Thursday, December 18, 2008
Politics What? No Speaking Slot for Sean Hannity? Or the Guy Who Named His Kid "Adolph Hitler"?
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Barack Obama has defended his decision—and it was his alone—to invite professional gay hater Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration by saying that we need to "agree without being disagreeable," and that's it's "important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues," so that we can "focus on those things" that we do agree on. Like, um, global warming—Warren and Obama agree that it's a problem. Warren probably believe it's caused by pride parades, but whatever—let's come together and get to work!
I guess Obama—who also described himself as "a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans" in his press conference this morning—doesn't think there's anything disagreeable about Warren comparing the relationships of adult gays and lesbians to incest and child rape. But if we're all going to agree to disagree without being all disagreeable and shit, why not invite Sean Hannity to speak at the inauguration? Or one of the anonymous authors of those Obama's-a-secret-Muslim emails? Maybe that crazy "Obama's-a-scawy-Ayrab" lady from McCain's town hall meeting would like to attend the inauguration? Or how about a white supremacist who, while not at all happy about our first black president, happens to agree with Obama about the importance of early childhood education?
Or are only gays and lesbians required to tolerate people who refuse to tolerate us?
Share via
2
I just can't get myself to view the selection of the person representing those who believe in sky gods to be a serious matter. I know I probably should. But I just can't.
3
Yeah, and shunning Rick Warren is really going to help make progress in this country...
Dan Savage is an entertaining writer. Part of what makes him an entertaining writer is his pride, petulance, and lack of perspective. But those qualities are also what hold him back from seeing one step ahead on a lot of really hard political issues, from the decision to invade Iraq, to climate change and our carbon footprints, to this issue, civil rights circa 2008.
I may not always agree with Barack Obama, but I trust him to have the wisdom, maturity, and small-c christian ethos to see one step ahead on a lot of intractable issues. For an American leader who has forcefully spoken out in favor of gay rights to extend an invitation to an anti-gay bigot--to me that's a great move.
Dan Savage is an entertaining writer. Part of what makes him an entertaining writer is his pride, petulance, and lack of perspective. But those qualities are also what hold him back from seeing one step ahead on a lot of really hard political issues, from the decision to invade Iraq, to climate change and our carbon footprints, to this issue, civil rights circa 2008.
I may not always agree with Barack Obama, but I trust him to have the wisdom, maturity, and small-c christian ethos to see one step ahead on a lot of intractable issues. For an American leader who has forcefully spoken out in favor of gay rights to extend an invitation to an anti-gay bigot--to me that's a great move.
5
I keep on thinking about his speech at the 2004 convention, that line about how there isn't a red America and a blue America, but a United States of America. I'm sure that's the same theme he's trying to reinforce by inviting Warren, but to his liberal base this decision is a slap in the face.
7
I think Dan's right. There is no reason to invite Rick Warren. Why not a regular pastor from the neighborhood? Why does it have to be some quasi-famous celebrity pastor? It would be awesome if Obama chose some nice pastor from a neighborhood-based church somewhere who runs the homeless shelter or something. There are plenty of wonderful, kind religious do-gooders who could fit the bill much better.
8
@5 Nicely worded. I would just add that it's not as though Obama made him director of health and human services or something. It's an invocation--which means that as a godless liberal I do not give one shit who gives it.
9
IT ALWAYS STRIKES ME AS FUNNY THAT THOSE WHO FEEL THEY ARE OPPRESSED OR ARE ARE OPPRESSED ARE THE MOST INTOLERENT OF OTHER VIEW POINTS. I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM DAN, BUT HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO TRIUMP OVER THE GREAT EVAGELICAL FORCE IF YOU CANT CREATE DIALOGUE?
10
It could be a good thing. I mean, nobody gets anywhere just avoiding each other and throwing insults behind the back. Maybe the best way to try to change the minds of anti-gay bigots is to invite them in and show them what the gay community is really like? Ghandi helped India win its independence from Britain mainly by talking to the British and showing them how much harm they were causing, not by shutting them out and scowling at them.
11
Jeremiah Wright was at the other end of the spectrum. Maybe Obama has a thing for hateful pastors.
12
@9. Do you not understand how to turn off the cap lock button?
I'm with @7. I would rather have seen a different message sent with the selection of a pastor. A religious figure that is more in the social justice ilk of religious folks.
I'm with @7. I would rather have seen a different message sent with the selection of a pastor. A religious figure that is more in the social justice ilk of religious folks.
13
My prediction: Obama will do NOTHING for the GLBT community. You can bank on it. He figured out early that all he had to do was promise anything to get elected. After all, it's not as if the Republicans are going to put up candidate who'll do anything either, so he can count on the GLBT vote next election. So why should he worry?
14
First of all, I still like Obama. However, I am completely repulsed by the views of Warren. This is a man who has visited countries where there are laws putting gay people into prison, and said that he approves of this. He compared us to child abuse, which is completely defamatory, and believes that tradition and dogma are more important than love, happiness and equality.
I mean he talks about 5,000 years of an institution, and yet slavery was an institution that goes back just as far, predating government and only 150 years ago did we decide to change that institution. (We ended it). With marriage we're only making it more inclusive that's all. And again it's very defamatory to compare same-sex marriage with bestiality and child abuse. I'm sure people made similar comparisons with other civil rights movements.
