Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Rick Warren engages in a form of Holocaust denial Previous entry: Anti-gay conservative icon Paul Weyrich kicks it

Hilary Rosen unloads on Warren selection apologists on AC360

I don’t know if you watched Anderson Cooper last night, but he did some slamming coverage of the Rick Warren debacle on his program. He basically had to referee a heated debate between Hilary Rosen editor-at-large for HuffPost and a CNN contributor, CNN’s Roland Martin and Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic National Committee Member and CNN contributor. Hilary Rosen had the afterburners on last night; she had no patience for the attempt by Roland Martin to give legitimacy to Rick Warren and called it “an outrageous mistake.” Read and watch it. (H/t Towleroad re: the video):

RICK WARREN, PASTOR, SADDLEBACK CHURCH: I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

WARREN: I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: It’s comments like that from Pastor Rick Warren that made the Internet and blogosphere light up with outrage today when it was announced that President-elect Obama has asked the popular conservative preacher to give the invocation at the inauguration. Now Warren was a big supporter of Proposition 8 which took away marriage rights from gays and lesbians in California. And late today, an Obama spokeswoman said that while the president-elect disagrees with Rick Warren on gay rights issues, he wants this to be the most inclusive inauguration ever.

Let’s dig deeper with Hilary Rosen, Robert Zimmerman and Roland Martin.

Hilary, Andrew Sullivan wrote today on his blog. He said, “It’s shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.” Is this a slap in the face to the gay community?

ROSEN: You know, from what I gather, every gay person who paid attention to this today felt like we were kicked in the stomach. This is just kind of outrageous that you would choose such a divisive figure to speak out in a blessed prayerful moment at a day of bringing the country together. I think it’s kind of an outrageous mistake on the part of the Obama campaign.

COOPER: Roland, of all of the pastors to choose from, why choose someone controversial?

MARTIN: How about choosing Reverend Jeremiah Wright who supports the issue of gay marriage? Obama believes in marriage is between a man and woman. Is that controversial?

Not only that, you have two people who are speaking today who are preachers. You have Rick Warren who is against gay marriage, giving the invocation. You have the Reverend Joseph Lowery who is for gay marriage, giving the benediction.

ROSEN: This is not a policy difference. This is not even about gay marriage. That could be a political or policy difference that obviously Barack Obama has with many gay and lesbian people. This is about the way that Pastor Warren has used homosexuality as a weapon, that he uses religion as a weapon to suggest that gay relationships are akin to—and pedophilia and other things.

That’s the problem. It’s not a matter of a policy difference. It’s a matter of using this sort of moral religious authority to divide one group from another.

The debate continues below the fold.
One thing you’ll notice the absence of is any discussion of Warren’s outrageous positions re: womb control. Why is this not also front and center? In any case, it gets heated…

COOPER: Let Robert in here.

ZIMMERMAN: Thank you, Roland, for the opportunity. Here is the point. There is no question Reverend Warren’s comments are divisive and ignorant. And I for one personally believe in the rights of both gay and lesbians to marry. It’s a moral right that should be protected by the law.

But I believe the inauguration of Barack Obama is much bigger than Rick Warren. And I think obviously the goal here is to try to bring everyone together, to bring people to the table who we differ with, so that we can try to in fact bring them around. It’s very important to note how the evangelical community has stood up on issues such as world poverty or the AIDS epidemic or in environmental causes.

And we are seeing progress made in vote after vote to bring the vote around for the rights of gays and lesbians to marry.

MARTIN: That’s the point there.

ROSEN: Inauguration day is not a political negotiation. That’s not what this is for. If you want to have a political negotiation, have it. If you want to talk about issues that Evangelicals and progressives can agree on, do that. But what this is, this is a symbol to America about the kind of people that we respect and want to be, and the messages that they deliver.

MARTIN: Here’s the problem—

ROSEN: Roland, I’m kind of outraged.

MARTIN: I understand the outrage. But here is the point that I am making. Your viewpoint is you disagree with him. Obviously on issues when it comes to the homosexuality, gay marriage.

