Friday, December 19, 2008
Homo Undermining the Institution of Marriage
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Meanwhile in California...
The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.
One of the "sponsors" of Prop 8, of course, is Obama's BFF Rick Warren.
Share via
1
you're right Dan, Pres. Elect Obama should just not talk to or recognize anyone who doesn't support gay rights. I was against Prop. 8, even donated money, but I understand the Pres. Elect will be the President of the whole country, not just the people who he agrees with.
2
There's a difference between talking to, or recognizing, folks who disagree with you and honoring someone who helped to lead an assault on the civil rights of millions of your supporters by giving him a featured role in your inauguration.
I frequently talk with people who disagree with me—my boyfriend, my coworkers, my kid. Blah blah blah.
I frequently talk with people who disagree with me—my boyfriend, my coworkers, my kid. Blah blah blah.
4
I tried to do my part by leaving a message at change.org stating my strong opposition to Warren as someone with an invitation from president-elect to speak at the inauguration
I doubt anyone will respond. And that makes me sad.
I doubt anyone will respond. And that makes me sad.
5
There is no reason for Obama to include Rick Warren in his inauguration. He doesn't have to put him down, but he does have to keep an arm's length.
6
The symbolism of the inauguration is important. Having a prominent anti-gay bigot lead off a ceremony that is supposed to represent ALL of the people matters. The apologist commenters on Slog seem to be saying that ALL is okay NOT to include gays and lesbians. The kool-aid drinkers are becoming the unreachables of the primaries and general election.
I doubt it but maybe Barney can explain this better:
http://www.house.gov/frank/warren121808.…
News Release from Barney Frank
Congressman, 4th District, Massachusetts
2252 Rayburn Building · Washington, D.C. 20515 · (202) 225-5931
For Immediate Release:
December 18, 2008
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FRANK ON PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA CHOOSING RICK WARREN TO GIVE INAUGURATION INVOCATION
“I am very disappointed by President-elect Barack Obama’s decision to honor Reverend Rick Warren with a prominent role in his inauguration. Religious leaders obviously have every right to speak out in opposition to anti-discrimination measures, even in the degrading terms that Rev. Warren has used with regard to same-sex marriage. But that does not confer upon them the right to a place of honor in the inauguration ceremony of a president whose stated commitment to LGBT rights won him the strong support of the great majority of those who support that cause.
“It is irrelevant that Rev. Warren invited Senator Obama to address his congregation, since he extended an equal invitation to Senator McCain. Furthermore, the President-Elect has not simply invited Rev. Warren to give a speech as part of a series in which various views are presented. The selection of a member of the clergy to occupy this uniquely elevated position has always been considered a mark of respect and approval by those who are being inaugurated.”
More...
I doubt it but maybe Barney can explain this better:
http://www.house.gov/frank/warren121808.…
News Release from Barney Frank
Congressman, 4th District, Massachusetts
2252 Rayburn Building · Washington, D.C. 20515 · (202) 225-5931
For Immediate Release:
December 18, 2008
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FRANK ON PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA CHOOSING RICK WARREN TO GIVE INAUGURATION INVOCATION
“I am very disappointed by President-elect Barack Obama’s decision to honor Reverend Rick Warren with a prominent role in his inauguration. Religious leaders obviously have every right to speak out in opposition to anti-discrimination measures, even in the degrading terms that Rev. Warren has used with regard to same-sex marriage. But that does not confer upon them the right to a place of honor in the inauguration ceremony of a president whose stated commitment to LGBT rights won him the strong support of the great majority of those who support that cause.
“It is irrelevant that Rev. Warren invited Senator Obama to address his congregation, since he extended an equal invitation to Senator McCain. Furthermore, the President-Elect has not simply invited Rev. Warren to give a speech as part of a series in which various views are presented. The selection of a member of the clergy to occupy this uniquely elevated position has always been considered a mark of respect and approval by those who are being inaugurated.”
7
@ 1,
So when someone goes on national teevee and sez that you're a rapist and a pedophile it's just... what? A difference of opinion?
Bullshit.
So when someone goes on national teevee and sez that you're a rapist and a pedophile it's just... what? A difference of opinion?
Bullshit.
8
Let's take this to its logical end: we need to start sex testing people before they wed. Retroactively.
Mr and Mrs Rick Warren, you need to drop your pants and let the state check your junk. If you're that worried about the fate of civilization resting on it, I expect to see you first in line.
Mr and Mrs Rick Warren, you need to drop your pants and let the state check your junk. If you're that worried about the fate of civilization resting on it, I expect to see you first in line.
9
Oh, this makes me sad. I have many married friends in CA. I was kinda hoping that having won the day w/ Prop 8, they could at least leave the already-marrieds alone.
On the other, other, hand, perhaps in some of the legal mire that is about to bubble up in an ugly way, one of the marrieds will will some legal battle & Prop 8 will be overturned on that basis.
........siiiiiigh. & *this* is why people are angry. People were wondering in another post thread why we can't just have civil discourse. I'm really freakin' civil to people trying to quash down the rights of others.
On the other, other, hand, perhaps in some of the legal mire that is about to bubble up in an ugly way, one of the marrieds will will some legal battle & Prop 8 will be overturned on that basis.
........siiiiiigh. & *this* is why people are angry. People were wondering in another post thread why we can't just have civil discourse. I'm really freakin' civil to people trying to quash down the rights of others.
11
The California Supreme Court justices that overturned the original referendum acted irresponsibly and created this dilemma (intentionally). They knew a vote to amend the constitution was scheduled in a few months and that the results of that vote could nullify their ruling. The responsible course would have been to postpone action on their ruling until after the Prop 8 vote. Judges' personal prejudices are a lousy basis for democratic government.
Shame on cheaters.
THROW OUT THE SHAM MARRIAGES
Shame on cheaters.
THROW OUT THE SHAM MARRIAGES
10
Gangstalking:
http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/GSFAQ.h…
Gang Stalking is a systemic form of control, which seeks to control every aspect of a Targeted Individuals life. Gang Stalking has many similarities to workplace mobbing, but takes place outside in the community. It called Gang Stalking, because the target is followed around and placed under intrusive and directed surveillance by groups of organised "Covert Human Intelligence Sources" also known as Citizen Informants 24/7. Using anti-terror laws to spy on ordinary people.
