Uhhh, did you intend to repeat the stuff from Obama’s flacks (in the first blockquote)?, ‘cuz it’s sorta an amusing para-comment.

So, who wants to help me find a telegenic little girl who’s suffered or would suffer from a ban on same-sex marriage?

I’ve seen people suggest that an example from Arkansas wouldn’t help in California. That seems like a case of over-thinking it. We can truthfully say that equality in CA will help elsewhere (because it’ll make the lies and paranoia of the other side more obvious). The bigots will scream about us wanting to impose equality through the courts. So on one side California voters will see a dry legal argument enlivened by bigotry, the same one our opponents have been harping on for years, and on the other side a cute little child.

Oh yes. I thought the list of drivel sent out by the flacks is about as worthless as the brain-dead ranting of the Freepi.

BTW, The whole “abandon ship” hysteria or calling Obama a rabid homophobe I’m seeing on some blogs is over the top. His problem is thinking “outreach” using this Tool is the way to show broad thinking. Warren thinks civil rights can and should be repealed at the ballot box as an expression of “free speech” and would like women to have their wombs controlled by the government is worth a plug nickel. Those are extreme positions, and he has no need to cater to bigots just because he agrees global warming is real or came late to the HIV/AIDS prevention party.

On the other hand, given that Warren is a better sort of fundie than Dobson, it could be construed as a stroke of genius on Obama’s part to single-handedly crush the Dobson side of the fundie split.

I e-mailed your Freepi quotes directly to Beliveau, with a “look who you’re pandering to” footnote.

I’m kind of lazy.

............
what does this mean? “IMHO, the entire LBGT “community” are a bunch of brown-shirts trapped in rainbow attire.” i do not understand.

in other news, i really fucking hate people like the fundies you quoted here. why why WHY must they ALWAYS conflate homosexuality with pederasty and beastiality? WHY?!!?!??!?!?!?!!?!?

i am going to go scream into the freezer now.

I’m surprised and disappointed in Obama’s choice. I hope it’s not reflective of an instinct to pander.

I wish I could say I was surprised and disappointed in the comments.

On the other hand, given that Warren is a better sort of fundie than Dobson
That’s the entire problem; these people are so batshit insane that a bigoted moron like Rick Warren is considered “moderate.”

People who are too stupid to deal with the real world without clinging to bronze age superstitions need to just shut the fuck up. Why should we allow superstitious morons to hold their hoodoo ceremonies at government events?

I find it hard to believe that the extra-Reverend Mr. Rick Warren would stoop so low as to attend the Obama Obamanation, let alone address the snowflake baby killers. Still, I can only hope that his plan is to turn his back on the audience and drop his trousers in the name of J*sus, just to show that there’s no hard feelings against the BGTL’s, in spite of them going to hell for being Sodomites and all.

in other news, i really fucking hate people like the fundies you quoted here. why why WHY must they ALWAYS conflate homosexuality with pederasty and beastiality? WHY?!!?!??!?!?!?!!?!?

because homosexually is gross to them, but they have no real way of justifying an attempt to get rid of it beyond “it’s icky.” so better to simply try and conflate it with something that genuinely involves the exploitation and rape from that which cannot consent.

it’s really hard to try and ban something unless it, by itself, is demonstrably horrible. it’s a nigh sociopathic lack of empathy, but that’s what demonization is for. Demonic activities get banned. demons don’t eat dinner. they rape and murder and torture and spread disease and stuff.

The more I think about this, the more pissed I get.

This is an out-and-out insult to people of faith.

It presumes that people of faith aren’t particular about the actual content of a person’s faith.

My church celebrates same-sex marriage. My church believes that women should have easy and affordable access to contraception, and that such is key to combating poverty. My church believes that abortion is a matter of conscience between a woman, her care-provider, and her G-d. My church believes in access to affordable, high-quality daycare and other social supports for parents.

Rick Warren on the other hand claims to believe that a literal reading of Leviticus is somehow in keeping with the central message of the Gospels, to “do unto others,” “love thy neighbour,"* to “judge not lest ye be judged.”

Since I don’t believe he’s actually that out-and-out stupid, I can only conclude that he’s not a person of faith. That he’s not a Christian.

That he’s a bigoted demagogue masquerading as a Christian.

I wouldn’t share a stage with this man.

* - I’m pretty sure that’s actually from Romans, but still.

Andrew: Found (*) in Matthew 22:39. It’s gospel. Context: Loving neighbor is corollary to loving God.

It’s sadly exactly the sort of gesture I expected from Obama.

Rick Warren on the other hand claims to believe that a literal reading of Leviticus is somehow in keeping with the central message of the Gospels, to “do unto others,” “love thy neighbour,"* to “judge not lest ye be judged.”

No, Warren doesn’t believe in a literal reading of Leviticus.  He just uses it to bash homosexuals.  I’m sure he enjoys himself a good shrimp cocktail and wears poly-cotton blends.  I little Lycra reduces the need for ironing, what’s so sinful about that?

Except that the God of Leviticus hates shrimp more than gays and made wearing blended fabrics a sin as well.

Why does Barry think Warren is his friend?  That ‘debate’ was a travesty of an unconstitutional religious test for president.  Plus McCain got to hear everything in his ‘cone of silence’.

And didn’t Warren just give Bush a Peace Award?

This is bad.  I’m very disappointed in my erstwhile Senator.  He’s not the most liberal of guys in the first place, but this just seems stupid, in addition to being an insult to the LBGT community and those of us who believe in civil rights.

it’s really hard to try and ban something unless it, by itself, is demonstrably horrible. it’s a nigh sociopathic lack of empathy, but that’s what demonization is for. Demonic activities get banned. demons don’t eat dinner. they rape and murder and torture and spread disease and stuff.
karpad on 12/18 at 01:54 AM

I think you have that backwards, karpad. Homophobes aren’t using a separately existing, off-the-shelf technique called “demonization” to bash gays with--which would still after all leave the question of why they hate LGBTs so damn much in the first place unanswered.