The point I am making is, this is the same pastor who was called a conservative pastor who has a whole different view, using religion when it comes to AIDS, when it comes to—hold on—when it comes to poverty, when it comes to global.

ZIMMERMAN: Roland, it doesn’t justify Reverend Warren’s bigotry.

MARTIN: It goes beyond that. I’m not justifying.

ZIMMERMAN: You’re excusing it.

MARTIN: I am making this point that depending upon your view; you can either agree or disagree on his view of religion.

COOPER: I want to read out what the Obama spokesperson has said about this, in reaction to this conference. They said, “The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] issues, but it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues.”

Hillary, what does this say about how Obama is going to rule? It does—to his supporters who don’t mind this, they say, look, this shows he is reaching out to people of different faiths, different perspectives, and showing that it’s a big tent.

ROSEN: Look, I would make two quick points. First, that glibness about it’s a bunch of gays being unhappy that don’t agree with him is wrong. The one time the bible was used to justify slavery. If this was a preacher out there using moral weapons against African-Americans, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

So second of all, the fact that we’re actually having this conversation means that this is a mistaken choice. This is a day when people are to be brought together. There are hundreds of preachers across the country with stature and thoughtfulness and other ways to bring this country together on an inauguration day for the new president. That’s the choice he should have made.

COOPER: I want to give you each a final thought. Roland?

MARTIN: The bottom line is, Rick Warren is one of the most respected pastors in the country. There are people who obviously agree and disagree. But the bottom line is you’ve got two preachers that day, one who is for gay rights, one against gay rights.

ROSEN: It’s not about gay rights.

ZIMMERMAN: This is not about gay rights.

MARTIN: But the whole argument—the whole segment has been on that issue.

COOPER: Let Robert give his final thought.

MARTIN: That’s the whole argument you have been making.

ZIMMERMAN: Roland, this is not about the issue of gay rights. This is about individual respect for humanity and human decency, and Reverend Warren’s comments disqualify him from that. He uses faith to preach fear. And I think what’s critical here to note—and this is what my hope that inauguration day represents is a chance to open up dialogues that haven’t existed before. And by opening up these dialogues, we can bring people together around common ground and respect for one know.

COOPER: We’re going to have to leave it there. Hilary, your final thought.

ROSEN: It’s just that’s a conversation the country ought to have. This is not the day to do it. This is a day to make everybody feel good about the new president, and the new direction of the country. And with this choice today, he’s making a lot of people feel lousy.

MARTIN: And some folks feel good or feel bad, but I guess the millions who read the “Purpose-Driven Life” or the “Purpose-Driven Church,” they somehow don’t count, right?

COOPER: Hilary Rosen, Roland Martin—

ROSEN: You could find people everybody likes.

COOPER:—Robert Zimmerman. Thank you.

ZIMMERMAN: I doubt that these days.

MARTIN: I like both of you.

COOPER: The conversation continues online, AC360.com. Join us there.

Also:
* The LGBT community strikes back over Pastor Rick Warren’s role in inauguration (HRCBackstory)

------

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 01:47 PM • (20) Comments

This just in….Roland Martin doesn’t “get it.”  His arguments validate Hamas and Hezbollah being on my Bar Mitzvah invite.  They fight poverty, they do community work.

Comment #1: Swedgin  on  12/18  at  02:01 PM

i’ve rewatched this a few times and just got angrier and angrier at the vapidity of martin. the most intellectually lazy, bankrupt and vile argumentation that only homobigots and homobigot sympathizers can agree on. oh, some people say this and some people say that. oh, well, we all just disagree, you’re just mad because they disagree with you. but, of course, it’s ok for me to get mad at you for disagreeing with me. why are you so defensive? some people say that gays and lesbians are pedaphiles and some don’t, it’s just an opinion (of course, i’m right though).

classic abuser mentality. classic stupid.

you fail my rhetoric course for being an idiot on purpose. you fail my literature course for lacking intellectual curiosity and reading comprehension. you fail my creative writing course because you couldn’t possibly be a more boring little person.

the irony of these new conservatives using moral relativism terminology and rhetorical devices used to blow me away. it’s become less ironic.