That being said, I was disapointed by Obama's choice to include Rick Warren, however I do understand why he did it. You could say it's a sort of "love your enemy" thing. Still, there could have been a better choice. However, I do still admire Obama, and hope to get over it as time moves on.
I mean he talks about 5,000 years of an institution, and yet slavery was an institution that goes back just as far, predating government and only 150 years ago did we decide to change that institution. (We ended it). With marriage we're only making it more inclusive that's all. And again it's very defamatory to compare same-sex marriage with bestiality and child abuse. I'm sure people made similar comparisons with other civil rights movements.
That being said, I was disapointed by Obama's choice to include Rick Warren, however I do understand why he did it. You could say it's a sort of "love your enemy" thing. Still, there could have been a better choice. However, I do still admire Obama, and hope to get over it as time moves on.
15
I should be mad I guess, but I don't care. There will be stories about Rick Warren denouncing Obama's repeal of DOMA and institution of Civil Unions when the time comes.
16
The indefensible solution: Obama has Rick Warren give his inaugural invocation speech. Then Obama comes up to give his inauguration address, smiles, points at Rick Warren and says "I hope everybody got a good look at this man and his beliefs...for he is an example of the kind of intolerance and small mindedness that we will no longer allow to go unchallenged in this country."
...and then he puts a toothpick in his mouth and says "There's a new sheriff in town...and his name is Reggie Hammond."
...and then he puts a toothpick in his mouth and says "There's a new sheriff in town...and his name is Reggie Hammond."
17
Like I said in the last post, I can't believe people are surprised by this. Now what to do with the victory plate?
http://www.victoryplate.com
http://www.victoryplate.com
18
@9 Creating a dialogue with reasonable, intelligent people capable of speaking without offensively invoking child rape is one thing. But you can't reason with hateful bigots. I don't remember anyone during the Civil Rights era saying, "hey, maybe we should just hear the Klan out."
19
@12 - Except, right-wingers know this trick. Fundamentalists can sniff out "liberal" pastors a mile away, and don't identify with them.
This is what "no preconditions" looks like, and it's entirely consistent with the Obama we saw on the campaign trail. A little nerve-wracking, yes, but unlike Nazis or whatever, Warren is greatly respected by pretty much all evangelicals. And keeping them engaged keeps them from undermining your radical gay agenda.
So keep your eyes peeled, folks, for any actions or policies that affect civil rights. Don't back down when it counts. But also keep some perspective. This is symbolic and it helps us more than it hurts.
This is what "no preconditions" looks like, and it's entirely consistent with the Obama we saw on the campaign trail. A little nerve-wracking, yes, but unlike Nazis or whatever, Warren is greatly respected by pretty much all evangelicals. And keeping them engaged keeps them from undermining your radical gay agenda.
So keep your eyes peeled, folks, for any actions or policies that affect civil rights. Don't back down when it counts. But also keep some perspective. This is symbolic and it helps us more than it hurts.
20
It is true what I said, you can never trust a straight person. Queers are the only one's who will look after queers. NEVER trust straight people, EVER!
21
ITYS.
Uh huh.
The bloom is off the rose apparently.
Who's the too-moderate, too-much-a-compromiser, to0-equivalent-to-Bush, too-much-a-panderer now?
Uh huh.
The bloom is off the rose apparently.
Who's the too-moderate, too-much-a-compromiser, to0-equivalent-to-Bush, too-much-a-panderer now?
22
The Great Obama speaks wisdom.
And repeats what I've been telling you folks.
When you decide those who disagree with you are unworthy of civil treatment you are not much better than and not far from the KKK and Nazis.
However, I do think you're getting screwed here. I am as conservative as they come and I can't stomach Warren.
I don't think Obama likes you.
And repeats what I've been telling you folks.
When you decide those who disagree with you are unworthy of civil treatment you are not much better than and not far from the KKK and Nazis.
However, I do think you're getting screwed here. I am as conservative as they come and I can't stomach Warren.
I don't think Obama likes you.
23
I think the general public does not know how bad Warren really is, supporting imprisionment of gays, etc. The white supremacist example is an excellent analogy but I have a feeling some would disagree because they don't give a shit about gay rights, who are simply a tool to get their agenda passed: global warming, bike lanes, the fucking viaduct, etc.
Ironic that we will be hearing so many of these Obama is a homophobe postings when last summer the Stranger was calling any gay who supported Clinton a racist. And now people say, what do you expect Obama does not support the gays. WTF? Is that not what we were trying to say before being told to hush and stop rocking the boat?
Ironic that we will be hearing so many of these Obama is a homophobe postings when last summer the Stranger was calling any gay who supported Clinton a racist. And now people say, what do you expect Obama does not support the gays. WTF? Is that not what we were trying to say before being told to hush and stop rocking the boat?
24
If there was a commonly-used term for the way I live my life, I'm sure that preachers like Reverend I-don't-give-a-fuck would condemn me from the pulpit too. Eh.
25
Dear Mr. President Elect,
I would like you to consider embracing the following statements.
"If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then being Black would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce strong families and you would think that over thousands of years that being Black would work itself out of the gene pool."