Gangstalking:
http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/GSFAQ.h…
Gang Stalking is a systemic form of control, which seeks to control every aspect of a Targeted Individuals life. Gang Stalking has many similarities to workplace mobbing, but takes place outside in the community. It called Gang Stalking, because the target is followed around and placed under intrusive and directed surveillance by groups of organised "Covert Human Intelligence Sources" also known as Citizen Informants 24/7. Using anti-terror laws to spy on ordinary people.
12
I've said it before and I'll say it again: we can't afford to ostracize the majority of bigoted right-wing freaks just because they're bigots. And we don't have to bend over or let them push us around. But we can be bigger than them by recognizing them and listening to them even when we don't agree. Given that the benediction will be given by civil rights legend Rev. Joe Lowery (who gets the exact same prominence as Warren, but has received zero attention from sloggers):
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepher…
I think it's fair to take Obama at his word here: This is what sitting down with no preconditions looks like.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepher…
I think it's fair to take Obama at his word here: This is what sitting down with no preconditions looks like.
13
@11 - The judges were acting in good faith originally within the rights and duties given to them in the constitution. It's one thing to overrule the judges with legislation. It's quite different to deny the role of the judiciary in throwing out bad law. That's downright scary. These marriages should not be annulled. And one day soon, they will be reinstated anyway. What are you fighting for, exactly, in all of this?
14
(on re-read) Oh man! KENNETH STARR! Gah, like he didn't do enough damage with the goddamn Zippergate report.
also, via CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/califor…
also, via CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/califor…
16
@15 - This clown more or less represents the 46% of America that didn't vote for Obama. If we pretend they don't exist, or don't invite them into our new America, they will only get worse. Obama's doing the right thing here. It doesn't mean that he agrees with him or endorses him. It just means that we keep them from stabbing us in the back in 4 or 8 years for shutting them out right now.
17
this makes me sad. why one group of people hates another so much that they would actively attempt to undo the very symbol of their happiness is something that i will never understand.
good luck, california.
good luck, california.
18
@ 11,
I expect you'll be getting divorced now since gays can still marry in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that's totally victimized you and your sister/wife.
What do you think is gonna happen when the majority votes on the rights of a minority that they hate, dumbass?
I expect you'll be getting divorced now since gays can still marry in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that's totally victimized you and your sister/wife.
What do you think is gonna happen when the majority votes on the rights of a minority that they hate, dumbass?
19
Check that article again...Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed his own motion with the California Supreme Court:
The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.
Jerry Brown filed a brief Friday saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional. He says it deprives gay couples of a fundamental right.
After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he would fight to uphold the initiative in his role as attorney general, even though he personally voted against it.
He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters.
The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.
Jerry Brown filed a brief Friday saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional. He says it deprives gay couples of a fundamental right.
After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he would fight to uphold the initiative in his role as attorney general, even though he personally voted against it.
He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters.
20
If those marriages are overturned, it provides the opportunity for an unprecedented scientific experiment: If, as the proponents of Prop 8 contend, homosexual marriages threaten "traditional," heterosexual unions, then we should expect to see a spike in divorce rates among heterosexuals that rapidly drops to pre-ruling levels the day after those marriages are overturned. Otherwise, we will be forced to conclude that the "threat" to marriage posed by extending marriage rights to homosexuals is in fact an imaginary threat.
21
Ok, once more I must bow before Digby, who takes an insightful idea and cooks it to perfection:
“There are those who feel this is a very savvy political move on Obama’s part — by inviting Warren to give the invocation at the most watched inauguration in history, Obama is validating the views of the Christian Right and they may very well be moved enough by that to become Democrats. But it naturally follows that in order to keep their votes, the Democrats would have to honor their agenda and views — the evangelicals are big voting bloc and if the Democrats become the social conservative party, they could count on their votes for sure. (If they don’t make substantial moves toward social conservatism, this won’t work, obviously.) It doesn’t leave much room for liberals, but perhaps that’s a good thing. They are nothing but trouble, defending women’s civil liberties, agitating for gay rights and hectoring the government about not torturing and starting wars and all that. It would be a big relief if they didn’t need them.
It occurs to me that this may have been one of the lessons the political establishment took from the Clinton years. Gore had the presidency denied him in 2000 largely because the Democrats had alienated a significant enough slice of the left that it defected to a third party, making the outcome much closer than it should have been. They may see the way to permanent realignment to be the replacement of liberals (who are universally loathed among their friends) with the salt-of-the-earth, well organized and easy to appease social conservatives. It makes some sense. It would keep liberals rootless and powerless but they could continue to serve as the useful punching bag for the political establishment.”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/p…
More...
“There are those who feel this is a very savvy political move on Obama’s part — by inviting Warren to give the invocation at the most watched inauguration in history, Obama is validating the views of the Christian Right and they may very well be moved enough by that to become Democrats. But it naturally follows that in order to keep their votes, the Democrats would have to honor their agenda and views — the evangelicals are big voting bloc and if the Democrats become the social conservative party, they could count on their votes for sure. (If they don’t make substantial moves toward social conservatism, this won’t work, obviously.) It doesn’t leave much room for liberals, but perhaps that’s a good thing. They are nothing but trouble, defending women’s civil liberties, agitating for gay rights and hectoring the government about not torturing and starting wars and all that. It would be a big relief if they didn’t need them.
It occurs to me that this may have been one of the lessons the political establishment took from the Clinton years. Gore had the presidency denied him in 2000 largely because the Democrats had alienated a significant enough slice of the left that it defected to a third party, making the outcome much closer than it should have been. They may see the way to permanent realignment to be the replacement of liberals (who are universally loathed among their friends) with the salt-of-the-earth, well organized and easy to appease social conservatives. It makes some sense. It would keep liberals rootless and powerless but they could continue to serve as the useful punching bag for the political establishment.”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/p…
23
I can't fathom the spiritual gutter someone has to exist in to want to nullify the willingly entered marriages of loving adults.
24
Again w/ Kenneth Star. He will apparently be the one defending Prop 8 in court.
Either. Ken Starr is some horribly closet kinky bastard. Or - I dunno, why does he care so much about other people's sex/love lives? :
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20…
I loathed his faux-Puritan prurience *before*. Grrr.
Either. Ken Starr is some horribly closet kinky bastard. Or - I dunno, why does he care so much about other people's sex/love lives? :
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20…
I loathed his faux-Puritan prurience *before*. Grrr.
