"homosexual lifestyle was a "sewer" of drugs and casual sex. " Yep, and the religious lifestyle is a sewer of mythology and hatred. Impressionable children need to be protected from it.
kyleof GA8:21AM January 18, 2009
The man or woman who delivers the invocation at the inauguration traditionally symbolizes the faith of the incoming President and sets the tone for morals to be adhered to in the coming election. This is a cause for grave concern for the LGBT community and for women who believe in reproductive freedom or who don't feel they should be subject to the man who married them. Obama's choice suggests that for women and the LGBT community his approach will be a continuation of the past administration's politics of division, using animosity toward one group of American citizens to rally others together. This concern is heightened by Obama's voice being used in robocalls to help pass Proposition 8, a law which annulled the marriages of thousands of gay and lesbian couples in California (though we are told Obama was not party to the use of his voice in these robocalls), and by Rick Warren's rainbow tour of the vilification of the LGBT community which will culminate in being the symbolic religious center of the inauguration.
Where was Obama when Warren said our marriages were akin to incest and pedophilia? Where was Obama when Warren called the LGBT community "Christophobes," invoking past attacks on Jews by the Christian right? Oddly enough, we went through this entire scenario with Obama's former pastor only a few months ago. This time, sadly, he has not shown the same willingness to distance himself from the messenger of intolerance. Slipping Gene Robinson onto the pre-pre-inaugural program at the last minute was a nice gesture, but it's late announcement and odd placement suggests that Obama wanted it to keep his participation on the down low.
It will take more than the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), to regain the respect of the LGBT community. Obama will probably repeal DADT, but he will do so because the military desperately needs additional qualified recruits. While it is symbolically a step forward for the LGBT community, it will affect us far less than it affects the department of defense. As one of the comments on this article make it clear, it's still considered ok to attack someone who is gay or lesbian. To reverse our ambivalence, Obama will have to choose to step away from the politics of division and take constructive steps that reduce attacks on women and the LGBT community, both verbal and physical. To regain our respect and trust, he will have to go further and respect our families and help reverse the damage done in California this past November by his robocalls and Rick Warren.
I hope that Obama will deliver some of that change he promised on the economy, government, and alternative energy - these problems are far more urgent to me than my civil rights at this moment in time. I am sad however to no longer believe that he will deliver the change he promised regarding a more civil nation and bringing people together.
Shawn Cowlsof NY1:48PM January 17, 2009
"that old lady is a well known instigator. she was being unruly and shoving people (including a man in a wheelchair) to get to front of the crowd where she could play victim to the cameras."
The old lady made the guy shove her, take away her cross and stomp on it. Bad, bad old lady.
Again, see the tolerance loving liberals here, http://tinyurl.com/a7zfpt
robroyof CO10:44PM January 15, 2009
I am an employee of this "anonymous" man and feel sick reading the comments. The man is out at his workplace and I have no reason to believe that's not the case everywhere in his life. He just happens to work in a large governmental institution that does not support domestic partners' rights and is far from monolithic in being gay-friendly. There is also the very real possibility that the homophobe who might review one of the many grants that keep our institution alive might look at us differently. He is a brave and good man. The reasons he needs to be anonymous is because, guess what? Some people still hate queers.
eStreet4everof AK5:05PM January 15, 2009
(Also, FWIW, I'm an openly gay, married man.)
The former Clinton aide is judging Obama by a political model that Obama has rejected and that Obama would like all Americans to reject. The old type of politics that Obama is trying to move away from involves a hard use of power, drawing up all of your buddies and promising tit-for-tat kinds of support, drawing a line in the sand, and labeling your political opponents as "enemies." And the version of this political strategy as it's practiced on the Left often includes *lots* of symbolism, which comes from the politically correct movement of the late seventies. With this kind of symbolism, it often becomes more important to *look* like your doing the right thing rather than actually accomplishing anything meaningful for your cause. (Bill Clinton was a master of this, by the way. Look closely at what he actually delivered for gay people, and it's paltry. But, boy, did he give good speech and symbolism!!!)