And this...
"Most people know I have many Black friends. I’ve eaten dinner in Black homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through Black relationships. So they can’t accuse me of Racism...”
Or even this...
“We support Segregation. And if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Segregation. …[T]he universal, historic definition of marriage [is] a White man and a woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years and every religion for 5,000 years has said the definition of marriage is between White man and a White woman. …This is not even just a Christian issue, it is a humanitarian and human issue, that God created marriage for the purpose of White family, White love and White procreation. I urge you to support Segregation and to pass that on.”
Pretty awful stuff right?
Well then, take out the word "Black" and substitute the words Gay or Homosexual. Take out the word White, and change "Racism" to homophobia and "Segregation" to Proposition 8. What you get is all of those disturbing racist quotes are in fact statements from interviews and speeches by Pastor Rick Warren.
If Rick Warren had said, the same things about African Americans or Hispanics, or Asians, or Jews, or even people who are left-handed, that he has about LGBT Americans, you would be appalled. If Warren had said about your family the things he has said about mine, he would not be allowed with in 100 miles of your inauguration. Yet you have chosen to put this man front and center on the day you take office.
You don't feel that you need to "agree to disagree" with White Supremacists, you don't say we need to "agree to disagree" with those who deny the Holocaust ever happened. You don't "reach across the aisle" to xenophobic bigots who want to round up immigrants. Yet you have embraced someone who is the equivalent to LGBT Americans. Why?
Millions of LGBT voters remembering the betrayal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act under the Clintons rallied to your cause during the primaries and then in the general election. Your choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation on inauguration day sends a clear message that Gay and Lesbian Americans can expect no better under your administration.
You are sending a clear message that to use the tyranny of the majority to strip away civil rights from a minority is ok. Your choice of Pastor Rick Warren says you intend to govern a nation that has two levels of citizenship. First Class for heterosexuals and Second Class for anyone who isn't.
This isn’t bipartisan compromise, this is politically expedient cowardice.
And it is beneath you.
More...
I would like you to consider embracing the following statements.
"If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then being Black would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce strong families and you would think that over thousands of years that being Black would work itself out of the gene pool."
And this...
"Most people know I have many Black friends. I’ve eaten dinner in Black homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through Black relationships. So they can’t accuse me of Racism...”
Or even this...
“We support Segregation. And if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Segregation. …[T]he universal, historic definition of marriage [is] a White man and a woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years and every religion for 5,000 years has said the definition of marriage is between White man and a White woman. …This is not even just a Christian issue, it is a humanitarian and human issue, that God created marriage for the purpose of White family, White love and White procreation. I urge you to support Segregation and to pass that on.”
Pretty awful stuff right?
Well then, take out the word "Black" and substitute the words Gay or Homosexual. Take out the word White, and change "Racism" to homophobia and "Segregation" to Proposition 8. What you get is all of those disturbing racist quotes are in fact statements from interviews and speeches by Pastor Rick Warren.
If Rick Warren had said, the same things about African Americans or Hispanics, or Asians, or Jews, or even people who are left-handed, that he has about LGBT Americans, you would be appalled. If Warren had said about your family the things he has said about mine, he would not be allowed with in 100 miles of your inauguration. Yet you have chosen to put this man front and center on the day you take office.
You don't feel that you need to "agree to disagree" with White Supremacists, you don't say we need to "agree to disagree" with those who deny the Holocaust ever happened. You don't "reach across the aisle" to xenophobic bigots who want to round up immigrants. Yet you have embraced someone who is the equivalent to LGBT Americans. Why?
Millions of LGBT voters remembering the betrayal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act under the Clintons rallied to your cause during the primaries and then in the general election. Your choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation on inauguration day sends a clear message that Gay and Lesbian Americans can expect no better under your administration.
You are sending a clear message that to use the tyranny of the majority to strip away civil rights from a minority is ok. Your choice of Pastor Rick Warren says you intend to govern a nation that has two levels of citizenship. First Class for heterosexuals and Second Class for anyone who isn't.
This isn’t bipartisan compromise, this is politically expedient cowardice.
And it is beneath you.
26
Bwa haw haw haw! You dumbass naive Seattle "progressive liberals" got duped again! Bwa haw haw! Really nothing is more entertaining than the myriad ways a Seattle "progressive liberal" tries to deny reality. Gawd you types are SO NAIVE! Keep it up! Your dumb-ass denial just makes me harder!
27
Honestly, after you just spent two months blaming black people for all things evil and oppressive to the gay community, what did you expect? You make me giggle sometimes, Dan.
28
"a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans" so long as he doesn't ever have to actually help us.
Fixed!
Fixed!
29
Is this really how the next four years are gonna go?
We’ll be told for the next two years that there’s no time for GLBT rights because Obama and Congress have to deal with Serious Issues That Matter.
The Dems will keep caving to the Retardicans and the right-wing of their party and the nation’s sinking situation only mildly improves. They barely survive the 2010 mid-terms, then tell us they can’t help us until after the 2012 presidential election.
The public becomes fed up again, and Obama is narrowly re-elected in 2012 with large Republican majorities in the House and Senate. The Obama Adminstration spends the next four years consumed in scandals both real and imaginary generated by the Right Wing Noise Machine.
