Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The Uncritical Cult Of Manhood Previous entry: Santa Claus is for parents

Hypocrite: Rick Warren tried to back out of meeting with gay and lesbian families

FundiesHypocritesLGBTReligion

NOTE FROM PAM: Jeff Lutes, executive director of Soulforce, a national civil rights and social justice organization dedicated to freedom for LGBT people through nonviolent direct action, gave me permission to repost his piece about a personal encounter he had with the disingenuous and smarmy Rick Warren, who is now trying to claim he loves the gays even as his long anti-gay record speaks for itself. This incident adds to that record. The Saddleback pastor agreed to meet with a group of gay and lesbian couples led by Jeff—then Warren did everything in his power to back away from the commitment after the get-together was outed in a Newsweek piece.

I think this gives us a preview as to whether Warren wants to meet with anyone from the LGBT community to discuss his past statements and current views on civil equality.


That Weird Hug from Rick Warren
by Jeff Lutes

According to the first three books of the New Testament, Judas identified Jesus to the soldiers by means of a kiss. An act of ultimate betrayal, that peck on the cheek led to the arrest of Jesus.

I know how Jesus felt. Well, sort of.

On June 15, 2008, mega-church pastor Rick Warren embraced me and my husband, and each of our three young children. Then, he apportioned his considerable power and influence to eliminate our California marriage. But the story really begins six months before that hug of pretense.

In December of the previous year, I wrote a letter to Warren outlining my plan to bring a group of gay and lesbian couples, and their children, to visit his Saddleback Church over Father’s Day weekend. I expressed our intent to attend worship on Sunday, and my hope that he and some families in his congregation would share a meal with us in an effort to reach beyond our differences and focus instead on the commonalities we share as parents and people of faith. In due course, I began a series of phone conversations with Warren’s chief of staff. Over the next several weeks, we agreed that eight of our families would eat lunch on June 16 with Warren, his wife Kay, and six of their staff members. After the family meal, eight people from our group would then convene for a 90 minute conversation with Warren, his wife, and the six other church leaders. Here’s where it gets interesting.

Jeff continues below the fold.
The week before our visit, Newsweek senior editor Lisa Miller published an article that contained a single sentence about Warren’s upcoming get-together with a bunch of gay dads. Suddenly, the tone and demeanor from those paid to protect Warren’s public image began to deteriorate.

First, we were told that things had changed and Warren and his wife “might” attend the meal and forum. A few days later, Warren posted a message on a religious blog saying that he never intended to meet with our families. Once we arrived in California, I called his chief of staff to discuss final details. Implausibly, I was told that Saddleback had now decided to only feed the eight people from our group who were going to be in the meeting, but not our children or spouses.

I pushed back by expressing my opinion that it was not very Christ-like to renege on our covenant after we had already traveled thousands of miles from Texas. “We’ll discuss your visit again and call you back,” they said. An hour later they telephoned - this time with a much more serious tone. I felt like I was negotiating a nuclear arms deal rather than the breaking of bread and some fellowship among families. With seeming reluctance, they finally settled on feeding everyone but announced that now only four Saddleback staff members would attend and that Warren and his wife would not be among them.

They made a new offer. Warren had decided to preach from one of Saddleback’s satellite facilities, 45 minutes away from the main campus. He would sit down with my family for ten to fifteen minutes after the early service, if we agreed to attend. I accepted that offer and on Sunday morning we waited near our seats at the conclusion of church.

Eventually, I heard Warren call out my name. As I turned to greet him, he hugged me, my partner, and our three children . . . and then walked away. No conversation. Minimal eye contact. Just an awkward hug and he was gone.

The following day we tried to initiate heartfelt conversation with the four Saddleback staff members who managed to show up. From the opening moments it was clear that this was a meeting to save face without any real interest in hearing our stories or getting to know us.

That frustrating experience behind us, my husband and I were married in Malibu the next day as our kids and friends stood watch on the beach. Thanks to Warren and others who worked diligently to eliminate equality with the passage of Proposition 8, our marriage now hangs in limbo.

On January 20, Warren will lead the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. I’ll pray with him because our country and our new Commander in Chief need all the prayers we can muster. Afterwards, I’ll say another prayer - this one for Rick Warren. When I’m done, I’ll get up off my knees and keep marching until all people, all couples, and all families have the same civil rights. I won’t quit until the church and its leaders cease spreading fear and misunderstanding about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

That’s my purpose driven life.


Related:
* The Blend Rick Warren files

------

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 01:52 PM • (50) Comments

What a scuzzy human being.  I think it was PZ Myers who said that the most dangerous religion is the one that is viewed as progressive and tolerant.  Rick Warren’s attempts to show himself as a “kinder, more gentle” evangelical fooled many who are now seeing he’s got the same playbook when it comes to “the gays.”

Comment #1: pro-life atheist  on  12/23  at  02:08 PM

I agree wholeheartedly.  If the choice were Falwellian fundamentalism and atheism, religion would have died out a long time ago.

