Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Obama camp’s Warren talking points are out - as are Freeper comments Previous entry: What’s the downside of Mitch McConnell peeing on himself?

Homobigot Rick Warren to deliver invocation at inauguration

(UPDATE: Have complaints to share? Email Parag Mehta is Obama’s LGBT liaison on the transition team - parag.mehta@ptt.gov)

I can understand the selection of Rev. Dr. Joseph E. Lowery, a revered veteran of the civil rights movement co-founder with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, to deliver the benediction at Obama’s inauguration, but how on earth could he select fundie Rick Warren to do the invocation? Kyle at Right Wing Watch asked the same question and said:

As we’ve pointed out several times before, in 2004 Warren declared that marriage, reproductive choice, and stem cell research were “non-negotiable” issues for Christian voters and has admitted that the main difference between himself and James Dobson is a matter of tone.  He criticized Obama’s answers at the Faith Forum he hosted before the election and vowed to continue to pressure him to change his views on the issue of reproductive choice.  He came out strongly in support of Prop 8, saying “there is no need to change the universal, historical defintion of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population ... This is not a political issue—it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.” He’s declared that those who do not believe in God should not be allowed to hold public office.

Obama inaugural team, this is a big f*ck up a la Donnie McClurkin. No, it’s worse. These folks can’t claim they didn’t know where Warren stood on the matter of civil rights for LGBTs—why look, here’s Warren speaking out in favor of Prop 8 (h/t Teddy Partridge):

UPDATE: Here’s a nice tidbit about Warren. He thought of his support for Prop 8 as a “free speech” matter. Via Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin:

Rick Warren:Oh I do. I just… For five thousand years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion — this is not a Christian issue. Buddhists, Muslims, the Jews, historically marriage is a man and a woman. And so I’m opposed to that. And the reason I supported Prop 8 really, was a free speech issue. Because if it had…. First, the court overid the will of the people. But second, is, there were all kinds of threats that if you… that did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships. And that would be hate speech. To me, we should have freedom of speech. And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position, and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position. And can we do this in a civil way?

This selection is clearly not about “change”—it’s about making a high profile decision to give the stage over to a known homophobe; choosing Rick Warren is tantamount to asking any of the professional “Christian” set to stand up there. There is no excuse for this, given there are so many leaders of the faith community out there that are in alignment with equality for all.

UPDATE 2: More below the fold, including reactions from LGBT and progressive organizations (I’m adding them as they come in).
People For the American Way’s President Kathryn Kolbert:

It is a grave disappointment to learn that pastor Rick Warren will give the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama.

Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church’s engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia.  He has repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors.  He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.

I’m sure that Warren’s supporters will portray his selection as an appeal to unity by a president who is committed to reaching across traditional divides. Others may explain it as a response to Warren inviting then-Senator Obama to speak on AIDS and candidate Obama to appear at a forum, both at his church.  But the sad truth is that this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans.

HRC’s response (via email):

Dear President-elect Obama -

Let me get right to the point.  Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans.  Our loss in California over the passage of Proposition 8 which stripped loving, committed same-sex couples of their given legal right to marry is the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years.  And by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.

Rick Warren has not sat on the sidelines in the fight for basic equality and fairness.  In fact, Rev. Warren spoke out vocally in support of Prop 8 in California saying, “there is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population ... This is not a political issue—it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.”  Furthermore, he continues to misrepresent marriage equality as silencing his religious views. This was a lie during the battle over Proposition 8, and it’s a lie today.

Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian James Dobson disagree on.  Rev. Warren is not a moderate pastor who is trying to bring all sides together. Instead, Rev. Warren has often played the role of general in the cultural war waged against LGBT Americans, many of whom also share a strong tradition of religion and faith.

We have been moved by your calls to religious leaders to own up to the homophobia and racism that has stood in the way of combating HIV and AIDS in this country.  And that you have publicly called on religious leaders to open their hearts to their LGBT family members, neighbors and friends.

But in this case, we feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.  Only when Rev. Warren and others support basic legislative protections for LGBT Americans can we believe their claim that they are not four-square against our rights and dignity. In that light, we urge you to reconsider this announcement.

Sincerely,
Joe Solmonese
President
Human Rights Campaign

Statement by Rea Carey, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

“President-elect Obama campaigned on a theme of inclusivity, yet the selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation is a direct affront to that very principle. This was a divisive choice, and clearly not one that will help our country come together and heal. We urge President-elect Obama to withdraw his invitation to Rick Warren and instead select a faith leader who embraces fairness, equality and the ideals the president-elect himself has called the nation to uphold.”

Leah Mcelrath Renna, Managing Partner Of Renna Communications, said this at Huff Post:

“The Presidential Inaugural Committee, at the direction of President-elect Obama…will organize an inclusive and accessible inauguration that…unites the nation around our shared values and ideals.”

Shared values and ideals? Let’s let Rick Warren speak for himself.

Here’s Rick Warren equating marriage equality for same-sex couples with incest and pedophilia:

“The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

Of course, the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage that Warren refers to in the first part of this quote were essentially property contracts that did involve “one guy having multiple wives” - but that’s beside the point of this piece.

...Here’s Rick Warren talking - in 2004 - about how HIV/AIDS was not an issue of concern for him until recently:

“Two years ago HIV/AIDS was not on my agenda; it was not even a blip on my radar.” [emphasis added]

The deaths of more than 500,000 American citizens - the vast majority of whom were men who had sex with men - simply didn’t register on Warren’s radar over the course of more than two decades. The disease finally and rightly became a cause of concern for Warren and the Christians to whom he speaks when his wife brought to his attention the plight of children in Africa orphaned by the pandemic.

Same-sex relationships equal incestuous and pedophiliac abuses. Equal protection under the law for lesbian and gay American citizens isn’t the same thing as civil rights. The lives and deaths of gay men less important than those of children or orphans.

The sad reality is that American gay men and lesbians have heard it all before.

But we didn’t expect to have such values and ideals validated by this President-Elect at this Inauguration.

Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Victory Fund, one of 12 organizations involved with the Presidential Appointments Project. It’s an effort to ensure LGBT Americans get a share of the thousands of presidential appointments Barack Obama will make over the course of his administration (oh, the irony):

“Rick Warren has caused the LGBT community great pain, so the report today that he has been invited to offer the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration is unsettling news.  For more than a year we have coordinated a community-wide effort to facilitate the inclusion of LGBT Americans at the highest levels of decision-making in Washington. The decision to invite such a controversial figure to this historic event leads me to question whether any LGBT individuals were consulted, and highlights the importance of building an administration that includes qualified LGBT Americans who are ready to serve their country.”

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 06:06 PM • (108) Comments

Geh. That last quote highlights one of the things that bugs me most about the way these people talk… they accuse others of being the “uncivil” ones when they themselves are the most guilty of that accusation. It’s also long past time to play by their rules of what’s polite and acceptable speech and what’s not.

Comment #1: Matthew, Patron Saint of Affogato  on  12/17  at  06:12 PM

Where’s the petition?

Comment #2: Em  on  12/17  at  06:13 PM

And why is there an invocation and a benediction in the first place?

Comment #3: Babs  on  12/17  at  06:14 PM

We need to just keep repeating to ourselves: “Barack Obama is the most liberal senator in American history”...

...maybe if we say it with enough repetition and vigor it will be true…despite obvious missteps like this…

Comment #4: MikeEss  on  12/17  at  06:21 PM

Salon.com is reporting that the decision was not made by Obama, but rather by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

I also don’t think there should be an Invocation and Benediction.