25
No, they didn't. The California Supreme Court handed down its ruling in May. On June 2, the proposition was approved to be put on the ballot.
But we can't expect motherfuckers like you to care about facts, can we?
They knew a vote to amend the constitution was scheduled in a few months and that the results of that vote could nullify their ruling.
No, they didn't. The California Supreme Court handed down its ruling in May. On June 2, the proposition was approved to be put on the ballot.
But we can't expect motherfuckers like you to care about facts, can we?
26
@21 - Digby is close, but no cigar. The point is not to change how they vote or how they identify their parties, it's to get them to stop hating and change their minds, admit they were wrong, and understand that THE GAYS are not some big scary monster out to rape their children and take away their... uh, marriages, or whatever it is they're scared of. Most of the out gays in their small redstate towns have left for the coasts and never looked back, which is why most the only experience most red-staters have with gays is with self-loathing closeted preachers. Someone's gotta out them on the national stage, and it has to be right up there, front and center, so we can see them side by side: the man of tomorrow and the man of the past, and know that they are both a part of our country, like it or not, and nothing's gonna change unless they sit down and talk to each other and hear each other out, EVEN IF it's asymmetrical, EVEN IF they want to take our rights away (because, after all, the gay fight isn't just the gay fight - it's all our fight, because they won't stop with the gays - they'll march on to deny reproductive rights and all kinds of civil liberties if they continue to let their demons control them), NO MATTER WHAT we need to keep talking to them, because the minute you're out of sight you go back to being that evil monster in their minds that is responsible for all the world's ills. And if Obama's not doing it, YOU need to be doing it, if you know anyone you haven't talked to in a while that hates, they need to know just who it is they're hating.
27
I don't regret voting for Obama because the alternative would be 4-8 more years of Republican rule, but I am not going to defend him anymore. I never paid attention to who Rick Warren was or what he believed in until the past couple days and I find him as disgusting a human being as there is. I am deeply disappointed in this pick.
28
David @ 26,
You seem like a swell guy, and I get your point.
However! You should read this then get back to me:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2…
"In 1996, Clinton signed into law the single most pernicious piece of anti-gay federal legislation ever passed -- the Defense of Marriage Act -- with overwhelming Democratic support in the Congress. Scorning the "Far Left," especially on social issues, was a Clinton favorite. He is the inventor, after all, of the Sister Souljah technique. Bill Clinton was the ultimate non-ideological pragmatist. He was driven by the overriding desire to win over his opponents.
What did all of those post-partisan, cultural outreach efforts generate? Hatred so undiluted that it led to endless investigations, accusations whose ugliness was boundless, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and ultimate impeachment over a sex scandal. Bill Clinton was anything but a cultural or partisan warrior. He was the opposite. And that was what he had to show for it."
You seem like a swell guy, and I get your point.
However! You should read this then get back to me:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2…
"In 1996, Clinton signed into law the single most pernicious piece of anti-gay federal legislation ever passed -- the Defense of Marriage Act -- with overwhelming Democratic support in the Congress. Scorning the "Far Left," especially on social issues, was a Clinton favorite. He is the inventor, after all, of the Sister Souljah technique. Bill Clinton was the ultimate non-ideological pragmatist. He was driven by the overriding desire to win over his opponents.
What did all of those post-partisan, cultural outreach efforts generate? Hatred so undiluted that it led to endless investigations, accusations whose ugliness was boundless, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and ultimate impeachment over a sex scandal. Bill Clinton was anything but a cultural or partisan warrior. He was the opposite. And that was what he had to show for it."
30
I'm a lifelong Republican, conservative and Christian and Warren gives me the creeps.
You girls are wasting your ammunition going after Donny Osmond and Pat Boone.
Obama is the one cutting your balls off.
You girls are wasting your ammunition going after Donny Osmond and Pat Boone.
Obama is the one cutting your balls off.
31
The move to pass Prop.8 in California was horrible enough. The move to annul civil marriages by gay couples is beyond the pale. However, the gay community is faced with a difficult test in that we must both fight for our constitutionally guaranteed rights while respecting those of the people who oppose us. This is no different than when African Americans had dogs, fire hoses and racial insults hurled at them while maintaining their principled stance against racial injustice. Our constitution both guarantees minority viewpoint rights such as our right to marry, etc. But it also guarantees freedom of religious expression, including Rick Warren's. We can no more constitutionally censor Rick Warren's public expression than he should be able to constitutionally limit our rights. When people complain about his giving the invocation at the upcoming inauguration I am reminded of the question, just who of those who views we, the gay community, opposes, would be acceptable to give such an prayer [without the taint of censorship]? This is understandably very difficult for us but it is a struggle others have experienced as well. We need to reach out to people like Warren, in the way that African Americans reached out to prejudiced whites as part of the civil rights struggle. This effort plays a key part in realizing societal progress and bringing an end to the injustices we are now witnessing in California and elsewhere.
32
@ 31,
One small prob: No one's trying to censor Rick Warren for the hideous things he sez every week. He and his glassy-eyed supplicants can scream that I'm goin' to hayell all the want.
The first amendment does not give him the right to officiate at the presidential inauguration, however.
One small prob: No one's trying to censor Rick Warren for the hideous things he sez every week. He and his glassy-eyed supplicants can scream that I'm goin' to hayell all the want.
The first amendment does not give him the right to officiate at the presidential inauguration, however.
33
@28 - Point taken, that's a good article, one that I had heard about but not read. I guess for me, I'm open to what he's doing, but it really comes down to, in the end: what is he going to do? His associations do not damn him, but his actions do. And you're looking at this damning association (hm, where have we heard that before in connection with Obama?), and linking it to a possible future capitulation.
I don't believe Obama is going to capitulate to the far right on social issues, including gay rights. But I could turn out to be wrong. He could fail us all. And we need to be extra vigilant to make sure that doesn't happen. But he has not said anything that indicates that Warren has influenced him, and his rights agenda remains where it is. Which is why I view this pick in good faith. But if we start to see any shift in the way Obama talks about gays, or what's on his agenda, THEN and ONLY THEN will I start to get angry. But for now, let's say he's on notice, and we're all keeping an eye on him to see what he does next.
I don't believe Obama is going to capitulate to the far right on social issues, including gay rights. But I could turn out to be wrong. He could fail us all. And we need to be extra vigilant to make sure that doesn't happen. But he has not said anything that indicates that Warren has influenced him, and his rights agenda remains where it is. Which is why I view this pick in good faith. But if we start to see any shift in the way Obama talks about gays, or what's on his agenda, THEN and ONLY THEN will I start to get angry. But for now, let's say he's on notice, and we're all keeping an eye on him to see what he does next.