Comment #2: stillstuckinbama  on  12/18  at  02:03 PM

Thank you, Pam, for pointing out the absence of controversy over Warren’s view on reproductive rights.  It’s important to hold Obama’s feet to the fire when it comes to rights for the LBGT community but we also need to hold his feet to the fire when it comes to women’s rights.

Comment #3: carovee  on  12/18  at  02:30 PM

...but I guess the millions who read the “Purpose-Driven Life” or the “Purpose-Driven Church,” they somehow don’t count, right?

Gee, if that’s the yardstick, how many people read a given book, then JK Rowling should give the invocation.

Dolt.

Comment #4: teac  on  12/18  at  02:43 PM

“Look, some people think you’re human, some people think your sub-human degenerates.  It’s just a disagreement, why are you so upset?”

Comment #5: libdevil  on  12/18  at  02:57 PM

Yeah, Martin looks like an idiot here.  He doesn’t make any good points.  I’ve said before that I don’t mind Warren giving the invocation, but that’s because I see this thing as a small symbol that shows inclusiveness to political foes while not validating their ideas.  But not because he has a popular book.

Comment #6: Alphonse  on  12/18  at  03:07 PM

What Martin cannot, or refuses to, get is Rosen’s central point: “This is a day to make everybody feel good about the new president, and the new direction of the country. And with this choice today, he’s making a lot of people feel lousy.”

Martin’s response boils down to “Yeah, but it’s OK to make LGBT people feel lousy; it’s not OK to make Rick Warren fans feel lousy” (assuming they even would, which is debatable).

Strip away all the crap, and that’s what he’s saying, plain as day: Some people have the right to feel offended and some don’t.

Comment #7: Rick Massimo  on  12/18  at  03:33 PM

Here’s to hoping Obama loses this news cycle.  We voted for an FDR, not a WJC.

Comment #8: KL  on  12/18  at  03:57 PM

oh, some people say this and some people say that. oh, well, we all just disagree

“Shape of Earth:  Opinions Differ”

Comment #9: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/18  at  04:35 PM

“Gee, if that’s the yardstick, how many people read a given book, then JK Rowling should give the invocation. “

Haha )

Comment #10: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/18  at  04:37 PM

Man, that conflation of gay marriage with pedophilia really pisses me off.

Comment #11: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  12/18  at  04:47 PM

Martin is a first class tool.  I don’t understand his qualifications to have the forum he uses to propagate his ignorance.  A few months ago he perpetuated the myth in a CNN column that the liberal view on reproductive education is anti-abstinence, thereby allowing him to believe and attempt to convince others that abstinence-only misinformation still justified funding. 

I tried in comments to refute his point by demonstrating his ignorance in the most socially acceptable means I could hope to, but my response never made the page.

Comment #12: Swedgin  on  12/18  at  05:19 PM

I’m only a humble Britisher but given the 1st amendment’s establishment clause why do they even have a priest doing anything at the inauguration of the President? Doesn’t the selection of a priest of a particular religious denomination imply an elevation of that church above the others; in other words, an act establishing it as the state’s preference and therefore a violation of the clause?

Comment #13: Fellow Traveller  on  12/18  at  07:27 PM

Fellow Traveler, the Establishment Clause is played pretty fast and loose around here. And yes, it’s infuriating. The inauguration is a secular, government event - why should there be any kind of religious invocation or speech? If Obama wants to invoke God in his speech, wonderful, but on the official program? Yeah, it’s a breech. But no one cares. Just that much more evidence that non-believers and non-Christians don’t actually count for much around here.

Comment #14: grolby  on  12/18  at  08:14 PM

Man, that conflation of gay marriage with pedophilia really pisses me off.