Comment #5: Isabella  on  12/17  at  06:21 PM

And the reason I supported Prop 8 really, was a free speech issue. Because if it had…. First, the court overid the will of the people. But second, is, there were all kinds of threats that if you… that did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships. And that would be hate speech. To me, we should have freedom of speech.

Conservatism in a nutshell: “Your rights must be eliminated because they might be inconvenient to the exercise of mine.”

If this is the big important reason then why not, rather than fighting to eliminate gay marriage, instead lobby for an assurance that freedom of religion and speech be protected in this situation?  The way they did fight, on the other hand, has massive negative effects for gay and lesbian couples and does not do anything constructive to preserve that freedom of speech and religion.

Of course, it’s not him paying the price for that inefficiency, so of course it doesn’t matter.

Comment #6: Kyra  on  12/17  at  06:25 PM

Since there has always been an Invocation and Benediction, I’m not even going there. Of course there shouldn’t be one, but there will be.

the decision was not made by Obama, but rather by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

Well then it’s easy, Obama can decide that this was an inappropriate choice and do something about it now that it’s been brought to his attention. Think he’ll do anything?

Comment #7: Pam Spaulding  on  12/17  at  06:26 PM

Warren is considered a Warm Fuzzy Won’t Offend Particular Denominations Christian, which is why he’s insidious.

Boo the fucker.

Comment #8: pseudonymous in nc  on  12/17  at  06:29 PM

Grr!

AND- another thing I don’t get about Rick Warren/Saddleback Church is WHY - for an office that is NOT supposed to have a religious test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause) was it just dandy that a PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE be held at that church with him as a moderator.

That is just NOT RIGHT.
I feel like this whole country is in the Twilight Zone. That or playing ignorant as to what the Constitution says about religion. We’re THIS close to a theocracy- if we’re not there already.

Comment #9: Danica Lefse Queen  on  12/17  at  06:30 PM

Why have we not yet put marriage in the hands of the church, civil unions in the hands of the state, and built a giant soundproof wall in between them?

Comment #10: Joshua  on  12/17  at  06:41 PM

So how do we take action? Where’s the petition?

I remember back in 2004 when the RNC invited that scumbag Falwell to give the opening prayer at the convention in NYC (a city that he, along with Pat Robertson, believed “deserved” the 9-11 attacks). Due to bi-partisan outrage, within 2 weeks there was a successful effort to shut him out (Falwell backtracked on behalf of the party and claimed he was wasn’t asked—lying always came easily to that confidence artist).

I’ve been getting e-mail after e-mail from the Obama campaign and transition team. Time to send them one back, with a link to this article. The sooner liberals and progressives move on this, the sooner Warren can claim some prior engagement. There’s no excuse for this, and if this Xtian fantasist bigot does end up appearing I hope the audience is ready with boo’s and banners.

Comment #11: Gracchus  on  12/17  at  06:41 PM

I hope the audience is ready with boo’s and banners.

And shoes.

Comment #12: Well, what?  on  12/17  at  06:47 PM

As long as they don’t let any atheists take the stage. Those dudes are immoral. You can tell by the way they don’t take a personal interest in how total strangers acheive orgasm.

Comment #13: gil mann  on  12/17  at  06:51 PM

For five thousand years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion — this is not a Christian issue. Buddhists, Muslims, the Jews, historically marriage is a man and a woman.

And another Christian fascist demonstrates that he’s never actually read the Bible.

Telling the truth for gay rights: sinful.
Lying for Jesus: A-OK!!

Comment #14: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  12/17  at  07:03 PM

gil, you joke, but that’s why I can’t ever get picked for jury duty.  I want to participate, I think it’s a more important responsibility than voting even, I’m willing to keep an open mind and make my decision based on the law and the facts of the case (as much as possible given that I’m human), but because I’m an atheist and don’t lie about it, I apparently have no moral sense whatsoever and can’t be trusted to serve on a jury.

Yes I’m bitter about it.

Comment #15: kaninchen  on  12/17  at  07:04 PM

I’m guessing that one of the reasons they chose Warren is that he’s one of the few vocal right-wing preachers who accepts global warming and thinks we should do something about it.  And, as pseudonymous said, to most people Warren is a “mainstream” minister, not a nutbar like Falwell or Robertson.

This selection is especially egregious considering what Warren was spouting last week, so I do think it’s worth raising a stink about.

Comment #16: Mnemosyne  on  12/17  at  07:07 PM

How is there not yet a standard response to the talking point that allowing states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples will make a clergymember’s refusal to perform a same-sex religious marriage “hate speech”?

Comment #17: Hershele Ostropoler  on  12/17  at  07:12 PM

I can understand the selection of [other religious leaders] but how on earth could he select fundie Rick Warren to do the invocation?

Because he’s been lying to you from day one. How much more obvious does it have to be made? Progressives provided him with useful votes, very valuable money, and infinitely valuable energy and momentum - and now that he’s in office you’re a burden rather than a benefit, and so you all can just fuck right off.

I’m not surprised that he was able to fool many progressive people - he’s slick and charming and charismatic and smart. But I am surprised that so many people are staying fooled. Bush did the same thing to fundamentalist Christians (well, minus the slick and smart part). They picked up on it eventually, and you will too.

Comment #18: Dan in Denver  on  12/17  at  07:16 PM

Here is the list of people to contact, from boxturtlebulletin.com

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

My letter follows:

It is with great dismay that I read about the invitation extended to Dr. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at President Obama’s inauguration on 20 January. While Dr. Warren may present himself as a “reasonable and moderate” Christian fundamentalist leader, he has taken many strong and public stances in direct opposition to liberal and progressive positions on gay marriage (esp. California’s Prop 8), reproductive choices for women, stem cell research, and (in declaring that atheists should not be allowed to hold public office*) the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

While I understand the need for Mr. Obama to reach out to all Americans as an inclusive President, I hope you will also acknowledge that Dr. Warren is and will continue to be a proponent of exclusivity—as in excluding certain classes of law-abiding Americans from enjoying the civil rights and privileges due to all citizens.

I have been a supporter of Mr. Obama’s campaign for many months, and as with many liberals hope that his administration will do much to reverse not only the depredations inflicted on this nation by George W. Bush, but also reverse the divisive tone set by Mr. Bush’s supporters in the Christian fundamentalist right. Finding a better choice than Dr. Warren to deliver the invocation would go a long way to inaugurating an administration truly devoted to inclusivity.

I would ask that you share these concerns with your colleagues on the transition team and on the inaugural committee, in the hope that Dr. Warren, like Jerry Falwell during the 2004 RNC convention, might find “prior commitments” that would prevent his marring a day many of Mr. Obama’s supporters have been awaiting for months, if not years. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Comment #19: Gracchus  on  12/17  at  07:17 PM

UPDATE: I will be on Glenn Greenwald‘s podcast tomorrow AM to talk about this travesty.

Comment #20: Pam Spaulding  on  12/17  at  07:17 PM

ahh, looks like I spoke too soon.  The press release makes it clear Obama was one of the deciders, and only one person on that committee is a Republican- this choice was a total pander.  But then, i didn’t vote for Obama in the primary becuase I wasn’t crazy about all his I’m-gonna-reach-out-to-conservatives crap.

However, I think (1) choice by committee gives some cover to dis-invite Rick Warren; and (2) they might respond if they receive enough complaints.

Comment #21: Isabella  on  12/17  at  07:24 PM

My first thought on this was “Gee, I hope Rick Warren contains himself at the inauguration.” Like, I hope he doesn’t kick up with a bunch of fundamentalist garbage, or try to pull a Colbert-roasting-Bush maneuver on Obama.