The “reason” they hate gender diversity so much is a direct product of the mechanism of demonization, or rather the underlying world-view that requires and thus creates demonization. This worldview and its associated mindgames had its origin along with the rise of militarism, systematic theft, and the patriarchy in general, and creating a complex of fear--fear that oneself will be singled out for persecution and “punishment"--sublimated into hate of Others--is rooted deeply in gender issues, since a vital first step was to create gender polarization between men and women--or rather, idealized images of Man and Woman, which are roles no real person lives up (or down) to. Hence the reliable fear to be processed into obedience, hate, and cruelty.

Now that is a bigotry that dare not speak its own name, because to bring the process into the light of rational argument is to weaken its power, since in the end it all boils down to a protection racket.

One fear that reactionaries do dare articulate is their credo that actually civilization has no other binding glue than this sort of coercive “morality,” fundamentalist religion, after all, is this very belief stapled to a claim that their God exists and is the ultimate Enforcer--but again, that without coercion, Divine, in His name, or in the name of God as “noble lie,” we have no morals at all. Progressives know better…

Thus the case of “gay cooties” is a rather extreme but really typical example of the typical relationship of reactionaries with truth and reason. With their fundamental world-view anchored on rocks that will dissolve in the clear light of day, they go in for lots of darkness, obscurity, and mumbo-jumbo, which is a kind of mythic code that communicates their real meanings subconsciously.

The point, karpad, is precisely to keep the sort of rational, common-sense approach you appeal to--"it’s really hard to try and ban something unless it, by itself, is demonstrably horrible.’ That’s the way we ought to be, and I think that’s the way the human mind does fundamentally tend--but consider the converse--if something is demonstrably horrible, wouldn’t we therefore ban it? Yet, “civilization” as we know it depends on people not only tolerating but participating in ongoing horrors--war as one extreme, but also structural violence (that demands occasional demonstrations of overt violence) and the whole funhouse of gender demonization. We are not-banning all sorts of horrors and banning all kinds of non-horrors. It could be that people are just nuts, but I prefer to believe that the sorts of social mechanisms I have alluded to exist to distort individual rationality in the service of perpetuating a particular kind of society--one which has its own reasons for existing.

The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community.  They disagree on other issues as well.

This is basically what I wanted to hear—for a start. I can’t imagine a Republican responding to his supporters so quickly when he insults them. With Bush it was “screw you, sit in the park.”

That said, this statement not quite enough. Another letter then, asking Obama to clarify exactly which issues he disagrees with Pastor Warren on—and not just the LGBT ones (I will also ask him to make clear statements in re: athiests in office, stem cells, reproductive choice, etc.). If Obama chooses to share the stage with a bigot, the least he can do is explain specifically where he disagrees with him.

We speak a lot about Obama’s ability to make lemonade when handed lemons. This is an opportunity for liberals and progressives to get Obama to make some clear statements about his positions in advance of the inauguration. By the time he’s finished, maybe it’ll be Warren who refuses to attend despite his priestly greed for PR and money.

Although I don’t buy it 100%, I do like the idea being floated that this is Obama doing some divide-and-conquer on the Xtian fantasists—if I had the time and inclination, I’d head over to a Xtian fantasist forum and do some concern trolling on the topic. But unlike Dan in Denver and our other trolls, I have a life, and don’t really care what the mouth-breathers at Freeperland have to say.

In the end, though, Obama is making the same mistake as the MSM: giving bigoted believers in the supernatural, no matter how “reasonable” they present, equal standing with the reality-based community on issues like science and the law. At the very least, serious disclaimers are needed in advance of such appearances. For that reason, we should keep pressing Obama to make it clear exactly where he differs with Warren.

While I personaly also don’t think this means “abandon ship,” I am sort of weirded out by the number of self-identified liberals who have been telling me to chill out about this.  I don’t see why the immense symbolism of this move is above criticism just because it’s not “policy,” I don’t understand why “uniting America” somehow means the inclusion of people who hate and would in fact deny civil rights to a huge swath of it, and I’m not particularly entertained by the “Just let me enjoy this!” mantra of the entrenched Obama supporters.  Willful blindness never got anyone anywhere good.

It does look pretty Clintonish, doesn’t it?  We need another FDR, and another Bill Clinton won’t do it.

That said, we need to see what actually happens when he’s in office.  While this is very disappointing, joining the FISA cave-in and other disappointments, there’s still no doubt in my mind that Obama’s faults can’t come close to what another 4-years of crony-Republican devastation under McCain would have brought.

Let’s see what he does with his first year.  If there are accomplishments, good.  If there is mostly ineffectual Democratic spinelessness, we’ll yet again have to get our progressive message out there and try to get it taken seriously...if not by Obama, then we’ll start looking for somebody else…

And keep in mind:  the “Conservatives” have rejected just about every Republican president since Nixon (even St. Ronnie had his share) while every one of them was doing exactly what conservatives wanted.  The fact things went to shit was always blamed on the messenger, not the message. 

In light of that, it much more logical for us to reject Democrats who don’t do what Democrats are supposed to do but are instead Republican-Lite…

My follow-up letter:

Following up on my earlier message (copied below), I read your statement on the topic of reverend Warren. While I appreciate the following statement:

“The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community.  They disagree on other issues as well.”