GLBT issues are permanently Off. The. Table.
PS: Hold me!
We’ll be told for the next two years that there’s no time for GLBT rights because Obama and Congress have to deal with Serious Issues That Matter.
The Dems will keep caving to the Retardicans and the right-wing of their party and the nation’s sinking situation only mildly improves. They barely survive the 2010 mid-terms, then tell us they can’t help us until after the 2012 presidential election.
The public becomes fed up again, and Obama is narrowly re-elected in 2012 with large Republican majorities in the House and Senate. The Obama Adminstration spends the next four years consumed in scandals both real and imaginary generated by the Right Wing Noise Machine.
GLBT issues are permanently Off. The. Table.
PS: Hold me!
30
It's funny how much people "trust" Obama to do A, B, and C. I voted for him like many others, but the amount of "trust" people put in a man who has not done anything yet is simply amazing! He's a human being, for fuck's sake, not some Democratic demi-god. No one in the history of the world has built up such "trust" and admiration for reading speeches other people have written.
31
@9 SammyJ - Tolerance implies inferiority. I don't need or want your tolerance.
That being said.
It's rather disingenuous of Obama to make the claim that he is a "fierce advocate of equal rights for gays and lesbians" when he advocates for denying us marriage. It's nice that he has said the words gay and lesbian during many of his speeches, but is that it? Is that what amounts to fierce advocacy?
The parallels to Bill Clinton are starting to appear. Clinton may not have said the words gay and lesbian as many times as Obama, but so what. Obama is putting gays and lesbians in his administration, but so what. Clinton had gays and lesbians in his administration and we got DADT and DOMA.
Here we go again.
Well, I suppose there is a payoff for Obama by giving Rick Warren such a high profile place in his inauguration. He'll probably get at least two votes from the Saddleback crowd in 2012 to replace the votes of me and my partner. Good for him.
That being said.
It's rather disingenuous of Obama to make the claim that he is a "fierce advocate of equal rights for gays and lesbians" when he advocates for denying us marriage. It's nice that he has said the words gay and lesbian during many of his speeches, but is that it? Is that what amounts to fierce advocacy?
The parallels to Bill Clinton are starting to appear. Clinton may not have said the words gay and lesbian as many times as Obama, but so what. Obama is putting gays and lesbians in his administration, but so what. Clinton had gays and lesbians in his administration and we got DADT and DOMA.
Here we go again.
Well, I suppose there is a payoff for Obama by giving Rick Warren such a high profile place in his inauguration. He'll probably get at least two votes from the Saddleback crowd in 2012 to replace the votes of me and my partner. Good for him.
32
uh, why is he sucking up to the RightWingers with this inane choice?
It's not a very good sign that he feels he needs to do this base appeasing so early in the game.
He'd better not be going all Clinton-esque on us.
It's not a very good sign that he feels he needs to do this base appeasing so early in the game.
He'd better not be going all Clinton-esque on us.
34
If Obama actually does something for queer folks, then this is brilliant. If he doesn't do anything meaningful, this is giving GLBT folks a big fuck you.
I'm straight, I gave money to Obama and I ain't watching that fucking bigot preacher get his moment in the sun.
I'm straight, I gave money to Obama and I ain't watching that fucking bigot preacher get his moment in the sun.
35
I'm way behind on slog, so forgive me if this has been posted before. LGBA, the lesbian gay band association, is marching in the inaugural parade. It's not enough to balance out Warren, but it's a huge step. We're getting there, slowly but surely.
36
Why isn't Obama opening a "dialogue" with the friendly folks at Aryan Nations? Why isn't he "coming together" with all the Americans who still support anti-miscegenation laws?
How can he hope to change their hearts and minds if he just calls them names or dismisses them as bigots?
Oh, but we're not talking about racists. We're talking about someone who advocates stripping gays and lesbians of their constitutional rights. That's not "real" bigotry. That's legitimate disagreement over "social issues," like "the homosexual problem."
As long as the "dialogue" only degrades and humiliates fags, what's the harm?
Fuck Obama. What a terrible man. What a phony, power-hungry, unethical man.
How can he hope to change their hearts and minds if he just calls them names or dismisses them as bigots?
Oh, but we're not talking about racists. We're talking about someone who advocates stripping gays and lesbians of their constitutional rights. That's not "real" bigotry. That's legitimate disagreement over "social issues," like "the homosexual problem."
As long as the "dialogue" only degrades and humiliates fags, what's the harm?
Fuck Obama. What a terrible man. What a phony, power-hungry, unethical man.
37
No president, vice president or major party nominee has ever supported gay marriage. Obama is the most liberal candidate to be elected since FDR, but still holds gays at arms length. I would expect only verrrry minor improvements to gay civil rights over the next 4 years. Those looking for anything different should have supported Dennis Kucinich.
38
Dan and others, you're really falling in to the "gay fury" (link by Matt Drudge) and everyone else in the Country who think we are "in the wake of a gay marriage ban in California — is looking for a fight."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/120…
STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELVES/OURSELVES
It's like having a birthday cake that is completely fucking delicious, but being all whiney and pissy because it isn't FunFetti.
