middle ground between being "as divisive as Dubya" and not drawing any line anywhere. I don't want him reaching out to Aryan Nation or the Scientologists, either.
One could conclude he is sending a message that common ground should be looked for rather than dividing everyone into "enemies" or "friends."
Warren has already made me his enemy. Obama here is choosing his side.
He is trying to say for F sakes can we please talk about something else for change?
If that's what he was trying to do, he accomplished quite the opposite.
He hasn't talked about our issues-- AT ALL. This is the first message he's sent.Oh, you have the "them versus us" thing going on, huh? OK, that's fine.
THEY have the "them versus us" thing going on, OK? This guy just attacked us, and hurt us badly.

Obama campaigned on a theme of common ground and not the politics of diviseness. Did you think he was lying?


So common ground on several issues including treatment of those with HIV/AIDS, but with respectful disagreement on other issues. Exactly what Obama has been saying for years.

Ok. I'll quote this altho I hate the black vs gay comparison. But it has a certain point.


Obama Reveals Moral Blindness about Gay Americans
Thursday December 18, 2008

QUESTION: Why doesn't President-elect Obama include in his historic inauguration program a speaker or pastor who fervently believes that African-Americans don't deserve equal rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution?

ANSWER: Because Obama, an African-American, would rightfully deem that viewpoint a contradiction of constitutional rights afforded all Americans, and therefore inappropriate for his presidential inauguration.

The president-elect would not choose to lend his inaugural pulpit to a speaker or pastor who openly espouses discriminatory behavior toward African-Americans.

QUESTION: Why wouldn't President-elect Obama consider the idea that African-Americans don't deserve the same rights and protections as other Americans just one more intellectual theory to be evaluated equally along with all other competing theories?

ANSWER: Because Obama would rightfully find the idea that African-Americans don't deserve equal rights to be morally repugnant and unacceptably discriminatory... and not worthy of debate.

QUESTION: Why would President-elect Obama invite to lead public prayer at his inauguration Pastor Rick Warren, who vehemently condemns the right of gay Americans to get married, who claims that homosexuality is not "a natural thing" and who strongly implies that homosexuals should and "can live without sex."

ANSWER: Because Obama does not find Warren's viewpoints about gay Americans to be sufficiently unacceptable as to be repugnant, discriminatory or immoral.

Obama finds Warren's stances to be just one of many equally acceptable intellectual viewpoints about the "issues" of the nature of homosexuality and gay marriage. Per Obama camp talking points:

"The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what's important is that they agree on many issues... "

QUESTION: What does this mean about President-elect Obama's view about the intrinsic nature of homosexuality?

ANSWER: Obama regards Pastor Rick Warren's views on homosexuality to be merely a stance on one of many equally important issues.

Yet Obama clearly would regard a pastor espousing unequal rights for African-Americans to be promulgating an unacceptably immoral viewpoint.

The possible implications of Obama's tin-eared inconsistency include:

* that Obama believes homosexuality is acquired, not genetic, and therefore is merely a controllable impulse, unlike skin color
* that gay Americans are not necessarily deserving of equal rights and protections
* that condemning language against the essence of homosexuality is acceptable.

SUMMARY: Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. presidency by cobbling together a new Democratic-voting coalition that includes Americans who hold socially conservative views on certain issues, including abortion and gay marriage.

In an effort to continue to appeal to Americans who are moderately liberal on economic and justice issues, but retain conservative views on religious-related social issues, Obama invited religious right Pastor Rick Warren to offer an inaugural prayer.

In fact, Warren spearheads admirable, hands-on work on a myriad of important justice issues. And at the Obama/McCain debate held at his church on August 16, 2008, Pastor Warren firmly queried both candidates about their economic proposals to help middle-class Americans. In many areas, I do believe that Pastor Warren is the very model of Christian leadership.

But in Obama's fevered, insecure rush to pump-up his post-election political popularity, the president-elect accidentally revealed his moral blindness about the unequal and often cruel treatment afforded gay Americans.

And again I lately wonder: Is Obama conviction-free and ideology-free, unless a value or condition pertains directly to the interests of him and his tight circle of family and friends?

http://usliberals.about.com/b/2008/12/18/obama-reveals-moral-blindness-about-gay-americans.htm

Oh, you have the "them versus us" thing going on, huh? OK, that's fine.

Yeah I guess so. I also have a "them versus us" thing when religious exteremists stone raped women to death in Iran.

Sometimes, there shouldnt be a common ground.

Ok. I'll quote this altho I hate the black vs gay comparison. But it has a certain point.


http://usliberals.about.com/b/2008/12/18/obama-reveals-moral-blindness-about-gay-americans.htm

Although I do believe in the race = sexual orientation for civil rights and equal protection purposes, I see nothing here but hysterical over-reaction.

I don't like Warren either. His views on homosexuality make my skin crawl.

But, to anyone that has been paying attention, this isn't a move of political convenience on Obama's part, but rather a central part of the message he has been emphasizing all along: we have to get past "us v. them" and find common ground.

EDIT: But, given that a majority of Americans seem to be homophobes, how does it behoove anyone -- especially the LGBT community -- for Obama to say "fuck it and disengage." Isn't working on persuading those that disagree on this issue both morally and tactically superior?

Although I do believe in the race = sexual orientation for civil rights and equal protection purposes, I see nothing here but hysterical over-reaction.

I don't like Warren either. His views on homosexuality make my skin crawl.

But, to anyone that has been paying attention, this isn't a move of political convenience on Obama's part, but rather a central part of the message he has been emphasizing all along: we have to get past "us v. them" and find common ground.

Umm, ok. You are repeating your points, I wont repeat mine. I guess we wont find common ground. :D


EDIT: But, given that a majority of Americans seem to be homophobes, how does it behoove anyone -- especially the LGBT community -- for Obama to say "fuck it and disengage." Isn't working on persuading those that disagree on this issue both morally and tactically superior?


I said I understood Obama. But I may understand terrorists too. Broken families? Religious justifications? Damage from poverty? Throw in some biological factors (some people are more prone to violence)? I mean almost all people justify their behaviour one way or another. Understanding =/= excusing tho. Pastor Rick Warren, 'who vehemently condemns the right of gay Americans to get married, who claims that homosexuality is not "a natural thing" and who strongly implies that homosexuals should and "can live without sex." ' is not an acceptable choice for presidential inauguration, IMHO.

And if any LGBT person is ok with that, it's either internalized homophobia or a sad resignation to what they consider to be the realities of life.

Umm, ok. You are repeating your points, I wont repeat mine. I guess we wont find common ground. :D

I was directly answering your article's claim that "Obama [is] conviction-free and ideology-free, unless a value or condition pertains directly to the interests of him and his tight circle of family and friends."

Not treating everyone you disagree with as an irredeemable enemy =/= being conviction- or ideology-free.

EDIT: I can more than understand the offense that may be felt by members of the LGBT community (and anyone that supports their civil rights), but it is a little early to be proclaiming Obama an enemy rather than a friend.

I was directly answering your article's claim that "Obama [is] conviction-free and ideology-free, unless a value or condition pertains directly to the interests of him and his tight circle of family and friends."

Not treating everyone you disagree with as an irredeemable enemy =/= being conviction- or ideology-free.

EDIT: I can more than understand the offense that may be felt by members of the LGBT community (and anyone that supports their civil rights), but it is a little early to be proclaiming Obama an enemy rather than a friend.

Well, for someone who is supposed to be opposed to 2 side divisions, u arent making sense when u say Obama can either be a friend or enemy.

I'm not saying he's an enemy. Of course he isnt a friend either.

But, to anyone that has been paying attention, this isn't a move of political convenience on Obama's part, but rather a central part of the message he has been emphasizing all along: we have to get past "us v. them" and find common ground.
There is no common ground here. Obama will take his side, or mine.
EDIT: But, given that a majority of Americans seem to be homophobes, how does it behoove anyone -- especially the LGBT community -- for Obama to say "fuck it and disengage." Isn't working on persuading those that disagree on this issue both morally and tactically superior?
As I keep saying, it would be a different thing entirely for him to TALK to such people. To give them the place of honor indicates that HE is being persuaded by THEM.

Common ground in what? How come can u find common ground when two sides are so incompatible?

Given Warren's work in helping those with HIV/AIDS and the focus that many gay rights groups give to it, I think they could find common ground there. His work on poverty. He could probably find a lot in common with LGBT citizens who consider themselves to be religious, even while they would disagree vehemently on issues of LGBT rights.


The invocation is "summoning God".

The invocation usually calls upon God to bless and oversee the ceremony.

The benediction is generally a request for God to bless and oversee those who participate going forward.

So which is really more important? A call to God that lasts for an hour or so? Or one that is meant to last for 4 years?

And which one happens after Obama is actually president?

The "God" that will be summoned is the one who wants me tortured forever.

Any God that is summoned is the one that exists, Warren's personal opinions as to what that God wants notwithstanding.

Look, I would rather there were no religious figures at governmental functions at all, but Madison lost that fight in the First Congress. But if he had to pick a preacher, couldn't he at least have picked someone who doesn't equate me with pedophiles

He did. Lowery.

Warren has already made me his enemy. Obama here is choosing his side.

Wrong. You are choosing yours.

Not everyone sees things in pure black and white. I'm sure even you could find quite a few things you agree with Warren on.

He hasn't talked about our issues-- AT ALL.

He's been focusing on getting Cabinet appointments and the like. He hasn't talked about embryonic stem cell research at all during the transition either, but I'm not assuming that he's dropping his support for it. And I fully expect Congress to take care of that issue next session, with a president who won't veto them on it.

And I'd be willing to bet that Warren is opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Does the fact that he's giving the invocation mean that Obama is going to turn against it? Or might it be possible for him to disagree with someone on some issues and agree on others?

There is no common ground here. Obama will take his side, or mine.

SO you don't think that we should help those in poverty? Or those with HIV/AIDs?

As I keep saying, it would be a different thing entirely for him to TALK to such people. To give them the place of honor indicates that HE is being persuaded by THEM.

Or, perhaps, that he wants his inaugural to include all types of US citizens, including those he disagrees with.

Do you know how many copies of The Purpose Driven Life have sold in the US?

Given Warren's work in helping those with HIV/AIDS and the focus that many gay rights groups give to it, I think they could find common ground there. His work on poverty. He could probably find a lot in common with LGBT citizens who consider themselves to be religious, even while they would disagree vehemently on issues of LGBT rights.



That is cooperation, not common ground. It's like you working with a murderer prison inmate during a big natural disaster. Is there common ground after the disaster is over?

I'm not saying Warren is comparible to a murderer prison inmate btw. Its just an example of people cooperating under certain circumstances without any common ground.

Wrong. You are choosing yours.
WRONG. HE attacked US. WE did not attack HIM.
Not everyone sees things in pure black and white. I'm sure even you could find quite a few things you agree with Warren on.
Or with Fred Phelps, whom Obama might as well have chosen (Fred is more noxious, to be sure, but also less of a real danger, for that reason).
And I'd be willing to bet that Warren is opposed to embryonic stem cell research.
Yes, but he was not just on the warpath against stem-cell advocates. RIGHT NOW, what he symbolizes (and the choice of a ritual opening speaker is all about symbolism) is telling us that we are scum, on the level of pedophiles.
might it be possible for him to disagree with someone on some issues and agree on others?
In the present context, Warren is identified with one issue more strongly than with any other.

SO you don't think that we should help those in poverty? Or those with HIV/AIDs?


Thats a silly straw man.



Or, perhaps, that he wants his inaugural to include all types of US citizens, including those he disagrees with.

Do you know how many copies of The Purpose Driven Life have sold in the US?

There are levels of disagreements and levels of inclusion and levels of cooperation.

Obviously your level of inclusion is the honour spot at inauguration, his is simple dialogue. Tmutarakhan and I think that the level of disagreement between Obama and Warren should be too great to warrant an honour spot to Warren at the inauguration. You and I disagree, tho our level of disagreement is far less than that of I have with the likes of Warren, unless u have homophobic views too.

That is cooperation, not common ground.

Do they agree on it? If so, it's common ground.


WRONG. HE attacked US. WE did not attack HIM.

How did Obama attack you?

Yes, but he was not just on the warpath against stem-cell advocates. RIGHT NOW, what he symbolizes (and the choice of a ritual opening speaker is all about symbolism) is telling us that we are scum, on the level of pedophiles.

That's what he symbolizes to you, because you choose to focus on that above all else.

It isn't what he symbolizes to the vast majority of US citizens who know of him.

Do they agree on it? If so, it's common ground.


Ok, a limited common ground. But there can be no common ground with respect to human rights according to one side, religious morals according to other side.

Thats a silly straw man.

Not at all. If there is no common ground, that means that Tmut does not agree with Warren on anything of substance.

There are levels of disagreements and levels of inclusion and levels of cooperation.

Obviously your level of inclusion is the honour spot at inauguration, his is simple dialogue. Tmutarakhan and I think that the level of disagreement between Obama and Warren should be too great to warrant an honour spot to Warren at the inauguration. You and I disagree, tho our level of disagreement is far less than that of I have with the likes of Warren, unless u have homophobic views too.

No, we don't disagree on that. I don't like Warren's views on this matter and I'd rather not see him at the inauguration.