But the more I think about it, the more I like that outcome. If RW did succumb to temptation and go into a pro-life rant right there on stage, it might make Obama think twice about letting these people represent him.

Sucks :(

Comment #22: cyrano  on  12/17  at  07:25 PM

Its a slap in the face!  A poke in the eye!  A twist of the nose!  A punch in the gut!  Woowoowoo!  Nyuknyuknyuk!

So the right edge of the Obama coalition was thrown a bone in giving Reverend Warm And Fuzzies a speaking spot at the inagural.  Meh.  If Obama doesn’t go after DOMA or DATA, then I’ll be worried.

Comment #23: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  12/17  at  07:33 PM

I must applaud your precious black J*sus’ choice of Rick Warren to bless the inaguration of his caliphate and Shania Law, as Warren will bring some balance to it with bible quotes about stoning gays and such. The American people of the USA will demand Chr*stian representation of some kind in this Muslin administration and Mr. Reverend Warren is from The Heartland, so ok.

Comment #24: Rugged in Montana  on  12/17  at  07:54 PM

We have been betrayed.

Comment #25: Luke  on  12/17  at  07:55 PM

Its a slap in the face!  A poke in the eye!  A twist of the nose!  A punch in the gut!  Woowoowoo!  Nyuknyuknyuk!

Well of course it’s none of those things—Obama is a moderate centrist Democrat with aspirations to be a uniter testing the limits of what sort of outreach his supporters will find acceptable. It isn’t the first time this has happened, won’t be the last. Unlike Bush’s supporters, we’re mature and educated adults who can think for ourselves, and express our displeasure in rational ways.

This Warren business deserves a quick letter expressing that displeasure. It took me 5 minutes to whip that up and send it off, and I’m sure I’m far from alone. We knew from the beginning we’d have to keep on his arse, and that means following through.

And please, the “right edge of the Obama coalition”? How many Xtian fantasists of the sort that would be fans of Rick Warren actually voted for Obama?

Comment #26: Gracchus  on  12/17  at  07:55 PM

Warren will bring some balance to it with bible quotes about stoning gays and such.

Good point. If you follow the bible, you’re required to hate homosexuals. Ergo, the bible is fucking stupid.

Comment #27: banisteriopsis  on  12/17  at  08:01 PM

Warren is considered a Warm Fuzzy Won’t Offend Particular Denominations Christian, which is why he’s insidious.

Exactamundo.

If the world were nothing but atheists and guys like Fred Phelps, religious superstition would die out.  But put lipstick on the pig and people will line up and kiss it.

Comment #28: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/17  at  08:06 PM

Its a slap in the face!  A poke in the eye!  A twist of the nose!  A punch in the gut!  Woowoowoo!  Nyuknyuknyuk!

Well of course it’s none of those things—Obama is a moderate centrist Democrat with aspirations to be a uniter testing the limits of what sort of outreach his supporters will find acceptable. It isn’t the first time this has happened, won’t be the last. Unlike Bush’s supporters, we’re mature and educated adults who can think for ourselves, and express our displeasure in rational ways.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Ok, getting a little fed up with this whole “The adults are running things now” line.  Played out, you know?

Anyway, glad to not hear any condoning of this move by President Elect Obama going on in this thread.  But I wonder, if he continues to do things like this, even after receiving very sternly worded letters, what next?  Protest?  Yeah, he is going to listen.  More letters?  I send my share to elected officials and I’m not so sure they work.  Look at the huge letter writing campaign against the MCA, the warrant-less wire tapping legislation, and the failed Wall Street “bailout”.  All moved ahead, full steam!, even though the adults wrote very cross letters, politely expressing their displeasure.

Throw the right, the fundies, and the evangelicals some bones if you think it will work, Pres. Obama, but to me it just shows you haven’t been paying any attention to how they operate.  They play for everything and don’t concede any compromises.  Once you associate yourself with them, they won’t let you go.

Comment #29: buck  on  12/17  at  08:09 PM

Rick Warren wrote a best-selling, vaguely spiritual book—that’s why. He may be this generation’s Billy Graham.

But if I were Obama, even before Prop 8, I wouldn’t hang out with anyone wearing a pervert’s goatee like Warren has.

Comment #30: Hector B.  on  12/17  at  08:14 PM

now that he’s in office you’re a burden rather than a benefit, and so you all can just fuck right off.

I don’t know about that.  On at least 2 occasions so far (Larry Summers and what’s-his-name from the CIA who didn’t have any problem with torture) Obama has withdrawn people from consideration after outrage from his supporters.  The same might happen here again.

If you follow the bible, you’re required to hate homosexuals. Ergo, the bible is fucking stupid.

Well, not just that.  There’s the part where God kills babies in Egypt because he’s mad at the king of Egypt.  That’s stupid.  And the part where God tells a man to kill his son, then when he’s about to do it says “just kidding!”  Stupid also.  And the part where the guy lived inside a whale, and the other guy who put 2 of every animal on Earth inside a boat. . .

Comment #31: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/17  at  08:15 PM

Here’s what I wrote:

Dear Mr. Mehta,

I’m writing to express my disappointment that the Obama administration has invited Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. Mr. Warren has openly expressed bigotry towards gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people by campaigning against their right to marry the people they love and he has made it abundantly clear that he believes that, if you’re not straight, you’re sick. Mr. Warren is also an opponent of reproductive choice, even when continuing a pregnancy would threaten the health of the woman - which means that he fundamentally disrespects our rights to bodily integrity. In short, Mr. Warren openly advocates for policies that would harm and discriminate against over half the American population. Putting Mr. Warren in the spotlight is pretty insulting to all the people whose rights he would like to take away.

If the Obama administration would like to reach out to the evangelical community, I would suggest inviting Richard Cizik, who played a major leadership role in the National Association of Evangelicals. Mr. Cizik was instrumental in galvanizing evangelicals’ support for fighting poverty and global warming. He has also come out in favor of civil unions for gay couples. He believes that churches are free to decide which unions they want to bless, but that the state should find a way for everyone to have equal rights. Mr. Cizik is a very thoughtful, compassionate person of faith, and I think he is a person of real integrity. He has moved towards greater compassion, respect, and acceptance throughout his career, he has represented the feelings of many evangelicals who believe in helping the poor, protecting the planet, and chipping away at bigotry and prejudice, and he has done so at great personal cost. Mr. Cizik was recently pushed out of his job because he took a stand for equal civil rights. It was a brave thing for him to do, and I think he represents the better impulses of American religious life. I would be very proud and pleased to see him at the inauguration.

I hope that you will take these concerns seriously. It’s entirely possible to reach out to religious communities and send a message of support to women and LGBTQ people everywhere. So, please! Find a religious leader who supports political and civil equality for everyone!

Comment #32: Ceka  on  12/17  at  08:22 PM

I was kinda hoping for Jeremiah Wright instead.  You know, so Obama could mend those fences, like he did with Lieberman.

Comment #33: Michael Bérubé  on  12/17  at  08:22 PM

By the way, would I be a noodge if I objected to the phrase “homobigot”?  To me, a bigot is a bigot.

Comment #34: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/17  at  08:26 PM

Expect a lot more disappointments from the next administration.

Comment #35: tpx  on  12/17  at  08:31 PM

This Warren business deserves a quick letter expressing that displeasure. It took me 5 minutes to whip that up and send it off, and I’m sure I’m far from alone. We knew from the beginning we’d have to keep on his arse, and that means following through.

True enough, I was just having a little fun poking the Outrage-O-Meter.

And please, the “right edge of the Obama coalition”? How many Xtian fantasists of the sort that would be fans of Rick Warren actually voted for Obama?