34
David is a kool-aid drinker. He believes that closed-minded people will somehow magically open their minds. He has no irrefutable concrete evidence to support his belief. History shows otherwise. Bill and Hillary made nice with the now dead Billy Graham and what did that result in? Impeachment hearings for Bill and DADT and DOMA for us fags. Keep digging deeper Davey boy. Your going in the wrong direction.
35
@34 - You've never had your mind change by anything? How sad.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household. Homeschooled, whole 9 yards. At 16, I had put together enough pieces about evolution to figure out that the whole Biblical literalism thing I had been taught was a fantasy. Left home, went to college, and my family gave me the silent treatment (or was it the other way around? never quite sure) for 12 years. Last summer, I started an e-mail correspondence with my mom, who listens to Rush Limbaugh every day. It's making progress, slowly, but my god there is a lot of shit to get out of them there pipes.
So who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and people cannot change. Maybe large-scale societal shifts never happen, maybe progress is impossible. If that's the case, well then we're all fucked. So we can't labor under that assumption. We have to keep going with the hope that our labor is not in vain.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household. Homeschooled, whole 9 yards. At 16, I had put together enough pieces about evolution to figure out that the whole Biblical literalism thing I had been taught was a fantasy. Left home, went to college, and my family gave me the silent treatment (or was it the other way around? never quite sure) for 12 years. Last summer, I started an e-mail correspondence with my mom, who listens to Rush Limbaugh every day. It's making progress, slowly, but my god there is a lot of shit to get out of them there pipes.
So who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and people cannot change. Maybe large-scale societal shifts never happen, maybe progress is impossible. If that's the case, well then we're all fucked. So we can't labor under that assumption. We have to keep going with the hope that our labor is not in vain.
36
PS Check out Pam's House Blend for further coverage:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.…
More...
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.…
The voice that will erase the sad bigotry of Rick Warren
I want to turn your attention to the man who will make Rick Warren look very, very small at the inauguration -- the civil rights giant who will deliver the benediction, the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery. On February 7, 2006, the pro-equality Lowery bid farewell to Coretta Scott King, another icon of the civil rights movement who was a long supporter of LGBT rights.
Tim Russo underscores just how badly Rick Warren will clearly be out of his league once Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery takes to the microphone.
If I were Rick Warren, I'd have the nuts to turn down the invitation to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration, simply based on decency. But even further, if I were Rick Warren, in the interests of my own ego, I'd be smart enough to avoid comparison of my Celebrity Driven Life with that of the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, who'll be giving the benediction after Barack's speech.
...Rick Warren will never be the man that Joseph Lowery was 50 years ago, when he founded the SCLC, or the man who marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge 43 years ago, let alone the man Lowery is today. Rick Warren would never have the courage, the stature, or the righteousness to sit across from George Wallace and demand a jelly donut, let alone his own civil rights.
...Rick Warren is about to get steamrolled, like a gnat against a windshield, on the biggest stage of the last 50 years by a man who helped shape those 50 years, and to whom a guy like Rick Warren is lint on his suit.
37
Although I'm no longer a supporter of Obama and will not vote for him in four years. Over $1,000 wasted, at least I can feel a little better--Shepard Fairey at least recognizes Obama's mistake.
38
David - you need to stop man. You're trying to hard.
People defending Obama here are wrong about the "facts" they site. First off, Bush didn't win in 2000 because of the Religious Right. He actually LOST, in spite of them, he won because of a right wing Supreme Court and a horrible strategy from Gore.
And David, Warren does NOT represent the 46% of America that didn't vote for Obama. You just plain don't understand who Warren is if you think this. Warren is the extreme religious right. He's crazier than Rush Limbaugh. He makes O'Reilly look moderate. The man is a religious nutcase. There are tons of Republicans who would never give this man the stage. Evangelicals are only 25% of Christians, and over 20% of Evangelicals voted FOR Obama. And even with all of Obama's anti gay marriage rhetoric and embracing of vocally anti-gay christians, that was only 4% more than voted for Kerry.
No one is asking Dems to ignore or disenfranchise Christians. What we're saying is that religious right preachers who make money off of hate and fear, Warren in particular, should not be given a huge platform that makes it look like his homophobia is acceptable.
I am not sure what people don't get about this. My fear is that suddenly Dems feel we need the religious right to win. Ironic that the Republicans are trying to figure out how to dump the religious right from their party because they have fucked the party up so much. This is totally the time to marginalize these nutcases, not embrace them. There was a time when the Dems took a stand against racists. Eventually the Republicans swore them off too (at least openly). We now have a chance to likewise marginalize the religious right, and instead we are embracing them. This is nuts!
The argument that Obama is the Presidents of all Americans so Warren should get the podium is also a bit nutty. I suppose Obama is the Presidents of Hayden Lake too, but I don't see any Aryan Nations preachers getting the podium. But, oh right, they are RACIST, not HOMOPHOBIC...I get it, racism is worse than homophobia.
More...
People defending Obama here are wrong about the "facts" they site. First off, Bush didn't win in 2000 because of the Religious Right. He actually LOST, in spite of them, he won because of a right wing Supreme Court and a horrible strategy from Gore.
And David, Warren does NOT represent the 46% of America that didn't vote for Obama. You just plain don't understand who Warren is if you think this. Warren is the extreme religious right. He's crazier than Rush Limbaugh. He makes O'Reilly look moderate. The man is a religious nutcase. There are tons of Republicans who would never give this man the stage. Evangelicals are only 25% of Christians, and over 20% of Evangelicals voted FOR Obama. And even with all of Obama's anti gay marriage rhetoric and embracing of vocally anti-gay christians, that was only 4% more than voted for Kerry.
No one is asking Dems to ignore or disenfranchise Christians. What we're saying is that religious right preachers who make money off of hate and fear, Warren in particular, should not be given a huge platform that makes it look like his homophobia is acceptable.
I am not sure what people don't get about this. My fear is that suddenly Dems feel we need the religious right to win. Ironic that the Republicans are trying to figure out how to dump the religious right from their party because they have fucked the party up so much. This is totally the time to marginalize these nutcases, not embrace them. There was a time when the Dems took a stand against racists. Eventually the Republicans swore them off too (at least openly). We now have a chance to likewise marginalize the religious right, and instead we are embracing them. This is nuts!