What I do disagree with both of you on is the appropriate level of reaction to that choice or what it means in the context of the overall LGBT movement.

Ok, a limited common ground. But there can be no common ground with respect to human rights according to one side, religious morals according to other side.

If that is the case, the LGBT movement already has no common ground with Obama on this issue, who does not support same-sex marriage because of his religious views.

Of course, that really isn't how finding common ground works.

Not at all. If there is no common ground, that means that Tmut does not agree with Warren on anything of substance.


I assumed that there was an implicit understanding that he was talking about common ground with respect to LGBT equality issues.


No, we don't disagree on that. I don't like Warren's views on this matter and I'd rather not see him at the inauguration.

What I do disagree with both of you on is the appropriate level of reaction to that choice or what it means in the context of the overall LGBT movement.

My reaction is to say that it's a wrong choice and ramble online, however, I do realize that Obama is preferable to Republicans.

I also think that no LGBT people should attend that ceremony tho of course they shouldnt resign or anything from Obama administration. Not that my opinion makes any difference...

I assumed that there was an implicit understanding that he was talking about common ground with respect to LGBT equality issues.

That isn't how it works, however. You can't say, "I want to find common ground with you, but only on this one specific issue."

The very fact that you are looking for "common ground" already makes it clear that you disagree on something. Expecting the other person to agree with you on a very specific issue and then claiming to be trying to find common ground would be dishonest.


I also think that no LGBT people should attend that ceremony tho of course they shouldnt resign or anything from Obama administration. Not that my opinion makes any difference...

And I disagree, as I think it would send the wrong message. I think the appropriate thing for the LGBT community to do here is express concern over the choice, point out how vehemently they disagree with Warren, and then move on.

If that is the case, the LGBT movement already has no common ground with Obama on this issue, who does not support same-sex marriage because of his religious views.

Well, if he was like this, u'd be right:

'who vehemently condemns the right of gay Americans to get married, who claims that homosexuality is not "a natural thing" and who strongly implies that homosexuals should and "can live without sex." '

That isn't how it works, however. You can't say, "I want to find common ground with you, but only on this one specific issue."

The very fact that you are looking for "common ground" already makes it clear that you disagree on something. Expecting the other person to agree with you on a very specific issue and then claiming to be trying to find common ground would be dishonest.

Well, I still think that the level of common ground, whatever that is if it exists, does not warrant Warren being in inauguration.

Oh and I'm not trying to find common ground with people like Warren.

Well, if he was like this, u'd be right:

'who vehemently condemns the right of gay Americans to get married, who claims that homosexuality is not "a natural thing" and who strongly implies that homosexuals should and "can live without sex." '

The last two aren't a matter of equal rights.

You were trying to restrict it simply to that issue, in which case only the first portion would apply. And while Obama may not be as vehement, he does agree with Warren that same-sex couples have no right to legal marriage. Is it the level of vehemence that defines "common ground" in your world?

Gods, Shalrirochia.

STILL?

YOU YOURSELF claimed, wrongly, that Obama was "too much to the left" to be elected! YOU YOURSELF claimed Hillary, the most divisive chore of a hag the world has ever known, had more chance with the "middle".

And when Obama makes a symbolic gesture as an attempt to mend a few fences, a gesture, mind you, that has NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE, you COMPLAIN?

YOU? Mr. "Obama is too radical left"? YOU?

Give me a fucking break! You don't give a damn about what Obama does or where he stands. Your posts made that perfectly clear, as well as your willingness to actually make a claim in direct opposition to what you posted previously, in the hopes or belief that no one notices the contradiction. Your only reasons to despise Obama that much must either be his skin color or his lack of a vagina. Because not only are his policies not that much unlike Hillary's, you also managed to make two opposing claims criticizing the same person within the space of eight months!

What's next? Claiming I'm sexist because I didn't root for Palin, that bastion of women's rights that wants to see abortion outlawed?

The last two aren't a matter of equal rights.

You were trying to restrict it simply to that issue, in which case only the first portion would apply. And while Obama may not be as vehement, he does agree with Warren that same-sex couples have no right to legal marriage. Is it the level of vehemence that defines "common ground" in your world?

Last two are his personal "morals" and their position is that "morality" should have a bearing on policy decisions.

And while Obama may not be as vehement, he does agree with Warren that same-sex couples have no right to legal marriage.

But he doesn't think it's equivalent to pedophilia and he supports substantially equal rights for same-sex relationships (without the word), unlike Warren.

Let's not seek common ground with bigots, thanks.

Tmutarakhan and I think that the level of disagreement between Obama and Warren should be too great to warrant an honour spot to Warren at the inauguration.
I am questioning whether there IS much disagreement between Obama and Warren. Obama's statement today claimed that he is already known for standing up for us-- but, that just isn't true. He hasn't been there for us, and gives no sign that he is going to be; his statement would have been an opportunity to say, finally, what he intends to do, if anything. Possibly he will be no different from Dubya at all, as far as we are concerned. Or if he simply regards Warren's abhorrent positions as unimportant, probably that means that he regards the whole issue as unimportant, and will not act at all, which would be a marginal improvement over Dubya, but not enough to take emigration off the table for me.
How did Obama attack you?
WARREN attacked us.
That's what he symbolizes to you, because you choose to focus on that above all else.

It isn't what he symbolizes to the vast majority of US citizens who know of him.
In the field of POLITICS, his Prop 8 was the biggest thing he has done, larger even than staging the McCain/Obama encounter during the campaign-- and it JUST happened. What if Franklin Graham had just made his "Muslims are devil worshippers" remarks a couple weeks ago, and Obama had tapped Graham? How could that be taken as anything other than an endorsement of the anti-Muslim rhetoric?

I am questioning whether there IS much disagreement between Obama and Warren. Obama's statement today claimed that he is already known for standing up for us-- but, that just isn't true. He hasn't been there for us, and gives no sign that he is going to be; his statement would have been an opportunity to say, finally, what he intends to do, if anything. Possibly he will be no different from Dubya at all, as far as we are concerned. Or if he simly regards Warren's abhorrent positions as unimportant, probably that means that he regards the whole issue as unimportant, and will not act at all, which would be a marginal improvement over Dubya, but not enough to take emigration off the table for me.


I take it that its very easy for Americans to immigrate to Canada? Of course, it isnt perfect here either but you know I guess compared to certain other places...

Let's not seek common ground with bigots, thanks.

Obama's letting the moron of a preacher speak at his inauguration.

Obama's not letting the moron of a preacher dictate, suggest, or otherwise influence policy.

I take it that its very easy for Americans to immigrate to Canada?
It is extraordinarily difficult, if you are no longer young. I tried after 2000 but didn't get too far. I often regret not having been more persistent.
Obama's letting the moron of a preacher speak at his inauguration.

Obama's not letting the moron of a preacher dictate, suggest, or otherwise influence policy.
He has chosen to make a strong symbolic statement. In the absence of any substantive policy statement, it is the only clue to what his policies may be.

It is extraordinarily difficult, if you are no longer young. I tried after 2000 but didn't get too far. I often regret not having been more persistent.


Do you have a university degree and work experience?

But he doesn't think it's equivalent to pedophilia and he supports substantially equal rights for same-sex relationships (without the word), unlike Warren.

He supports "separate but equal" rights for same-sex couples. I don't see that view as different from those who proposed "separate but equal" rights for those of different ethnic backgrounds. Do you?

Let's not seek common ground with bigots, thanks.

You clearly already are. You're just choosing the level of bigotry that is ok enough so that you'll look for common ground.


I am questioning whether there IS much disagreement between Obama and Warren. Obama's statement today claimed that he is already known for standing up for us-- but, that just isn't true. He hasn't been there for us, and gives no sign that he is going to be; his statement would have been an opportunity to say, finally, what he intends to do, if anything.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights

Other than the issue of same-sex marriage, which anyone who paid attention would already know that Obama disagreed with the majority of the LGBT community on, what has he been lacking?

WARREN attacked us.

Go back and look at the progression of the conversation. We were discussing Obama.

In the field of POLITICS, his Prop 8 was the biggest thing he has done, larger even than staging the McCain/Obama encounter during the campaign-- and it JUST happened.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that most US citizens are more aware of the forum during the campaign than they are of Warren's involvement with Prop 8.

And most US citizens who would recognize his name aren't going to recognize it in the context of politics. They'll recognize it in the context of his ministries - especially his well-known book.

He has chosen to make a strong symbolic statement.

Yes. One that says "I'm willing to try to mend fences", not one that says "I agree with what the speaker says".

He has chosen to make a strong symbolic statement.

You have chosen to impose a "strong symbolic statement" on this action.

There's no indication whatsoever that he had any intention whatsoever of making said statement.

In the absence of any substantive policy statement, it is the only clue to what his policies may be.

Other than, you know, the policies he's been espousing throughout his political career and throughout the campaign?

I'm so sorry.

The man behind this website (http://www.hivandthechurch.com/en-US/Home.htm) and this (http://www.purposedrivenchurch.com/en-US/PEACE/PEACE_Plan.htm) is irredeemably evil.

Despite the facts that he is non-partisan, known for trying to expand the evagelical message beyond hot-button social issues, and (with the exception of some of those hot-button issues) is relatively moderate, he should never be compromised with or invited into the Democratic tent.

:rolleyes:

For those of you who forget me, I supported Hillary Rodham Clinton during the presidential primaries. I was bitterly disappointed when she was defeated by Barack Obama, whom I later voted for in the general election. One of the arguments I made against Obama at the time was the argument that I was unsure about his commitment to Democratic values. While I do not consider myself to be a bitter partisan, I nevertheless insist on a Democratic candidate who not only shares my values, but ACTS on them.


And then this happened:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html

This only further emphasizes the concerns I already had about President-Elect Obama going into the election. I have long feared that his desire for moderation will override his willingness to fight for Democratic principles, such as equal rights for gays and lesbians, and for a woman's right to choose. Now we are confronted with the very real possibility that Obama will cede the troublesome social issues to the Republicans in order to achieve political victory in other areas.

I do not consider myself a partisan, but the Democratic Party has won sweeping victories in two consecutive national elections. We have control of the congressional and presidential venues of the national government. While this does not clear us to chart a far-left course politically, I think it IS time for the Democratic Party to wake up and understand that is is now the Democratic agenda in Washington, not the GOP. I did not vote for Obama and the Democrats because I want to concede policy ideals to conservatives. I voted for them to change trajectory from right to left politically. If the Democrats do not start to grow a spine really quickly, I will withhold my support in 2010 and 2012.

lol ur funny.

He supports "separate but equal" rights for same-sex couples. I don't see that view as different from those who proposed "separate but equal" rights for those of different ethnic backgrounds. Do you?


You are simplifying his hostility and you know it. Theres difference between saying X people are different and X people are not natural, should stop being X.

You have chosen to impose a "strong symbolic statement" on this action.

There's no indication whatsoever that he had any intention whatsoever of making said statement.



Other than, you know, the policies he's been espousing throughout his political career and throughout the campaign?

Dempbulicents, do you not agree that there could have been a much better choice for Obama's inauguration?

Do you not agree that it was a wrong choice and this needs to be addressed? What is it that you are arguing about?

You are simplifying his hostility and you know it.

Not at all. I'm not disputing that Warren is more openly hostile towards the LGBT community than Obama. In fact, if you read the rest of my post, that would be quite clear.

Theres difference between saying X people are different and X people are not natural, should stop being X.

Obama isn't just saying X people are different. He's saying, "X people should be treated differently under the law."

And yes, there is a difference. But it is one of degree. Obama's views on the marriage issue are bigoted. The fact that Warren's are more reprehensible doesn't change that.

I'm so sorry.

The man behind this website (http://www.hivandthechurch.com/en-US/Home.htm) and this (http://www.purposedrivenchurch.com/en-US/PEACE/PEACE_Plan.htm) is irredeemably evil.

Despite the facts that he is non-partisan, known for trying to expand the evagelical message beyond hot-button social issues, and (with the exception of some of those hot-button issues) is relatively moderate, he should never be compromised with or invited into the Democratic tent.

:rolleyes:

Who said Warren was evil, let alone irredeemably evil?

Dempbulicents, do you not agree that there could have been a much better choice for Obama's inauguration?

I agree on that.

Do you not agree that it was a wrong choice and this needs to be addressed?

I agree, to an extent. That extent being saying, "Wow, Obama, you really could have chosen a better guy."

What is it that you are arguing about?

The level of reaction that is appropriate.

Appropriate: "Warren's views on LGBT issues mean that he can be a divisive figure despite the issues on which he and Obama agree. Obama should have picked someone else."

Over the top: "ZOMG OBAMA PROBABLY WON'T SUPPORT THE LGBT COMMUNITY NOW! HE OBVIOUSLY AGREES WITH WARREN ON THIS AND NOW I'M MOVING TO CANADA/VOTING AGAINST HIM NEXT TIME!!!"

I agree on that.



I agree, to an extent. That extent being saying, "Wow, Obama, you really could have chosen a better guy."



The level of reaction that is appropriate.

Appropriate: "Warren's views on LGBT issues mean that he can be a divisive figure despite the issues on which he and Obama agree. Obama should have picked someone else."

Over the top: "ZOMG OBAMA PROBABLY WON'T SUPPORT THE LGBT COMMUNITY NOW! HE OBVIOUSLY AGREES WITH WARREN ON THIS AND NOW I'M MOVING TO CANADA/VOTING AGAINST HIM NEXT TIME!!!"