Um, my Democrat-voting union member father for one.

Comment #36: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  12/17  at  08:34 PM

There is no excuse for this; given there are so many leaders of the <strike>faith</strike> Christian community that are in alignment with equality for all.

Christians do not have a monopoly on faith, despite their claims.

Comment #37: banisteriopsis  on  12/17  at  08:42 PM

Icast myvoteforno religious activities.  Who cares if it is a delusional sh*tbag or an otherwise rational adult with an imaginary friend?

Comment #38: AlanB  on  12/17  at  08:45 PM

Why have we not yet put marriage in the hands of the church, civil unions in the hands of the state, and built a giant soundproof wall in between them?

Because the fight for full gay marriage rights is well on its way to being won. Why the heck should we give up valuable territory (the “m” word) to the bigots who are inevitably going to lose?

I’m an atheist, I want nothing to do with any church, and I’d like to stay married (not “civil unioned”), thanks.

Comment #39: Rieux  on  12/17  at  08:46 PM

Appearing on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes last night to promote his new book, Pastor Rick Warren made a brief foray into foreign policy. Responding to Hannity’s assertion that “we need to take him [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] out,” Warren agreed

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/12/04/warren-stopping-evil/

Comment #40: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/17  at  08:57 PM

Rieux, how is completely de-coupling the church’s definition of marriage and the state’s definition of marriage “giving up territory”?

Let both entities define and label it as they wish.  There can be legal benefits corresponding to those performed and recognized by the state ... and if they happen to coincide with the church’s definition, then that’s just dandy.  No one else has to care.

Comment #41: Joshua  on  12/17  at  09:00 PM

This is way than McClurkin (and that was pretty bad).  To this day, I feel a smidge of pity for confused, self-loathing Donnie.  Warren OTOH is homophobic and misogynist, and a con-artist who bilks his addled followers out of million$ for his self-help twaddle.  A person as brilliant as Obama should be able to see him for what he is a mile away.

Comment #42: Donna  on  12/17  at  09:07 PM

Here’s mine:

I am horrified to hear that Rick Warren has been chosen to deliver the invocation at President-Elect Obama’s inauguration ceremony, and urge the Obama administration to reconsider this choice.

To be frank, I’m disappointed that there will be an invocation at all—I am not a “believer”, and I’m tired of the U.S. government somehow overlooking the First Amendment’s establishment cause when it comes to having religious ceremonies take place at government events.

Leaving that objection aside, as an out lesbian in a long-term committed relationship living in California, where some of my civil rights have just been taken away by a campaign of lies orchestrated and funded in part by Rick Warren and his followers, I hope you’ll pass my anger and disgust about this decision on to Barack Obama. I would also like to register my extreme disappointment as a fairly significant individual financial contributor to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. I will most certainly include this choice and any changes made as a result of complaints from the LGBT community, as well as any other LGBT-related deci
sions coming out of President-Elect Obama’s first term, as a basis for deciding whether I care to make any further donations for his second reelection campaign.

I realize that “reaching across the divide” is an important part of Barack Obama’s leadership style, and I support such efforts where they will lead to increased unity and positive (progressive) results for the majority of citizens. Choosing an anti-LGBT speaker of any kind to play an important part of any major government ceremony is, however, a slap in the face to many of us who have supported President-Elect Obama with our hopes, our time, our energy, and our money.

Please address this issue now, by selecting a speaker who is supportive of or at least neutral on LGBT issues before the damage is too great.

Comment #43: Claire  on  12/17  at  09:26 PM

I’ve sent off a letter, and Gracchus@5:55 sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly.

Comment #44: Ben D.  on  12/17  at  09:28 PM

And yet, far from seeing through him, Donna, he’s been friends with the man for years and speaks of him in the highest of terms. It’s almost as though he’s saying one thing to you, and a completely different thing to other people!

But of course, that’s crazy talk.

Comment #45: Dan in Denver  on  12/17  at  09:28 PM

If the world were nothing but atheists and guys like Fred Phelps, religious superstition would die out.  But put lipstick on the pig and people will line up and kiss it.

Which is why I’m a big fan of people like Dawkins and Harris.  The Twoo Cwistians and various other mealy-mouthed sky fairy apologists need to wake up to the role they play in perpetuating and maintaining religious extremism and the misery that ensues from it.  They prattle on about how much Jesus loved the poor and all the good that religious people do.  But really, why do you need some 2 thousand year old folklore about a dude in sandals nailed to a cross for people in the 21st Century to be nice to each other?  And if you’re going to cherrypick the good stuff out of your religious text while ignoring the horrible stuff, then why should you be surprised when others do the exact opposite?

Comment #46: Donna  on  12/17  at  09:32 PM

And yet, far from seeing through him, Donna, he’s been friends with the man for years and speaks of him in the highest of terms. It’s almost as though he’s saying one thing to you, and a completely different thing to other people!

Duh. He’s a politician who likes to get elected to things.

Comment #47: Ben D.  on  12/17  at  09:33 PM

I was a little to snarky, so let me expound: you’re not going to get ideological purity from a politician who has a reasonable chance of being elected. You can influence him, bring him around closer to a more left position, but he’s not going to be Ralph Nader.

Comment #48: Ben D.  on  12/17  at  09:35 PM

Outraged! Don’t pee on my shoe and try to tell me it’s raining. Obama got what he wanted (money and votes) and now he is telling GLBTs to take a hike.

Used again!

Comment #49: Log Cabin  on  12/17  at  09:40 PM

I’m getting a little fed up with the new boss, he seems exactly like the old boss only browner.  I was so hoping we would get a real Democrat in office and not just another Democan/Republicrat.

But so far almost every thing he has done disappoints me. 

Is it too soon to look for a real Democrat to run in 2012.

Look at his stimulus infra structure idea.  I think we could call it “Job for Men”  with ads Help wanted men only.

I wish Hillary had won instead.  I wouldn’t be so concerned about the toading up to the Christofascists.

Comment #50: SuzyQ  on  12/17  at  09:40 PM

Conservatism in a nutshell: “Your rights must be eliminated because they might be inconvenient to the exercise of mine.”

Ding ding ding ding.

Comment #51: seeker6079  on  12/17  at  09:41 PM

Since your precious black J*sus only won his landslide thanks to Right-wing Chr*stians, he’s going to have to bow to the demands of the queer-hating constituency that he owes his invalid and illegal presidency to.

What, you thought he was gonna reflect your hippie love and peace pony dumplings?  Silly LIEbral!

Comment #52: Rugged in Montana  on  12/17  at  09:43 PM

Good letter, Claire.  Obama got a helluva a lot more financial support from LGBT folks and those who favor equality than he did from the evangelical community.

Comment #53: Donna  on  12/17  at  09:45 PM

Really it’s our fault. After all, we didn’t reach out enough to the fundamentalist fucktard community.

Comment #54: pablo  on  12/17  at  09:50 PM

Warren is considered a Warm Fuzzy Won’t Offend Particular Denominations Christian, which is why he’s insidious.

It took almost thirty years for the public to see the through the bogus virtue of scumbags who at their base hearts were cruel, no matter how avuncular they appeared: Robertson, Falwell and the like.  Warren is the lastest and most succcessful attempt to put a smiling, genial face on what is, at bottom, a decent faith in the hands of base, deceitful, judgmental moneygrubbers who are happiest when they are pissing on the weakest people closest to hand.

Comment #55: seeker6079  on  12/17  at  09:51 PM

Obama probably believed that if he asked someone like Lowery - who supports same-sex marriage - to give the benediction, he could get away with letting someone like Warren deliver the invocation.