The argument that Obama is the Presidents of all Americans so Warren should get the podium is also a bit nutty. I suppose Obama is the Presidents of Hayden Lake too, but I don't see any Aryan Nations preachers getting the podium. But, oh right, they are RACIST, not HOMOPHOBIC...I get it, racism is worse than homophobia.
39
@32 - when there is a push to exclude Warren from giving the invocation at Obama's inauguration, that IS censorship [and is not in the best interests of a group like ours using the constitution to fight FOR our rights]. Also, I am not referring to a first amendment right per se, I am speaking to the constitution as an ideal philosophy for dealing with different viewpoints [especially ones we disagree with]. We have to be principled in our fight, which is not easy, but necessary.
@34 - David is not a kool-aid drinker. He has faith in the president-elect. Perhaps he also remembers the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright [who BTW, was very pro-gay for all the other crazy things he believed in] and how Obama shared his own contradiction at loving his grandmother but feeling angry at her racial beliefs. Obama saw the overall value of his grandmother's love and support, despite her views [perhaps similar to Warren]. We all have relatives, friends, associates whom we feel the same way towards.
@34 - David is not a kool-aid drinker. He has faith in the president-elect. Perhaps he also remembers the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright [who BTW, was very pro-gay for all the other crazy things he believed in] and how Obama shared his own contradiction at loving his grandmother but feeling angry at her racial beliefs. Obama saw the overall value of his grandmother's love and support, despite her views [perhaps similar to Warren]. We all have relatives, friends, associates whom we feel the same way towards.
40
jerry brown has reversed his position (which i think is a reversal of an earlier stance he held immediately after the election) and has vowed to fight proposition 8 in the california state supreme court.
the supreme court will probably overturn the amendment if brown can argue his point well enough. this, in turn, will lead to a challenge in the united states supreme court under the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. the bench ruling there depends on anthony kennedy and how well plaintiffs counsel can articulate their argument. if the united states supreme court upholds the lower court ruling (and if my hypothetical scenario is accurate to this point), it will be a significant victory for gay rights.
if not, it will set up the state of california for an unprecedented constitutional crisis against the rule of the state over that of the federal government. california would be within its right to ignore the high court ruling, and prop 8 supporters would have to seek enforcement of the supreme court ruling while prop 8 opponents ran for cover back to the california state supreme court. the good news in all of this is that the other two branches of government are controlled by the good guys -no matter what you say about obama- and could provide us with substantial aid towards defeating proposition 8 and similar amendments across the country.
the supreme court will probably overturn the amendment if brown can argue his point well enough. this, in turn, will lead to a challenge in the united states supreme court under the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. the bench ruling there depends on anthony kennedy and how well plaintiffs counsel can articulate their argument. if the united states supreme court upholds the lower court ruling (and if my hypothetical scenario is accurate to this point), it will be a significant victory for gay rights.
if not, it will set up the state of california for an unprecedented constitutional crisis against the rule of the state over that of the federal government. california would be within its right to ignore the high court ruling, and prop 8 supporters would have to seek enforcement of the supreme court ruling while prop 8 opponents ran for cover back to the california state supreme court. the good news in all of this is that the other two branches of government are controlled by the good guys -no matter what you say about obama- and could provide us with substantial aid towards defeating proposition 8 and similar amendments across the country.
41
38
Live by judicial fiat, die by judicial fiat.
You don't mind when a radical left California judge over turns the vote of millions of voters to create a right to homosexual marriage from thin air, but 8 years out still pout over the Florida ruling.
btw, Warren is way out there, most Republicans find him scary. I don't know who Obama is reaching out to but it is not mainstream GOPers.
Live by judicial fiat, die by judicial fiat.
You don't mind when a radical left California judge over turns the vote of millions of voters to create a right to homosexual marriage from thin air, but 8 years out still pout over the Florida ruling.
btw, Warren is way out there, most Republicans find him scary. I don't know who Obama is reaching out to but it is not mainstream GOPers.
42
@39, PLEASE show me the definition of Censorship that applies to this situation. That is just total crap. Let's use facts when we have rational conversations.
43
@42 You asked, I provide [via wikipedia]:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor. The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored:
* Moral censorship, is the removal of materials that censor deems to be obscene or otherwise morally questionable. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale, especially child pornography, which is censored in most jurisdictions in the world. In another example, graphic violence resulted in the censorship of the "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" movie entitled Scarface, originally completed in 1932.
* Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Very often, militaries will also attempt to suppress politically inconvenient information even if that information has no actual intelligence value.
* Political censorship occurs when governments hold back secret information from their citizens. The logic is to prevent the free expression needed to rebel. Any dissent against the government is thought to be a "weakness" for the enemy to exploit.[citation needed] Campaign tactics are also often kept secret: see the Watergate scandal.
* Religious censorship is the means by which any material objectionable to a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith.
* Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to halt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light. Privately owned corporations in the business of reporting the news also sometimes refuse to distribute information due to the potential loss of advertiser revenue or shareholder value which adverse publicity may bring. See media bias. Trade secret law may be used by corporations as a censorship device. For example, trade secret law may help keep company-sponsored research confidential, when revealing it would reveal negative health effects of the product researched.
More...
Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor. The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored:
* Moral censorship, is the removal of materials that censor deems to be obscene or otherwise morally questionable. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale, especially child pornography, which is censored in most jurisdictions in the world. In another example, graphic violence resulted in the censorship of the "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" movie entitled Scarface, originally completed in 1932.
* Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Very often, militaries will also attempt to suppress politically inconvenient information even if that information has no actual intelligence value.
* Political censorship occurs when governments hold back secret information from their citizens. The logic is to prevent the free expression needed to rebel. Any dissent against the government is thought to be a "weakness" for the enemy to exploit.[citation needed] Campaign tactics are also often kept secret: see the Watergate scandal.
* Religious censorship is the means by which any material objectionable to a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith.
* Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to halt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light. Privately owned corporations in the business of reporting the news also sometimes refuse to distribute information due to the potential loss of advertiser revenue or shareholder value which adverse publicity may bring. See media bias. Trade secret law may be used by corporations as a censorship device. For example, trade secret law may help keep company-sponsored research confidential, when revealing it would reveal negative health effects of the product researched.