Well, then we agree almost completely. I also think that another appropriate response would be LGBT people not attending the ceremony or not be present while Warren is speaking.

What were we discussing about?

I am questioning whether there IS much disagreement between Obama and Warren.

Which is just silly and I think you know it. I'm fully willing to understand that allowing Warren a role in the inauguration is an insult to the LGBT community and all that support it (including me), but this is hardly a policy stance and it doesn't negate Obama's positons in favor of gay rights -- including opposition to California's Prop. 8.

In the field of POLITICS, his Prop 8 was the biggest thing he has done, larger even than staging the McCain/Obama encounter during the campaign-- and it JUST happened.

Bullshit. I don't like Warren and I don't like defending him, but what exactly did he do regarding Prop. 8 other than vocally support it?

Well, then we agree almost completely. I also think that another appropriate response would be LGBT people not attending the ceremony

In the long-standing tradition of the left cutting off its nose to spite its face.

or not be present while Warren is speaking.

An appropriate and sensible idea, although it might be practically impossible.

An appropriate and sensible idea, although it might be practically impossible.

Alternatively, they could discover what is the sound of five hundred gay people giving the good pastor the finger as he speaks.

An appropriate and sensible idea, although it might be practically impossible.

It could be possible to stage a clear protest to his presence there, though, perhaps by turning around or sitting down while he is speaking.

In the long-standing tradition of the left cutting off it's nose to spite its face.


It's not about left or right, just not listening to someone who insults u.


An appropriate and sensible idea, although it might be practically impossible.

Well, I dunno, never watched an American inauguration speech and I wont be watching this 1 either.

It could be possible to stage a clear protest to his presence there, though, perhaps by turning around or sitting down while he is speaking.

Tomatoes! :D

Better yet, SHOES! :D

Let's look at this from another angle: we are trying to persuade the Xn majority that they should be inclusive and respectful of alternative relationships, right? Is the best way to do that to be exclusive and disrespectful of alternate viewpoints?

Let's look at this from another angle: we are trying to persuade the Xn majority that they should be inclusive and respectful of alternative relationships, right? Is the best way to do that is to be exclusive and disrespectful of alternate viewpoints?

While I'd rather have our boots stomping down on their faces, you make a compelling case...

Do you have a university degree and work experience?
I have a master's but not a PhD, have difficulty obtaining job offers from colleges with that. Without job offer in hand, I am required to put $10,000 in the bank to show I won't be a burden. Unfortunately, I am at negative $20,000 with little prospect of getting to zero, let alone positive territory.
Other than the issue of same-sex marriage, which anyone who paid attention would already know that Obama disagreed with the majority of the LGBT community on, what has he been lacking?

Substantive action. If PRESSED, he will say friendly words, but he's never there when needed.
Go back and look at the progression of the conversation. We were discussing Obama.
We were discussing both. I thought the pronoun was clearly referring to Warren.
You have chosen to impose a "strong symbolic statement" on this action.

There's no indication whatsoever that he had any intention whatsoever of making said statement.
There are other preachers, even conservative preachers, he could have chosen who had not just injected themselves into politics. Choosing someone who has just taken a strong position is associating yourself with that position. Come on now, Warren is nastier than Dobson, if smoother than Phelps.

I would really like to be "talked down" as Rachel Maddow puts it-- but, Obama is the only one who could talk me down here, and he is obviously unwilling to do so.
In the absence of any substantive policy statement, it is the only clue to what his policies may be.
Other than, you know, the policies he's been espousing throughout his political career and throughout the campaign?
His career is a blank on the issue, and he avoided talking about it during the campaign as much as possible. There are some nice words on his website, but I don't know if they will translate into any actions, or were even intended sincerely in the first place.

Let's look at this from another angle: we are trying to persuade the Xn majority that they should be inclusive and respectful of alternative relationships, right? Is the best way to do that is to be exclusive and disrespectful of alternate viewpoints?

When was the last time someone was killed for solely being Christian, in the USA? Probably, like never?

He supports "separate but equal" rights for same-sex couples.

That's right.

You clearly already are. You're just choosing the level of bigotry that is ok enough so that you'll look for common ground.

My view here is moral-political; it doesn't occur in ethical abstraction. It has to do with the way the lines of the national debate on homosexuality have been drawn.

Obama is "pro-gay rights": he doesn't support full equality, but he's in favor of making the existing laws far more egalitarian than they presently are. He's opposed to the homophobic legislation that has been passed--DOMA, Prop. 8--and his stance on marriage is on an issue that right now, on the national level, isn't even on the table.

Warren is "anti-gay rights": he vocally supported Prop. 8, he opposes civil unions, he makes insulting and bigoted comparisons of homosexuality to pedophilia and incest, and so forth. That is miles worse than Obama's view.

In any case, I don't see how pointing out that Obama opposes equality, too, helps your case much.

Come on now, Warren is nastier than Dobson, if smoother than Phelps.

Come now, nastier than Dobson?

Let's look at this from another angle: we are trying to persuade the Xn majority that they should be inclusive and respectful of alternative relationships, right? Is the best way to do that to be exclusive and disrespectful of alternate viewpoints?

Precisely because I believe that people are equal regardless of their sexual orientation, and that the individual freedom to pursue relationships with any consenting adult should be respected, I oppose the bigoted views of people who hold same-sex relationships in contempt and advocate hateful political campaigns to deprive them of legal equality.

Precisely because I believe that equality, freedom, and tolerance are very important, I'm against opening the Obama Administration with a preacher who rejects all three when it comes to people of minority sexual orientations.

I don't think that's inconsistent.

Well, I dunno, never watched an American inauguration speech and I wont be watching this 1 either.
You should ALWAYS watch those. I paid very close attention to Bush's, so I wasn't surprised that we were in for a ration of hurt.
Let's look at this from another angle: we are trying to persuade the Xn majority that they should be inclusive and respectful of alternative relationships, right? Is the best way to do that to be exclusive and disrespectful of alternate viewpoints?
The old "let's tolerate the intolerant" ploy? No. We need to tell the brownshirts that they are NOT OK.
He's opposed to the homophobic legislation that has been passed--DOMA, Prop. 8

Is he? The Yes on 8 ads got away with claiming he was for Prop 8 because-- HE WASN'T THERE. Where has he been on DOMA? Is he even going to ASK Congress to repeal it?

When was the last time someone was killed for solely being Christian, in the USA? Probably, like never?

I have no clue. I do know that FBI statistics show significant numbers of anti-Christian hate crimes. Also, there are the fact cited here (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/15/the_flames_of_hate_in_alabama/).

Substantive action. If PRESSED, he will say friendly words, but he's never there when needed.

Never? He hasn't supported, for instance, hate crimes legislation?

We were discussing both. I thought the pronoun was clearly referring to Warren.

You said that Obama was choosing sides.

There are other preachers, even conservative preachers, he could have chosen who had not just injected themselves into politics.

I agree that he could have chosen better.

Choosing someone who has just taken a strong position is associating yourself with that position.

Warren has taken many strong positions. It is your choice to assume that one of them must be associated with Obama (despite his own stated opposition to said position).

Come now, nastier than Dobson?

When he gets wound up against us, yes. Dobson is all oily politeness, in contrast.

You should ALWAYS watch those. I paid very close attention to Bush's, so I wasn't surprised that we were in for a ration of hurt.


And listen to Warren talking? Eww. Btw, cant u just swim to Windsor? :p

Obama's letting the moron of a preacher speak at his inauguration.

Obama's not letting the moron of a preacher dictate, suggest, or otherwise influence policy.

What he's doing is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

If choosing a preacher has no real political or symbolic significance, then there is no reason for him to choose Rick Warren. Choose some non-controversial figure.

If choosing a preacher does have real political or symbolic significance--if choosing Warren is his way of showing that he'll seek common ground with people who think gays are like pedophiles--then we have every reason to point out that such a move should be taken as complicity with homophobic bigotry.

Is he?

I'm going by the statements he's made. You're right--he has yet to take any real political action on DOMA, and he did very little of substance against Prop. 8.

My view here is moral-political; it doesn't occur in ethical abstraction. It has to do with the way the lines of the national debate on homosexuality have been drawn.

Obama is "pro-gay rights": he doesn't support full equality, but he's in favor of making the existing laws far more egalitarian than they presently are. He's opposed to the homophobic legislation that has been passed--DOMA, Prop. 8--and his stance on marriage is on an issue that right now, on the national level, isn't even on the table.

Warren is "anti-gay rights": he vocally supported Prop. 8, he opposes civil unions, he makes insulting and bigoted comparisons of homosexuality to pedophilia and incest, and so forth. That is miles worse than Obama's view.

In any case, I don't see how pointing out that Obama opposes equality, too, helps your case much.

You said you don't think you should find common ground with those who hold bigoted viewpoints on this issue, yet you look for common ground with Obama, who you admit holds a bigoted viewpoint on this issue.

And you don't see the point?

It is quite clear that you will search for common ground with such a person, so long as their bigotry is at an acceptable level to you.


Is he? The Yes on 8 ads got away with claiming he was for Prop 8 because-- HE WASN'T THERE.

A Democratic presidential candidate didn't campaign heavily in California? That's got to be a first.....

Where has he been on DOMA? Is he even going to ASK Congress to repeal it?

He has consistently stated that he will and that he will work to have civil unions recognized at the federal level. Isn't it a bit silly to start assuming that he won't before his presidency even begins?

I have no clue. I do know that FBI statistics show significant numbers of anti-Christian hate crimes. Also, there are the fact cited here (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/15/the_flames_of_hate_in_alabama/).

Ok. Anti-Xtian hate crimes should be dealt with. I think religious bias is part of the hate crime legislation.

However, compare homophobic incidents w.r.t. homosexual population and anti-xtian incidents wrt their population.

And xtians have all their rights I think.

So, what are u saying?

It is quite clear that you will search for common ground with such a person, so long as their bigotry is at an acceptable level to you.

So what?

Never? He hasn't supported, for instance, hate crimes legislation?

I don't know-- has he? Show me, if he has. By that I mean: has he introduced, co-sponsored, voted for such bills? Words on a website saying it would be nice if somebody else did such things are cheap.

You said that Obama was choosing sides.

Yes. Warren is on one side, I'm on the other. He can be friends with one of us, but not both. You then said that *I* was the one who chose sides: no, I was forced to be on the opposite side from Warren, when he ATTACKED me. That is what I was saying.
Once Germany has already bombed Poland, Churchill cannot invite Hitler to be the best man at his wedding and still stay friends with Poles. And it is thoroughly un-called for to blame the Poles for saying, you're on our side or Germany's.
Warren has taken many strong positions.

One of which he took JUST NOW.

I agree 100%. Warren is a piss poor choice. I understand the concept of "reaching out" but there is a limit. One wouldn't "reach out" to an anti-semite or KKK supporter so why reach out to a gay basher?

When you do that you imply that Warren's gay bashing is an "acceptable" opinion. Oh no it's not. Until good men (and better women) stand and let people know in no uncertain terms that such opinions are NOT acceptable, the bigots have no real incentive to change.

By the way, it's not only gays that would be willing to give Warren the finger.

What he's doing is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

If choosing a preacher has no real political or symbolic significance, then there is no reason for him to choose Rick Warren. Choose some non-controversial figure.

If choosing a preacher does have real political or symbolic significance--if choosing Warren is his way of showing that he'll seek common ground with people who think gays are like pedophiles--then we have every reason to point out that such a move should be taken as complicity with homophobic bigotry.

Or maybe the choice of Warren has nothing at all to do with his stance on LGBT issues.

Maybe it's a statement to those with HIV/AIDS or those in poverty that Obama will advocate for them.

Maybe it's a statement to evangelicals that, although a large proportion of them didn't vote for Obama, he still intends to be their president as well. (You know, that whole thing he said in his acceptance speech). Let's not forget that Warren's book has sold incredible numbers of copies across the country and that many US citizens (even some who would disagree with his views on LGBT issues) see him as a strong spiritual leader.

Could he have chosen better? Absolutely! But the significance of this is really getting blown out of proportion.

So what?

Remember this statement:

Let's not seek common ground with bigots, thanks.?


I don't know-- has he? Show me, if he has. By that I mean: has he introduced, co-sponsored, voted for such bills? Words on a website saying it would be nice if somebody else did such things are cheap.

I've got to run now, but I'll look for it later. IIRC, he did so while in Illinois and I'm pretty sure a bill came up during his tenure in the Senate as well.

Yes. Warren is on one side, I'm on the other. He can be friends with one of us, but not both

And that is your choice, not his.

Personally, I am able to be friends with people who hold viewpoints I disagree with - even vehemently.

One of which he took JUST NOW.

He JUST NOW expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage? For the first time?

A Democratic presidential candidate didn't campaign heavily in California? That's got to be a first.....
He gave ZERO support to the No on 8 campaign.
He has consistently stated that he will and that he will work to have civil unions recognized at the federal level.
He has been talking about his legislative agenda, not just his top-level appointments, for these past few weeks, and sources within his transition team also talk about what he wants introduced. We are NOT on his agenda. Not. At. All.

When he gets wound up against us, yes. Dobson is all oily politeness, in contrast.