Comment #2: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/23  at  02:12 PM

I don’t think Warren has ever been progressive or tolerant. He’s not much different than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell—he just has smarter PR people. And even the PR people aren’t helping much any more. Warren’s radical beliefs are getting more and more play now, and I don’t think it’ll be long before he embraces his lunatic fundie heritage.

Comment #3: Scott  on  12/23  at  02:15 PM

After the Saddleback forum, he told the Wall Street Journal that the only difference between him and James Dobson was that of “tone.”

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner

Then again, some people care more about tone than anything else.

Comment #4: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/23  at  02:31 PM

Look at the quality of this Warren defender’s commentary at my pad. Nice to know that these are the people Obama is reaching out to…

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showComment.do?commentId=102063

Fuck-off dyke.  (1.14 / 7)
Fuck you you fat, butt-ugly, man-hating dyke.

Homosexuality is nothing more than a cancer on mankind’s DNA & soon we will be able to detect it in the early stages of fetal development, and abort appropriately.

BTW, kudos to the guys that gang-raped & beat the shit out of that dyke in Richmond, CA; that cunt had it coming with her fag-flag ‘proudly’ displayed on her car.

Comment #5: Pam Spaulding  on  12/23  at  02:50 PM

Now, now, come on, homosexual activists, as Obama’s PR people have said, we are a deeply divided and wounded nation and all need to come together at the table of tolerance and love for our differences! You see, gay rights is just another of the many issues on which we can come together!

So, one side says you’re going to hell and ought to be gang-raped, and the other says you should be treated just as straights are? Whoa! Two radical extremes there! And, hey you homosexual activists, no need to be so provocative! How about a nice compromise, some mainstream moderation: you gays just keep quiet and keep all of those fag flags to yourselves, and you gentlemen there with the clubs, crowbars and Bibles can put those down and refrain from gang-raping or pillaging, please.

Isn’t it nice to find common ground? We wouldn’t want to be too radical, after all. This has to be Change We All Can Believe In, and “All” includes our most violent and hateful neighbors, too.

Comment #6: Luke  on  12/23  at  03:07 PM

Pam, I admire your strength in dealing with the hate and the crazy. Just reading that crap feels like being slapped, to me; but somehow you manage to keep your courage and not only cope with the vile bile in your comment pages, but go forth to the whackaloon sites to find out what the hate-mongers say among themselves.

If you’re ever in Santa Cruz, I’d like to treat you tot he beverage of your choice.

And Warren is a disgusting man.

Comment #7: Samantha Vimes  on  12/23  at  03:08 PM

It’s almost getting to the point that the invitation was worth it. Not only does it force Warren to scrub his Web site of his homophobic nonsense and claim in front of his own Know-Nothing followers that he’s a friend of gays, but we can also easily prove what a load of BS it is. That’s full of win.

Also, the controversy keeps Obama on notice that his supporters will ride his arse 24-7 anytime he gets close to betraying the core values of Western liberal democracy that he’ll be swearing to uphold. The Obama base is a lot different than the authority-worshipping Bush base of suckers.

Comment #8: Gracchus  on  12/23  at  03:22 PM

I can almost—almost!—feel sorry for Warren.  It sounds like he was willing to meet with Lutes and the others, but once it got out that he might actually meet with gay families on an equal basis, he chickened out so he wouldn’t lose supporters.  Not because he decided it was suddenly wrong to meet with them, or because the people he was going to meet with were suddenly revealed to be horrible sinners.  It was because he was going to lose money from homophobes across the country.

Okay, I don’t really feel sorry for him.  I just think he sounds like an ordinary, cowardly religious hypocrite who’s more interested in maintaining his position of power than he is in what Jesus actually said.

Comment #9: Mnemosyne  on  12/23  at  03:27 PM

Gracchus, I agree with you but am worried about a corresponding downside: The distinction between stifling speech and protesting the symbolic meaning of Warren as Inauguration speaker is lost on many, especially those already disposed to see gays as anti-normative rabble-rousers. So we come off as the censorious mob and Warren apologists as standard-bearers of tolerance and inclusion. It’s unfair, but it is what it is.

Comment #10: Luke  on  12/23  at  03:33 PM

Look at the quality of this Warren defender’s commentary at my pad. Nice to know that these are the people Obama is reaching out to…

I’ll happily defend Warren on the grounds that he is an environmental and fiscal progressive.  Listen, he’s a bigot its true.  But he represents a very substantial voting block that can be turned towards some truly necessary progressive reforms.  And he represents a substantial wedge in the Evangelical community on these issues.

The Republican Big Tent learned to tame their evangelical elements for years and channeled the votes and the campaign contributions of the faithful into massive tax cuts for the rich and endless foreign wars across the globe.  In the process, they’ve poisoned the well on green initiatives and social programs using the Conservative Christian movement to paint anyone who drives a Prius or shops at Whole Foods or supports progressive tax policy or doesn’t want to dissolve the Department of Education as some sort of baby-eating devil worshiper.

