Sigh

In a recent interview with Beliefnet and the Wall Street Journal, Warren equated gay marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy and repeated the inaccurate charge that without Prop 8, conservative preachers could be prosecuted for hate crimes. He described "social gospel" Christians of the 20th century has closet Marxists.

Sigh

According to Lee, calling gay people kidfuckers is just another color in the wonderful rainbow of consensus. Also Joe Lieberman, not so bad.

You're quoting someone's biased interpretation of what Warren said. I read the whole interview and they leave out a lot - like Warren saying that divorce was a much bigger threat than gay marriage.

He's wrong on gay marriage, I've said that. But his positions are being distorted in a very 'old politics' way. So yeah, sigh sigh sigh.

You could argue a very similar case for Hagee. His efforts in Israel were more than just "raising money."

Hamas, similarly, GENUINELY funds and commits to reconstruction efforts and local building.

Perhaps he should invite Hagee, too. Or representatives of Hamas.

What is sad is that you can say that this Tony Robbins of religious bigotry and reproductive-rights-opposition is "moderate" because he's not yelling. Smiling while informing you that you should live in a theocracy, without stem-cell cures, women's sovereignty over their lives and bodies, etc. is functionally the same as someone yelling while doing it.

The difference between Warren and Dobson is tone.

Changing the tone of theocrats is not the change I voted for, volunteered for, and gave money to support.

Obama's wrong, because this "inclusion" is an effective exclusion of so many of the people who worked so hard and believed so much in the idea of change.

But also, yes, Clinton, Edwards and Obama (and Gore) have all been on record as expressing homophobia in those instances.

>>like Warren saying that divorce was a much bigger threat than gay marriage.

Well, there's a progressive view of marriage.

Old politics: the practice of using facts and direct quotes to determine a person's stance on issues.

This is just not something I give a damn about. Does anyone remember off the tops of their heads, no Googling, who gave the invocation at any inauguration for the past 30 years? Anyone? This isn't about making policy, and that's what I care about. The prayers are the moments when we all get a drink or talk amongst ourselves anyway so what difference could it possibly make? Many on the right think Obama himself is far worse than we think Rick Warren is so for them this inauguration will be a much bigger travesty.

And also out of curiosity, can you name an example of when a person might have changed his or her stance on an issue because everyone called them a Nazi and said they hated them? Does that generally make people more likely to talk with you about the things the two of you disagree on?

>>And also out of curiosity, can you name an example of when a person might have changed his or her stance on an issue because everyone called them a Nazi and said they hated them? Does that generally make people more likely to talk with you about the things the two of you disagree on?

Who expressed interest in changing Rick Warren's stance on anything? Short of "living in America" or "continuing to write books", I don't see the point of changing his view of any particular subject.

It's really only us wild ass radicals that are upset about this. Like People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert.
Kolbert told CNN she is:

"deeply disappointed" with the choice of Warren, and said the powerful platform at the inauguration should instead have been given to someone who is "consistent mainstream American values. "There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson," Kolbert said. "The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical."

I'm going to repost something I just said on another site:

... it seems to me that there needs to be some parameters for discussing this. Apparently there are two specific issues that liberals have against Warren - one that he is against gay marriage (apparently a yes on Prop 8 guy) and that he is pro-life. (Some suggest) that Warren is "Dobson" lite. I think that's wrong. Where he's not "liberal" - he's certainly not "Dobson-lite." Rather, he's more like "Palin if she could have spoken for herself." - in favor of gay rights, so long as that doesn't include something called gay marriage. Guess what. That's Obama's position too - and always has been. While it seems to have been a favorite pastime of .... well, everyone, to guess that Obama said one thing but really meant something else - I don't think that's ever been reasonable. Obama is a Christian - he supports civil unions with all the same rights as heterosexual unions, and he doesn't support gay marriage. That's the position of a LOT of people who, having seriously thought about the issue from the standpoint of justice, while reconciling it against their own beliefs, have come to. Like me, Obama isn't inclined to turn back the hand of time - he came out against Proposition 8 and similar measures - despite being against gay marriage. It seems to me that the LGBT community needs to take Obama at his word and push for the promised civil unions - with all the same rights, portability, and protections as marriage. Because - that's what he's always been saying he was in favor of. This isn't throwing the LGBT community under the bus - this is Obama being Obama.

On the issue of Pro-life... Obama has been largely pro-choice, but he's also been in favor of reasonable limits on abortion. Not only that - but he's been determined to build a coalition of evangelicals who will help push an abortion reduction agenda. Again - a voice like Rick Warren's is one that's likely very helpful - since it lends credibility to agendas that don't include "abstinence only" plans.