YOU'RE BECOMING DERANGED.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/120…
STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELVES/OURSELVES
It's like having a birthday cake that is completely fucking delicious, but being all whiney and pissy because it isn't FunFetti.
YOU'RE BECOMING DERANGED.
39
@38; yes, deeply offensive bigotry, passed off as spirited social disagreement, fills me with gay rage.
This is not a source of embarrassment for me, and I don't particularly care whether you feel embarrassed about it.
The inclusion of an outspoken bigot in the inauguration is in no way "delicious," fucking or otherwise.
This is not a source of embarrassment for me, and I don't particularly care whether you feel embarrassed about it.
The inclusion of an outspoken bigot in the inauguration is in no way "delicious," fucking or otherwise.
40
@38 - "gay fury"? Really? And a link to Drudge? Jesus.
Anyway, this IS a big deal, and just because it doesn't seem particularly important to you, doesn't mean that it isn't important. If Obama had chosen an avowed racist to speak at his inauguration, there would be hell to pay, and rightfully so. But because it's acceptable to lie about and persecute gays, it's A-OK that Obama has invited an avowed homophobe. How is that not completely fucked up?
Anyway, this IS a big deal, and just because it doesn't seem particularly important to you, doesn't mean that it isn't important. If Obama had chosen an avowed racist to speak at his inauguration, there would be hell to pay, and rightfully so. But because it's acceptable to lie about and persecute gays, it's A-OK that Obama has invited an avowed homophobe. How is that not completely fucked up?
41
Why pick Rick Warren? if you are going to go that route, just flat pick James Dobson... or if you really want to entertain the lowest common denominator, Fred Phelps might be able to pray for 3 mins...
Why two christians for both religious moments? why not a rabbi for this part?
I dont know, the whole thing is annoying.. at least the music will be good.
Why two christians for both religious moments? why not a rabbi for this part?
I dont know, the whole thing is annoying.. at least the music will be good.
42
For heaven's sake, why isn't Obama inviting David Duke to speak? That would really show everyone he is reaching out to people he disagrees with.
I mean, if you want to be 'inclusive' to a fault why not go all the way?
I mean, if you want to be 'inclusive' to a fault why not go all the way?
43
Yes Dan, only gays and lesbians required to tolerate people who refuse to tolerate us. I thought you got the memo...
(I understood that Obama was essentially anti-gay when he came out emphatically against marriage equality on religious grounds. I tried to tell you guys. But would you listen to me? Nooooo... What. Ever.)
(I understood that Obama was essentially anti-gay when he came out emphatically against marriage equality on religious grounds. I tried to tell you guys. But would you listen to me? Nooooo... What. Ever.)
44
mmmmmmm...
....that's good...
...oh yeah, that's it...
..wow Barak, you're really good..
..oh! watch the teeth!...
..mmmm...yeah...
...oh...Oh....OH!.....THAT's It !!!!
Thanks, man
got a smoke?
....that's good...
...oh yeah, that's it...
..wow Barak, you're really good..
..oh! watch the teeth!...
..mmmm...yeah...
...oh...Oh....OH!.....THAT's It !!!!
Thanks, man
got a smoke?
47
@45, he will have to overturn DADT: he needs troops to fight Bush's wars Obama has every intention of continuing. Just don't expect any bennefits to be given to them after they serve.
48
"Or one of the anonymous authors of those Obama's-a-secret-Muslim emails?"
Well, he did make Hillary Secretary of State.
Well, he did make Hillary Secretary of State.
49
"... Or the Guy Who Named His Kid "Adolph Hitler"?
patience, my young padowan
the Great Obama has promised that
the girls will name their new puppy
Adolph
patience, my young padowan
the Great Obama has promised that
the girls will name their new puppy
Adolph
50
Doesn't this seem like an example of Obama doling out a seemingly important but actually meaningless honor, thus demonstrating his ability to embrace those with whom he may disagree but without actually making any significant compromise of policy? I would rather he show his appreciation for whatever Rick Warren did to support him during his campaign - refraining from endorsing John McCain, for example, which freed his followers to vote for Obama - by inviting him to do something totally forgettable like this, than, say, altering his stance on abortion.
True, more of us than usual will remember the invocation due to the historic nature of the occasion. But for the most part, I suspect it will fade quickly as the actions of Obama's presidency take the forefront of our attention. And it is those that matter. Not the players of this, what is essentially a high-profile theatrical production.
True, more of us than usual will remember the invocation due to the historic nature of the occasion. But for the most part, I suspect it will fade quickly as the actions of Obama's presidency take the forefront of our attention. And it is those that matter. Not the players of this, what is essentially a high-profile theatrical production.
51
While it bugs me greatly to see Rick Warren being given a national platform by the President-elect I voted for, I do understand the logic. Obama has made it clear that universal health care is the top priority for 2009. Republicans know it too, and are gearing up to fight it because they know if universal health care goes through and is a success, they will be in the electoral wilderness for a long damn time. And someone like Warren, who actually is concerned about welfare and poverty issues, could be an ally of convenience in talking over those religious leaders (paging Dr. Dobson!) who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the RNC.