It’s still important to the President-elect’s supporters that, should Mr. Obama choose to share this prominent stage with Dr. Warren, that he be more specific about his points of disagreement with Dr. Warren. In advance of the event Mr. Obama should issue a follow-up statement explicitly noting whether or not he agrees with Dr. Warren on the following topics:

* Should atheists and agnostics be allowed to hold public office? (Warren says “no")

* Should homosexuals, in the course of pursuing happiness, be allowed to avail themselves of the full package of legal rights afforded to heterosexuals by the state of marriage? (Warren says “no")

* Should women be allowed to avail themselves of reproductive rights, especially under the terms of Roe v. Wade? (Warren says “no")

I understand that the proper answers to these questions, based as they are in Constitutional rights and the law, are clear and obvious to a legal scholar like Mr. Obama. I also understand and trust that Mr. Obama’s personal and philosophical views areessentially sympathetic to liberal and progressive views on the matters.

However, given that Mr. Obama has invited someone who’s been outspoken in opposition to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence on these matters to share his stage, it is important to the President-elect’s supporters that he re-iterate his positions on these matters in advance of Dr. Warren’s appearance.

At the very least, making statements regarding the “common ground” that we, as Americans, all share through our nation’s founding documents and laws will re-enforce “the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect” and truly make the Inauguration “open, accessible, and inclusive” despite the presence of Dr. Warren and the baggage he carries.

I look forward to Mr. Obama’s follow-up statements on the issues described above, in advance of what I’m sure will be an exciting Inauguration that will give Americans renewed hope.

the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground

How many satanists will be there?  How many Nazis?  We want to bring people together, don’t we?

People who are too stupid to deal with the real world without clinging to bronze age superstitions need to just shut the fuck up.

Flies. Honey. Vinegar.  Just a reminder.

immense symbolism

“Immense symbolism?” Yeah, to the minority of us paying attention, it doesn’t look good.  I can almost guarantee the rest of America either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the Reverend’s positions on gay marriage.  To us, he’s a symbol of what’s wrong with Christianity, to most of America, he’s the kinder gentler Billy Graham. 

Not to forget that lost in all this is the pro-GLBT Rev Lowery bookending the inaugural address.

At this point, it’s a lose/lose situation.  Obama has to be quite aware that he has offended a large portion of his supporters, but then, so are all the wingnuts who will use every little disagreement to drive a wedge into Obama’s constituency. 

Rick Warren is a terrible choice, and I can’t understand why Obama considers him a friend, but well, thats between them.  There’s some reason he and Obama connect (naked ambition?), and all our letters aren’t going to change that.  He believes this will heal more than it will scar- I don’t share that opinion, I think a whole lot of people who were behind Obama are deeply hurt and offended, and the people he’s trying to pull over to his side aren’t going to be won this easily. 

But- the harm is done.  It can’t be fixed at this point.  Sending Rick away would only make things worse, not better.  The wingnuts don’t need any more ammunition- especially something that happens in the real world.  They need to keep right on with their wingnuttery- that’s been driving people away.  Why give them something real (like our not accepting their beloved preacher) to use against Obama and his progressive supporters. 

This isn’t a group I want to ally with in any way- but, obviously, Obama does.  He sees some good in them that I don’t.  I just hope he’s right.  If he could pull even 10% of them from the darkside, that would be huge!

Pam: Reading the Free Republic quotes you copied, I wonder just how you disagree with these:

Since his election to the position of President Elect, Obama has shown increasingly that he may be (emphasis on “may be") a pure old fashioned opportunist. He has betrayed the hard-core left most of all. Does that mean that conservatives can still hope? I dunno.

and

obama is actually pissing the left off more than the right

and

Obama shouldn’t have bothered trying to appease conservative evangelicals. It won’t work for the same reason compassionate conservatism (ie: liberal appeasement) didn’t work. Meanwhile, he’s pissed off a valuable constituency. I’m sure he has the same thought Jorge had, “where else are they gonna go?” but they might stay home next election. See where that got the Republican party?

and

By the way, they knew Obama’s stance on gay marriage didn’t they?

Mr Obama has pretty much done exactly what he told you he was going to do.  He didn’t support same-sex marriage, he likes Mr Warren, and he’s at least trying to broaden his appeal, just like he told you.

I didn’t believe a lot of what Mr Obama said he’d do during the campaign.  Sometimes I wonder if you didn’t believe him either, thinkingt that he really thought just like you (plural) did, and was just saying things designed to appeal to moderates who might otherwise vote for John McCain if he expressed leftist views.  Now that he’s at least starting out trying to do what he said he’d do, you can’t complain about that.

Good Lord, I’m defending Barack Hussein Obama!  What has this world come to?

Those Freeper quotes are good.

Good reminder of what’s out there. 

Yeechhh.

Dana

Don’t worry, you won’t be defending him for long.

Does anyone know how to make a killfile for certain commenters?

Flies. Honey. Vinegar.  Just a reminder.

Why?  Because religious fanatics are so nice to us?

Why?  Because religious fanatics are so nice to us?

So anyone who believes in a religion is a ‘religious fanatic’?

Gay rights supporters do not have the luxury of using “honey” over “vinegar,” since our very existence is considered impolite. And yes, I agree that people who are too stupid to make sense of the world other than with superstition ought not be attempting to define public policy and shove their susperstitions down everyone else’s throats.

Denalian, I think “brown-shirts” is code for “fascist”.  I know I dread the day when the LBGT community makes its putsch, and I have to start wearing tight-fitting shirts.

Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden.  He’s devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis.  In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren’s leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.

How is this not a valid point?  I know this may come as a shock to you, but disadvantaged LGBTs aren’t the only problem left in the country.  If you’ve got a guy who can successfully sell health care and progressive public works projects to the evangelical community, TAKE HIM.  Evangelicals aren’t going to get much better than this.