We need to change the conversation with the conservative community.  Yes, we disagree on gay rights.  Yes, we disagree on abortion.  But if those are the only two issues anyone ever wants to bring up then we’re going to get to watch more Bush-Era nonsense replay itself under the cover of God’s War and God’s Tax Cut and Jesus juice all over your medical plans.

If Andrew Sullivan can back Barack Obama despite opposing universal health care without raising an unholy snit, why can’t Rick Warren back Barack Obama despite supporting Prop 8?

Comment #11: Zifnab25  on  12/23  at  03:40 PM

Zifnab, saying that Andrew Sullivan does something is not a good way to convince a lot of people to also do it.

Abortion and gay rights are about treating women and gays as *full human beings*, not second class citizens. They are important, and I for one am tired of being told to sit down and wait until all other problems are solved* before I get my full rights. No, I won’t.

*seriously, you want us to wait until the environment and the economy are no longer critical issues? When will that be, exactly, 2350?

Comment #12: emjaybee  on  12/23  at  04:21 PM

Gracchus, I agree with you but am worried about a corresponding downside: The distinction between stifling speech and protesting the symbolic meaning of Warren as Inauguration speaker is lost on many, especially those already disposed to see gays as anti-normative rabble-rousers.

As an atheist, I’m not thrilled that a man who would support a religion test for public office holders [YouTube] in clear opposition to the key provision in the Constitution will be on-stage at an event celebrating that document.

But what’s more important to me is that Obama make a clear statement, either before or during the event, showing that not only is “no religion test” normative, it’s a core American value. It’s important not because I’m unsure that Obama believes that (I’m certain he does), but because after the last 8 years a large number of Americans need to hear it from the President again.

I’d make the same argument for Obama’s re-affirming that the words of the Declaration of Independence apply to all law-abiding citizens—including GLBT people. I’m not gay, but I understand the implications of Nuremberg-style laws like the Prop 8 language, and so I stand with you.

The starting point is to demonstrate that, at least in terms of America’s founding documents, Warren’s side are (always were) the anti-normative censorious rabble-rousers. And that starts with Obama speaking out. The appearance of Warren at the Inauguration provides Obama with the opportunity to clearly re-state what should be obvious to anyone but a bigot, and I expect him to do that in some form before end of day on 20 January.

Comment #13: Gracchus  on  12/23  at  04:32 PM

If Andrew Sullivan can back Barack Obama despite opposing universal health care without raising an unholy snit, why can’t Rick Warren back Barack Obama despite supporting Prop 8?

Mainly because, as I noted above, he’s not backing Obama on the issues that count the most (and I’m not speaking specifically about abortion or gay rights). Warren is appearing for one reason: PR in his bid to become the next Billy Graham.

We need to change the conversation with the conservative community.  Yes, we disagree on gay rights.  Yes, we disagree on abortion.

You cannot change the conversation with people who are dealing in bad faith from the start. Liberals in general disagree with social conservatives not because (as Xtian fantasists claim) we lo-ove abortion or gay sex, but because their positions are in direct conflict with core American values regarding control over our own bodies and personal privacy.

Comment #14: Gracchus  on  12/23  at  04:32 PM

Just venting:

I’ve been following this discussion in a few different venues, and what riles me up more than anything else is straight commentators who want a fucking medal for not being offended by anti-gay rhetoric. Yeah, good job rising above, pal.

A close second is “forest for the trees” language suggesting that gay people shouldn’t be angry at Warren because he does some good stuff, too, and (let’s be honest) gay rights is a relatively minor social issue.

This stuff is common enough in one very liberal gaming forum that I’ve stopped posting in discussion threads about gay issues. People agree that gays should have rights; but they don’t actually care, are proud of not caring, and chastise me for getting upset. And there’s no good way to communicate my frustrations. It’s stomach-churning.

Comment #15: jericho  on  12/23  at  04:37 PM

Warren is not willing to risk his influence or source of money by allowing public knowledge of any meetings with gay people. He may have thought that he could get away with placating the Soulforce people by such a meeting kept on the QT, and undoubtedly wanted to avoid damage to his “kinder, gentler” image by rudely refusing to acknowledge the inevitable Soulforce (peaceful, but media-wise) protesters that would come if he refused to meet on the QT. When word got out, I suspect that he heard from both fellow pastors and from upset donors demanding that he toe the line. At any rate, Warren likely thinks that one should suffer rather than the whole people suffer. (I don’t have time to look it up, probably Gospel of John).

Comment #16: NancyP  on  12/23  at  04:39 PM

Zifnab, saying that Andrew Sullivan does something is not a good way to convince a lot of people to also do it.

I’m merely observing that Andrew Sullivan hasn’t provoked dozens of fiery posts suggesting that we run him out of the party on a rail.  Admittedly, he’s not speaking at the Inauguration.

Abortion and gay rights are about treating women and gays as *full human beings*, not second class citizens. They are important, and I for one am tired of being told to sit down and wait until all other problems are solved* before I get my full rights. No, I won’t.