Or perhaps he wanted to provoke exactly this outrage, so he could show how little he cares about equality - I mean, how independent he is from the influence of special interest groups.

Comment #56: Drew  on  12/17  at  09:55 PM

For all of you who pissed on my shoes here, the lineup for embarrassed evasions of my eye (and those of Dan in Denver, atheist and Ellen) starts on the fucking left.  The left, hyperoptimistic apologists.  Don’t let Obama get away with this or he will grease you up for another go whenever he needs to keep smarmy, lying, smiling, vicious Christianist scum or Liebermans or whoever isn’t you on the left happy.  In case you hadn’t noticed he has already started.  Why do they do this?  Because they can, and there is no blowback. 

Look, I like and admire the guy, too.  But he’s a Dem politician: “fuck your friends, compromise with your enemies” is in his blood.  It’s your job as progressives to be the doctors who keep this particular congenital disease in remission.

Comment #57: seeker6079  on  12/17  at  10:00 PM

Seeker, that’s great advice. Not being “OH NOES NOT A DIMES WORTH OF DIFFERENCE! VOTE FOR THE GREENS!” reaction but “keep him in line, be a part of the Dem coalition, but be pragmatic”.

Or as Katrina vanden Heuvel said, liberals should be as clear eyed and pragmatic about Obama as Obama is clear eyed and pragmatic about liberals.

Comment #58: Ben D.  on  12/17  at  10:05 PM

Ms. vanden Heuvel got it right.  Politics is all about pressure.  Progressives figure that being all give and no backlash for betrayal will produce results.  It won’t.  Never has, never will.  I just hope that Obama becomes the first Dem president since FDR to be genuinely worried about—and take into account and compromise with—pressure from the left.

Comment #59: seeker6079  on  12/17  at  10:09 PM

Seeker, the fact that Obama reads a lot of Lincoln comforts me in that respect—Lincoln, beyond the mythology, was just a centrist or slightly liberal politician that talked out of both sides of his mouth but was receptive to pressure from his left.

Comment #60: Ben D.  on  12/17  at  10:13 PM

Even if we ignore his pathetic Dobson-esque views on gays, Warren is an advocate of state womb control—Obama’s pissing on a huge slice of his support by giving Warren a platform.

Comment #61: Pam Spaulding  on  12/17  at  10:15 PM

buck:  You posed this question:

But I wonder, if he continues to do things like this, even after receiving very sternly worded letters, what next?

You answered your own question:
<blockquote>... the right, the fundies, and the evangelicals ... play for everything and don’t concede any compromises.  Once you associate yourself with them, they won’t let you go. <blockquote>

Do the same things they do, the same way they do: take over your host party.  Make it absolutely dead in the water without you: no volunteers, no precinct soldati, no GOTV legs, no envelope stuffers, cold-callers…  A political party is a bit like a faithless Regency cad: if you let it fuck you over and over again without making extorting a price it will fuck you and shame you publicly every chance that it gets.  Betraying you has got to be made to hurt, and hurt bad.  Use LBJ or RFK as your models: at bottom, fairly decent folks with decent ideals.  Cross them and they made you pay.

Really, where the hell do American progressives get this candy-assed notion that if you keep helping people who fuck you over then some day you are going to get what you want?  That can only be compared to the psychological trauma of battered spouses: this time it will be different!  Make him listen or make him leave.

Comment #62: seeker6079  on  12/17  at  10:17 PM

My email:

Hello.

I will cut right to the chase: The selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration saddens me to my core. There are few religious figures on the United States’ national stage who would be worse choices.

Warren preaches directly against me and my fellow LGBTQI citizens, saying that our relationships are equivalent to child rape and bestiality. His views on same-sex marriage are ignorant at best and at worst are deeply hurtful, divisive, and potentially dangerous.

Have we not been marginalized enough in this country? Did we not receive a tremendous punch in the gut with the passing of California’s Proposition 8? Must we be kicked, repeatedly and often, while we are down and bleeding?

Kicking us while we are down is exactly the message Warren’s selection sends to us.

Please, if you have any influence in this matter whatsoever, on behalf of all LGBTQI citizens and our families, friends, and allies throughout our land, work to reverse this shameful decision.

Thank you for your time.

~~teac

Comment #63: teac  on  12/17  at  10:26 PM

Make it absolutely dead in the water without you: no volunteers, no precinct soldati, no GOTV legs, no envelope stuffers, cold-callers…

You’re missing a huge chunk of American political history here:  the left already did that, starting in 1968.  So many of them left that Democrats turned to corporations to keep going.

Turns out that withdrawing your support doesn’t work so well when corporations can provide the financing in your stead.  Taking over the party can work, but that’s not what you seem to be advising.

As we have learned over the past few decades, “I’m taking my ball and going home” isn’t a workable political strategy, because the people you thought needed you turn to other sources, and then it takes years to get back to the point where they’ll even halfway listen to you, which is the point we’re FINALLY at now, half-assed as it is.

We already have a couple of examples of pressure from the left making Obama change his mind about appointments.  Remember?  The score is not zero.

Comment #64: Mnemosyne  on  12/17  at  10:32 PM

Remember when Bush would make the fundies sit in the cold in Lafayette Park while he gave them “good phone” from across the street?

You’re in the park now.

Comment #65: Roxanne  on  12/17  at  10:46 PM

Okay, M, then why do the Xtianists have so much power in the GOP where corporate money is even more pervasive?  One of the reasons that progressives aren’t as successful as they are (other than the fact that they aren’t obsessive zealots) is the fact that generally the religious right doesn’t start off the multitude of self-doubting, self-excusing “well we can’t because” nonsense that progressives believe and spout.  They Believe, they Want, they make it happen.  Lefties start out with rationales and rationalizations for lack of success.

“We already have a couple of examples of pressure from the left making Obama change his mind about appointments.  Remember?”

No, to be frank.  It could be because they aren’t too prominent or because my usual obsessive watching of the American political scene is way, way down over the past month because of other distractions.  To whom are you referring?

In any event, in politics there is a need to make your friend hurt on something hard and early.  He has to be made to understand from the get-go that there is a price to be paid for fucking over your friends, lest he grow too enamoured of that pleasant task.  He’s warming to it already.  Ask Lieberman.  He’s getting what he wanted, and all he did was piss over his party and its nominee for two years.

Comment #66: seeker6079  on  12/17  at  10:47 PM

One of the things that derailed the Clinton administration early on was the “gays in the military” issue. This Warren business may be calculated.

Comment #67: Roxanne  on  12/17  at  10:56 PM

Okay, M, then why do the Xtianists have so much power in the GOP where corporate money is even more pervasive?

Because that was the deal the moneycons made with them in 1980:  they would publicly back the Christianists’ social agenda as long as the Christianists did the legwork to turn out the vote for the moneycons’ candidates.  What, you really thought Bush II was a Christianist and not a moneycon?  What part of “Some people call you the elite—I call you my base” was confusing? 

It could be because they aren’t too prominent or because my usual obsessive watching of the American political scene is way, way down over the past month because of other distractions.  To whom are you referring?

John Brennan.  I know that director of the CIA is an obscure post that would have no effect on people in other countries, but it was kind of a big deal here.

Sorry, but I’m getting REALLY tired of the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments predicting that we have always lost, so we’ll always lose.  We won one already.  We can win this one if we try. Either do your part, or get the hell out of the way.

Comment #68: Mnemosyne  on  12/17  at  10:57 PM

One bad choice was stopped.  Good.  Well done, with no sarcasm.  I suggest that you get used to that feeling and hungry for more.