:confused:

“A life in keeping with God’s design and instruction brings the greatest possible fulfillment, while any deviation from His design invites disaster,” Dobson writes in Marriage Under Fire. “This is why the Bible warns against all harmful forms of sexual behavior, including premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, incest, bestiality and pedophilia.”

Dobson believes that “the homosexual activist movement and related entities” are the forces working to undermine God’s plans.

“The institution of marriage and the Christian church,” he insists, “are all that stand in the way of the movement’s achievement of every coveted aspiration.” link (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7195&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=cs_)

Dobson has called gay people sick, has suggested that they accept pedophilia, and rails against what he calls a "gay agenda" bent on "destroying marriage." He suggests gay people can be "restored" if they undergo specialized therapy. link (http://www.denverpost.com/fitness/ci_4062983)

Or maybe the choice of Warren has nothing at all to do with his stance on LGBT issues.

So they just conveniently forgot about it?

"Oh, by the way, the preacher we've chosen is a homophobic bigot."
"Yeah, but (obviously unlike any other preacher in the country) he's done good work on HIV/AIDS and poverty, so who cares?"

I mean, Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam does some good things, too.

Maybe it's a statement to evangelicals that, although a large proportion of them didn't vote for Obama, he still intends to be their president as well. (You know, that whole thing he said in his acceptance speech).

So would he honor David Duke, to be the president of the white supremacists and anti-Semites?

Remember this statement:

Inconsequential rhetorical point to you. Do you have a point? I already explained how I drew my distinction.

He gave ZERO support to the No on 8 campaign.

He said he was opposed to the bill.

He has been talking about his legislative agenda, not just his top-level appointments, for these past few weeks, and sources within his transition team also talk about what he wants introduced.

Only in reference to the economic crisis.

We are NOT on his agenda. Not. At. All.

His focus is currently elsewhere, therefore he doesn't care about you.

Ok, if you want to think that, you go right ahead.

Like I said before, he hasn't talked about stem cell research either. Clearly, that means it's not on his agenda.

He gave ZERO support to the No on 8 campaign.

Obama rejects proposed California gay marriage ban (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html)

He said he was opposed to the bill.



Only in reference to the economic crisis.



His focus is currently elsewhere, therefore he doesn't care about you.

Ok, if you want to think that, you go right ahead.

Like I said before, he hasn't talked about stem cell research either. Clearly, that means it's not on his agenda.

Why are you defending this so vehemently if you think Warren was the wrong choice?

Or maybe the choice of Warren has nothing at all to do with his stance on LGBT issues.

Maybe it's a statement to those with HIV/AIDS or those in poverty that Obama will advocate for them.

Could he have chosen better? Absolutely! But the significance of this is really getting blown out of proportion.

I don't think there's any doubt Obama is focusing on Warren's AIDS and poverty positions, but that doesn't excuse his stance on the gay issue.

And I don't think it's getting blown out of proportion. It sends a message that Warren's form of bigoty is ok and it's not.

Why are you defending this so vehemently if you think Warren was the wrong choice?

Think Warren is the wrong choice =/= support hysterical overreaction to the Warren choice.

Think Warren is the wrong choice =/= support hysterical overreaction to the Warren choice.

Ok, expressing frustration/disappointment is hysteria now. Thx...

The only real difference between republicans and democrats is that they hate each other for no reason, and that's technically another similarity.

Obama rejects proposed California gay marriage ban (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html)

Interesting...

Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.
...
...John McCain, who last week endorsed Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 California ballot...

so is he really against the ban or was he just looking for votes?

remember, Obama is first and formost, a politician. I withhold any judgement till, at least, after his first Offical 100 days in office.

so is he really against the ban or was he just looking for votes?

He probably was really against the ban, and really is for same-sex marriage. I suspect it of most of the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Being opposed to same-sex marriage and and supportive of Prop. 8 is very close to being an outright contradiction, and it almost certainly was a political compromise, not a nuanced, logical, political stance.

He probably was really against the ban, and really is for same-sex marriage. I suspect it of most of the leadership of the Democratic Party.
So bascially you're saying he lied alot on the campaign trail.

So bascially you're saying he lied alot on the campaign trail.

Well... yes. But not egregiously so, because I think his public stance, in the actions he takes as president, will continue to be opposed to same-sex marriage.

His personal views are politically irrelevant.

I've got to run now, but I'll look for it later. IIRC, he did so while in Illinois and I'm pretty sure a bill came up during his tenure in the Senate as well.
OK, I'd be interested to see that, when you have time.
And that is your choice, not his.
NO, Goddamnit. I did not pick the fight with Warren, HE did. I find it very offensive that you are blaming the Poles while Warsaw is in rubble.
He JUST NOW expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage? For the first time?
He JUST NOW injected himself into a bitter political fight, for the first time, and took some seriously nasty positions.
:confused:

“A life in keeping with God’s design and instruction brings the greatest possible fulfillment, while any deviation from His design invites disaster,” Dobson writes in Marriage Under Fire. “This is why the Bible warns against all harmful forms of sexual behavior, including premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, incest, bestiality and pedophilia.”

Dobson believes that “the homosexual activist movement and related entities” are the forces working to undermine God’s plans.

“The institution of marriage and the Christian church,” he insists, “are all that stand in the way of the movement’s achievement of every coveted aspiration.” link (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7195&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=cs_)

Dobson has called gay people sick, has suggested that they accept pedophilia, and rails against what he calls a "gay agenda" bent on "destroying marriage." He suggests gay people can be "restored" if they undergo specialized therapy. link (http://www.denverpost.com/fitness/ci_4062983)
Warren says all that and more. He does not, however, think we can be turned straight by therapy: he prefers we be made asexual.
He said he was opposed to the bill.
Back in July. In the ads showing Feinstein, Schwarz and other dubiously popular politicians recommending No on 8, a video clip of Obama would sure have come in handy. When robocalls went around saying Obama supported Yes on 8, a robocall with his voice contradicting that would have been nice. A word in his stump speeches would have been nice.
His focus is currently elsewhere
Sometimes his focus IS on us. The question of Don't Ask Don't Tell came up: his transition team said not to expect any move on it at all. TODAY his focus was forced to be on us, and what did he have to say? Nothing, nothing at all, about anything he might do. Just a claim that what he's done in the past (which is to say: not much) ought to satisfy us.
Like I said before, he hasn't talked about stem cell research either. Clearly, that means it's not on his agenda.
It probably isn't. Maybe some years down the road, but there is no reason to expect he is going to do anything whatsoever on the subject early on.
He probably was really against the ban, and really is for same-sex marriage. I suspect it of most of the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Being opposed to same-sex marriage and and supportive of Prop. 8 is very close to being an outright contradiction, and it almost certainly was a political compromise, not a nuanced, logical, political stance.
Or: maybe was really for the ban, and really is against same-sex marriage.
If that's not where he is, now would be a good time to say so.
I don't think there's any doubt Obama is focusing on Warren's AIDS and poverty positions
Then you think mistakenly. There is considerable doubt about what Obama is doing here.

Oh I didnt know this.

' "I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage," he told Beliefnet. When asked if he believed that those examples were equivalent to allowing gays to marry, Mr Warren replied: "Oh, I do." '
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/1219/1229523104862.html

I changed my mind. I now think that the reaction to this was insufficient, let alone being over the top.

NO, Goddamnit. I did not pick the fight with Warren, HE did. I find it very offensive that you are blaming the Poles while Warsaw is in rubble.

Honestly? You're comparing the selection of a preacher for an inauguration speech to the Holocaust?

Of course I am serious. Warren is my personal enemy, at a profound level; friends of his are not friends of mine. Symbolic moves like this are intended to send a signal, and this sends a very strong signal. Message received.
I think you got your signals crossed. Give me a break, Warren is suddenly a friend of Obama just because he's been invited to provide the opening prayer? And this means that Obama somehow approves of Warren's message, despite multiple statements to the contrary?

Of course, if this is true then...

OMG! Chief Justice Roberts is actually going to BE SWEARING PRESIDENT OBAMA IN!!!!! That MUST mean that Obama agrees with all of Roberts' positions! He's actually AGAINST a woman's right to choose!

ZOMG! The Republican Congressional leadership will BE AT OBAMA'S SWEARING IN! This MUST mean that Obama IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE GOP!!

Oh my fucking God on a pogo stick! Do you know who DOES have a special place of honor? Who has actually been invited to make an actual honest to goodness speech right then and there? And said speech will be the most watched next to Obama's himself?! That's right! President George W Bush! My God, I never realized it, but Obama MUST actually approve everything Bush has done for the last 8 years! All that campaign rhetoric just must have been empty words! After all, Bush has been invited to speak at such an historic event!

The reaction of the GLBT crowd about this strongly reminds me of the religious right 8 years ago when Bush did not move immediately to appoint their chosen pets to cabinet positions. That's rather sad. It's even more sad when you remember that this group pulled the same drama when the mayor of SF forgot to mention them when he was sworn in a few years ago and claimed that it also meant they were being excluded from his office.

And look what happened after that.

Honestly? You're comparing the selection of a preacher for an inauguration speech to the Holocaust?
If you haven't followed the discussion: "selecting the preacher" is analogized to "Churchill asking Hitler to be best man at his wedding" (while still claiming to be a friend to the Poles); the Prop 8 fight is analogized to the bombing of Warsaw; the Holocaust was not used as an analogy for anything.

If you haven't followed the discussion: "selecting the preacher" is analogized to "Churchill asking Hitler to be best man at his wedding" (while still claiming to be a friend to the Poles); the Prop 8 fight is analogized to the bombing of Warsaw; the Holocaust was not used as an analogy for anything.

Even still, you're not dying. The analogy is disrespectful and outlandish.

I think you got your signals crossed. Give me a break, Warren is suddenly a friend of Obama just because he's been invited to provide the opening prayer? And this means that Obama somehow approves of Warren's message, despite multiple statements to the contrary?

Of course, if this is true then...

OMG! Chief Justice Roberts is actually going to BE SWEARING PRESIDENT OBAMA IN!!!!! That MUST mean that Obama agrees with all of Roberts' positions! He's actually AGAINST a woman's right to choose!

ZOMG! The Republican Congressional leadership will BE AT OBAMA'S SWEARING IN! This MUST mean that Obama IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE GOP!!

Oh my fucking God on a pogo stick! Do you know who DOES have a special place of honor? Who has actually been invited to make an actual honest to goodness speech right then and there? And said speech will be the most watched next to Obama's himself?! That's right! President George W Bush! My God, I never realized it, but Obama MUST actually approve everything Bush has done for the last 8 years! All that campaign rhetoric just must have been empty words! After all, Bush has been invited to speak at such an historic event!

The reaction of the GLBT crowd about this strongly reminds me of the religious right 8 years ago when Bush did not move immediately to appoint their chosen pets to cabinet positions. That's rather sad. It's even more sad when you remember that this group pulled the same drama when the mayor of SF forgot to mention them when he was sworn in a few years ago and claimed that it also meant they were being excluded from his office.

And look what happened after that.

Doesnt Bush have to be there since he's the ex president? Hows that necessity comparable to picking clergy to pray? Could Obama have at least not chosen someone who hadnt compared homosexuality to paedophilia, since it is hard to find non-homophobic Christians? Is asking that 2 much sad drama from GLBT crowd?

I think you got your signals crossed. Give me a break, Warren is suddenly a friend of Obama just because he's been invited to provide the opening prayer?

If the Prime Minister of Japan decides he is going to take his oath of office at Yasukuni shrine, would that be seen as a signal of what kind of administration he is going to run?
OMG! Chief Justice Roberts is actually going to BE SWEARING PRESIDENT OBAMA IN!!!!!

Obama did not choose the Chief Justice. Early in the thread, I was hanging on to the hope that Obama did not choose Warren either (maybe it was just the Congresscritters on the gala committee). But Obama did single out Warren for this honor.
Do you know who DOES have a special place of honor? Who has actually been invited to make an actual honest to goodness speech right then and there? And said speech will be the most watched next to Obama's himself?! That's right! President George W Bush!

I had not heard this. That is also quite disturbing. The outgoing President is usually expected to fade into the background. YES, if this is true I think it is intended, likewise, to send a message: that Bush will not be prosecuted.
The reaction of the GLBT crowd about this strongly reminds me of the religious right 8 years ago when Bush did not move immediately to appoint their chosen pets to cabinet positions.

We (progressives in general, not just gays) have not gotten any high-profile appointments either, but you have not seen much flap about that.
This is more like what would have happened if Bush had chosen Louis Farrakhan to open his inauguration: how do you think the right would have taken THAT?

Even still, you're not dying.
There are a couple gay-bashing murders a week. I've had Christians try to kill me, twice.

Not being American, I can't expect to understand the depth of emotional investment in every detail of the inauguration. But I can understand that there's a bit too much emotional investment going on in this thread.

Ratchet it back a few notches, everyone. Your beef is with the officials involved, not with other posters.

I'm done for the day, anyhow. Nighty-nite!

Not being American, I can't expect to understand the depth of emotional investment in every detail of the inauguration. But I can understand that there's a bit too much emotional investment going on in this thread.

Ratchet it back a few notches, everyone. Your beef is with the officials involved, not with other posters.

As an American who is deeply passionate about politics and civil rights in particular, I don't understand the depth of emotional investment in every detail of the inauguration.