Well you have to realize, that’s because to normal people pedophilia is a bad thing. To the religious it’s no big deal, hence the coverups for pedophiles in their churches.

Comment #15: Grendel72  on  12/18  at  08:18 PM

I just heard the comment that Hilary Rosen made in reference to President Obama’s choice of Rick Warren and how this is somewhat of a slap in the face to the Gay/Lesbians.  In her explaination how Rick’s negative description of the Gay/lesbian relationship, she stated that if those comments had been made about African Americans we would have been outraged…she ended by saying “President Obama just don’t get it”...well I don’t get people continually comparing the Gay/Lesbian lifestyle to being African American…I don’t know of any African American who can wake up in the morning and decide NOT to be black…it is NOT A CHOICE.  However I do know Gays and Lesbians who have decided at one point not to be Gay or Lesbian anymore.  Therefore it is a CHOICE ... I just wish people would stop “riding the race card” and espescially comparing homosexuality as a race…it is a choice.  And yes…I have heard about the possiblity of “gay gene”...but the last time I checked…there is no bio logical proof…of that.  Please leave the race card in the deck that we are trying to fold….Stop riding on tail of it.

Comment #16: Lightsalt  on  12/19  at  04:47 AM

“MARTIN: I am making this point that depending upon your view; you can either agree or disagree on his view of religion.”

Interesting to note: relativism leads to the more conservative position in this debate. It is this sort of relativism among liberals that causes timidity when making claims about, as Zimmerman puts it, “individual respect for humanity and human decency.” Hmm… some people are for recognizing gays as equal human beings and some are against it, so we went out and got one from each camp! Yay inclusion and tolerance!

Comment #17: Luke  on  12/19  at  08:22 AM

Lightsalt,

With regards to your comment that you’ve known several Gay/Lesbians who have “chosen” to be straight, but you don’t know any black people who can “chose” to be white, may I suggest a less binary perspective?

Many (perhaps, most) people are naturally bi-sexual, with preference percentage. For instance, I’m a woman with a sexual preference leaning of, I’d guess, 75% male, 25% female. Mind you, I don’t introduce myself that way - for the sake of simplicity, I say I’m “straight”. If you met me and I was in a committed relationship with another woman, you’d probably assume I’m a “lesbian” and if you knew about my prior “straightness”, you might think I’d chosen to be lesbian rather than straight.

Similarly, it’s likely that your gay/lesbian friends may have been naturally bi-sexual as well and identified as “gay” for a time, and “straight” later, rather than ruining a perfectly good conversation with percentages and preferences.

Or, it’s possible, that sexuality - being the complicated thing that it is - wasn’t fully hashed out internally in them until they’d experimented a little bit and decided on what worked for them.

How is that different from being black?

People aren’t 100% white or 100% black. Obama has plenty of white blood in him, and it’d be his choice to identify as black or white or “bi”, depending on whatever he feels suits him best. Culturally, in America he’d be seen as “black” because he’s not 100% white; in Africa he’d be seen as “white” because he’s not 100% black.

So when you say black people can’t chose to be white, but gay people can chose to be straight, you’re saying that skin color is binary (black, not-black) when it isn’t.

Incidentally, many gay people feel a resonance with the “race card” and many of these same gay people also do not identify as white. You might consider that just because you don’t like the argument doesn’t mean it’s not meaningful to the people who are being discriminated against and - some of them - have just as much ‘right’ to approve of the analogy as you do to ‘disapprove’.

Just some thoughts.

Comment #18: Ellen  on  12/19  at  02:01 PM

Lightsalt,

I know people who are gay, who have always been gay and say they cannot change it even if they wanted to. So therefore it is not a choice!

And look at what an asinine discussion we can have with anecdotal evidence.

Comment #19: Luke  on  12/19  at  02:19 PM

Roland Martin is, hands-down, one of the stupidest men on television. 
Why his opinion is asked on any matter is an utter mystery.
Surely they can find a black male with something better than a mediocre mind that Martin possesses.

Comment #20: Beatrice  on  12/20  at  04:26 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.