I can understand people being disappointed at the choice, but I would hope that people would also look for the opportunities inherent. Rick Warren is a legitimate conservative evangelical, with a large following, and a willingness to partner with Obama on a bunch of issues - including some of the more sensitive ones.

And finally, having said all of that, it appears that a little bit of a protest movement is forming. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/r...v_b_152052.html. This is one of my key issues, so I encourage everyone who's upset about this to visit change.gov and make your voice heard.

QT

This is exactly why we are "supposed" to have separation of church and state. We dont need no stinkin' convocation anyway, do we?

This is a serious question, not a snipey one.

If someone is "wrong" about gay marriage (i.e. they want to ban it, or express a personal weasel-stance of not wanting to ban it, but agree that "marriage is between a man and a woman", like Biden's hilarious bold statement during the veep debate), then what could define that, other than homophobia?

Bigotry? Is that a better word?

At a certain point, the victim is not to blame for failing to convince his or her victimizer that the victimization isn't a good idea.

There are differences that are simply that: differences, those points which define where you stand and therefore, to a degree, WHO you are at a point in time.

It is sad that homophobia/bigotry/loathing-of-gays (call it what you may)is so entrenched, and has been, that we expect polticians to "have to say" certain bromides to not get bogged down. Never is it more cognitively dissonant with democrats than with the issue of gay rights, because we understand there's a certain amount of awful, knee jerk bigotry that occurs across so many levels that the TACTICAL reality remains such that a politician has to throw at least a few rhetorical sops to the Cerberus of Dickdom.

But the fact always remains that it is shameful. There were "good" people during the civil rights struggle who were sympathetic to the issues, but felt that it was all too confrontational or "just too sudden," etc. They were wrong and they helped facilitate both bigotry and the oppression of those who were the victims of bigotry.

Their "goodness" means nothing without action.

oops..make that Invocation..not convocation!

Erm - the entirety of that was supposed to be in quotes except the opening sentence. Don't know what went wrong there...

Also - in the other thread I have a comment that didn't go through - I guess it may be because of too many links? (I thought that the link limit was based on actual links, not text that looks like links).

QT

I understand and I am in agreement with Dusty's anger, but just to play devil's advocate, did you vote for Obama on his same sex marriage stance? He never once said he belived in it. He said he believed in equal rights for the gay community but stopped short of marriage.

Josh - The definition of homphobia is "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality." Supporting gay rights doesn't sound like antipathy to me.

CM - I basically said the same thing in my post.

To those who aren't especially religious (including yours truly), does it really matter? Just because Warren is there doesn't mean Obama is all of a sudden adopting Warren's policy views. And I think we're pretty safe to assume that Obama is still in favor of the separation of church and state. Otherwise, we should just be pissed off that there is an invocation and a benediction to begin with. We should be angry that religious observance is part of the inauguration ceremony at all, shouldn't we? Or is that just a formality and therefore okay?

We take what we want out of the words of these people, don't we? If we are in agreement with them, it is of a secular nature. If we happen to disagree with something, it's based on their religious beliefs and don't pertain to us. Yes, Warren has said some pretty shitty things, but that's not to say he hasn't done any good. And let's not forget that Rev. Joseph Lowery, who was a founding leader of the Civil Rights Movement will be there as well. Does Lowery's benediction cancel out Warren's invocation? Does it supercede it?

This is the same argument posed when Obama started making his cabinet choices and people went apeshit, how he was selling out and "where's the change" crap. I'm not suggesting that those angry with this decision don't have their legitimate reasons for being angry, but we're starting to sound just as mouth frothy as the right wing.

homophobia: fear of gays. A weirdly used word that describes very few people.

bigot: someone who is prejudiced against other people.

**************
It's possible for someone who opposes gay marriage to be neither homophobic nor bigotted. Its possible for them to simply disagree with the premise of gay marriage. It is a fact that these non-homophobic, non-bigotted people are aligned with those who are either homophobic, bigotted, or both - but that doesn't mean that they are themselves.

Case in point - our President Elect. He is not homophobic, and he is not bigotted against gays. He's also not in favor of gay marriage. Failure to understand this has led to many suggesting that Obama, who isn't a homophobe, and isn't a bigot, must actually REALLY be in favor of gay marriage. This is doubtful. It is more likely that he is actually not in favor of gay marriage, just as he said, but that he IS in favor of civil unions - which would put him at odds with homophobes and bigots.