You aren’t going to get the right to marry any faster by ostracizing political independents.  Telling Rick Warren to go fuck himself doesn’t magically undo Prop 8.  And, in the mean time, you and your spouse get to enjoy shit in your drinking water and a good raping by your insurance provider.

Congress can tackle more than one issue at a time.  Gaining support from Warren on the stimulus plan gives us a stronger economy and doesn’t prevent Obama from abolishing DADT.  Unless we plan on bundling the legislation together, we can get Warren’s support on improving veterans’ benefits and suffer his wrath when we try to repeal DOMA and both sets of legislation can pass without fringe anti-war activists or homophobes being completely thrown under the bus.

Warren is being brought in on a host of issues that have nothing to do with gay rights or abortion.  I’d rather have his support where I can get it than wait for him to convince Inhofe or Chambliss to support “Christian” environmental reform.

Comment #17: Zifnab25  on  12/23  at  04:39 PM

A gay couple came to The Reformed Aryan Church of White Butte to challenge our thinking about homosexualists.  As we believe The Bible is the literal word of G*d, we had to stone them in the parking lot.  The Montana State Police are still investigating it, but it looks like we’re in the clear…after our lawyer accused them of religious persecution.

Comment #18: RUGGED IN MONTANA  on  12/23  at  04:44 PM

When Andrew Sullivan gets the ear of the president-elect, Zifnab25, then we’ll talk.

Handing LGBT folks a shit sandwich with the promise of a steak in the unspecified future doesn’t magically change the shit sandwich into anything that’s easier to swallow.

Comment #19: kater  on  12/23  at  04:52 PM

If Andrew Sullivan can back Barack Obama despite opposing universal health care without raising an unholy snit, why can’t Rick Warren back Barack Obama despite supporting Prop 8?

Who exactly is raising a snit over Rick Warren backing Barack Obama? The snit is over his being given a prominent role in a major public event, which will raise his profile and give him greater influence to push further measures like Prop 8, as well as adding a bitter note to an otherwise joyous event for many of Obama’s supporters. It’s fine to argue that we shouldn’t overstate the significance of this, but pretending that it doesn’t have any significance at all is just silly.

Comment #20: Redshift  on  12/23  at  04:53 PM

Its.Not.A.Snit.  And no one is refusing to back Barack Obama. People are angry that the imaginary position of “America’s Pastor” has gone to someone who definitionally, personally, and politically can’t minister to the jews, catholics, muslims, and gays in America’s diverse citizenry.  Warren subscribes to a very narrow christianist view of religion and the world which doesn’t jump at all with modern america. We are well within our rights, gay and straight, to say that this man “does not represent us” to the world, or before g-d.

aimai

Comment #21: aimai  on  12/23  at  05:16 PM

Warren is not willing to risk his influence or source of money by allowing public knowledge of any meetings with gay people.

Except Melissa Etheridge, apparently, who he gave a big hug to and told that he wants equal protection for any kind of loving relationship?

It’s just her word though, so maybe he’ll deny it or say there was a misunderstanding.

Comment #22: Holly  on  12/23  at  05:18 PM

Except Melissa Etheridge

She’s a celebrity—different rules apply, especially for a star-f*cker wannabe celeb like Warren.

Comment #23: Gracchus  on  12/23  at  05:42 PM

(Sorry if this double-posts, my computer is wonky today.)

I should point out that that Warren’s AIDS “outreach” is the kind that doesn’t actually help.

That leaves only two sort of pluses in the Warren column:  1) the “Purpose-Driven Church” movement to make the evangelical worldview more palatable to mainstream audiences, and 2) concern for the environment.  Climate change seems to me like a really poor return on sacrificing civil rights and effective international AIDS work.  Especially when we get nothing back theologically:  Warren is a young-Earth Biblical literalist whose brand of Christianity is very slick but still fundamentally an us-versus-the-world mental model.

Realistically speaking, what is the benefit of highlighting/promoting his version of evangelical Christianity?  Why couldn’t Obama have picked someone from the emergent movement like Rob Bell, who could have given us a Christian best-seller (Velvet Elvis), concern for the environment, connection to the evangelical world, AND a willingness to read the Bible metaphorically and withhold religious judgement against GLBT?

Comment #24: KL  on  12/23  at  05:43 PM

he represents a very substantial voting block that can be turned towards some truly necessary progressive reforms

Can they be turned?  And do we really need them to institute progressive policies?  No and no, is my estimation.

The Republican Big Tent learned to tame their evangelical elements for years and channeled the votes and the campaign contributions of the faithful into massive tax cuts for the rich and endless foreign wars across the globe.

How “tame” were/are they?  These are the people who were shouting “kill him” and “terrorist” when someone would mention Obama’s name.  And there wasn’t much channelling needed to get this crowd behind blowing up non-Christian brown people, since they already approved of that anyway.  Same with tax cuts for the rich:  God loves them, so some day he will make them wealthy, then they will benefit too!!!