But, that done, it puts us back where you started, eh?  Centrists and GOP folks get cabinet appointments and you vibrate yourself to happy pieces over one (noble) negative achievement the odd, token progressive in secondary positions, and leap immediately to his defence when he cheerfully puts forward a homobigot to pray him into office.  (Why have this religious ceremony, anyway?  Nice to be able to piss on teh queerz AND them goddamned atheists and agnostics at the same time.)

Let me break it to you: nobody has to get out of your way.  There’s millions of folks just like you who make wonderful carpets on which others gleefully wipe their political feet.  Enjoy.

Comment #69: seeker6079  on  12/17  at  11:09 PM

Obama doesn’t need you anymore. Anybody who realized who Obama is, before Nov.4, could have predicted this.

Vandalize a church or something, why don’t you? Not an African-American or Hispanic Catholic Church, of course, even though those are the demographic who voted in Proposition 8 (you know, most white people voted against it, and most minorities voted for it—remember?). Stay away from those particular churches, by all means. You might get your narrow butts kicked. No, pick something safe.  Mormons, anyone?

If you don’t get absolutely every last thing that you want, then you have a collective tantrum. Be as shrill as you want, ladies. It’s all good. You get to broadcast your childish, spoiled, left wing message out to the public, and the public gets to see what self-centered little twats you really are. Squeal. Squeal like a pig.

Comment #70: Clyde Barrow  on  12/17  at  11:25 PM

Bring out your trolls!

*clang*

Comment #71: Joshua  on  12/17  at  11:26 PM

“Squeal. Squeal like a pig.”

...so Clyde, how much did they pay you for your part in Deliverance?...

Comment #72: MikeEss  on  12/17  at  11:39 PM

Divide and conquer. Using Warren against Dobson and Robertson.

I see what you did there, Obama.

Comment #73: Sirkowski  on  12/17  at  11:55 PM

I see what you did there, Obama.

Triangulation. Never seen that before.

Comment #74: Roxanne  on  12/18  at  12:08 AM

I guess I can’t generate any outrage over this.  Just as I wasn’t able to get upset over the McClurkin business.  Warren has been asked to serve in a religious ceremony at the inauguration, not give a speech, not talk politics.  McClurkin was supposed to sing at a rally, not give a speech, not talk politics. 

Warren is desperate to supplant other Christian leaders.  By putting him on the national stage, for an event that’s apolitical, I believe Obama is using Warren for Obama’s purposes, and not the other way around.  What will Warren owe him for this?  Will he owe him enough to at least support Obama’s social welfare and environmental policies?  I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

But I have to say that the idea expressed by some commenters here, that this is Obama’s secret way of saying he hates gays and women, is asinine.  Choosing a religious leader who appears to be a moderate Christian to the majority of Americans means nothing and says nothing about how Obama is going to govern.  Obama’s past record demonstrates his willingness to cozy up to people like this while continuing to pursue policies that those people oppose with every fiber of their being.

Comment #75: keshmeshi  on  12/18  at  12:22 AM

Comments on this story alone at Huffpo are at 1,637 and counting.  A nerve has definitely been touched on this one.

Comment #76: seeker6079  on  12/18  at  12:23 AM

Warren has been asked to serve in a religious ceremony at the inauguration, not give a speech, not talk politics.

Yeah, that about sums it up for me.  If he were part of the cabinet, then I’d be concerned.

Comment #77: Joshua  on  12/18  at  12:35 AM

Are you looking for someone else to email to express your outrage? Well, a well-placed source just provided these email addresses:

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (Parag Mehta is Obama’s LGBT liaison in the transition team.)
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

You can also contact Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office. She chaired the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and made the announcement.

(You won’t get through to her Washington Office, answering machine won’t take message — I recommend calling her local offices)

Los Angeles
11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 915
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 914-7300
Fax: (310) 914-7318

The following counties are served by the Los Angeles office: Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Ventura.

San Diego
750 B Street, Suite 1030
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-9712
Fax: (619) 231-1108

The following counties are served by the San Diego office: Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, San Diego.

Fresno
2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4290
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 485-7430
Fax: (559) 485-9689

Comment #78: judy brown  on  12/18  at  12:36 AM

In the end I guess I look at it this way ... Would an avowed racist be asked to read a poem, sing a song, say a prayer, etc. on January 20th?

Comment #79: Roxanne  on  12/18  at  12:40 AM

Clyde Barrow, the only thing gays and their supporters want is equal dignity and respect afforded as a matter of course to straights. What that means in practice is that we have to fight every little battle over every little issue - from sodomy laws to marriage and adoption equality.

The fact we have to fight for equality that way says a lot more about our opponents than about us.

And your insistence on characterizing that struggle for civil rights as being too demanding also reveals quite a bit about you and nothing about us. What exactly are you doing here anyway?

Comment #80: Luke  on  12/18  at  12:40 AM

“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. “

Steven Waldman, co-founder of BeliefNet, the interviewer in question and Warren supporter.

keshmeshi, I don’t think that Obama secretly hates gays and women.  I think that the Warren choice is simply a statement that he doesn’t give a flying fuck about gays or progressives.  Obama has deliberately chosen a political opponent who feels (whilst representing the God of Truth, a Truth which apparently only sets Warren free as long as people who disagree with him are denied that freedom) that it is appropriate political conduct to lie, and lie against the things that Obama voters believe in.  Further, in making a selection at all he is approving the unconstitutional position that religion has a place in the exercise of a secular event.  It should have no such place in light of the establishment clause and to go through any such process is to concede and continue the annoying privileged place in national discourse of people who believe in a magic sky fairy.

Me, I’m pissed off that he has chosen somebody who called perfectly normal people incestuous and pedophile criminals simply because because his magic book tells him that people who disagree with his god are BAAAD and so such people shouldn’t be permitted to exercise a secular civil right.  I’m pissed off and I’m straight and not even American.  I’m sure that you might understand why, say, oh, Pam, might object to her president-elect turning his back on those that supported him in order to kiss the ass of a Republican hack who just called her a kiddie-fucker.

Frankly, if you don’t feel any outrage at that at all then you might wonder what the hell is wrong with you.  (I certainly wonder what the hell is wrong with you.)  Or do you only get outraged when you’re pissed on, and don’t trouble yourself when it’s just your friends, neighbours and allies?

Comment #81: seeker6079  on  12/18  at  12:44 AM

What Roxanne said at 10:40 p.m.

Comment #82: seeker6079  on  12/18  at  12:45 AM

I wish Hillary had won instead.  I wouldn’t be so concerned about the toading up to the Christofascists.

LOL yeah right, because Hillary’s religious views and associations are so moderate and mainstream.

Comment #83: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/18  at  12:57 AM

Comments on this story alone at Huffpo are at 1,637 and counting.  A nerve has definitely been touched on this one.

More like salt in an open wound.  Gay Americans just had their hearts broken with Proposition 8, and now this?

Warren is the lastest and most succcessful attempt to put a smiling, genial face on what is, at bottom, a decent faith

God killing the children of Egypt:  decent act or decentest act?

Comment #84: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/18  at  01:13 AM

Notorious PAT I was referring to the pacifism and altruism of Gospel Christianity; the God of the old testament is a sociopath and how Christian teaching tried to bend him into the shape of a loving father figure is puzzling, but for another day.  <Shrugs.>  I rather lean towards Chesterton’s joke that “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and never tried”.

Comment #85: seeker6079  on  12/18  at  01:24 AM

Just un-subscribed myself from Obama’s mailing list with a comment that Rick Warren is the reason.  No more money from me until I see some hard evidence that “Hope and Change” isn’t synonymous with “The Betrayal Of America, Part 2” (Bill Clinton being Part 1).