44
@ 40,
Sorry, no. This is a state supreme court's interpretation of state law that is not in conflict with existing federal law.
Whatever their decision, there's no appeal to the US Supreme Court.
Sorry, no. This is a state supreme court's interpretation of state law that is not in conflict with existing federal law.
Whatever their decision, there's no appeal to the US Supreme Court.
45
@ richard smith,
So why don't we invite George W Bush, the KKK or Al Qaeda to speak at the inauguration?
They certainly hold contrary views held by millions of people.
Is denying them a platform censorship?
So why don't we invite George W Bush, the KKK or Al Qaeda to speak at the inauguration?
They certainly hold contrary views held by millions of people.
Is denying them a platform censorship?
46
@41
There are three branches of gov't. Blacks wouldn't have their civil rights today if the courts had not intervened. Quit relying on K-12 history (social studies) level information and right-wing radio talking points. It makes you look stupid.
@35 David and @39 Richard Smith:
In all honesty. Even though I cannot morally support Obama any longer and it breaks my heart to say so. I hope you are right and Obama makes me look like a fool. But my standards are high. To prove me wrong he will have to succeed in overturning DADT and DOMA. Trying and failing isn't good enough--that's Clinton crap. There are too many "blue dog" democrats in Congress who will not go along with him on these issues. And considering the high-school/G.E.D. level of thinking that "gop" @41 represents in a lot of the populace of the U.S., I think I unfortunately will be vindicated.
There are three branches of gov't. Blacks wouldn't have their civil rights today if the courts had not intervened. Quit relying on K-12 history (social studies) level information and right-wing radio talking points. It makes you look stupid.
@35 David and @39 Richard Smith:
In all honesty. Even though I cannot morally support Obama any longer and it breaks my heart to say so. I hope you are right and Obama makes me look like a fool. But my standards are high. To prove me wrong he will have to succeed in overturning DADT and DOMA. Trying and failing isn't good enough--that's Clinton crap. There are too many "blue dog" democrats in Congress who will not go along with him on these issues. And considering the high-school/G.E.D. level of thinking that "gop" @41 represents in a lot of the populace of the U.S., I think I unfortunately will be vindicated.
47
@45 - that absolute would be censorship. We forget that the constitution is a document that embraces the rights of majority views while balancing the rights of minority views. That is exactly why the KKK, George Bush, etc have the same rights of expression as...............everyone else. Again, I asked, who would fit the philosophy of being acceptable to give the invocation if we insisted on a litmus test of religious beliefs [and does the constitution even say what specific religious beliefs fall under 'freedom of religious expression']? Our president elect thinks outside the box [which is what he means by change]. We are not prepared for his ideal constitutional viewpoint.
48
@43, so which one applies. No one is silencing Rick Warren, all anyone is saying is that he should not be INVITED to speak at the inauguration, VERY different than not allowing him to speak at all.
But let's get back on track. All the people arguing that Warren speaking is ok fail to answer this question - would you approve of David Duke or another racist speaking?
But let's get back on track. All the people arguing that Warren speaking is ok fail to answer this question - would you approve of David Duke or another racist speaking?
49
@47, you are wrong. The KKK isn't being given a slot to talk at the inauguration, so your claim is that they are being censored? Bullshit. Rick Warren has every right to preach against homosexuality just as the Aryan Nations have every right to preach in support of the purity of the white race. Both are idiots and neither should be given the stage at Obama's inauguration.
50
@48 The point here is.......what is religious expression? You question on whether David Duke or another racist would be invited to speak implies there is some criteria [in this case on what is acceptable religious expression] that is appropriate and constitutional to be applied in the partaking of public events such as the inauguration. You tell me what is that religious expression and whether we could limit our constitutional applicability to that criteria? I am simply conceit that, however difficult, there is no such criteria. Therefore, I would have to accept a racist expression [not agree with it] if it is protected by the constitution. You tell me, was Obama wrong in embracing his grandmother? Where African Americans wrong who embraced racial prejudice whites? Your situation speaks to emotion I agree with, but not ideals I should respect if I am to be credible in fighting a principled fight based on the constitution. Again, it is difficult.
51
John Fay of the University of Washington’s The Daily newspaper wrote, “Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?” Nothing could ever make me feel more secure in the fact that my inalienable right as a citizen in this country to marry is being decided by people as delusional as Mr. Fay. The mere fact that my 4 year monogamous relationship with my partner could ever be compared to the act of a man having sex with a dog sickens me beyond no belief. I believe in the right to free speech, but the right of free speech does not give anyone the right to cut down and belittle an entire society because their lifestyle doesn’t run down the same path.
Not so long ago in our countries past, miscegenation laws prevented interracial, international marriages under the pretense of protecting the sanctity of marriage. Our country was founded upon the ideal that every man, woman and child is created equal. It seems throughout the countries history though, that you are only created equal if that person consents to the “normality” defined by those that wish to see the world in one particular frame of mind.
The gay, lesbian, and transgender community has gotten the short end of the stick time and time again. The realization that so many Americans believe that it is a moral cause to promote the suffrage of such a large group of people, leaves me bewildered and saddened to be the blunt of the rise of hatred and fear plaguing our society.
The age of intolerance needs to end. It is up to us as fellow humans to stop the hatred, to stop the age old battle against anything that is different. Homosexuality is not a sickness that you cut it out of my body or out of my brain. I am a person. I am a human, and I love another man. Until people can deal with the fact that it is possible for a man to love another man, or a woman to love another woman, nothing will ever change.
More...
Not so long ago in our countries past, miscegenation laws prevented interracial, international marriages under the pretense of protecting the sanctity of marriage. Our country was founded upon the ideal that every man, woman and child is created equal. It seems throughout the countries history though, that you are only created equal if that person consents to the “normality” defined by those that wish to see the world in one particular frame of mind.
The gay, lesbian, and transgender community has gotten the short end of the stick time and time again. The realization that so many Americans believe that it is a moral cause to promote the suffrage of such a large group of people, leaves me bewildered and saddened to be the blunt of the rise of hatred and fear plaguing our society.
The age of intolerance needs to end. It is up to us as fellow humans to stop the hatred, to stop the age old battle against anything that is different. Homosexuality is not a sickness that you cut it out of my body or out of my brain. I am a person. I am a human, and I love another man. Until people can deal with the fact that it is possible for a man to love another man, or a woman to love another woman, nothing will ever change.