If Andrew Sullivan can back Barack Obama despite opposing universal health care without raising an unholy snit, why can’t Rick Warren back Barack Obama despite supporting Prop 8?

Because Andrew Sullivan engages his brain when opening his mouth.  Rick Warren, on the other hand, was getting seconds in self-regard when God was handing out brains.

Comment #25: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/23  at  06:20 PM

“Except Melissa Etheridge, apparently, who he gave a big hug to and told that he wants equal protection for any kind of loving relationship? “

Maybe if Warren *let gays and lesbians into his church* I would believe that he wants equality for them.

Comment #26: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/23  at  06:26 PM

I’ve been following this discussion in a few different venues, and what riles me up more than anything else is straight commentators who want a fucking medal for not being offended by anti-gay rhetoric.

Can we at least have a cookie?

Comment #27: seeker6079  on  12/23  at  06:40 PM

This webpage loads very fast
What hosting provider do you use?
adipex hurt me
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

Comment #28: adipex generic  on  12/23  at  08:00 PM

Saddleback Church is right dowm the street from my house (1.5 miles) and I can say, without hyperbole, that the members of that church have no compassion for anyone who is not a member of that church. They are the most uncompassionate group of “christians’ it has ever been my misfortune to meet. The worst part is, being in the same town as the “main campus” (don’t even get me started…), I run into them everywhere.

Comment #29: Mark  on  12/23  at  08:08 PM

soon we will be able to detect it in the early stages of fetal development, and abort appropriately.

Wait…I thought abortion was murder, and that it was supposed to be illegal in all cases, even in rape or mother’s “health”, scare quotes intended.

There’s an appropriate time to abort?  Really?  WHO DECIDES THAT?

——
Pam, I’m sorry you have to listen/read that shit.

—-
The Sun-Times had Melissa Ethridge’s girlfriend’s blog about what a great guy Warren is in the paper today.  Though they did claim they cleaned up some of the punctuation, it still seemed to have an awful lot of eleventy-one!!1! 1334 shit going on.

Oh, and b/c she can have a lawyer draw up a document to preserve all 1200 rights of marriage, she doesn’t care what the document is called.  And Warren hugged Melissa, so nyah nyah!  Shut up!  He’s affable, damnit!

Comment #30: Caren  on  12/23  at  08:12 PM

Telling Rick Warren to go fuck himself doesn’t magically undo Prop 8.

But repealing Prop. 8 will be a nice way to tell Warren to fuck himself.  And make no mistake, that Prop’s going down fast.  If not thanks to the court case attempting to void 18,000 marriages, then in the off-election.

Comment #31: Caren  on  12/23  at  08:21 PM

Hey zif—I already have the right to marry. Yay me. And opposing Warren does not equal voting Republican—it equals telling Obama “dude, quit appeasing the assholes. They’ll never respect you, why throw your supporters under a bus for no reason?” And there is NO reason. The fundies will lose some respect for Warren, but won’t gain any for Obama. The progressives will feel betrayed. There is NO win here. And Congress passing healthcare et al has nothing to do with letting a douchebag give Obama’s invocation.

I can’t express how much I hate the false equivalence of “appeasing asshole fundies” with “legitmate political negotiation.” It’s not, the Dems get screwed every time they do it, and I’m fucking sick of it.

Comment #32: emjaybee  on  12/23  at  10:12 PM

The people should have the final say in these type of things, not liberal judges.

Prop 8 has passed, the people have had their say. Now accept it. You liberals got abortion legalized thru the courts (liberal judges and lawyers) but you’re not going to get homosexual marriage.

Were not going to let you ruin our culture even more.

Comment #33: James  on  12/23  at  11:02 PM

Dumber than a stick James is still here?

Republican judges agreed that California’s constitution, with its right to privacy, meant that homosexuals must be allowed to marry.  Not ‘liberal activist judges”.  Republican ones.

Human rights are self-evident and embodied in the person.  You don’t get to vote on whether or not black and white people can marry, b/c those laws did exist, but they were struck down.  It’s all about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  Our Founding Fathers were concerned with that.  Maybe you’ll get that in Civics next year.

As for Prop 8 passing…it BARELY passed.  And California has a remarkably simple procedure for changing their constitution.  Next election, less than 2 years from now, there will be measures to repeal Prop 8 on the ballot.  I sincerely doubt the multimillions the Mormons throw at them will work, since it barely managed to pass last time.

So, no, rights can’t be voted away in the first place, and in the second, there’s no point in telling a Californian that the vote was held and the issue is therefore decided, b/c they’ll just throw it up there again and again and again.

Why does that seem to scare you so?  Homosexuals marrying hasn’t hurt marriage in Massachusetts, which still has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country.  It’s fundie-marry-your-high-school-boyfriend-at-shotgun-point land that has the highest rates.  Marriage seems to be doing better in the state where its legal for all people to excercise their rights.

And guess what?  You reactionary Luddites damn near destroyed the country over the last 8 years with the “Unitary Executive”, torture, and a complete trashing of the Constitution.  We’re not going to let you ruin our culture even more.  We’re going to clean up the mess.