____________________

The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Prohibiting an invocation for a president who wants one is in violation of the clause. When the nation has its first buddhist or atheist president, we will likely not have an invocation, and insisting upon one would be just as much a violation of the first amendment as prohibiting one would be in this case.

QT

QT

Separate but equal is not "supporting gay rights."

In this instance, there is no cookie to be given for "almost" getting it right. I used to feel the same way, about the tactical issue of semantics on civil unions vs. "marriage."

But it is, ultimately, an intellectually indefensible position. Either these people are human beings and their desire to have the same freedoms and liberties as my wife and I have are valid, or they are not. There is no middle ground on this.

ANY and all arguments to the contrary, which ultimately say (no matter how nicely or politely) "sorry, you don't get to call yourself married" must be rooted, at some point, with acceptance of... what did you call it? An unreasoning fear or antipathy towards homosexuals or homosexuality."

There are simply no other arguments which make sense, other than "it's too ickky to allow."

Jon Stewart did a masterful job of taking Huckabee to task for this, with logic, citing historical precedent and even scripture, while being very polite... showing that there is no such thing as a "traditional" view of marriage, and that it has been a progression of definition for quite some time. Why are our comedians aware of a higher moral standard than our politicians?

But beyond all this, I am not asking that Obama stand up in his first moments as president and call for gay marriage rights immediately. I'm just asking why he'd go out of his way to include someone who would call for the opposite.

Josh - I saw the Stewart/Huckabee interview as well. But again, they're hiding behind the semantics of the redefinition of marriage. We can easily say that, without a state marriage license, their religious ceremony means nothing and they have no rights. Because of their religious convictions and beliefs, the issue becomes much more complicated.

Just a question to help me better understand (not that I'm against gay mariage, but I'm not gay so I'm trying to figure it out): What if the Obama administration defined "civil unions" the same exact way as marriage is defined by the states. What if they took the exact wording and substituted "civil union" for "marriage" thereby giving the same exact rights to the LGBT community? Is that good enough? Would it also appease those against the "redefintion of marriage" as well?

I actually am not sure I agree that separate but equal is not supporting gay rights. I don't even agree that civil unions actually constitutes "separate but equal."

To put in context - separate but equal in the US was actually never equal in any respect. The separate part showed up, while the equal part never did. The argument that it is inherently unfair - made by Thurgood Marshall, was pretty much predicated on its actual implementation - which was again, anything but equal. But that doesn't mean that every instance of separate but equal needs to leave out the equal part - just that that's what actually happened with blacks.

More importantly - I've argued that the entire structure should be revised - with everyone getting civil unions, and marriage being up to individuals to seek if they want. (There are ministers who will perform gay marriages, according to their faith - and I think they ought not be prevented from doing so.) I think that's a much more reasonable place to go - much more in keeping with the goal of separation of church and state, and diffusing the argument about "marriage" which means different things to different people depending on their religion (or lack thereof). So I'm not actually favoring any "separate but equal" plan - I just would prefer such rather than "gay marriage."

Finally - just because Huckabee and Warren think that the concept of marriage is set in stone based on their biblical beliefs, doesn't mean that everyone agrees, nor that that's the only argument against gay marriage. I've addressed this before - the problem with gay marriage isn't that it is logically explainable, but that it's a faith based question. If you believe that this is not something that should be done, you have to be given ways in which to do it that don't conflict with your beliefs. Most people of faith can be reasoned with and brought along - to a point. And then there's a point where they... we... aren't going to cross. Where that place is for one person differs from where that place is for another - but in a democracy that wants to be built around secular principles - you have to work pretty hard to find ways to divorce your civil questions from religious content.

Marriage as understood by most in the country - is a religious issue with legal consequence, not the other way around. That's why most people are pretty ok with gay rights and not ok with gay marriage. Altering the question by making marriage strictly the purview of faith and legal union strictly the purview of the government is the only rational way forward, in my opinion.

QT

QT: Thanks for the thoughtful response. I do still disagree with you, but I did want to say thanks at the outset for stating your perspective so well.

But as to this:
--------------
Marriage as understood by most in the country - is a religious issue with legal consequence, not the other way around. That's why most people are pretty ok with gay rights and not ok with gay marriage.
--------------

You know, "understood by most in this country" as a benchmark would mean certain disaster if applied to just about any other area of public policy.