52
@50, what? To be clear, no one is proposing Warren be censored, so what the hell are you talking about?
53
@52 What I am talking about is an ideal that is greater than you or me. I am talking about a principled stance for something. You know, when you refer to allowing racists the right to speak I have to remind you that John Wayne was racist and he has an airport named after him. Harry Truman was racist and was the president (so much for keeping the racists away from the inauguration). And on and on. So you tell me, what is acceptable religious expression [hint: its undefinable].
54
@53 you are totally missing the point. I'm not sure if you're doing so on purpose or just trying to be argumentative.
Very simply, no one is trying to keep Warren from speaking. We are trying to keep him from participating in a specific event. He can speak wherever else he wants to.
Very simply, no one is trying to keep Warren from speaking. We are trying to keep him from participating in a specific event. He can speak wherever else he wants to.
55
I was so pissed about Warren that I unsubscribed to the almost daily emails I've been receiving from the Obama people since I donated to the campaign. When I clicked on the unsubscribe link, I was asked WHY I no longer wished to receive the emails. I hope every donor who is offended by the selection of this speaker lets them know why!
56
@ all of the above
Brass tacks...
All the legalize, rigmarole and mumbo-jumbo (and legitimate argument) still fail to answer this one question:
Why is religion up in my government in the first place?!
I strongly feel that our first and most detrimental mistake is to try and incorporate any type of religious view into the workings of a civil government, whose main duty is to ensure individual rights.
Rights that should not be hindered by anyones take on morals, who we should be praying to and where I put my genitalia.
It is the governments sole responsibility to ensure that each individuals personal rights are upheld and not encroached upon.
The sooner we can come to the conclusion that God, religion or any type of supernatural 'faith' has NO business in governmental procedure, the better off we'll be.
Brass tacks...
All the legalize, rigmarole and mumbo-jumbo (and legitimate argument) still fail to answer this one question:
Why is religion up in my government in the first place?!
I strongly feel that our first and most detrimental mistake is to try and incorporate any type of religious view into the workings of a civil government, whose main duty is to ensure individual rights.
Rights that should not be hindered by anyones take on morals, who we should be praying to and where I put my genitalia.
It is the governments sole responsibility to ensure that each individuals personal rights are upheld and not encroached upon.
The sooner we can come to the conclusion that God, religion or any type of supernatural 'faith' has NO business in governmental procedure, the better off we'll be.
57
Yawn, wake me up when this righteous indignation means something beyond internet whining. Prop 8 wasn't enough to get people motivated... I doubt the Rev. Warren thing will amount to much more than 'blah blah blah'.
59
Obama, who's been listening to RS, has just announced that RS is 100% right and change means no more censorship. So, the following groups will also give invocations at the inaugural:
1. Atheists for GWB
2. Flying spaghetti monster cult
3. Followers of Demeter and Isis
4. Steven Colbert, playing Steven Colbert plaiying Steven Colbert
5. His son the eagle CAW!
6. Richard Smith!!
1. Atheists for GWB
2. Flying spaghetti monster cult
3. Followers of Demeter and Isis
4. Steven Colbert, playing Steven Colbert plaiying Steven Colbert
5. His son the eagle CAW!
6. Richard Smith!!
60
My parents sent me to a school ran by German Nuns for all my school years, now these were nuns that survived World War II and came paddling over here to teach and preach. As a kid, knowing I was in their territory at school, I didn't voice my opinion (alghout I never accepted a lot of things).
As I grew older silence wasn't an option, I started to fight penguin after penguin more often than I would actually like to fight a penguin, and they showed me they had control over me, especially through my grades.
Now, after all this time, two things are clear, one, I know I accept them but they still don't accept me, two, never in my life I would use power to force anything on anyone like they did to me.
..and If I ever encountered them again I would totally tell them "see I just couldn't be changed".
first they take our rights away ..what is next? they´ll want to change us? ..I wonder how and by what methods? I believe this fight is more than just a marriage issue.
As I grew older silence wasn't an option, I started to fight penguin after penguin more often than I would actually like to fight a penguin, and they showed me they had control over me, especially through my grades.
Now, after all this time, two things are clear, one, I know I accept them but they still don't accept me, two, never in my life I would use power to force anything on anyone like they did to me.
..and If I ever encountered them again I would totally tell them "see I just couldn't be changed".
first they take our rights away ..what is next? they´ll want to change us? ..I wonder how and by what methods? I believe this fight is more than just a marriage issue.
61
46
OK, genius.
I won't overwhelm you with high school civics.
After all, your comprehension fizzled out somewhere before middle school reproductive biology.
Now, back to your BIG BRAIN POLITICAL STRATEGY session.
And don't get discouraged:
there are still a few states that haven't outlawed gay marriage;
and only half of the prayers at the swearing in will by by world-class homophobes...you're doing brilliantly so far.
OK, genius.
I won't overwhelm you with high school civics.
After all, your comprehension fizzled out somewhere before middle school reproductive biology.
Now, back to your BIG BRAIN POLITICAL STRATEGY session.
And don't get discouraged:
there are still a few states that haven't outlawed gay marriage;
and only half of the prayers at the swearing in will by by world-class homophobes...you're doing brilliantly so far.
62
You just had to have Obama for prez. You had plenty of warning about him. You did not care. Now you have him and he stays true to form and now you want to whine about it. So now, we have to see what he does and doesn't do after he takes office. My guess is he will do right by gay people. But his statement that he "has always supported equal rights for gay people" is simply not true.
64
Face it, guys.
NOBODY likes you.
Not even the Great Healer.
Work on your personalities and get back to us.
NOBODY likes you.
Not even the Great Healer.
Work on your personalities and get back to us.
65
Prop 8's validity will not affect the Same Sex marriages entered into this summer, because of the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution.
Article I, section 10, clause 1 states:
“ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
The marriages were valid when contracted, and because the state has no power to make laws impairing their obligations, they remain valid.
Article I, section 10, clause 1 states:
“ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
The marriages were valid when contracted, and because the state has no power to make laws impairing their obligations, they remain valid.
66
My boyfriend loves me. My friends love me. My families love me.
But they all think there may be "something wrong with you," as they say.
Work on your prejudices and get back to us.
But they all think there may be "something wrong with you," as they say.
Work on your prejudices and get back to us.
67
@65
Tell that to the suckers who got married at Gavin's freakshow.