Comment #34: Caren  on  12/23  at  11:19 PM

No rights are being supressed or taken away.

Everybody can get married. You just can’t marry someone as the same sex as yourself.

Every child deserves a mother and father. They can’t get that with homosexual marriage.

What about the childs interest.

why do liberals hate children so much? first they want to kill them with abortion, then the want to keep Nambla in business, now they want to deny children a mother anda father.

Comment #35: James  on  12/23  at  11:35 PM

James: i suggest you go read your own fucking holy book. remember David? Saul? Solomon? every single one of them were in POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES. NOT “one-woman-one-man” marriages! and seriously; children need PARENTS. if you are THAT concerned that children have PARENTS, you would NOT concern-trolling over what KIND of parents, so long as they were GOOD parents. also - most child abuse is committed by MEN. and children do NOT need to go through the abuse that i did. so should we prevent men from being fathers? because “the child’s interest” lies in not being abused. yes? fuck off.

Pam. guy said to you in comments “soon we will be able to detect it in the early stages of fetal development, and abort appropriately.”
first, i am sorry that people treat you this way. much of what you showed was hate speech. i think you are very brave and strong for working past and through that kind of bullshit. if you are a dyke, then the definition of “dyke” is “superhero”. just saying.

second, i am now going to co-opt the language that the far right fundies have co-opted, and ask the question - how are their ideas, movements, attempts at changing the law and denying civil liberties and outlawing an entire POPULATION of people any fucking different from Nazi policies? (yes, yes, Godwin’s Law…) i am fucking serious here - fundies have co-opted the Holocaust, saying that abortion is the same while AT THE SAME TIME trying to get the footing to be able to pass laws making the persecution and torture and denial of homosexuals, probably even unto death camps, a valid thing. whywhywhy do THEY get to call ME a Nazi when they are the fascists?

no, i am not gay. does that mean that i have to hate gay people? that i have to work to destroy them? that if i have gay friends and don’t try to “convert” them i am bad? that i am bad for having gay friends? i really really hate the fucking christian coalition far right fundie wingnuts. i hate what they stand for, i hate their ignorance, i hate their hate, i hate their perversion of their religion, and i hate that they are so incredibly hate-able.

sigh. /rant

Comment #36: denelian  on  12/24  at  01:38 AM

“James: i suggest you go read your own fucking holy book. remember David? Saul? Solomon? every single one of them were in POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES. NOT “one-woman-one-man” marriages! and seriously; children need PARENTS. if you are THAT concerned that children have PARENTS, you would NOT concern-trolling over what KIND of parents, so long as they were GOOD parents. also - most child abuse is committed by MEN. and children do NOT need to go through the abuse that i did. so should we prevent men from being fathers? because “the child’s interest” lies in not being abused. yes? fuck off.”

...I don’t have anything to add to this, I just thought denelian’s comment needed to be hammered into James’ head a little bit more… smile

Comment #37: MikeEss  on  12/24  at  01:51 AM

that is actually a bit of an accolade (if i am spelling it correctly). i probably come across as a bit harsh, but i get so sick of people like James there spouting the same ignorant rhetoric.

Comment #38: denelian  on  12/24  at  03:22 AM

Every child deserves a mother and father. They can’t get that with homosexual marriage.

What about the childs interest.

Just to hammer a bit more…studies have shown that children raised in homosexual settings (i.e, with two dads or two moms) are no worse off than children raised with heterosexual parents.  They are no more likely to be homosexuals than children raised by heterosexuals.  The children’s interests are best served by parents that love them and care for them.  The gender of said parents is irrelevent.

Stomp about your beliefs all you want, but when you talk about the law of the land, you need to address reality and facts.  The facts are not on your side when it comes to children’s best interests, James.

Comment #39: Caren  on  12/24  at  03:30 AM

I’m merely observing that Andrew Sullivan hasn’t provoked dozens of fiery posts suggesting that we run him out of the party on a rail.

Andrew Sullivan has never been in the party.

Comment #40: Dolbia  on  12/24  at  08:44 AM

Hey zif—I already have the right to marry. Yay me. And opposing Warren does not equal voting Republican—it equals telling Obama “dude, quit appeasing the assholes. They’ll never respect you, why throw your supporters under a bus for no reason?” And there is NO reason. The fundies will lose some respect for Warren, but won’t gain any for Obama. The progressives will feel betrayed. There is NO win here. And Congress passing healthcare et al has nothing to do with letting a douchebag give Obama’s invocation.

I think it has everything to do with letting a douchebag give Obama’s invocation.  It demonstrates that conservatives and liberals aren’t divided on all issues simply because they are divided on some issues.

Warren works as a great shield against criticism and serves as a major leverage point in the evangelical community.

That said, Warren’s 3 minute opening speech has received loads of revolution while Joseph Lowery - the guy actually giving the Benediction (the religious speech people actually make note of in the history books) - the first loud and open pro-gay minister to ever give a Benediction, the guy who stared 4 U.S. Presidents in the face during Coretta-Scott King’s funeral and announced

We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor!