I guess that is a personal failure on my part.

that said, your message is received.

Ok, expressing frustration/disappointment is hysteria now. Thx...

No, but some of what has been said in this thread is rather hysterical.

Perhaps I am just not sensitive enough on LGBT issues, but I really don't see any room for anything beyond some disappointment and frustration.

I certainly don't see this as a deliberate snub of the LGBT community or a "sign" that President-elect Obama agrees with Warren on LGBT issues.

No, but some of what has been said in this thread is rather hysterical.

Perhaps I am just not sensitive enough on LGBT issues, but I really don't see any room for anything beyond some disappointment and frustration.

I certainly don't see this as a deliberate snub of the LGBT community or a "sign" that President-elect Obama agrees with Warren on LGBT issues.

You cant see any room? Wtf? He can pick someone else...

Oh and it's a snub tho it may not be a sign.

Who else could he have picked? That isn't a rhetorical question, I'm not up to speed on popular preachers. Who else is out there?

You cant see any room? Wtf? He can pick someone else...

Apparently I was unclear. I don't see much room for anything by us rabble other than some disappointment and frustration.

EDIT: And rather than pick apart my statement, which was an acknowledgement that I may just not understand, are you going to say you agree with those that have said this is a signal of Obama's actual agenda on social issues?

Apparently I was unclear. I don't see much room for anything by us rabble other than some disappointment and frustration.

I dunno. You and Dempublicents had been defending the choice eventho u were also against it somehow so it dragged.

You could have let us ramble among ourselves.

Edit: I said, it may not be a sign. I dunno. Obama's actions will determine that.

One of the arguments I made against Obama at the time was the argument that I was unsure about his commitment to Democratic values.
What the fuck are 'Democratic values'? From the perspective of an outside viewer, the Democratic Party looks like a rainbow coalition against the Republicans.

What the fuck are 'Democratic values'? From the perspective of an outside viewer, the Democratic Party looks like a rainbow coalition against the Republicans.

That's because it's only recently regained power. With only two viable parties, the "loyal opposition" is pretty much just people who dislike the party in power, and that changes once they're in a position to make policy.

The longer this debate last, the more silly it seems. :rolleyes:

The longer this debate last, the more silly it seems. :rolleyes:

Why do people say that instead of leaving the thread?

I dunno. You and Dempublicents had been defending the choice eventho u were also against it somehow so it dragged.

You could have let us ramble among ourselves.

Edit: I said, it may not be a sign. I dunno. Obama's actions will determine that.

You really don't seem to understand the concept of common ground or respectful disagreement.

I consider myself a strong supporter of LGBT rights -- including same-sex marriage.

I recognize that picking Warren is controversial and can be hurtful to some.

I can nonetheless disagree with some of the rhetoric thrown around in this thread about President-elect Obama and his secret anti-LGBT agenda.

Do you really agree 100% with the comments below?

*snip*This only further emphasizes the concerns I already had about President-Elect Obama going into the election. I have long feared that his desire for moderation will override his willingness to fight for Democratic principles, such as equal rights for gays and lesbians, and for a woman's right to choose. Now we are confronted with the very real possibility that Obama will cede the troublesome social issues to the Republicans in order to achieve political victory in other areas.
*snip*

If the Democrats do not start to grow a spine really quickly, I will withhold my support in 2010 and 2012.

It's like: if he invited a Christian Identity preacher to bless him, he could forget about any Jewish supporters.

If Rick Warren gives the invocation, I am scraping the Obama sticker off my car. Forget it.

OK, I'd be interested to see that, when you have time.

NO, Goddamnit. I did not pick the fight with Warren, HE did. I find it very offensive that you are blaming the Poles while Warsaw is in rubble.

*snip*

Sometimes his focus IS on us. The question of Don't Ask Don't Tell came up: his transition team said not to expect any move on it at all. TODAY his focus was forced to be on us, and what did he have to say? Nothing, nothing at all, about anything he might do. Just a claim that what he's done in the past (which is to say: not much) ought to satisfy us.

It probably isn't. Maybe some years down the road, but there is no reason to expect he is going to do anything whatsoever on the subject early on.

Or: maybe was really for the ban, and really is against same-sex marriage.
If that's not where he is, now would be a good time to say so.

Then you think mistakenly. There is considerable doubt about what Obama is doing here.

Why do people say that instead of leaving the thread?If you'll check my post times, you'll see that I left hours ago. I came back to see if anything interesting had been said, and I made a comment that I thought was appropriate.

You really don't seem to understand the concept of common ground or respectful disagreement.


No I do understand. However, u dont understand my position. You dont have to agree but at least understand so I wont have to repeat my opinion.

IMO, there can be no common ground or respectful disagreement with a man like this:

'who vehemently condemns the right of gay Americans to get married, who claims that homosexuality is not "a natural thing" and who strongly implies that homosexuals should and "can live without sex." '

' "I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage," he told Beliefnet. When asked if he believed that those examples were equivalent to allowing gays to marry, Mr Warren replied: "Oh, I do." '



I consider myself a strong supporter of LGBT rights -- including same-sex marriage.

I recognize that picking Warren is controversial and can be hurtful to some.

I can nonetheless disagree with some of the rhetoric thrown around in this thread about President-elect Obama and his secret anti-LGBT agenda.

Do you really agree 100% with the comments below?

No but when u are making comments like this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14316673&postcount=141

You are actually defending Obama's choice. If you think it was a bad choice, dont defend it.

No I do understand. However, u dont understand my position. You dont have to agree but at least understand so I wont have to repeat my opinion.

IMO, there can be no common ground or respectful disagreement with a man like this*snip*

:headbang:

I was speaking of common ground and respectful disagreement between those to whom LGBT issues are important (such as most of the posters in this thread).


No but when u are making comments like this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14316673&postcount=141

You are actually defending Obama's choice. If you think it was a bad choice, dont defend it.

Yes, suggesting that Warren is not irredeemably evil was going too far. :rolleyes:

Here we go, don't know if this has been posted yet...

Gay Man for Navy Secretary?
Newsweek
By Jessica Bennett and Daniel Stone

As gay activists protest the selection of evangelical megapastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation, they could have reason to cheer a future Obama announcement. Sources tell NEWSWEEK that the president-elect is considering the appointment of the first openly gay chief of a military branch.

Bill White, president of the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum in New York, is being backed by congressional and former military leaders to be the next secretary of the Navy. Among White's vocal supporters are retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat whose district includes the newly renovated Intrepid museum which sits on an aircraft carrier in the Hudson River. Nadler says members of Obama's transition team have reached out to him about White. "They're clearly vetting him," he tells NEWSWEEK.

Link (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/poweringup/archive/2008/12/18/gay-man-for-navy-secretary.aspx)

I'm sure the Navy are real happy about this stereotyping :)

For those of you who forget me, I supported Hillary Rodham Clinton during the presidential primaries. I was bitterly disappointed when she was defeated by Barack Obama, whom I later voted for in the general election. One of the arguments I made against Obama at the time was the argument that I was unsure about his commitment to Democratic values.

And Clinton was any more comitted? Seriously, the key issue at the start of the election had to be Iraq, and it was clear who was more in line with Democratic values on that score. And I would question how "democratic" it was for Clinton to expect to get all the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Is it a value of a democracy or the Democratic policy to hold a grant someone an effectively one-candidate election for breaking the rules?

While I do not consider myself to be a bitter partisan, I nevertheless insist on a Democratic candidate who not only shares my values, but ACTS on them.

Why don't you wait to see what policies Obama acts on in office before you condemn him? If its gay rights you're worried about, Obama is apparently planning to repeal Don't ask Don't tell. It may not be 100%, but its something, and its probably a hell of a lot more than you'd get under most Republicans. So, let's wait and say weather he follows through on his actual policies, shall we?

And then this happened:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html

This only further emphasizes the concerns I already had about President-Elect Obama going into the election. I have long feared that his desire for moderation will override his willingness to fight for Democratic principles, such as equal rights for gays and lesbians, and for a woman's right to choose. Now we are confronted with the very real possibility that Obama will cede the troublesome social issues to the Republicans in order to achieve political victory in other areas.

I'm sorry, but this is alarmism over nothing. Like it or not, the Christian Right is still a powerful force in American politics, and Obama will be able to accomplish more with the support of some moderate Republicans than without. Need I remind you that the Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Short of purging the religious right in a civil war (a choice only for the insane), Obama will either have to work with them, or ignore them. If he ignores them, he could end up getting bogged down on key legislation during a time of national crisis, in which case we might well end up with a real homophobe in office in four years. If he works with them, he will at the very least have to make token gestures and concessions. We may not like this particular gesture, but its not a big deal, and it doesn't mean Obama has compromised his coar policies or Democratic principles.

And if you actually expect Obama to ignore half the country, you're either insane or a fanatic. And frankly, we don't need a President who's obssessed with ideological loyalty and ignores the other side. We've had eight years of that shit, right?

I do not consider myself a partisan, but the Democratic Party has won sweeping victories in two consecutive national elections. We have control of the congressional and presidential venues of the national government. While this does not clear us to chart a far-left course politically, I think it IS time for the Democratic Party to wake up and understand that is is now the Democratic agenda in Washington, not the GOP. I did not vote for Obama and the Democrats because I want to concede policy ideals to conservatives. I voted for them to change trajectory from right to left politically. If the Democrats do not start to grow a spine really quickly, I will withhold my support in 2010 and 2012.

I hope not everyone abandons the Democratic Party so easily, or we might end up with a President Palin, Huckabee, or Romney. That'll help the Democratic agenda, right? :rolleyes:

Look, I'm not happy about what Obama's doing here either, and I don't aprove. Frankly, we probably shouldn't have religious cerimonies at the innauguration anyway (sepperation of Church and State). However, I understand Obama's reasons, and I'm not prepaired to condemn him for a token cerimonial gesture, or his Presidency before it has officially begun.

Just my personal take on things, regardless of how anyone else feels about this issue.;)

If the Prime Minister of Japan decides he is going to take his oath of office at Yasukuni shrine, would that be seen as a signal of what kind of administration he is going to run?
And if Obama was actually doing something close to that, you might have a point. But since he isn't...

Obama did not choose the Chief Justice. Early in the thread, I was hanging on to the hope that Obama did not choose Warren either (maybe it was just the Congresscritters on the gala committee). But Obama did single out Warren for this honor.
So? Tradition states that the Chief Justice swears in the president, but if you look at the Constitution, there is no law to that effect. In fact, presidents have been sworn in by Notary Publics before. So, yes, Obama has in effect invited the Chief Justice. Now, does that mean he agrees with all that the Chief Justice has said, done, or ruled? No.

I had not heard this. That is also quite disturbing. The outgoing President is usually expected to fade into the background. YES, if this is true I think it is intended, likewise, to send a message: that Bush will not be prosecuted.
Have you bothered to watch inaugurations before? The outgoing president almost always makes a speech.

We (progressives in general, not just gays) have not gotten any high-profile appointments either, but you have not seen much flap about that.
Been living in a cave lately? The left side of the blogasphere has been screaming about this for the past month and a half!

This is more like what would have happened if Bush had chosen Louis Farrakhan to open his inauguration: how do you think the right would have taken THAT?
The two do not equate.

Ok, SO not on topic, but this has been bugging me. Tmutarakhan, I hate to tell you this, but your sig's been debunked by Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

We now return you back to your regular ranting and raving. :D

I recognize that picking Warren is controversial and can be hurtful to some.

No, you don't really seem to recognize it. Warren is one of the most prominent practicioners of the "politics of vilification" that Obama used to say he was going to end. Obama, and you, and Dem, and NERVUN, don't see him that way because you are not among those he vilifies. You all seem to figure, "Well, gays shouldn't mind being called child molestors and what not, it's so common they should be used to it". We're past being used to it: we are SICK AND TIRED OF IT. Obama underestimates how very much not-in-the-mood we are to see him give the bully pulpit to the very bully who just got through kicking us in the teeth. It is like Bush giving a Medal of Freedom to one of the torturers from Abu Ghraib. If this is not a deliberate insult to us by Obama, then it is an indication he considers us of zero importance: there will be no "vilification" in his administration, except against us.
Here we go, don't know if this has been posted yet...
Link (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/poweringup/archive/2008/12/18/gay-man-for-navy-secretary.aspx)
I'm sure the Navy are real happy about this stereotyping :)
THAT, if it proves true, would be a positive indication. At that point, I will believe it when I see it.
If its gay rights you're worried about, Obama is apparently planning to repeal Don't ask Don't tell.
According to who? All reports have been that his transition team says NOT to expect any action on DADT.
Like it or not, the Christian Right is still a powerful force in American politics, and Obama will be able to accomplish more with the support of some moderate Republicans than without.
Playing to the Christian Right doesn't get him "moderates"; that chases away moderates. If he wants to make an alliance with the Christian Right instead of with the moderates, then I am among those he will throw under the bus, and will be no better off than if W had won a third term.
I hope not everyone abandons the Democratic Party so easily, or we might end up with a President Palin, Huckabee, or Romney. That'll help the Democratic agenda, right? :rolleyes:
So? If the "Democratic" agenda under Obama is THE SAME as I would get under Palin, Huckabee, or Romney, what do I care which party screws me?
And if Obama was actually doing something close to that, you might have a point. But since he isn't...
He is giving a prominent honor to a man who calls me a child molestor, wants me de-sexed, and threw his power and money into restricting my legal rights. Honoring a man who is doing terrible things NOW is even worse than honoring people who did terrible things a long time ago.
Have you bothered to watch inaugurations before? The outgoing president almost always makes a speech.
As I have mentioned before in this thread, I ALWAYS watch the inaugurations. I NEVER recall a speech by the outgoing president. Can you quote me any of Clinton's speech from the Bush inaugural?
Been living in a cave lately? The left side of the blogasphere has been screaming about this for the past month and a half!
I've spent a lot of time on the left side of the blogosphere this past month and a half. I have seen some disappointment expressed. I have not seen "screaming".