Also, Warren refused to rescind an invitation for Obama to speak at his church, despite pressure from his parishioners who complained of Obama's views on abortion, etc. He declined to do so.
Warren will give a short, fairly non-controversial prayer and it will be done. He is savvy enough to know that it is not in his long term interest to deliver an anti-gay tirade or compare abortion to the Holocaust at the inauguration.
Also, Warren refused to rescind an invitation for Obama to speak at his church, despite pressure from his parishioners who complained of Obama's views on abortion, etc. He declined to do so.
Warren will give a short, fairly non-controversial prayer and it will be done. He is savvy enough to know that it is not in his long term interest to deliver an anti-gay tirade or compare abortion to the Holocaust at the inauguration.
52
It's the invocation, so whatever minister selected was going to be a variation on a irrelevant theme as far as most non-Christians are concerned. But if I'm going to have a religion shoved down my throat, I'd prefer it be inclusive and not fronted by a bigot.
That doesn't prevent me from seeing the political payoff of inviting this bigot to give the invocation, though. There's a great chance to use this as an opportunity to say to the Christian faithful that view homosexuality as an abomination “I've heard you, but I disagree with you. So now, I'm going to do these things.”
If he doesn't use this as a way to justify his actions when he revokes the Defense of Marriage Act and DADT and all the other things he promised to do for the gay community, then I'll be disappointed. I'm willing to trade symbolic actions like this for real political action.
And gays and lesbians are not the only minority group required to tolerate people who refuse to tolerate them. All of them are. It's the only way to get progress. If you are a minority, advancing your positions depends on you changing the minds of the majority of people that disagree with you. You have to tolerate them. You have to engage them. (MLK would say you have to love them as well, but I won't take it that far.) So free speech advocates watch the ACLU use their contributions to defend klansmen and pro-lifers, blacks watch Democratic politicians try to re-frame racial stances in non-racial terms, naturalized Americans have to listen to immigration arguments barely hiding bigotry, and gays have to listen to supporters of civil unions who don't support gay marriage.
It's nothing new. It's part of the gig.
That doesn't prevent me from seeing the political payoff of inviting this bigot to give the invocation, though. There's a great chance to use this as an opportunity to say to the Christian faithful that view homosexuality as an abomination “I've heard you, but I disagree with you. So now, I'm going to do these things.”
If he doesn't use this as a way to justify his actions when he revokes the Defense of Marriage Act and DADT and all the other things he promised to do for the gay community, then I'll be disappointed. I'm willing to trade symbolic actions like this for real political action.
And gays and lesbians are not the only minority group required to tolerate people who refuse to tolerate them. All of them are. It's the only way to get progress. If you are a minority, advancing your positions depends on you changing the minds of the majority of people that disagree with you. You have to tolerate them. You have to engage them. (MLK would say you have to love them as well, but I won't take it that far.) So free speech advocates watch the ACLU use their contributions to defend klansmen and pro-lifers, blacks watch Democratic politicians try to re-frame racial stances in non-racial terms, naturalized Americans have to listen to immigration arguments barely hiding bigotry, and gays have to listen to supporters of civil unions who don't support gay marriage.
It's nothing new. It's part of the gig.
53
@25, well said. I'm straight, and I find this choice by Obama offensive. I do understand that Warren basically supported Obama in the election by supporting McCain. But having Warren speak at the inauguration is no different than having David Duke speak. Warren is not only a bigot, but he actively worked to take away rights from people by supporting Prop 8. It's one thing to believe homosexuality is a sin (still stupid) but another to actively support changing a state's constitution to take rights away from a group of people.
Obama might think he's being strategic, reaching out to the right so he can pass healthcare reform. But giving someone like Warren this attention is more likely to make moderates and other minority Obama supporters think their homophobia is acceptable. Every progressive needs to send Obama the message that it's not ok to embrace the radical right wingers like Warren, and that Homophobia is not ok. Period.
Write to Obama at http://change.gov/page/s/yourstory
People are right, we let Clinton get away with this stuff and it was the start of him compromising on all important issues and blowing our chance to make real change happen. Let's not let Obama do this. Hold the line now.
Obama might think he's being strategic, reaching out to the right so he can pass healthcare reform. But giving someone like Warren this attention is more likely to make moderates and other minority Obama supporters think their homophobia is acceptable. Every progressive needs to send Obama the message that it's not ok to embrace the radical right wingers like Warren, and that Homophobia is not ok. Period.
Write to Obama at http://change.gov/page/s/yourstory
People are right, we let Clinton get away with this stuff and it was the start of him compromising on all important issues and blowing our chance to make real change happen. Let's not let Obama do this. Hold the line now.
54
Yawn. I'm with everyone who says the invocation doesn't matter. So Warren's a bigot. Kindly point out a prominent U.S. religious figure who isn't. In a year or so next to nobody will remember who gave the inaugural invocation. This is a token gesture by a known liberal, whose voting record (such that it is) reflects the same. If he says he's on our side, take him at his word....for now.
55
I'm a left wing queer Christian, and make no apologies for any of it. I don't expect Obama to do absolutely everything that I want him to do. Even if he did everything that most of the posters here wanted him to do, I would still disagree. Y'all are way more conservative and way less religious than I am. For Pete's sake, it's just the invocation, and it's just Rick Warren. Save some ammo for the real battles, eh?