This guy gets barely a mention, and Rick Warren gets tirade after tirade.

Seriously, get your god damn priorities straight.  Actual policy changes are forgotten.  The specter of symbolism sends you into a pants-wetting lather.

Get your priorities in order.

I’m merely observing that Andrew Sullivan hasn’t provoked dozens of fiery posts suggesting that we run him out of the party on a rail.

Andrew Sullivan has never been in the party.

He’s been an outspoken Obama-supporter since the guy got in the race (in part because Sullivan has a 10-inch hate on for Hillary and in part because he’s got an even bigger hate on for the current GOP - but there you go).  He’s as close to “in the party” as Rick Warren will ever be.

Comment #41: Zifnab25  on  12/24  at  12:21 PM

I think it has everything to do with letting a douchebag give Obama’s invocation.  It demonstrates that conservatives and liberals aren’t divided on all issues simply because they are divided on some issues.

So why doesn’t Obama go whole hog and invite the grand poohbah of the Christian Identity Church? Too crazy? How about the happily named Crefo Dollar? No? Perhaps Pat Robertson? He’d certainly work as major leverage points with Xtian fantasist Know-Nothings.

It’s a question of where you draw the line. I draw the line at a guy who’s been outspoken in his antipathy toward the Religion Test Clause and the Establishment Clause, and who doesn’t think that GLBT citizens ought to be endowed with certain inalienable rights. That excludes the Aryan grand poohbah, Dollar, Robertson, and Warren.

[Lowery] gets barely a mention, and Rick Warren gets tirade after tirade.

That’s because, for liberals and progressives, Lowery isn’t at all out of place on Obama’s Inaugural stage. Warren is, for the reason I discussed above.

Seriously, get your god damn priorities straight.  Actual policy changes are forgotten.  The specter of symbolism sends you into a pants-wetting lather.

The policy changes are not forgotten—we’re waiting for the man to get into office before he starts putting them into effect. If he doesn’t, you can bet we’ll ride his arse just as hard—if not harder—over that as we will over this poor choice of an Invocation speaker.

The Inauguration, on the other hand, is all about symbolism: it’s a civic ceremony that celebrates the Constitution that makes it possible. If Obama wants to reach out, there are several prominent evangelical preachers who don’t believe in Religion Tests for public office, and who welcome GLBT people into their congregations.

Comment #42: Gracchus  on  12/24  at  02:18 PM

To be honest, it seems to me that this Lutes guy is making a mountain out of a molehill. I’m not a fan of this kind of criticism. “You didn’t hug me right! You seemed too awkward!” Oh, well… seems to me this is just an honest reflection of the dislike that Warren probably feels toward homosexuals. It’s not exactly nice, but whom exactly does it surprise?

I don’t like the hypocrisy that Warren expresses about Gays, claiming to “love” them as well as heterosexuals while at the same time calling them pedophiles. On the other hand, I don’t see the point of trying to entrap Warren with hugs. What does Lutes really expect.

I just wish that no-body would pretend to love anyone else if they did not really, and nobody would expect love from them. Then we could deal with the world more straightforwardly.

Comment #43: atheist  on  12/24  at  03:52 PM

So why doesn’t Obama go whole hog and invite the grand poohbah of the Christian Identity Church? Too crazy? How about the happily named Crefo Dollar? No? Perhaps Pat Robertson? He’d certainly work as major leverage points with Xtian fantasist Know-Nothings.

None of these people stuck out an olive branch during Obama’s Presidential Campaign.  If Pat Robertson had hosted a debate on the 700 Club, I imagine he’d be given some free Obama press for his trouble too.  If he was willing to come to the table on any of a variety of Democrat party planks, he might even be able to win himself a spot at the inauguration.  And I’d be fine with that.

That’s because, for liberals and progressives, Lowery isn’t at all out of place on Obama’s Inaugural stage. Warren is, for the reason I discussed above.

All I’ve heard is “SLAP IN THE FACE!  SLAP IN THE FACE!  OBAMA HAS INFLICTED A GRAVE AND SERIOUS SLAP IN MY FACE!” at the Warren announcement.  Some folks would consider Lowery the very spitting definition of “Change We Can Believe In”, but this blog seems dead set on shoving heads up asses and insisting a Saddle Back Church Sermon with an inauguration that just happens to be at the end of it.  You can’t deal with Warren getting 3 fucking minutes of air time because you hate him oh so much.

This is the kind of purist dead-ender mentality that runs your ass right back out into minority again.  Assholes are aplenty in this world.  I’m not a big fan of Clinton at State or Vilsack in Agg or Rahm as CoS, but they’re at least cabinet positions so I have something to constructively bitch about.  Warren has the most humble seat at this historic event and even that is just too much for you to handle.

Get a hold of yourself, get your priorities in order, and get off your high horse.