The two do not equate.
Of course not. Warren is far nastier than Farrakhan.
Ok, SO not on topic, but this has been bugging me. Tmutarakhan, I hate to tell you this, but your sig's been debunked by Snopes.
Thanks, I guess. Oh well, past time to replace it anyway.

I simply laugh any time a Democrat complains about Obama's continuous and swift move to the right that started when John Edwards dropped out and continues to the present.

He was for single-payer, then he was against it.
He was opposed to the war and supported withdrawal, then he voted against and opposed it.
He was for filibustering the FISA amendments, then he voted for them.
He was with Pelosi on witholding funding from Iraq, then he voted for it every time.
He was against unfair trade agreements like NAFTA and WTO, then he was for them.
He was always against gay marriage and never gave a hoot about gay rights.
He was for a two-state, peaceful solution in Israel/Palestine, now he's against it.
He supports "clean coal" which does not exist and never has and "safe nuclear" which is a proven myth.

The warning signs were all there. People were blaring horns and waving red flags and if you went in and voted for this guy in spite of the mounting evidence that he has other masters -- the Clintonites and the corporations -- that willful blindness is your own damn fault.

Me? I'm proud to say I didn't vote for him in the primaries or in the general election. I voted for the real, common sense progressives. I look forward to 4 years of Obama proving me absolutely right before droves of buzzword-blabbing, platitude pushing maniacs.

Inconsequential rhetorical point to you. Do you have a point? I already explained how I drew my distinction.

The point is that you are doing the same thing as Obama. The difference is degree, not principle.

I am disappointed but not surprised really.

I think the point made about whether Obama would have sought common ground with someone who'd expressed comparable views about Black/disabled/etc people as Warren has about homosexuals. At the least it indicates he considers homophobia less of an issue than racism.

Why are you defending this so vehemently if you think Warren was the wrong choice?

I'm not defending the choice.

I'm arguing against, as TCT put it, the hysterical reaction to it.

This doesn't somehow indicate that Obama is suddenly going to turn anti-gay, despite all the hoopla to the contrary.


OK, I'd be interested to see that, when you have time.

He was a cosponsor on the Matthew Sheppard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110VRY2xU::

I can also find plenty of reference to bills he helped pass in the state senate, but I can't find links to actual bills.

NO, Goddamnit. I did not pick the fight with Warren, HE did. I find it very offensive that you are blaming the Poles while Warsaw is in rubble.

Once again, we aren't talking about the fight with Warren. We are talking about how you choose to react to Obama's association with Warren. You have decided that he can either associate with Warren or be your enemy - even if he disagrees with Warren on the issues that matter to you. That is completely and entirely your choice. Your analogy doesn't work.

Sometimes his focus IS on us. The question of Don't Ask Don't Tell came up: his transition team said not to expect any move on it at all.

Link?

It probably isn't. Maybe some years down the road, but there is no reason to expect he is going to do anything whatsoever on the subject early on.

I disagree, actually. I think the stem cell bill will be one of the first thing Congress does in their new session, given the fact that they've passed it twice and had it vetoed (and they don't have to worry about that now).

My guess is that the Matthew Sheppard bill will come again as well.

Or: maybe was really for the ban, and really is against same-sex marriage.
If that's not where he is, now would be a good time to say so.

He's been quite clear that he was opposed to Prop 8.

He's also been quite clear that he is opposed to same-sex marriage.

Now, either of those could be lies, but if you don't trust him to have already been clear on his positions, I don't see why you'd trust anything he says now.

Then you think mistakenly. There is considerable doubt about what Obama is doing here.

Not from most people, there isn't.

I am disappointed but not surprised really.

I think the point made about whether Obama would have sought common ground with someone who'd expressed comparable views about Black/disabled/etc people as Warren has about homosexuals. At the least it indicates he considers homophobia less of an issue than racism.

I don't consider opposition to gay marriage homophobia, nor do I consider it homophobic for a preacher to claim that homosexuality is a sin. I do not support either of those beliefs, but I recognize that reasonable people can hold them. Rick Warren has pushed for moderation on many issues, and while his rhetoric on gay marriage has been divisive, it's not like he's being appointed Secretary of State here.

I don't agree with Rick Warren on a lot of issues. But this actually made me more comfortable with my vote for Obama. It shows he is not going to put petty partisan differences first. Let the special interests whine. Obama may support the rights of homosexuals, as I think he should, but he's not going to be beholden to their every whim. I want to see more of that, with the more powerful forces in Washington. I hope he intends to actually conduct a bi-partisan Presidency. Like it or not, that's why most people voted for him. If some die-hard Democrats and Republicans are disappointed (There is equal fury from Warren's supporters that he's doing this), all the better.

I for one hope that true believer politics will finally be expunged and we can discuss issues rationally and with respect, but even with Obama, I doubt that will actually happen.

Well... yes. But not egregiously so, because I think his public stance, in the actions he takes as president, will continue to be opposed to same-sex marriage.

His personal views are politically irrelevant.

a mistake (missing a word?) or do you think he will actually support the ban that a state voted on when he said same sex marriage should be up to the states. :confused:

No, you don't really seem to recognize it. Warren is one of the most prominent practicioners of the "politics of vilification" that Obama used to say he was going to end.

So prominent that I hadn't even heard most of this until the past couple of days?

Obama, and you, and Dem, and NERVUN, don't see him that way because you are not among those he vilifies.

Bullshit.

You all seem to figure, "Well, gays shouldn't mind being called child molestors and what not, it's so common they should be used to it".

None of us have given any indication whatsoever that we agree with this statement.

In fact, if you can point to a single one of us suggesting that anyone "shouldn't mind" the selection of Warren at all, I'd like to see it. Instead, you'll see that both TCT and I have stated that we disagree with the choice.

Playing to the Christian Right doesn't get him "moderates"; that chases away moderates.

No, but playing to someone who is seen (whether he is or not) as a moderate Christian might. Whether you like it or not, the general public view of Warren is that he is moderate.

So? If the "Democratic" agenda under Obama is THE SAME as I would get under Palin, Huckabee, or Romney, what do I care which party screws me?

Of course, you have yet to show any reason to believe that this is the case.

He is giving a prominent honor to a man who calls me a child molestor, wants me de-sexed, and threw his power and money into restricting my legal rights.

And he's giving an equally, if not more, prominent honor to a man who would disagree with those statements. He has also expressed disagreement with them.

At worst, he's showing that homosexuality simply isn't an issue he's trying to address with the inaugural picks.

I simply laugh any time a Democrat complains about Obama's continuous and swift move to the right that started when John Edwards dropped out and continues to the present.

I simply laugh any time anyone talks about Obama's supposed "move to the right". Anyone who did their homework wouldn't have seen much movement at all.

I think the point made about whether Obama would have sought common ground with someone who'd expressed comparable views about Black/disabled/etc people as Warren has about homosexuals. At the least it indicates he considers homophobia less of an issue than racism.

In The Audacity of Hope, he describes setting up a personal meeting with an elderly senator who fought very hard in favor of segregation. In Dreams from my Father, he talks about working with religious leaders who wouldn't properly pronounce his name, which they seem to have affected as a way to marginalize him.

He seems to have a history of working with and dealing with people he fiercely disagree with. The fact that he places the cut-off point further up the line than many of us would like really shouldn't be a surprise.


I don't consider opposition to gay marriage homophobia, nor do I consider it homophobic for a preacher to claim that homosexuality is a sin. I do not support either of those beliefs, but I recognize that reasonable people can hold them.

You think denial of equal protection under the law to a subset of citizens is a reasonable position? And it isn't intolerant?

I for one hope that true believer politics will finally be expunged and we can discuss issues rationally and with respect, but even with Obama, I doubt that will actually happen.

Even those of us who generally want to see more cooperation and rational discussion have issues on which we will accept no compromise. For several of us in this thread, equal protection under the law is one of them.

But, that said, I'm not surprised by this decision. I don't like it, but I'm not surprised. I voted for Obama largely because of his willingness to reach out to those who disagree with him, listen to what they have to say, and to (more often than not) seek compromise. I never expected him to agree with me on all things, so I'm not surprised that he's more willing to reach out to people who disagree with him on this particular issue - particularly if they have common ground elsewhere - than I would be.

You think denial of equal protection under the law to a subset of citizens is a reasonable position? And it isn't intolerant?

You define it as equal protection. I would too. But I don't think it is unreasonable to oppose it. I fail to see the difference between that attitude and the attitude of the majority of gay rights advocates who oppose polygamy. So obviously the restriction of marriage between consenting adults is a widely held view, depending on which group you are trying to control.

But, that said, I'm not surprised by this decision. I don't like it, but I'm not surprised. I voted for Obama largely because of his willingness to reach out to those who disagree with him, listen to what they have to say, and to (more often than not) seek compromise. I never expected him to agree with me on all things, so I'm not surprised that he's more willing to reach out to people who disagree with him on this particular issue - particularly if they have common ground elsewhere - than I would be

I think this is a reasonable take.

In The Audacity of Hope, he describes setting up a personal meeting with an elderly senator who fought very hard in favor of segregation. In Dreams from my Father, he talks about working with religious leaders who wouldn't properly pronounce his name, which they seem to have affected as a way to marginalize him..

In that case I withdraw my comment and return to eating pringles.

Im happy he's not going overboard with the Democratic Party hardliners...

Bi-Partisanship was one of his main Campaign points, and Im glad he's keeping it...


Honestly Im liking him more and more all the time, Im glad i voted for him...

So prominent that I hadn't even heard most of this until the past couple of days?

He's prominent enough that you know a lot about who he is. If you didn't know that he's recently used his prominence to launch a brutal campaign of vilification, that's because you're not one of the targets. We who are at the pointy end of the stick were of course well aware of it.

He is like a prominent, respected, philanthropic civic leader, who has also been known to beat the crap out of his kids, but most people either think the kids deserve it, or don't think it's worth talking about or making a fuss over. The kid he just sent to the hospital wishes supposed Best Friend Forever would visit, or at least send him a card, but BFF has more important things to do, like present a medal of appreciation to the dad-- BFF says, of course, that he never approved of the dad beating the kids, and pundits assure us BFF will stop the dad from beating the kid, next time, for sure, really.
In fact, if you can point to a single one of us suggesting that anyone "shouldn't mind" the selection of Warren at all, I'd like to see it. Instead, you'll see that both TCT and I have stated that we disagree with the choice.

But you don't think it is upsetting, or think it reasonable to consider it a hostile act, singling out for special honor a man who just attacked us.
No, but playing to someone who is seen (whether he is or not) as a moderate Christian might.

The context was Obama's supposed tactical aim here of appealing to moderate Republicans IN THE SENATE: that would be especially Collins and Snowe of Maine (where the legislature is taking up a same-sex marriage bill early next year, which both Collins and Snowe support), Specter of Pennsylvania, and (after his eye-opening experience with what kissing up to the Christian Right entails) McCain of Arizona. None of those are turned on by Rick Warren. If reaching out to evangelical preachers is intended to help Obama with any Republicans in Congress, that would be, rather, Senators like Bennett of Utah or Inhofe of Oklahoma, whom he is not going to win over without a lot of concessions (like, throwing us under the bus, first and foremost; oh, and a radical reversal on abortion).
So? If the "Democratic" agenda under Obama is THE SAME as I would get under Palin, Huckabee, or Romney, what do I care which party screws me?
Of course, you have yet to show any reason to believe that this is the case.

We have bitter experiences with politicians who talk nice to us during the campaign, but don't do anything for us when in office. Clinton, I believe, did sincerely want to help at first (there was no ulterior motive for bringing up gays in the military, which had no pluses for him except promise-keeping) but backed off as soon as there was push-back, and ended up leaving us worse off than before, not just on DADT but also on DOMA where he collaborated with the Republicans to harm our position.

I broke with Triangle Foundation (the largest gay rights organization in Michigan) in 2002 over their endorsement of Jennifer Granholm for governor, supposedly a "gay friendly" politician but I knew from my dealings with her as state attorney general that she was actually quite callous. How has she turned out? Oh, she sends nice words to Pride Fests, and shows up at the fund-raisers; BUT, she did not lift a finger to stop Prop 2 of 2004, and actively helped the Republicans to implement it (moving quickly to strip state employees of joint health insurance), and has never helped with any legislation (our laws are now more regressive than Utah or Alabama). I see Jenny in the background at a lot of Obama press conferences: I was afraid he was going to put that useless bitch into the Cabinet. She could give him pointers on how to make gay-friendly noises while avoiding any actions.
And he's giving an equally, if not more, prominent honor to a man who would disagree with those statements.