So what is the status of Obama’s other promises?  I’ve heard he’s backing away from universal health care, is that true?  Is he still planning to end the Iraq War, stop torture, and shut down Gitmo?

Comment #86: KL  on  12/18  at  01:39 AM

@ Joshua: lol

Comment #87: Keri  on  12/18  at  02:30 AM

Seeker: I’ve got a true Scotsman around here somewhere.

Comment #88: Thom  on  12/18  at  03:17 AM

God this is depressing…a real slap in the face.

Comment #89: AdamN  on  12/18  at  04:45 AM

We need a people-led Progressive socialist revolution, not the baby steps that race and class traitor Barack Obama wants to go with. As a gay HIV+ former union member and community organizer, I am already sorry that I cast my vote for this wishy-washy, milquetoast, back-stabbing mulatto that clearly is in over his head and doing only what his puppetmasters tell him to do!

Comment #90: Lydia Maria Child  on  12/18  at  04:50 AM

I don’t think that Obama secretly hates gays and women.  I think that the Warren choice is simply a statement that he doesn’t give a flying fuck about gays or progressives

Well, call me crazy, but I’m going to wait and see what Obama does in office.  I mean for fuck’s sake.  Why does Obama need to send any kind of message to gays or progressives?  If he wants to fuck them over, he has four years at least to do so.  This invocation means nothing.  It proves nothing other than that Obama is a savvy politician.

I am certain that you will be eating crow within the next four years when Obama proves himself to be the best president thus far on gay and lesbian issues.  Will he be perfect?  No.  Will he singlehandedly enact marriage equality on the federal level?  Of course not.  He’ll simply be the best up to this point.

If you’re going to freak out over meaningless symbolism, go ahead.  Just remember that liberals are our own worst enemy.  If you wonder why Republicans have had so much success in the past 30 years, look in the mirror.

Comment #91: keshmeshi  on  12/18  at  05:49 AM

Symbols have meanings and actions have repercussions, keshmeshi, and these truths are not magically held in abeyance until he takes the oath of office nor are they rendered impotent or invisible merely because you trot out the adjective “meaningless”.  Ask Pam if she finds it “meaningless”.

Of the hundreds of thousands of god-botherers Obama could have chosen for this needless ceremony he reached out and chose one who thinks—and says—that gays are the same as child rapists.  Would you have tolerated or be excusing a similar slap against blacks, hispanics, jews or women? 

I pointed out the obvious: that his choice of Warren was a huge slap in the face to the LGBT community, an actual, here-and-now political act.  Your response is essentially, “oh yeah!?? Just you wait!!!!”


Pathetic.  And morally reprehensible.

Comment #92: seeker6079  on  12/18  at  09:54 AM

Oh, by the way, in another completely meaningless symbolic act he just appointed his second republican to the cabinet.  Transportation  He’s from a rural district, and Salon’s “War Room” describes him as a “sometime ally of public transit”. 

Oh, and he was one of the Congressmen who managed the Clinton impeachment.

Yet another cabinet position which could have to a progressive, but didn’t.  It could have gone to a specialist in the huge number of transit issues, but didn’t.  It could have gone to an urban specialist as American becomes even more urbanized, and it didn’t.

Comment #93: seeker6079  on  12/18  at  10:02 AM

If you’re going to freak out over meaningless symbolism, go ahead.  Just remember that liberals are our own worst enemy.  If you wonder why Republicans have had so much success in the past 30 years, look in the mirror.

It’s not meaningless symbolism, it’s history repeating itself.  This looks and smells like 1992 all over again.  Now, I’m not the kind of liberal who prefers someone who promises 10 things but delivers 1 over the person who promises 5 things and delivers 3.  In fact I donated to and voted for Obama because everyone else in the field looked liked a tired repeat of the 60’s culture wars and Obama seemed the only person visibly trying to transcend the standard positions.  His speech on racism, acceptance speech, and response to the Palin pick were perfectly in line with “Hope and Change”.

BUT.  Obama is picking a LOT of people from the Clinton era to serve in his Cabinet, people who are just as responsible for the economic mess we are in as their peers in the Bush administration.  He has not made any conclusive gestures to show that an Obama administration is not just a reset to Clinton-style neo-liberal policies.  AND this gesture of inviting Warren very eerily parallels Clinton’s abandonment of gay rights in the DADT debacle.  This invites MANY more comparisons to Clinton and makes us all wonder what else from the Clinton era may reappear.  Will we see another chance at universal health care blown so badly?  Will we see Clinton-style bankruptcy “reform”, telecommunications “reform”, copyright “reform”, or welfare “reform”?

This is more than just “the LGBT issue”.  This looks like pandering and triangulation, not the FDR-style of inclusiveness we saw in Denver.  This is fundamentally discordant with the core message of the Obama campaign.  If we had wanted Clinton policies, we would have voted for the other Clinton.  We wanted a new path forward, not a reset to 1992.

Comment #94: KL  on  12/18  at  10:05 AM

John Aravosis at Huffpo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-aravosis/leaked-obama-transcript-e_b_151914.html

The following conversation may, or may not, have occurred between President-elect Barack Obama and the chair of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, US Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA):

BARACK OBAMA: So who we gonna have do the invocation at my inaugural?

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Oh my God, you’re gonna love this, B.

BO: Okay Di, hit me.

DIFI: Ready? Rick. Warren.

BO: You mean conservative evangelical Christian leader Rick Warren?

DIFI: Yup.

BO: Rick Warren who wants to ban all abortions and basically said that I support a holocaust?

DIFI: Uh huh.

BO: The guy who compared gay marriage to pedophilia and incest, and helped lead the fight for Prop 8 in California?

DIFI: That’s him.

BO: The man who said he agrees on everything with far-right nut James Dobson.

DIFI: Yesiree.

BO: But Di, the guy has devoted his entire life to destroying everything I stand for, everything I believe in, everyone who worked so hard and so long to put me into office.

DIFI: I know, isn’t it brilliant!

BO: I don’t get it.

DIFI: Okay, think about it. You’re so post-partisan that you’re willing to embrace and promote someone who loathes you, didn’t vote for you, and will do everything in his power to destroy your presidency. It’s like the Lieberman thing, but even bigger!

BO: So you mean, by promoting a guy who represents none of my goals, ideals or hopes that the majority of the country voted for, and by devastating my own supporters on what was supposed to be a day of celebration and national rebirth, I’m actually promoting “change” by publicly undermining it?

DIFI: Exactly!

BO: But won’t I be screwing the gays, women, and pretty much everyone else who got me elected?

DIFI: Never stopped me.

BO: But doesn’t this make me no better than the guy I’m replacing or the guy I just beat?

DIFI: Never stopped me.

Comment #95: seeker6079  on  12/18  at  10:06 AM

Gotta love all the love’n'tolerance expressed above. Thanks, it so helps your cause…!

Comment #96: Jose Noweigh  on  12/18  at  10:57 AM

I was referring to the pacifism and altruism of Gospel Christianity; the God of the old testament is a sociopath and how Christian teaching tried to bend him into the shape of a loving father figure is puzzling

Isn’t it the same god in both? 

God in the Old Testament wiped out a city because he was mad at them.  God in the New Testament sent his own/only son to Earth to be tortured and killed.  Great guy.

Comment #97: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/18  at  11:20 AM

Seeker is right. We have an opportunity to set bold new courses on domestic and foreign policy - new unilateralism in the Middle East and withdrawal from unnecessary conflicts, universal healthcare, a nationwide public transportation infrastructure to reduce our dependnece on automobiles and gas, harnessing solar power in the Western deserts, encouraging higher-density housing and communities, championing civil rights for a marginalized minority like gays and lesbians - and what does Obama do, but appoint a bunch of Clinton (or, worse, GOP) hacks and, even worse in the case of his national security posts, hawkish GOP holdovers. It doesn’t matter that the spirit is now not so hostile to education and competence; this isn’t the bold change of course for America that many of Obama’s supporters had in mind.