Is it time to reference the netiquette rule that whoever says Nazi or Hitler first, automatically loses? Sheesh.
Is it time to reference the netiquette rule that whoever says Nazi or Hitler first, automatically loses? Sheesh.
58
I am so over the rationalizing, the "trust Obama; he knows what he's doing" BS. He went out of his way to tell the gay community to fuck off. It's that simple. I don't care what his super-duper-secret-upside-down-back-flip genius reasoning is. He's told us to fuck off. So he can do likewise.
59
@58 - He most certainly did NOT tell you to fuck off. Wait and see what he does. If he goes and ignores the gays when it counts - with legislation, DADT, DOMA, and so on - THEN you can come back and be pissed at him. This gesture actually helps more than it hurts. Keep your eyes on the prize.
60
More evidence that the incoming administration has more to fear from the left than from the right. He has not yet been sworn in and you all are ready to tie him to the mast of the biggest gayest float in the pride parade.
Give him a fucking chance. Let his decisions that have REAL LIFE implications, like policy decisions, legislative agenda, or court appointments be the fuel for your fire.
Give him a fucking chance. Let his decisions that have REAL LIFE implications, like policy decisions, legislative agenda, or court appointments be the fuel for your fire.
61
It's not just gays and lesbians. Women, too! Warren compares abortion to the holocaust, which makes 35% of American women Nazis who like to kill people, apparently.
63
61
The Holocaust was peanuts compared to abortion.
What are 6 million compared to 32 million (and counting)
Hitler was a clumsy amateur compared to Planned Parenthood.
The Holocaust was peanuts compared to abortion.
What are 6 million compared to 32 million (and counting)
Hitler was a clumsy amateur compared to Planned Parenthood.
65
64
thank you
and yet, even an idiot can do the math
you have the chance to be merry because you weren't slaughtered by an abortionist.
that is a civil right we deny thousands every day in this nation.
thank you
and yet, even an idiot can do the math
you have the chance to be merry because you weren't slaughtered by an abortionist.
that is a civil right we deny thousands every day in this nation.
67
So, it's common to have a well known religious leader give the invocation. Billy Graham did it for years and years and was a pretty safe political choice. He's not available. Who should Obama pick? I'd rather Warren than Dobson.
68
Sorry, but to me this is a little bigger than just "a prayer." Rick Warren has stated that his beliefs are the same as James Dobson's, that the only difference is a matter of tone. He just soft-sells the hate a little to make it more palatable. He has compared gays to pedophiles and those who commit bestiality and incest and he refers to abortion as a "holocaust." The gay community found it a worthy use of their time to protest a restaurant in CA when they discovered a manger there gave $100 to support Prop 8, but the inclusion of one of its most vocal supporters in the Presidential Inauguration isn't worthy of protest? Obama is giving him a featured spot in his inauguration instead of any of the thousands of ministers who haven't been as provocative and insulting on these issues, all in the name of "inclusion." Well, if inclusion is the name of this game where is Louis Farrakhan on this roster? Farrakhan endorsed Obama too and was even given a Man Of The Year award by Obama's former church. Or would his inclusion be too insulting to Jews? Warren's endorsement of Obama, if it can even be attributed to him, resulted in a mere 4% increase in White Evangelicals voting for him over the number who voted for John Kerry, so why is he giving this man a platform at his Inauguration and insulting a constituency who voted heavily for him? If inclusion is the goal then where are the racist groups, or would that be insulting to the "real" minorities like blacks, Hispanics, and Jews? Why is the only "difference of opinion" given voice the one that marginalizes gays?
69
I want to hear him explain how it's not disagreeable for this moron to compare my relationship with my (adutl, unrelated) partner to incest and child rape.
70
When I think about Barack Obama and his incoming administration I think about things like:
Will he close Guantanamo and end torture?
Will he achieve middle class tax cuts?
Will he achieve universal health care?
Will he end the war in Iraq?
Will he attempt to regain America's footing in science in research?
Will he restore the image of America around the world?
Will he get around to reversing the damages of the Patriot Act?
I just don't think about or care about who gets to offer an "invocation" for 90 seconds on January 20.
Will he close Guantanamo and end torture?
Will he achieve middle class tax cuts?
Will he achieve universal health care?
Will he end the war in Iraq?
Will he attempt to regain America's footing in science in research?
Will he restore the image of America around the world?
Will he get around to reversing the damages of the Patriot Act?
I just don't think about or care about who gets to offer an "invocation" for 90 seconds on January 20.
71
@70. The guy who Obama asked to give the invocation doesn't reflect positively on anything you've listed.
Choosing Warren, especially won't help "restore the image of America around the world."
Choosing Warren, especially won't help "restore the image of America around the world."
72
@71. The guy who Obama selected doesn't reflect on ANYTHING I listed. That is the point. The intensity of the "wrong" people feel about the Warren invitation, in light of real, serious outrages, is bizarre to me.
73
Can Obama please shit on some other group for a change to prove how inclusive he is? I'm getting tired of it being the queers. Mix it up a little.
74
Dan I love you but you're wrong on this one.