The pre Prop 8 marriages were NOT valid when contracted, judges have no power to make laws.
Start returning those wedding gifts.
Tell that to the suckers who got married at Gavin's freakshow.
The pre Prop 8 marriages were NOT valid when contracted, judges have no power to make laws.
Start returning those wedding gifts.
72
Next time you hear a marching-in-lockstep-with-the-guy-standing-up-front-wearing-the-dress Evangelical Christian say that, while they are against same-sex marriage, they otherwise still support equal rights for gay folks and would be OK with civil unions, DON'T BELIEVE 'EM!!! It's BULLSHIT, what they really want is to see gay people COMPLETELY marginalized! The fact that they have now chosen to kick gay people when they're down in this most reprehensible manner, is, to me, absolute proof of this.
I now have absolutely no use for the Christian religion as it is currently constituted. I still believe in God, and I even believe that Christ was the son of God who died for our sins, but the modern (post-Nicean, and it just got worse from there) Christian religion? Flush it down the fuckin' toilet!! Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, the whole fuckin' lot of 'em...
I now have absolutely no use for the Christian religion as it is currently constituted. I still believe in God, and I even believe that Christ was the son of God who died for our sins, but the modern (post-Nicean, and it just got worse from there) Christian religion? Flush it down the fuckin' toilet!! Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, the whole fuckin' lot of 'em...
73
judges have no power to make laws
They do in our Common Law system. Judges make law every day -- that's what fills up the books in the law libraries.
They do in our Common Law system. Judges make law every day -- that's what fills up the books in the law libraries.
74
@67
Brown v. Board of Education
Roe v. Wade
Both of those were decided by judges, and last time I checked, abortion is legal and segregation isn't.
Brown v. Board of Education
Roe v. Wade
Both of those were decided by judges, and last time I checked, abortion is legal and segregation isn't.
75
maybe you all have forgotten, but obama does NOT support gay marraige.
in fact, he is on record as OPPOSING it.
in fact, he is on record as OPPOSING it.
76
Dan,
Seriously back down on this one. Rick Warren is strongly pro-Israel and his stance on marriage aligns with Orthodox Judaism.
Gay men should be happy to have domestic partnerships and get on with their lives.
There are more important problems now Dan. Obama has to rally America for the coming war with Afganistan and Pakistan, and Israel's war with Iran. We need to get behind our leader Obama and trust his judgement.
It is unpatriotic to question Obama's judgement right now. America has serious problems (NOT this gay marriage nonsense). As a Jewish publication The Stranger needs to get behind Obama and Israel and help drum up support for Afganistan. Dan you were awesome helping support the war in Iraq. Obama needs you now to support a war against Pakistan.
Most gay me don't want marriage anyway. Get over it.
Seriously back down on this one. Rick Warren is strongly pro-Israel and his stance on marriage aligns with Orthodox Judaism.
Gay men should be happy to have domestic partnerships and get on with their lives.
There are more important problems now Dan. Obama has to rally America for the coming war with Afganistan and Pakistan, and Israel's war with Iran. We need to get behind our leader Obama and trust his judgement.
It is unpatriotic to question Obama's judgement right now. America has serious problems (NOT this gay marriage nonsense). As a Jewish publication The Stranger needs to get behind Obama and Israel and help drum up support for Afganistan. Dan you were awesome helping support the war in Iraq. Obama needs you now to support a war against Pakistan.
Most gay me don't want marriage anyway. Get over it.
77
@76
ditto
Perhaps it is because 'movement' homosexuals live very sheltered lives and only hang out with people who think just like they do but for whatever reason there is a huge lack of understanding of how Americans think and esp what they think about homosexuality. The 'take away' from Prop 8 for homosexuals should have been how such disparate groups (blacks, evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Catholics, etc etc) that usually and on most issues are at cross heads had no problem putting aside differences for the common goal of protecting marriage from homosexuals. And the sad fact is that a lot of the folks who will go to the mat over marriage are otherwise sympathetic to most homosexual issues.
The hysteria that equates (and confuses) renaming California's civil union 'marriage' with actual Civil Rights will lose homosexuals far more than it gains them. Example one is the reaction to Warren. Even this Republican finds him nauseating but I am more struck my how short (non-existent, actually) the 'honeymoon' with Obama was. It is obvious that NO politician could satisfy the current screamers (and I suspect Obama will quickly conclude that there is nothing to be gained from trying)
The 'marriage' game is not worth the candle.
Know when to fold them, while you still have a place at the table.
ditto
Perhaps it is because 'movement' homosexuals live very sheltered lives and only hang out with people who think just like they do but for whatever reason there is a huge lack of understanding of how Americans think and esp what they think about homosexuality. The 'take away' from Prop 8 for homosexuals should have been how such disparate groups (blacks, evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Catholics, etc etc) that usually and on most issues are at cross heads had no problem putting aside differences for the common goal of protecting marriage from homosexuals. And the sad fact is that a lot of the folks who will go to the mat over marriage are otherwise sympathetic to most homosexual issues.
The hysteria that equates (and confuses) renaming California's civil union 'marriage' with actual Civil Rights will lose homosexuals far more than it gains them. Example one is the reaction to Warren. Even this Republican finds him nauseating but I am more struck my how short (non-existent, actually) the 'honeymoon' with Obama was. It is obvious that NO politician could satisfy the current screamers (and I suspect Obama will quickly conclude that there is nothing to be gained from trying)
The 'marriage' game is not worth the candle.
Know when to fold them, while you still have a place at the table.
79
Rick Warren is a "disgusting human being" because he supports woman/man marriage, just like the vast majority of the world's population does?
Or is he a "disgusting human being" because he supports woman/man marriage just like Obama does?
Or is he a "disgusting human being" because he supports woman/man marriage just like Obama does?
80
Look, people who have commented that Obama is the president of the whole country are right. I could not agree less with Rick Warren's stance on gay rights, but if Obama had only included people who had taken a pro-gay rights stance publicly, the conservative Christian right would be just as up in arms as many of you are. The sad fact is that most of America is against equal civil rights for gay people, though the narrow margin on prop 8 hopefully shows that the gap is closing. This is a lose-lose situation for Obama, and he's doing the best he can to straddle the fence.
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
PETA vs. Thanksgiving by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
Boy-Nerds Offended by Cootie-Ridden "Girl" Movie by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Serial Cheater Turns On the Tears by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Base: The Know Nothings by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (80) RSS