No, no, no. The position he is giving Lowery has nowhere near the same prestige. The first article I saw on the Warren choice gushed: "Obama is anointing Rick Warren as the successor to Billy Graham, in his role as America's national preacher." And while it is gratifying that Lowery favors rights for us, he is there representing the BLACK movement. Nobody from the gay movement is invited to speak.

Joe Solmonese: "Would any inaugural committee say to the Jews, we're opening with an anti-Semite, but we're closing the program with a rabbi so don't worry?" But that isn't even the right analogy: more like, opening with an anti-Semite who just successfully campaigned for state laws discriminating against Jews; closing, not with anybody Jewish, but with a Christian who at least thinks Jews aren't going to hell.
At worst, he's showing that homosexuality simply isn't an issue he's trying to address with the inaugural picks.

As I said before, if he is not showing pointed hostility to us by this gesture, AT BEST he is showing absolute indifference.
In The Audacity of Hope, he describes setting up a personal meeting with an elderly senator who fought very hard in favor of segregation.

I bet he didn't ask that man to be best man at his wedding.
In Dreams from my Father, he talks about working with religious leaders who wouldn't properly pronounce his name, which they seem to have affected as a way to marginalize him.

I bet he didn't ask any of them to stand godfather to his children.
Look, we aren't dealing with a case of him "working with and dealing with" Warren. We are talking about his choice to single this man out for a prominent honor, and to do so right at this time, right after the Prop 8 campaign in which, yes, Warren invoked Obama's name.
Even those of us who generally want to see more cooperation and rational discussion have issues on which we will accept no compromise.

Making it plain to those who practice the politics of vilification that such behavior is NOT HONORABLE would, I would have hoped, have been one such issue for Obama. I repeat, it is not that he is willing to have discussions with Warren that raises hackles and alarms with me, but that he HONORS him.

He was a cosponsor on the Matthew Sheppard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110VRY2xU::
I can also find plenty of reference to bills he helped pass in the state senate, but I can't find links to actual bills.

That's good enough, thanks. I wasn't sure if he had any substantive (as opposed to promissary) record on our issues at all. At least he's sure that we shouldn't be murdered, that's something. Has he ever voted for preventing us from getting fired or evicted? Has he ever voted to allow us to insure each other?
You have decided that he can either associate with Warren or be your enemy
If he HONORS Warren, that IS acting as my enemy. He is promoting a man who is dedicating to sliming me and doing me hurt.
Link? [on DADT]
There was a long discussion on fivethirtyeight, with some links to politico and other article-troves, but it's really buried deep now.
I disagree, actually. I think the stem cell bill will be one of the first thing Congress does in their new session, given the fact that they've passed it twice and had it vetoed (and they don't have to worry about that now).
Well, now you're talking about what Congress might do WITHOUT any action by Obama. It is of course true that the President does not actually control that. Similarly, DADT may be forced through early, since a current court case puts the Pentagon in an awkward bind (the circuit court remanded to the district court asking for a determination if there is any rationale for DADT, setting the standard of review at "intermediate scrutiny" rather than "rational basis", so the government is actually going to have to try to defend the policy). But that's no thanks to Obama.
My guess is that the Matthew Sheppard bill will come again as well.
From what you say above, Obama might actually help on that one.
He's been quite clear that he was opposed to Prop 8.
Uh... no, not really. He sent a letter back in June, when it wasn't clear Prop 8 would be allowed on the ballot and the polls showed it going down in flames, and so it was a safe thing to oppose at the time. Once the campaign got going in deadly earnest, he was absolutely silent, allowing claims that he had endorsed Prop 8 to go unrebutted (Warren did not go so far as to falsify the record that way, but did often mention Obama's opposition to same-sex marriage). He hasn't said anything, so far as I have heard, about Prop 8 since it passed-- until he invited the largest in-state sponsor of Prop 8 (to be sure, Warren's efforts were dwarfed by the LDS) to give the opening invocation at his inauguration.
if you don't trust him to have already been clear on his positions, I don't see why you'd trust anything he says now.
Precisely.

There is a lot of doubt about what Obama is doing here
Not from most people, there isn't.
"Most" people don't give a rat's ass about gay issues. Among those who do care, you are quite mistaken about what "most" of us think.
Solmonese (president of the HRC) again: "It only serves to make us question the promises made during this historic campaign. We pray we weren't misled."

I'm not defending the choice.

I'm arguing against, as TCT put it, the hysterical reaction to it.

This doesn't somehow indicate that Obama is suddenly going to turn anti-gay, despite all the hoopla to the contrary.



It doesnt indicate that. But calling the reaction hysteria is, frankly, silly.

It may or may not "indicate" it, but it certainly raises the question.

It doesnt indicate that. But calling the reaction hysteria is, frankly, silly.

But it is hysteria.

Just because Obama is asking Warren to bless his inauguration doesn't mean he's asking him to be the best man at his wedding or anything like that. He's trying to get along with the religious right, not praying to them.

(Besides, arguing against him so vocally is horrible strategy. You will never have a perfect president, and trying to force it will tend to give you a bad president. Remember Nader in 2000?)

It may or may not "indicate" it, but it certainly raises the question.

No, it doesn't.

Take Gandhi. Gandhi was a pacifist all his life, never liked violence even when others would consider it reasonable, ... and said "I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted". Does this mean Gandhi suddenly supported the Holocaust (which, of course, would have killed him personally)? Of course not.

No, it doesn't.

Take Gandhi. Gandhi was a pacifist all his life, never liked violence even when others would consider it reasonable, ... and said "I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted". Does this mean Gandhi suddenly supported the Holocaust (which, of course, would have killed him personally)? Of course not.

Then again, Gandhi thanked the South African government for not letting him have to sit with the blacks (whom he considered inferior) on a train when he was just a young lawyer starting up a practice.

He's prominent enough that you know a lot about who he is. If you didn't know that he's recently used his prominence to launch a brutal campaign of vilification, that's because you're not one of the targets. We who are at the pointy end of the stick were of course well aware of it.

Ah, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that everyone who wasn't "at the pointy end of the stick" wasn't aware of it.

Which is exactly why he chose Warren and not, say, Pat Robertson.

He is like a prominent, respected, philanthropic civic leader, who has also been known to beat the crap out of his kids, but most people either think the kids deserve it, or don't think it's worth talking about or making a fuss over. The kid he just sent to the hospital wishes supposed Best Friend Forever would visit, or at least send him a card, but BFF has more important things to do, like present a medal of appreciation to the dad-- BFF says, of course, that he never approved of the dad beating the kids, and pundits assure us BFF will stop the dad from beating the kid, next time, for sure, really.

No it's not.

But you don't think it is upsetting, or think it reasonable to consider it a hostile act, singling out for special honor a man who just attacked us.

Oh, it's definitely upsetting.

Just not in a "OMG he's really a raging homophobe" kind of way.

None of those are turned on by Rick Warren. If reaching out to evangelical preachers is intended to help Obama with any Republicans in Congress, that would be, rather, Senators like Bennett of Utah or Inhofe of Oklahoma, whom he is not going to win over without a lot of concessions (like, throwing us under the bus, first and foremost; oh, and a radical reversal on abortion).

First of all, senators are usually less well informed than one would think. Quite possibly moderate Republican senators don't know enough about Rick Warren to care.

Second, no he's not going to get the far-right on his side without massive consessions ...but he might be able to get them off his back just by throwing them a few bones like this from time to time.

And having them only vote against his stuff rather than campaign against it could be the difference between a win and a loss.


We have bitter experiences with politicians who talk nice to us during the campaign, but don't do anything for us when in office. Clinton, I believe, did sincerely want to help at first (there was no ulterior motive for bringing up gays in the military, which had no pluses for him except promise-keeping) but backed off as soon as there was push-back, and ended up leaving us worse off than before, not just on DADT but also on DOMA where he collaborated with the Republicans to harm our position.

True, but you have to at least give Obama a chance.
<snip>

No, no, no. The position he is giving Lowery has nowhere near the same prestige. The first article I saw on the Warren choice gushed: "Obama is anointing Rick Warren as the successor to Billy Graham, in his role as America's national preacher." And while it is gratifying that Lowery favors rights for us, he is there representing the BLACK movement. Nobody from the gay movement is invited to speak.

Joe Solmonese: "Would any inaugural committee say to the Jews, we're opening with an anti-Semite, but we're closing the program with a rabbi so don't worry?" But that isn't even the right analogy: more like, opening with an anti-Semite who just successfully campaigned for state laws discriminating against Jews; closing, not with anybody Jewish, but with a Christian who at least thinks Jews aren't going to hell.

Now? No.

In, say, Nazi Germany pre-Holocaust? Yes, that'd be the smart thing to do.

You don't win an argument by making the other side hate you more, even if you have to suck it up and let them give a speech at your inauguration. (Warren specifically was a bad move, granted, but the overall concept is still good.)

As I said before, if he is not showing pointed hostility to us by this gesture, AT BEST he is showing absolute indifference.

No, at worst he is showing absolute indifference.

At best he's showing an attempt to try to talk to the other side and get a compromise.

I bet he didn't ask that man to be best man at his wedding.

No, but he got him to endorse him. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#2008_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama)

I repeat, he got a former KKK member to endorse a black guy for president. Isn't that what we want? Shouldn't we be celebrating this kind of thing? (Though again, not Warren specifically.)

I bet he didn't ask any of them to stand godfather to his children.
Look, we aren't dealing with a case of him "working with and dealing with" Warren. We are talking about his choice to single this man out for a prominent honor, and to do so right at this time, right after the Prop 8 campaign in which, yes, Warren invoked Obama's name.

But in order to "work and deal with" Warren he's got to have good standing with him. You can't ever get something for nothing, so Obama's giving him a meaningless honor so that Warren (and by extension the whole religious right) will be willing to be less vocal.

Making it plain to those who practice the politics of vilification that such behavior is NOT HONORABLE would, I would have hoped, have been one such issue for Obama. I repeat, it is not that he is willing to have discussions with Warren that raises hackles and alarms with me, but that he HONORS him.

But, again, he HAS to honor him to have discussions with him.

Either that or give him actual concessions, which would just be horrible.


<snip because I don't want to dive through Senate records just to argue this point>

If he HONORS Warren, that IS acting as my enemy. He is promoting a man who is dedicating to sliming me and doing me hurt.

...so that he won't slime you and do you hurt in the future.
<snip>

"Most" people don't give a rat's ass about gay issues. Among those who do care, you are quite mistaken about what "most" of us think.
Solmonese (president of the HRC) again: "It only serves to make us question the promises made during this historic campaign. We pray we weren't misled."
Cutting off your nose to spite your face...

Then again, Gandhi thanked the South African government for not letting him have to sit with the blacks (whom he considered inferior) on a train when he was just a young lawyer starting up a practice.

Yes he was a racist. The point is that just because he supported a crazy warmonger doesn't mean he was a crazy warmonger.

No, it doesn't.

Take Gandhi. Gandhi was a pacifist all his life, never liked violence even when others would consider it reasonable, ... and said "I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted". Does this mean Gandhi suddenly supported the Holocaust (which, of course, would have killed him personally)? Of course not.

He was wrong to say it, the full quote is...

I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed

It was said in 1940, it was a naive statement, it was wrong and I very much doubt Ghandi approved of Nazism at all once it became apparent as to what they were doing.

The fact that he said it does not mean he supported the holocaust but it doesn't detract from the point that it was a naive and wrong statement regardless.

He's prominent enough that you know a lot about who he is. If you didn't know that he's recently used his prominence to launch a brutal campaign of vilification, that's because you're not one of the targets. We who are at the pointy end of the stick were of course well aware of it.

I'm not trying to marry another woman, if that's what you mean.

But I actually follow LGBT issues quite closely and, despite the fact that I live on the other side of the continent, I did watch the political goings-on with Prop 8. Up until his selection for this invocation, I never heard Warren's name in that context.

But you don't think it is upsetting, or think it reasonable to consider it a hostile act, singling out for special honor a man who just attacked us.

I do think it is upsetting, and I think I have been quite clear on that more than once on this thread. But no, given all of the context, I do not think it is reasonable to consider it a hostile act. An inconsiderate one, perhaps, but not a hostile one.

The context was Obama's supposed tactical aim here of appealing to moderate Republicans IN THE SENATE:

Was it? I don't really think so. I think Obama's aim was to reach out to a block of voters who generally didn't vote for him.

And before you freak out, no, I don't mean homophobes. I mean the type of people who would read and maybe even try to live by A Purpose Driven Life - people who may or may not agree with Warren on LGBT issues.

We have bitter experiences with politicians who talk nice to us during the campaign, but don't do anything for us when in office.

Not doing anything and being openly hostile are two different things, however. Personally, I don't expect Obama to do nothing, although he may or may not be able to fulfill everything he's said he would do. But even if he did, I would expect that he would be better than, say, Palin, who I would expect to be actively working against LGBT rights.

No, no, no. The position he is giving Lowery has nowhere near the same prestige.

Yes, actually, it generally does. And, as I pointed out earlier in the thread Lowery's prayer is one that will be meant to cover the next four years of Obama's presidency. An invocation, on the other hand, is generally meant to ask God's blessing simply on the ceremony currently at hand.