Warren is a political asset on a number of fronts that don’t involve gays.  Do you want cleaner energy?  Do you want to keep up pressure in getting troops home from the Middle East?  Do you oppose the ridiculous regressive tax scheme implemented under the Bush Admin?  How about agricultural subsidies to billion dollar business or clean drinking water standards for people in rural areas?  Care about any of that?  Warren gives you leverage on all those issues.

The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community.  They disagree on other issues as well.  But what’s important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America’s promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.

Yes, they’re dogmatic on the gay issue.  Yes, they’re backwards in more than a few of their political beliefs.  But putting Warren front and center after 20 years of Buchanan, Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and Huckabee - that’s change we can at least have hope in.

Also, if you’re quoting Freepers to make a point… you might not have a point.  These idiots were screaming about the Obama birth certificate just last week and the week before they were stockpiling canned goods and shotgun ammo for the coming Obamapocolypse.  They’re irrational.  Don’t quote them or you come off irrational too.

...in other news, gay rights groups will be more involved in this inauguration than in any inauguration before.  I think we’re going apeshit over this one guy, when he’s really just a small detail.  Obama will be the president of people who voted for him, and people who didn’t vote for him.  He will listen to and include people on the far-right, but he won’t enforce their agenda or let them write his policies.  He’s inclusive; this doesn’t change any of his great principles.  Actually, this just enforces them.

So anyone who believes in a religion is a ‘religious fanatic’?

No but Rick Warren sure is.

Evangelicals aren’t going to get much better than this.

If Rick Warren is a “good” evangelical that is an argument for marginalizing that bloc, not pandering to and strengthening it. 

Oh heck, maybe playing to these fanatics and thus giving them more power *wont’* come back to bite us in the ass.  I’m sure that, some day, they will come around and realize there’s nothing wrong with gay rights because. . . well, just because.  Religion, kept alive through outside support, neeeeever morphs into something worse.

leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis.

Unless he’s pushing condoms, and evangelicals are known for the opposite, he’s not really addressing the AIDS crisis in Africa: he’s making it worse.

Yes, it’s bizarre to see fundies actually put any effort into helping the sick, since Christ actually said that’s something his followers should do, but if they are pushing abstinence till marriage and then no contraception afterward, they are killing people.

They don’t care, b/c fornicators are evul, but unless you actually work toward lowering infection rates, you aren’t helping to address the global HIV/AIDS crisis.

------
Again, this man gave Bush a Peace Award.  Hypocrisy seems to be his strong suite.

I think he’s just like W--he seems like a good guy to hang out with and drink a beer.  Which somehow makes it easy for him to do monstrous things, b/c you like the guy, so how could he advocate evil?  Hasn’t the past 8 years taught us anything?

So His Majesty is telling the gays to bite him. Sweet.

Freepers making sense is one of the signs of the Apocalypse, right?

Luke wrote:

And yes, I agree that people who are too stupid to make sense of the world other than with superstition ought not be attempting to define public policy and shove their susperstitions down everyone else’s throats.

Ahhh, well how sad for you that we have the same privilege to vote as you do.

I almost clicked on that “stop abortion on demand” ad.

It’s awesome that the Freepers are pretending to give a shit about social justice.

I’m very disappointed but unfortunately not surprised that yet another Democrat feels like he is forced to ride the center when it comes to social issues.  Clinton did it, and I suspect that Hillary Clinton would have as well had she won the nomination and election (like Obama she is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but is also in favor of civil union rather than same-sex marriage).  None of them have been brave enough to fully and openly support freedom of choice or gay marriage.

If Rick Warren is a “good” evangelical that is an argument for marginalizing that bloc, not pandering to and strengthening it. 

No.  It is not an argument for “marginalizing that bloc”, particularly given how “that bloc” makes up a sizable chunk of undecided voters.  You don’t win political allies by marginalizing them.

Obama has a history of embracing rivals and working the middle on issues that the majority supports.  He worked with Lugar - a big anti-taxer and dergulator - on a bill to help limit nuclear weapons proliferation.  He worked with the Chicago police - another group not particulary LGBT friendly - to put cameras in interrogation rooms.  He’ll work with Warren on environmental concerns, on health care, on a better tax system, on poverty and disease control… all issues that majorities of gay folks still care about.

And yet, at the same time, Obama has been a vocal proponent of civil unions and anti-discrimination legislation while definitively opposing DADT.  His stance on “gay marriage” is that the state shouldn’t dictate what a church defines as marriage and his nuance here shouldn’t be missed as he embraces separation of Church and State (good!) while still pushing a pro-LGBT legislative agenda (also good!) without stepping in the ant hill that is fundie dogmatism (still good!)

He’s playing smart, keeping his friends close and his potential enemies closer, and he’s not running on the 50% + 1 strategy that defined the Bush Admin of the last eight years.  While Bush’s power grabs will get rolled back and bulwarked against in the future, Obama’s reforms will have staying power because they are reforms a significant majority of Americans will have embraced and supported.

And if Obama, in discussing environment and health care and poverty and disease control, can find a middle ground with Warren that gets gays civil rights without ruffling so many evangelical feathers, that’s even better.  It’s not enough to get another wave of court victories or top down legislative acts for gay rights.  You need a consensus from the public on the issue or you’ll just see another wave of Prop 8s in 2012 and 2016 to roll back any progressive strides you do make.  If you want to permanent progressive change, you’re going to have to go through Warren’s crowd sooner or later.  Better to have him a friendly opponent than an embittered nemesis.

Ahhh, well how sad for you that we have the same privilege to vote as you do.

Well, Dana, in a way, yes.  America has gone to the moon, created the modern computing society, and crafted the first modern secular, tolerant state.  And yet some people in it still want to live their lives according to what some primitive tribesman wrote down 2-3000 years ago whilst picking sand fleas out of his ass.  I’d call that damned sad.  And pathetic.  And irrational.