Obama is a great man, and know enough about Israel and the orthodox Jewish to back a seperate but equal solution to the gay problem. In Israel gays, straights, anyone can register for a domestic partnership. That's the law.
But real Jewish marriage is completely seperate. In fact Israel recently nullified thousands of marriages when it was discovered that liberal rabbis in American and England had "married" couples that were not even Jews. Sacha Baron Cohen, my favorite Orthodox Jewish performer went to great lengths to send his wife to Israel to be indoctrinated into real Jewish life and to make sure she was capable of real marriage.
Gay men must be accepted into society, but they will never be married according real Jewish law. Accept domestic partnership benefits, and leave real marriage to men like Sacha Baron Cohen. They understand what marriage is really all about.
Obama is a great man, and know enough about Israel and the orthodox Jewish to back a seperate but equal solution to the gay problem. In Israel gays, straights, anyone can register for a domestic partnership. That's the law.
But real Jewish marriage is completely seperate. In fact Israel recently nullified thousands of marriages when it was discovered that liberal rabbis in American and England had "married" couples that were not even Jews. Sacha Baron Cohen, my favorite Orthodox Jewish performer went to great lengths to send his wife to Israel to be indoctrinated into real Jewish life and to make sure she was capable of real marriage.
Gay men must be accepted into society, but they will never be married according real Jewish law. Accept domestic partnership benefits, and leave real marriage to men like Sacha Baron Cohen. They understand what marriage is really all about.
76
Obama has been too sainted by everyone. Just because he's making history, he's somehow a saint? An Angel from above? It might be important to note that most African American's are rabidly homophobic and that their high turn out for Obama is one of the reasons gays lost Prop 8. Everyone is so afraid to talk about the big pink elephant in the room - an African American culture that hates gays.
78
I don't like Rick Warren paticularly and I can see both sides of the question: Dan's and Barack's, but what I think is a positive is that suddenly Rick Warren is going to be getting a lot of pressure on this issue. I've read a lot of mainstream media stuff about Warren and the sorts of things mentioned above rarely get pointed out.
But they will NOW and this may be the sort of pressure that someone who wants to maintain a public position and is tempted by moving into the mainstream (as he is poised to do) which can move Warren. As long as he's been preaching to the choir and thus not faced the sort of challenges he is going to be facing now (see above) he could get away with the sort of ignorance (chosen or accidental) which doesn't see the above types of stuff as "hate speech". Now it's going to be shoved in his face and if he wants that BIG pulpit (and no matter how spiritual he is, he WANTS IT, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten as far as he has) he's going to have to make some changes.
Dobson and his type changed their tune on "women in charge" when the Palin issue (and it's offer of power) came up, Warren will change his.
But they will NOW and this may be the sort of pressure that someone who wants to maintain a public position and is tempted by moving into the mainstream (as he is poised to do) which can move Warren. As long as he's been preaching to the choir and thus not faced the sort of challenges he is going to be facing now (see above) he could get away with the sort of ignorance (chosen or accidental) which doesn't see the above types of stuff as "hate speech". Now it's going to be shoved in his face and if he wants that BIG pulpit (and no matter how spiritual he is, he WANTS IT, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten as far as he has) he's going to have to make some changes.
Dobson and his type changed their tune on "women in charge" when the Palin issue (and it's offer of power) came up, Warren will change his.
79
the internet is just chock-a-block with mindreaders every time I take exception to something Obama does. I expect him to be perfect! I'm hysterical! obviously I'm just a trouble maker who can't be reasoned with!
I reject all that crap out of hand.
I want him to do what he said. When Barney Frank was in the hot-seat about transgender rights in the Non=Discriminaton Act, Obama said things that gave proponents of these rights every reason to believe that he would stand up for these things. How am I being hysterical if I have trouble with perhaps the single most visible OPPONENT of those rights being to asked to break open the cermonial bottle of bubbly on Obama's much awaited Ship of State?
"But, Obama has always called for inclusion" yeah, I know. THAT'S why we are speaking up - because we are INCLUDED!
Where are all the unthinking and hysterical opponents to Warren that I'm hearing so much about. I think our reasoning is pretty damned sound.
I reject all that crap out of hand.
I want him to do what he said. When Barney Frank was in the hot-seat about transgender rights in the Non=Discriminaton Act, Obama said things that gave proponents of these rights every reason to believe that he would stand up for these things. How am I being hysterical if I have trouble with perhaps the single most visible OPPONENT of those rights being to asked to break open the cermonial bottle of bubbly on Obama's much awaited Ship of State?
"But, Obama has always called for inclusion" yeah, I know. THAT'S why we are speaking up - because we are INCLUDED!
Where are all the unthinking and hysterical opponents to Warren that I'm hearing so much about. I think our reasoning is pretty damned sound.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Seattle's Crappiest Bus Route by Unpaid Intern
-
Your Daily Douchebag by Dominic Holden
-
How Many Ballots Are Left to Count? by Eli Sanders
-
The Procession for Officer Brenton by Dominic Holden
-
Cyclist Hits Pedestrian by Dan Savage
-
What She Said by Dan Savage
-
What He Said 2 by Dan Savage
-
The Morning News by Paul Constant
-
The World Series of Baseball by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: She Needs Oral by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (79) RSS