What is constitutional specifically does not have to meet the criteria of being "understood by most in the country." That's why we have Bills of rights, to protect the intrinsic rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

We should not be held accountable for people having a misapprehension. My marriage, for instance, was (I think) a beautiful, moving, deeply human and meaningful ceremony, and perfectly acknowledged by the state of Connecticut.

There was no religious representation there at all; we had a JoP, and wrote our own vows and ceremony. To suggest that somehow my marriage means less is, if inadvertent, still an insult to me, my wife, and our kids. So too, to suggest to two people who want to be married that they aren't MARRIED, but "unioned" (don't worry, it is the same thing, now hush) is an insult. If it is equal, why does it need to be separate?

The government acknowledges the legal state of marriage, and confers to those in that state the rights and responsibilities that entails . End of story. Whether or not people realize this is little to any point.

No one is suggesting that by sanctioning the marriages of same sex couples, any given CHURCH must be forced to officiate the ceremonies. Hell, the Catholic Church won't marry people who are divorced, right?

Churches can discriminate all they want. I can't saunter into a mosque and be all, "Hey. I believe in Marduk and Tiamat; this Allah stuff is for the birds- but YOU'VE GOT TO PERFORM THIS CEREMONY, IMAM; now get to steppin'!"

This is a question of the government acknowledging the court's role in interpreting the constitution of the state. CA, MA, & CT Supreme Courts have come to this conclusion. Not because they are wild-eyed frothing liberals, looking to fight the Romans to make sure that Stan (Loretta!) still has the RIGHT to have a baby*, despite his lack of womb, but because to deny the right to same sex couples is-- again-- an intellectually indefensible position.

As to the civil union question, honestly answer this: Would it be OK if interracial couples were allowed ALL THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS, TRAPPINGS, etc. as marriage, but could not be legally acknowledged as "married," but rather as "legally co-habitating people"?

Just, don't call it marriage, Tom and Helen, because a lot of people get upset.

(*Life of Brian is my favorite of the Python movies. "All the gold I could eat.")

Hi Josh: Thanks for your very well-considered reply.

I don't think we have a lot of disagreement. I am speaking both as a person of faith and as a pragmatist. Whether or not the constitution requires popular agreement is not entirely relevant. Until the Supreme Court forces that issue and agrees that the government must acknowlege gay marriage - this is a question for lawmakers who do indeed have to respond to public opinion. That's why the supreme court is benched for life - so that public opinion doesn't have to enter into their deliberations.

As a practical measure, then, the concern really has to be to divorce the religious ideas from the civic ones.

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

To answer your question - largely yes. If there were no actual distinction, I wouldn't care at all. For instance - I voluntarily put down "Black" on census reports. There is no material difference between me and a white person that justifies differentiating that way, other than a history of oppression in this country. But then again - I stand to benefit from having that history recorded and tracked, so the segregation of me as a person benefits me in my struggle toward equality. When things are more equal, I might join those who say that we should take a census on number of people without regard for race. We aren't there yet, so I voluntarily submit, and even am glad to require, segregated recordkeeping - because the record shows a pattern of discrimination that would disappear almost entirely if it weren't being tracked.

QT

dbag rick warren dbag

Of course, the answer to the gay marriage question is already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that has at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promises its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver homosexuals from oppression, or provide men and women of every sexual preference their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

---

What we don't need is the progressive blogosphere defending this choice of Rich Warren, simply because they're afraid to lambast Obama. It was a dumb choice, and a choice that leaves a lot of Obama supporters feeling betrayed.

(And yes, I know Obama has said he favors civil unions over gay marriage... but did you expect for me to vote for McCain and hope he would suddenly start being more kind to the LGBT community?)

If Josh wasnt already married id get down on my bended knee and propose. I'm in awe (and in agreement) of your stance and the masterful way you make your point.

I voted for Obama but the one thing that really truly pisses me off about him is his stance on gay marriage. Id like to believe that its his "public" stance and his "i have to say this to get elected stance" but with this choice for the invocation it leads me to believe that its really what he believes and that .... demands criticisms and lots of it! Im so over the people being an Obama patsy like the man isn't capable of doing something wrong or fucking shit up cuz really he is and when he does he needs to be call on the carpet.

This choice stinks to the bone...

As to the civil union question, honestly answer this: Would it be OK if interracial couples were allowed ALL THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS, TRAPPINGS, etc. as marriage...

You're absolutety right, Josh. Thanks for the response.

Continuing the thought above - the whole "civil union" term for me wasn't about attempting to redefine it amd making it "equal to" the term marriage, but trying to separate it from its religious context, even though that was morphed from a business arrangement in the first place.