Say hi to your invisible friend for me.

The attendees of the inauguration should shout down the Rev. Warren when he invokes his god. I do not want to be united with religious scum or honor their myths.

“Denalian, I think “brown-shirts” is code for “fascist”.”

??? It’s note a ‘code’ at all, it’s a clear historical REFERENCE.  Geeze, read some history.

++++++++
(imo the ‘divide & conquor’ theory is extremely wishful thinking.)

I think this (Warren) is unfortunate, BUT: when you vote for CHANGE, you gotta expect some surprises.  And some of them will be unpleasant.

The attendees of the inauguration should shout down the Rev. Warren when he invokes his god. I do not want to be united with religious scum or honor their myths.

Well shit.  Then you might want to find a somewhere to live outside the UNITED states.  We’re stuck with them.  They’re stuck with us.  Stomping your feet and crying about it doesn’t make either side disappear in a puff of logic or a fart of fire and brimstone.

Dana,

You shouldn’t be.  You support an institution (religion) that is expressly antagonistic to the US, ie you believe in the Bible being more important than the US Constitution, ie treason.  Traitor-terrorists like you should not have rights.  You gave up your humanity to follow a scam perpetrated by conmen (clergy) to enslave yourself to their will and deny the chance at self-actualization ever human has, You support an anti-American, anti-human, anti-God cult and have signed away your humanity, and thus your claim to any rights.  In the end, you cannot and will not fully support the US like a true patriot, and such are, at best, a Fifth Colunmist - at worst, an unrepentant enemy of this nation.  Patriots realize that you cannot serve two masters: either the United States of America or Religion - pick one

Look, you get Obama to answer “yes” on those 3 questions I posed in my letter, and suddenly it’s Warren or his fellow believers in the invisible Bronze-age psychopath who are on the defensive. At that point Xtian fantasists will have to ask “why will the guy who wants to be the leader of our movement—the next Billy Graham—be blessing the inauguration of a President who loves fags, baby-killers, and Godless heathens?” And these bigots, Warren included, will have to decide whether his appearance is worth it. Meanwhile, Obama looks magnanimous for offering the invitation.

Just keep up the pressure—they’ve taken the first step by noting Obama;sgeneral disagreement with Warren. One more push on Obama to answer those specific questions clearly and I guarantee you that Warren will either appear and take a big blow to his legitimacy (and donations) in his community of bigots, or will have to bow out of the Inauguration and deny himself the mainstream legitimacy he craves.

Gay rights supporters do not have the luxury of using “honey” over “vinegar,” since our very existence is considered impolite

DING! DING! DING! DING!

Flies. Honey. Vinegar.  Just a reminder.

Depending on context, of course. Around here, I’m cool with mocking those who believe in sky fairies and use that that belief to justify their bigotry.  But when you’re trying to convince an ally outside your community of your position, honey does work better.

Did Warren really go on record as saying that atheists shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office?

Did Warren really go on record as saying that atheists shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office?

Yep—specifically the public office of POTUS. Here’s the video:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/warren-says-candidates-have-believe-god

KING: Rick Warren is our guest. Rick, let me ask you a couple of Rick Warren questions. OK?

WARREN: OK.

KING: Does a person have to believe in god to be president?

WARREN: I would say so. I couldn’t vote for a person who was an atheist, because I would think—I think the presidency is a job too big for one person. I would think there’s a little arrogance that says, I don’t need anybody else. I could vote for someone of different religions than mine, but I don’t know that I could personally vote for somebody who denies that we need somebody greater than ourselves to help us.

So in Warren’s view, if you don’t believe in some flavour of the Invisible Bearded Sky Man™, you shouldn’t be allowed to hold executive public office. Atheists need not apply.

Dana writes, “Ahhh, well how sad for you that we have the same privilege to vote as you do.”

Ahhh, but not the same ability to defend the merits of your position with argument. So you have to fall back on your right to vote without a rational discussion, whereas I can justify my vote and not have to make myself secure by trolling right-wing blogs and issuing sound-bite-style taunts.

Fair enough. You have the right to vote however you liek, without having to justify your choice to anyone. But eventually, truth wins out, as people are talking about the issue of LGBT rights all over the nation, and you will lose. I’m as impatient as most here on the pace of democracy when civil rights - constitutional matters that ought to be decided by courts - are concerned, but I’m at least happy I can make arguments to support my view of LGBT equality without having to resort to “Well, I get to vote just as much as you do, do ha!”

And just to forestall the usual hair-splitting by the trolls, the Presidency as a public office is just as subject to the Establishment Clause as any other public office in the U.S.. And Warren, as a self-styled representative of his community, is giving us more than just his personal opinion about how he’d vote.

Gracchus said:

Around here, I’m cool with mocking those who believe in sky fairies and use that that belief to justify their bigotry.  But when you’re trying to convince an ally outside your community of your position, honey does work better.

So, you think that somehow mocking people’s associates will be helpful somehow, but an ALLY, who by definition is already ON your side, gets the honey.  ‘Cuz that mockery has a bit of spillover, and church going moderates may feel under attack when people that sorta resemble them are attacked.  IOW, mockery is intrinsically “non-surgical”.

Honey may help an ally STAY on your side, but the LGBTs taste for mockery surely hasn’t helped it ACQUIRE allies.  I’ve seen some pretty counterproductive displays that were all vinegar, no honey, and surely turned many would-be allies into opponents.

One freeper said,

I have always said there is no difference between sex-preference and racism,

Huh? So unless you’re bi or asexual, you’re like a racist, because you prefer one gender over the other? Huh?

Blitzgal wrote:

None of them (Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama) have been brave enough to fully and openly support freedom of choice or gay marriage.