And symbols matter, for reasons seeker and other posters have well explained. I am not convinced Obama is throwing a bone to Warren’s rabble and then planning to proceed in policy directions totally to the contrary. If he were, he could at least publicly distance himself specifically from Warren’s views on LGBT issues while reaffirming his support for Warren’s work for the poor.

Comment #98: Luke  on  12/18  at  11:36 AM

Jose Noweigh, it is a particularly irritating trope to paint gay rights supporters as the intolerant ones.

You don’t have any meritorious arguments, and when you have ones that merit rational discussion in response, that’s what you get - a rational discussion to resolve that on pretty much any normative theory out there, except the deeply rigorous moral theory of “I’m always right and you’re wrong, because my faith says so, nyah nyah” advanced by religious lunatics, equality for gays and lesbians is required.

That people don’t agree with you and advance arguments against you doesn’t make them intolerant of you. That people call you out on irrational animus and hostility doesn’t make them unwilling to listen to rational arguments not advanced out of such animus and hostility.

I’m sure you have nothing substantive to say in response, like all of the other opponents of civil rights who surface here every now and then. That’s right just take your pot shot and duck back into your cave. You are beyond risible.

Comment #99: Luke  on  12/18  at  11:43 AM

Sounds like I’m in the minority here.  I don’t have any problem with this move.  Barack Obama is going to be sworn in as the President of the U.S., and that includes people who disagree with him.  I’m gay, and I think Warren’s views about us are idiotic, but I’m down with this example of inclusion.  There is no indication at all that Obama agrees with or endorses Warren’s stupid ideas about homosexuality, only that he is willing to listen to him.  He sees an ally in Warren on issues like the fight against HIV/AIDS.  Obama campaigned on the idea of reaching out to people who disagree with him and strive to find common ground, to cooperate.  This is what that looks like.

Comment #100: Alphonse  on  12/18  at  11:56 AM

Wow, this is getting more depressing by the day. Seeker, I had hoped when I backed you in the aforementioned thread that we would both turn out to be terribly, ludicrously, horribly wrong and that everyone could have a good laugh at the Paranoid Pandagons and Obama would go on to surprise the cynics in us all.

Instead…we get this.

Warren isn’t just anti-gay. He’s anti-women. He’s anti-Anyone Who Isn’t A Rich white Male Christian. This is really, truly frustrating. Obama, seriously, why are you doing this? You’ve already been elected, there’s no need to pander to the Right. Instead it looks like, since you’ve been elected, you were just pandering to the Left all this time. *sigh*

BTW, as for why the Repubs behave for the Right but the Demos don’t behave for the Left, it’s not as simple as money, corporations, or taking your ball home. The Repubs ARE the Right. Robertson et. al. have SCHOOLS where the Chosen Ones train to be politicians, judges, you name it. They CARE, enough to throw their entire life into it. And church money funds these little crusaders. Most liberals tend to want to live their life, not waste it legislating other people. Reminds me of the Krikkit problem…

“They care, we don’t. End of story.”
“I care about a lot of things. Life, the Universe, Everything really. Fjords.”
“Would you DIE for them?”
“Fjords? No. Wouldn’t see the point.”
“Well, there you go.”

Comment #101: Ellen  on  12/18  at  12:23 PM

“Seeker, I had hoped when I backed you in the aforementioned thread that we would both turn out to be terribly, ludicrously, horribly wrong…”

Welcome to the club.

Excellent krikkit point, too.  They are zero-sum obsessives; unless they are fought then their worldview is a series of incremental moves towards total control.  They don’t compromise.  It is foolish to compromise with people who won’t compromise with you.  Without going all Godwin but sticking to pure negotiation theory history, Obama may be making the same mistake that Chamberlain made: the belief that moments of rationality demonstrated by fundamentally irrational people render those same irrational people subject to rational argument on matters regarding which they will never—and don’t want to be—rational.

Comment #102: seeker6079  on  12/18  at  01:12 PM

Why not have his long term pastor Jeremiah Wright and his old pal Fr. Phleger deliver one of those prayers, if Obama wants to mend fences?

Comment #103: Hector B.  on  12/18  at  01:58 PM

Warren isn’t just anti-gay. He’s anti-women. He’s anti-Anyone Who Isn’t A Rich white Male Christian. This is really, truly frustrating. Obama, seriously, why are you doing this? You’ve already been elected, there’s no need to pander to the Right. Instead it looks like, since you’ve been elected, you were just pandering to the Left all this time. *sigh*

There is a reason to pander to the Right - there’s filibusters, and the fact that some of teh Democrats in the House and Senate are pretty Right as well.  Plus the grassroots Right is organised and passionate, and can sway things on particular issues if they unite behind it.

I don’t care if Warren is a homophobe, a misogynist, a neo-Nazi, or the reincarnated spirit of Genghiz Khan.  He’s not being appointed to any actual position; he’s being asked to say a magic spell in public.  It defuses some of the frothing coming from the wingnuts - who can still cause problems - and deflates their narrative.  Without conceding anything substantive.

Let us imagine that the progressives succeed in getting Wright instead of Warren.  And as a result, it reenergises the Right, gives them a narrative to rally around (“no compromises!”), - and they organise more Prop 8s in other States.  How exactly is it a win?

Distract and confuse the wingnuts with all the symbolic palm leaves possible - and keep on appointing people like Clinton into the important roles.

Comment #104: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  12/18  at  05:33 PM

Let us imagine that the progressives succeed in getting Wright instead of Warren.  And as a result, it reenergises the Right, gives them a narrative to rally around (“no compromises!”), - and they organise more Prop 8s in other States.  How exactly is it a win?

I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting Wright.  I read that much more as a sarcastic “well if we’re going to get an inflammatory divisive religious speaker at this thing why not the one we’re already familiar with?” thing.

To me this is much more than extending a hand to the not-quite-so-batshit-crazy religious right.  This is DADT all over again and a clear sign that Obama intends to be a Clintonian president:  triangulating around the left and delivering boon after boon to the right.

Now maybe Obama didn’t see this reaction coming, maybe he has been in a pew so long he sees only the “good” that megachurch missionaries are (allegedly) doing in Africa.  But he knows damn sure now that progressives see this as a stab in the back.  He’s got plenty of time right now to make some concrete moves to show that he and Warren are clearly on opposite sides of women’s rights, GLBT rights, atheist rights, and the separation of church and state.

More than anything he needs to show how this ISN’T DADT/DOMA and how he ISN’T Clinton II.  He could start by appointing some actual progressives to his cabinet.

Comment #105: KL  on  12/18  at  05:59 PM

Piator, pandering doesn’t work. Bringing Warren into play isn’t going to mean one less filibuster, and it’s silly to suggest otherwise.

Comment #106: Ellen  on  12/18  at  07:46 PM

Would an avowed racist be asked to read a poem, sing a song, say a prayer, etc. on January 20th?

I have received no invitation to the Obamanation in spite of my relentless petioning his team to initiate legislation requiring genetic purity testing.  Maybe I should’ve made it sexual preference testing?

Comment #107: RUGGED IN MONTANA  on  12/18  at  10:31 PM

Luke: Thank you for your response of absolute drivel. You may now return to your regularly scheduled intolerance and bigotry.

Comment #108: Jose Noweigh  on  12/19  at  12:21 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.