And while it is gratifying that Lowery favors rights for us, he is there representing the BLACK movement. Nobody from the gay movement is invited to speak.

Ah, I see. You have to be solely focused on LGBT issues to count. :rolleyes:

As I said before, if he is not showing pointed hostility to us by this gesture, AT BEST he is showing absolute indifference.

I'd say your "at best" is actually an "at worst".

I bet he didn't ask that man to be best man at his wedding.

He didn't ask Rick Warren to do so either. Of course, Obama and his wife were married by a man who Obama has pointed disagreements with.

That's good enough, thanks. I wasn't sure if he had any substantive (as opposed to promissary) record on our issues at all. At least he's sure that we shouldn't be murdered, that's something. Has he ever voted for preventing us from getting fired or evicted?

Unfortunately, ENDA didn't make it to a vote before the Senate, but Obama has stated that he supports a fully inclusive bill.

Has he ever voted to allow us to insure each other?

I'm not aware of any bills on this that have come before Congress, but he has stated that he supports this as well.

If he HONORS Warren, that IS acting as my enemy.

...which is your decision.

Well, now you're talking about what Congress might do WITHOUT any action by Obama. It is of course true that the President does not actually control that. Similarly, DADT may be forced through early, since a current court case puts the Pentagon in an awkward bind (the circuit court remanded to the district court asking for a determination if there is any rationale for DADT, setting the standard of review at "intermediate scrutiny" rather than "rational basis", so the government is actually going to have to try to defend the policy). But that's no thanks to Obama.

Ah, so it has to be something that Congress doesn't already want to pass (which would pretty much make it near-impossible for Obama to push it through). Gotcha.

From what you say above, Obama might actually help on that one.

Precisely.

Then why bother asking for reassurances you'll call dishonest anyways.

"Most" people don't give a rat's ass about gay issues.

I do, as do most of the people I know.

Among those who do care, you are quite mistaken about what "most" of us think.

Ah yes. Assume that if someone disagrees with you on anything, even in degree, they don't care.

Maybe you should look up my post history.

Ah, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that everyone who wasn't "at the pointy end of the stick" wasn't aware of it.

Which is exactly why he chose Warren and not, say, Pat Robertson.
It would seem more logical to assume that his choice of Warren is intended to speak to those who DO know what he is.
No it's not.
What is not what?
Oh, it's definitely upsetting.

Just not in a "OMG he's really a raging homophobe" kind of way.
More in a "OMG he is going to let the raging homophobes rage all they want" kind of way.
First of all, senators are usually less well informed than one would think. Quite possibly moderate Republican senators don't know enough about Rick Warren to care.
The four I named are thoroughly well informed.
Second, no he's not going to get the far-right on his side without massive consessions ...but he might be able to get them off his back just by throwing them a few bones like this from time to time.

And having them only vote against his stuff rather than campaign against it could be the difference between a win and a loss.
He is sending a signal about what kinds of things he won't mind if they campaign against: they can go ahead and squash all the gay-rights bills, just so long as they go along on environmental issues and the like.

True, but you have to at least give Obama a chance.
I have already promised not to scrape him off my car until at least January 20 when I will be listening very, very carefully. I will make further inquiries into Canada, however, since such processes are time-consuming.
Now? No.

In, say, Nazi Germany pre-Holocaust? Yes, that'd be the smart thing to do.
The smart thing to do would have been to GET OUT.
You don't win an argument by making the other side hate you more
That's not possible.
I am not out to "win an argument" with the Warrens of this world, but to DEFEAT them.
even if you have to suck it up and let them give a speech at your inauguration.
We don't HAVE TO let them do anything.
No, at worst he is showing absolute indifference.

At best he's showing an attempt to try to talk to the other side and get a compromise.
He isn't inviting this man for a discussion. He is giving him a platform to speak one-sidedly.
No, but he got him to endorse him. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#2008_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama)
I did not realize the reference was to Byrd, whose views have evolved considerably over the years.
But in order to "work and deal with" Warren he's got to have good standing with him. You can't ever get something for nothing, so Obama's giving him a meaningless honor so that Warren (and by extension the whole religious right) will be willing to be less vocal.
There is no indication whatsoever that Warren has been asked to be less vocal. On the contrary, he is being promoted AS IS.
But, again, he HAS to honor him to have discussions with him.
??? No he doesn't. Presidents talk to all kinds of people, without commending them to the public.
...so that he won't slime you and do you hurt in the future.
No, he is giving this man PERMISSION to keep sliming me and doing me hurt. He is indicating that it doesn't matter to him in the slightest how vicious Warren is towards us.
Yes he was a racist. The point is that just because he supported a crazy warmonger doesn't mean he was a crazy warmonger.
He was under the delusion that he WASN'T talking about a crazy warmonger. If he had, indeed, knowingly supported Hitler's crazy warmongering, then yes indeed, that would mean he favored, or at least didn't care much about, crazy warmongering.
Here, what Obama is saying is that HE DOESN'T MIND Warren's attacks on us.

It would seem more logical to assume that his choice of Warren is intended to speak to those who DO know what he is.

Why is that more logical, given the fact that most people know Warren by his "moderate" persona?

More in a "OMG he is going to let the raging homophobes rage all they want" kind of way.

He is sending a signal about what kinds of things he won't mind if they campaign against: they can go ahead and squash all the gay-rights bills, just so long as they go along on environmental issues and the like.

He isn't inviting this man for a discussion. He is giving him a platform to speak one-sidedly.

If he allows Warren rants about homosexuality or same-sex marriage at the inauguration, you'll have a point here.

But I sincerely doubt that's going to happen.

despite the fact that I live on the other side of the continent, I did watch the political goings-on with Prop 8. Up until his selection for this invocation, I never heard Warren's name in that context.
I find that a little strange. People who were in California heard his name rather often.
I do think it is upsetting, and I think I have been quite clear on that more than once on this thread. But no, given all of the context, I do not think it is reasonable to consider it a hostile act. An inconsiderate one, perhaps, but not a hostile one.
"Inconsiderate" is the best interpretation it can be given: that he never even gave us a thought.
Not doing anything and being openly hostile are two different things, however.
It is not much difference to me at this point in my life. If it means waiting another decade before anything changes, well, I have only two decades left at best and can't just burn one. I should have left in 2001.
No, no, no. The position he is giving Lowery has nowhere near the same prestige.
Yes, actually, it generally does.
No, actually, it never does. Billy Graham had a lock on the invocation slot for ages, in recognition of his position as the most prominent preacher in the country, and his son Franklin was given the invocation slot in 2000. Reverend Campbell's benediction at the 2000 inaugural got some press as being inappropriately sectarian; the press said the benediction traditionally was just a brief bit of fluff; I can't say I'd ever even noticed the benediction in any other inaugurals I've watched, and I couldn't for the life of me name even one of the other preachers who have done them, can you?
Ah, I see. You have to be solely focused on LGBT issues to count. :rolleyes:
You were wanting me to count Lowery as a counterbalance to Warren. He has been a friend to our side, but has not led a campaign for us, as Warren just recently did for our enemies.
I'd say your "at best" is actually an "at worst".
How do you mean? Your proposed interpretation is that he WASN'T THINKING ABOUT US AT ALL. That is the best it could be. If he WAS thinking about us, he certainly wasn't wishing us well.
Of course, Obama and his wife were married by a man who Obama has pointed disagreements with.
He didn't have any disagreements with Wright when he asked Wright to marry them. And if he had had "disagreements" of a kind like, Wright just called a bunch of his friends child molesters, I don't think Wright would have been his choice to conduct the marriage.
Unfortunately, ENDA didn't make it to a vote before the Senate, but Obama has stated that he supports a fully inclusive bill.
Obama could have introduced it into the Senate himself, if he was such a "fierce" advocate.
I'm not aware of any bills on this that have come before Congress, but he has stated that he supports this as well.
We'll see.

If he HONORS Warren, that IS acting as my enemy.
...which is your decision.
No, it isn't, just a statement of fact. It was Warren's decision, not mine, to attack me vituperatively. It was Obama's decision to grant him further prominence and respectability; Obama may or may not take friendly actions to offset this one, but increasing Warren's power in any measure is, in and of itself, inimical to me.
Ah, so it has to be something that Congress doesn't already want to pass (which would pretty much make it near-impossible for Obama to push it through).
What I am saying is that I do not believe Obama is going to push, one way or the other, on the stem-cell issue, which makes it irrelevant to the question of what Obama himself is going to do. I expressed the opinion that, from what we can see, Obama is not going to act on that, and you replied that somebody else will act-- well OK, but that wasn't the question.
Then why bother asking for reassurances you'll call dishonest anyways.
It is the absence of any reassurances now that makes me question his honesty on the campaign trail. Maybe, as you say, he wasn't thinking about us at all when he tapped Warren: but NOW, at least, he has to be quite aware that he has upset us deeply. Does he want to ease our upset in any way? Then he could give a word about what he intends to do, instead of just referring back, in exaggerated terms, to his past record, which is slim.
Ah yes. Assume that if someone disagrees with you on anything, even in degree, they don't care.

Maybe you should look up my post history.
I was not assuming that you are not among those who "do care", but I dispute your assessment of how "most" of us feel. You say "most" don't have any doubts? Well, the Human Rights Campaign does, and they speak for a hell of a lot more people than you do.
My doubts, and the doubts of others, may indeed prove unfounded. But I don't appreciate being called crazy just for having them. It is nice of you, and others on this board, to try to offer me reassurances, but I would be much more comforted with some reassurances from Obama himself, which don't seem to be forthcoming.

Why is that more logical, given the fact that most people know Warren by his "moderate" persona?
Because it is a political occasion, ratifying the results of the election, in which Obama and Warren both scored big wins.
If he allows Warren rants about homosexuality or same-sex marriage at the inauguration, you'll have a point here.

But I sincerely doubt that's going to happen.
He will be ranting about homosexuality and same-sex marriage for years to come, with some boost to the amount of media attention he can command.

the problem is with the culture and what it creates a market for. no one person can chainge that, though i do hope and expect to some degree for him to try.

one of the things, i think he's kind of riding on top of the world right now, and his ego, its not enough to feel he can tame the forces of vested economics (often masquarading as pseudo-conservatism, even pseudo-morality) at the price of everything else, but that he feels compelled to PROVE to us that he can. well i wish him (pres elect obama) luck in doing so.

when he started in with all that "only in america" b.s., undoubtedly de rigor (but was it REALLY?) in his acceptance of the nomination, i realized the audience he was playing to wasn't me. i figgured, hoped, that was just something he had to do to win the general election.

he is at least choosing second tear advisors, his science advisors, who actually know what the're doing, at least that according to amy yesterday.

its going to be interesting, at least i hope something good to be seen will come of it, once its all in his lap and his as alone as it ever gets. now this bussiness of having a right wing loonie read/say some sort of opening prayer or something, well you know, he's always saying how he wants include everyone. i think this is going to be one of the first tests of how well in reality he's going to be able to tame such forces.
(which is what, it seems to me, like his ego is saying to him, he has to prove to the world that he can)

I don't see what the problem is, so he's an social archconservative preacher, Obama, could have made much worse choices. For instance he could have had Pat Robertson or Jerry Ferwell doing it.That'd be awesome.

"Now, may I introduce to you, Mr. Jerry, ZOMBIE Falwell!"

"BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIINNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSS!"

I find that a little strange. People who were in California heard his name rather often.

Setting aside our other disagreements -- which to you seem to stem from my not being personally LGBT and therefore inadequately sensitive, I object to this claim.

I live in California and have contributed/am contributing to the fight against Prop. 8 and against its predecessor Prop. 22 (and for the legal challenges to both).

Although, since this inauguration dispute, I have been bombarded with evidence of Warren's despicable and indefensible comments about homosexuality, I do not recall Warren playing an important role in the passage of Prop. 8. (I had, of course, heard of Warren - as one of the countries leading evangelicals and a surprisingly moderate one at that, as well as the host of the McCain-Obama summit. Although the ugly vehemence of his homophobic comments surprises me, that he takes that general position does not.)

I asked you at least once earlier to tell us what exactly Warren did to be considered a leading proponent of Prop. 8 and you have yet to answer.

I can only conclude that you are letting your personal dismay and frustration over this controversy color the facts.

That'd be awesome.

"Now, may I introduce to you, Mr. Jerry, ZOMBIE Falwell!"

"BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIINNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSS!"

No, wanting brains is emphasizing scientific fact over faith.

:D

No, wanting brains is emphasizing scientific fact over faith.

:DWhat better way is there to get rid of brains than to eat them?

... Come to think of it, the fundamentalist movement(s) do have a lot of zombie-like behaviour patterns... They're attracted to noise, always move in crowds, moan about any- and everything... And it's seemingly impossible to get rid of them. No matter how many die, there's always coming more.

:-/

I live in California and have contributed/am contributing to the fight against Prop. 8 and against its predecessor Prop. 22 (and for the legal challenges to both).

Although, since this inauguration dispute, I have been bombarded with evidence of Warren's despicable and indefensible comments about homosexuality, I do not recall Warren playing an important role in the passage of Prop. 8.
OK. I had heard that he was the most prominent preacher who actually lived in the state to campaign for it. I am handicapped of course in that I wasn't in California (except for a visit last summer before the campaign had gotten very intense) and have to go by second-hand info.