Your statement has the implicit assumption that they do favor those things and simply don’t have the courage to say so.  It might just be possible that they have expressed precisely what they believe.

So, you think that somehow mocking people’s associates will be helpful somehow, but an ALLY, who by definition is already ON your side, gets the honey.

An ally is not necessarily “already on your side”—it’s someone one might be trying to bring on side. For example, my letters to the Obama campaign require “honey,” and as it happens it’s the real McCoy, straight from my liberal honeycomb.

As for mocking people’s associates, it’s not personal. The church-going moderates around here haven’t taken serious enough offence at my (or, more to the point, Amanda’s) mockery of literal belief in supernatural entities to leave, mainly because church-going moderates who are regulars here generally have a sense of humour and perspective.

For the same reason, I don’t take the extreme homphobia and bigotry at places like Free Republic as a personal attack—they’re not looking to recruit me or change my mind, and I’m not making regular visits there. When Pam quotes them, I’m happy to make my own judgment about their statements on their merits (so to speak), and am confident that my flip and “vinegary” critique of belief in sky fairies would hold up far better than their flip and “vinegary” critique of liberalism, gays, atheists, etc.

It’s all about context, Eric. That and the First Amendment.

It’s interesting, and both amazing and amusing, that there are so many people here who have a problem with democracy.  In response to a snarky quip by me that people who believe things differently from the majority of people here still have the privilege to vote, we have seeker6079 @11:16 saying that it’s “sad” we have the vote, phalamir @ 11:21 saying that we “shouldn’t be” allowed to vote and that “Traitor-terrorists like you should not have rights,” and Luke @11:53 complaining that we cannot “justify” our votes, though, to be fair, he didn’t say we ought not to have them.

I’d point out here that denying people the privilege of voting because of their beliefs is something that could only be done by the power of the government—and were you to grant such power to the government, our current government, in deciding whose beliefs disqualified them from voting would have disqualified you, not me.  Surely no one here would say that the government, in an effort to prevent “traitor-terrorists” from voting the wrong way, should have done so and kept you from voting!

It’s really humorous that y’all are so supportive of democracy when things go your way, and so opposed when people disagree with you.

It might just be possible that they have expressed precisely what they believe.

Once one leaves the cloud-cuckooland of religious belief and joins us here on planet Earth, a lot of things “might just be possible.” But sadly, unlike in cloud-cuckooland, we require empirical evidence to test the truth of a proposition. I see a lot more evidence implying that all three politicians support reproductive choice and gay marriage. And furthermore, a lot of the neoCons who suckered Xtian fantasist Know-Nothings also support gay marriage and reproductive choice—albeit only for the wealthy and powerful.

It’s really humorous that y’all are so supportive of democracy when things go your way, and so opposed when people disagree with you.

I can’t speak for the others, but I’m with you on the issue of the vote 100%. One of the pre-conditions of a Western liberal democracy like ours is that it must allow citizens who also loathe Western liberal democracy (people like yourself, apparently) to vote. The great thing about the American experiment is that it’s survived for over 200 years despite the participation of right wing authoritarians and religious fanatics.

But Gracchus, you err: I don’t “loathe Western liberal democracy.” I simply disagree with the decisions that the voters took in 2008, just as you disagreed with the decisions taken by the voters in 2004.  Surely you wouldn’t have it said about yourself that, having been in the electoral minority in 2004, you were thereby defined as “loathing Western liberal democracy.”

You see, if we were “right-wing authoritarians,” there’d have been no election in 2006 or 2008.  We had the power after the 2004 elections, and were we what you believed us to be, 2004 would have been the last free election.  That it wasn’t, that there weren’t even any attempts to cancel those elections, pretty much makes your characterization of us as “right-wing authoritarians” overblown.

Come 2010, we’ll try to reduce or overturn the Democratic majorities in Congress, and come 2012, we’ll try to defeat Brack Obama.  I would expect that you would be very supportive of our right to try to persuade the electorate to do so, even though you’d almost certainly oppose our goals.

>>Flies. Honey. Vinegar.  Just a reminder.

Flies. Shit. Just a reminder.

But Gracchus, you err: I don’t “loathe Western liberal democracy.”

You misread me, Dana. In that sentence I was talking about Western liberal democracy in general, which is abouta lot more than “one person, one vote.” And, your own comments on this site do seem to indicate that you loathe the Enlightenment principles underlying Western liberal democracy—principles like the self evident truths contained in the Declaration, and those enshrined in the Establishment Clause. Allowing everyone the vote (or the right to run for and hold public office) is only one of those principles.

Tell you what: above I posed 3 questions I’d like to see Obama answer. Since you’re not bound by the same strictures of politics that he is, why don’t you take a brave stab at answering them yourself?

Here are the questions again, Dana:

* Should atheists and agnostics be allowed to hold public office?

* Should homosexuals, in the course of pursuing happiness, be allowed to avail themselves of the full package of legal rights afforded to heterosexuals by the state of marriage? [or civil unions, if you prefer—if the answer to that is “yes,” then tell us why “marriage” needs to be legally defined at all]

* Should women be allowed to avail themselves of reproductive rights [i.e. control of their own bodies], especially under the terms of Roe v. Wade?

While we wait for Dana’s answers, I will note that there would be one case in a “civil unions only” legal regime where “marriage” would have to be legally defined. But no hints from the audience, please.

Let me guess how Dana will answer your questions, Gracchus…

* Should atheists and agnostics be allowed to hold public office?
Of course not.  You have to be an American Citizen to hold public office…

* Should homosexuals, in the course of pursuing happiness, be allowed to avail themselves of the full package of legal rights afforded to heterosexuals by the state of marriage? [or civil unions, if you prefer—if the answer to that is “yes,” then tell us why “marriage” needs to be legally defined at all]
You lost me at “pursuing happiness”.  Gay people, by definition, are not, and can never be, happy.  Period.