Comment #44: Zifnab25  on  12/24  at  05:39 PM

Just to hammer a bit more…studies have shown that children raised in homosexual settings (i.e, with two dads or two moms) are no worse off than children raised with heterosexual parents.  They are no more likely to be homosexuals than children raised by heterosexuals.  The children’s interests are best served by parents that love them and care for them.  The gender of said parents is irrelevent.

Indeed.  Moreover, divorce and being raised by solo parents does affect kids. If anyone advocates banning gay marriage due to the kiddies, they should first start by railing against divorce and seperation.

Comment #45: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  12/24  at  06:04 PM

None of these people stuck out an olive branch during Obama’s Presidential Campaign.

Warren didn’t stick out an olive branch, he hosted a debate and did Obama the great “honour” of including him (a step up from the usual BJ interviews these types only give to the GOP candidates). Why? Because it served Warren’s purposes (namely, raising his profile enough to become the next Billy Graham). He’s smarter than Robertson in terms of PR, but it doesn’t change his core anti-Constitutional views, or his homophobia and opposition to gender equality.

All I’ve heard is “SLAP IN THE FACE!  SLAP IN THE FACE!  OBAMA HAS INFLICTED A GRAVE AND SERIOUS SLAP IN MY FACE!”

Not from me. I don’t take it personally, even though I’m an atheist and an American citizen. I do think the choice was a mistake, and have no problem letting Obama’s team know that.

You can’t deal with Warren getting 3 fucking minutes of air time because you hate him oh so much.

I explained very clearly the reasons why I object to Warren’ presence on the Inauguration stage. If you don’t want to address them directly and fence with straw men instead, that’s your business.

By the way, those 3 minutes? That’s a lot of TV airtime (approx. one longish piece on a news broadcast)—in front of an audience of millions. Plenty of opportunities to slip in some dog whistle calls to his fellow RWAs.

This is the kind of purist dead-ender mentality that runs your ass right back out into minority again.

Yes, what a purist dead-ender I am to insist that a featured speaker at the Inauguration not be opposed to key tenets of the Constitution and Declaration. Yes, I’m one of them thar lib’rul card-carrying members of the ACLU!

Get a hold of yourself, get your priorities in order, and get off your high horse.

If doing my part to promote Constitutional values when the occasion arises is “being on a high horse,” then giddyap!

Comment #46: Gracchus  on  12/24  at  06:27 PM

All I’ve heard is “SLAP IN THE FACE!  SLAP IN THE FACE!  OBAMA HAS INFLICTED A GRAVE AND SERIOUS SLAP IN MY FACE!” at the Warren announcement.

In that case, I think you have not been listening very intently. I voted for Obama. I still support him, even though I completely disagree with this inane Warren pick. I’ll probably vote for him again in 2012. And when his right-wing critics go after his nuts, as they always do, with neither reason nor rhyme to their credit, I will tenaciously defend him. I suspect that many people here are in the same boat.

That doesn’t mean anyone has to defend this, or pretend it doesn’t matter. Some day, when same-sex marriage is a commonplace affair, our grandchildren will look back at these benighted times. They’ll see little things like the Warren invocation and wonder where the outrage was from their liberal grandparents. We owe it to them to make some kind of a statement. The form that statement assumes, of course, is where priorities come into play. There is a huge gulf of difference between simple denunciations of a President-Elect’s invocation choice on a blog, or in an open letter, and - for example - a formal protest or march against him which, to my knowledge, nobody on the left is seriously considering yet. So I kind of think you’re overreacting, here.

This is the kind of purist dead-ender mentality that runs your ass right back out into minority again.

While I am loathe to use wingnut behavior as a standard - even for the purpose of comparison! - I feel obligated to point out that every time right-wingers hear something they don’t like, they start baying at the moon, and it never seems to hurt them in the long run. Rather, it was their tone-deafness about the Iraq war and the economy which lost them their recent elections. So I fail to see why kvetching is off-limits for current and erstwhile PEBO-supporters.

Comment #47: cyrano  on  12/24  at  06:55 PM

Thanks for a thoughtful piece.

I am going to do one more thing when Warren speaks at the inauguration. I am going to turn my back like we did to Phyllis Schlafly.

Comment #48: MomTFH  on  12/25  at  10:47 PM

Personally, I only want to stay miles away from Warren and his creeps, and I can’t understand why Obama doesn’t feel the same way. Don’t accomodate them, fight them.

Comment #49: Hattie  on  12/26  at  04:57 PM

Maybe he was afraid the author would breathe on him and he’d catch Teh Gay. xp Jesus broke bread with various ‘undesirables’ when He was on earth, which would make what Warren pulled what Jesus WOULDN’T do.  There’d be a huge revolution in the religious right if they committed themselves to truly following Christ’s example.

I’ll grant that Rick Warren faced a huge amount of pressure and backlash when it was announced he was going to lunch with a homosexual couple.  Christians in the past faced harsh opposition as well and the consequences of their not folding was death, but they stood strong.  Rick Warren needs to get his eyes off the praise of men and back on God.

Comment #50: hoppytoad79  on  12/29  at  08:56 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.