There are lots of problems with this political model. First, those "enemies" are our neighbors and are fellow Americans. Second, once we label someone an "enemy" on several positions, it becomes extremely hard to work with that person/group on a different issue.
I think that my community, the gay community, is going through the first test of the Obama challenge to carve out a new type of politics, and it's not an easy test. It's basically asking us to shake off our immense hurt from Prop 8 in CA, tolerate the close co-existence of the people who fought us, agree to disagree on some issues, and join together where we can. No more "taking our ball and going home" or "leaving the table as a symbol of our feelings." We stay engaged and keep working.
It's going to take a huge level of political maturity from my community. I've seen signs that some are willing to "go there" right away. I'm hoping the others will, as the article says beautifully in the end, shift their attention away from symbolism and onto meaningful, important legislation. (Go ENDA!)
gerryfisherof MA4:35PM January 15, 2009
gays are just like u and me they have feelings and lives they r God's children just like us
of MN12:54PM January 15, 2009
Despite what Obama's team said about having planned to invite Gene Robinson prior to the flap, it was more likely that there was a realization that it was a major error to invite "Sick" Warren. And maybe this would smooth over the mistake.
The evangelical religious right is a thorn in Obama's side and he feels obligated to placate them. The invitation is nothing more than that. Wackos like "Sick" Warren are hate mongers who try to select a minority segment of the population and use them to further their own aggrandizement. Obama knows this. Fortunately more and more young adults are learning this too and are refusing to attend this type of church.
Eventually truth and justice will prevail and the gays and lesbians will be given equal rights and equal protection.
Peter Difattaof FL10:15AM January 15, 2009
It is fundamental. It affects whether Obama will be a one-term president or the beginning of a significant period of Democratic ascendancy in Washington. The Clinton aide says the Warren pick "[sells] out gay Americans...to score points with opponents."
I am 29 years old. I am a conservative evangelical. I attend a conservative seminary. My wife and I supported Obama's candidacy through volunteering and campaign contributions. We are not alone among evangelicals (particularly young evangelicals). If Democrats claim that evangelicals are "opponents" then start reserving your tickets for a Republican inauguration in four years.
I know the pick is offensive to many gay Americans. I regret that. I don't think Rick Warren best represents evangelicals. I would have preferred another evangelical give the invocation (though he would have held the same views as Warren on the issue of homosexuality). But the broad brush stroke that says - to appeal to evangelicals, is to appeal to the enemy - is unacceptable. More than that, it's unwise.
PMof DC9:24AM January 15, 2009
"Robroy it sounds like you are interested in gay sex. Other wise [sic] why are you so intereted in watching programs about it on TV."
Not sure, what program you are referring to. We don't have cable, and I haven't watched a TV program for months.
But Logan provides more examples of the intolerance of the "tolerance" loving liberals. Disagree with him and you are slurred with the accusation that you are a member of the Taliban or a "wack-job", etc.
robroyof CO3:32AM January 15, 2009
robroy: you are being conned. that old lady is a well known instigator. she was being unruly and shoving people (including a man in a wheelchair) to get to front of the crowd where she could play victim to the cameras. she's done it many times before. she has a sizable rap sheet for her actions at otherwise peaceful gay rallies and parades. do a little research before spreading propaganda.
Reader Comments
Back to blog
kyle of GA 8:21AM January 18, 2009
Shawn Cowls of NY 1:48PM January 17, 2009
robroy of CO 10:44PM January 15, 2009
eStreet4ever of AK 5:05PM January 15, 2009
gerryfisher of MA 4:35PM January 15, 2009
of MN 12:54PM January 15, 2009
Peter Difatta of FL 10:15AM January 15, 2009
PM of DC 9:24AM January 15, 2009
robroy of CO 3:32AM January 15, 2009
fitz of IL 1:58AM January 15, 2009