* Should women be allowed to avail themselves of reproductive rights [i.e. control of their own bodies], especially under the terms of Roe v. Wade?
Control of your own body begins and ends (for women) with your choice of sanitary pad.  Tampons, of course, are out unless you are already married, as they threaten your virginity…

So, Dana, how did I do?…

MikeEss, I’m not asking Dana to project his innermost thoughts, however amusingly retrograde they might be. I’m more interested in seeing how he strains to align his answers with the Enlightenment principles that form the foundation of Western liberal democracies like ours.

particularly given how “that bloc” makes up a sizable chunk of undecided voters

Evangelicals are “undecided” voters?  On what planet?  This past election they were the most solidly Republican part of the electorate, by far.  They are the blacks of the Republicans.

In response to a snarky quip by me that people who believe things differently from the majority of people here still have the privilege to vote

Oh boo hoo.  Only 80% of the country has the same religious beliefs as you.  How alone you must feel.

We had the power after the 2004 elections, and were we what you believed us to be, 2004 would have been the last free election. 

That assumes the modern right wing can find its ass with a map and a compass.  Dick Cheney thinks Guantanamo Bay is “well-run”.  Bush thought Brownie did a “heckuva job”.  These are people for whom competence is not a value.

I’d point out here that denying people the privilege of voting because of their beliefs is something that could only be done by the power of the government

Diebold, line 2.

If you want to permanent progressive change, you’re going to have to go through Warren’s crowd sooner or later.

Then we’re f**ked.

What’s wrong with top-down change?  That’s how we got the slaves freed, women voting, civil rights laws passed, and abortion rights.  Do you really believe that 100% of the electorate has to be behind an initiative for it to have a chance? 

It sucks that Prop 8 passed.  But one law passed by Congress next year and Prop 8 takes a stake through its cold, rotten heart.  And there won’t be a single thing the Rick Warrens of the world can do about it.

“I’m more interested in seeing how he strains to align his answers with the Enlightenment principles that form the foundation of Western liberal democracies like ours.”

Good luck.  In my experience, he’ll figure out some way to ignore any worthwhile questions and answer something you didn’t ask, or just pretend he didn’t see your questions at all.

You’d have to get Dana drunk in a hometown bar before you’d be able to penetrate his conservative, protective shell of feigned ignorance and wingnut talking points…

Good luck.  In my experience, he’ll figure out some way to ignore any worthwhile questions and answer something you didn’t ask, or just pretend he didn’t see your questions at all.

There’s a very good chance he will—when I can be bothered to corner him with questions like this, or when I make him aware of inconvenient facts or flaws in his logic, he usually just vanishes from the thread. Which is part of the fun for me.

I do hope he just stepped away to have a snack, and that he returns to answer those questions. That’ll be just as much fun as his slinking away.

sad
–adjective, sad⋅der, sad⋅dest.
1.  affected by unhappiness or grief; sorrowful or mournful…
2.  expressive of or characterized by sorrow…
3.  causing sorrow: a sad disappointment…
4.  (of color) somber, dark, or dull; drab.
5.  deplorably bad; sorry…

Odd.  According to Dana one of the definitions of sad is that I hate democracy and want to strip him of his civil rights.  Weird that it isn’t there.

Thanks for proving a point, though, Dana.  People like you believe that some of your fellow citizens should be stripped of their civil rights because their very existence goes against words in a book written between two to three millennia ago by people who supposedly talked to an all-powerful being ... who, very conveniently, hasn’t been since nor does he ever supposedly communicate with anybody except those who have a vested interest in maintaining that he exists. 

By way of comparison, I want everybody to have civil rights—even people who disagree with me, even delusional but functional fantasists—and find it upsetting that bigots who believe in a psychopathic santa from olden times can mobilize to trump the hard-won human rights of others.  And you think I’m undemocratic? 

Thanks for proving a point that others have made well in past threads: one of the identifiers of a modern religious conservative is that he believes that if others have the rights that he has then he is, naturally, persecuted.  People who want universal civil rights are against democracy.  Up is down.

Face it.  You’re a well-read, well-spoken culturally narcissistic bigot.

What’s wrong with top-down change?  That’s how we got the slaves freed, women voting, civil rights laws passed, and abortion rights.  Do you really believe that 100% of the electorate has to be behind an initiative for it to have a chance?
It sucks that Prop 8 passed.  But one law passed by Congress next year and Prop 8 takes a stake through its cold, rotten heart. And there won’t be a single thing the Rick Warrens of the world can do about it.

Point 1:  The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed by Congress, and it was not “top down”.  It took a great deal of political wrangling to get those acts passed.

Point 2:  Congress is not going to pass a law enacting marriage equality in the next several years.  Period.

Additionally, it would likely take a Constitutional amendment to overrule state constitutions that currently outlaw same sex marriage.  Considering how many states have passed anti-same sex laws in the past several years, an amendment would never get ratified.  DADT can be repealed, DOMA can be repealed, but we’re going to have to wait for the Supreme Court to come around before we see true marriage equality in every state in this country.

No, Warren doesn’t believe in a literal reading of Leviticus.  He just uses it to bash homosexuals.  I’m sure he enjoys himself a good shrimp cocktail and wears poly-cotton blends.  I little Lycra reduces the need for ironing, what’s so sinful about that?

Hmmph!  Typical cafeteria Chr*stian.  The congregation at my church (The Reformed Aryan Church of White Butte) lives by Bible literallity, as it is the word and command of G*d.  Of course, we’re persecuted by the jack-booted thugs of the Montana State Police over the last couple of stonings we’ve held in the parking lot, as we live in a sinful, secular nation (for the moment, heh).

Point 1:  The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed by Congress, and it was not “top down”.  It took a great deal of political wrangling to get those acts passed.

Well, I would consider Congress to be part of “the top”.  And, on the one hand if they hadn’t passed those laws, then the civil rights movement would have continued to go from town to town, staging sit-ins and voter drives, until all of America was purged of Jim Crow.  On the other hand, that probably would not have happened by 1968 when MLK was assassinated.

Point 2:  Congress is not going to pass a law enacting marriage equality in the next several years.  Period.

There’s a chance they will nullify one piece of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Then, a gay Californian can go to Massachusettes and get married and Cali will have to recognize their union.

Additionally, it would likely take a Constitutional amendment to overrule state constitutions that currently outlaw same sex marriage. 

I’m not a Constitutional lawyer but I don’t see that.  The Constitution already says that all states must respect agreements entered into in one state.  Like a marriage.

We’re stuck with them.  They’re stuck with us.

Only in the national sense. Bareback Church members do not want a vociferous apathetic agnostic attending their bible studies in order to spread skepticism, and two fisted drinkers/smokers who also happen to play softball do not want Bareback Church members attending their drinking parties in order to evangelize. These two types of individuals might make great neighbors to each other, which is how they could be ‘stuck’ together as citizens, but they would disrupt each other’s groups othewise.

I’m not a Constitutional lawyer but I don’t see that.  The Constitution already says that all states must respect agreements entered into in one state.  Like a marriage.

Which is why I’m dying for DOMA to come up in the Supreme Court, because it’s absolutely indefensible under FF&C;.

“-- Only in the national sense. --”

And in national political theater a la the Presidential Inauguration (or, say, in a statewide vote on a proposition to ban gay marriage) that’s kinda what matters.  Your fellow Americans aren’t going away, so you need to either deal with them or convince them.  Pretending they don’t exist by actively excluding them from your political groups just inspires them to work against you.

The goal is to break the political stranglehold that the GOP has on the faith-based community.  You may not want their bibles or their brow-beatings, but you’ll want their votes when it comes time to deal with non-gay-rights related issues.

You may not want their bibles or their brow-beatings, but you’ll want their votes when it comes time to deal with non-gay-rights related issues.
Yes, because embracing the cancer of religious hatred and idiocy worked out so well for the Republican party. I can hardly wait until the Democratic party gets it’s own Sarah Palin! Yay!

I cannot perceive an issue where members of Saddleback Church will side with me so that I could count on their support. Progressive taxation? Nope. Financial and environmental regulation? Nope. Only imprisoning criminals who are a danger to body and property? Nope. Dismantle the military? Hell no! Increase welfare? Nope. Abortion? Ha Ha. Investigate W. Bush for war crimes? Nope. I am not in opposition with the religious right just because of their activism to deny homosexuals civil rights. On every political issue we are in conflict. Instead of embracing the religious right, they should be marginalized. They are not the silent majority or any majority, but a vocal righteous group given sustenance by capital, or the partriarchy, in order to derail progressive politics with religious platitudes that arouse some American’s emotions.

The goal is to break the political stranglehold that the GOP has on the faith-based community.

If you’re using the term “faith-based community” as an direct antonym to the term “reality-based community,” breaking that GOP stranglehold will be an impossible goal.

If you’re using the term “faith-based community” to describe religious people, you’ll find that many of them—Quakers, UCCers, many Catholics, moderate Jews and Muslims, and even some evangelicals—broke that stranglehold years ago. Those groups may believe in sky fairies, but as long as they don’t try to impose those beliefs on us we can live with them.

If you’re using the term “faith-based community” to describe that fundamentalist subset of Christians who’d follow Warren and Robertson and their bigoted ilk, frankly the GOP can have them. They’re a large voting block to be sure, but as long as we hold the line or advance it in increments, with every passing election cycle and every new cohort of 18-year-old voters the GOP’s grasping fingers will lose their purchase on a dwindling resource of marks and suckers.

I don’t think the GOP has a stranglehold on fundamentalist christian voters. The GOP is actively representing their views. That their views coincide with oppression of anyone who isn’t a straight white xtian male is the reason the GOP represents fundies, instead of the democrats. And really, I’m not interested in belonging to a political party that preaches hate 24/7, which is what the democrats would have to do, to acquire that voting block.

The Right will always scream about the Fairness Doctrine, save when it works in their favor.

Jane Hamsher:

Rick Warren gets a free ride, tax-wise, from me, because his political action committee is disguised as a “church”. That’s bad enough, and I plan to work hard to take away his free ride, but what’s worse is that Joe Biden is asking me again and again for a donation so that he and Barack Obama can give Rick Warren, hate-monger, a platform. Joe, I’ve watched the transition and I’ve held my tongue and given you guys a chance to show your true colors. But don’t ask me for any more money until you figure out that Rick Warren hasn’t been buttering your bread. People like me have been doing that, and we are getting a little ticked off.

Yes, because embracing the cancer of religious hatred and idiocy worked out so well for the Republican party.

Amen.

Church members do not want a vociferous apathetic agnostic attending their bible studies

That is soooo not fair!  Rick Warren looks like the manliest of men.  A 12 on the scale of manliness if ever there was one.

“A 12 on the scale of manliness if ever there was one.”

...and a 250+ on the other kind of scale...?

Gracchus asked me:

Here are the questions again, Dana:

* Should atheists and agnostics be allowed to hold public office?

Our constitution says that there shall be no religious test to hold federal office, and I agree with that.  However, that does not mean the voters cannot or should not take a candidate’s procl;aimed faith, or lack thereof, into consideration; the voters have the right to base their votes on whatever criteria they choose.

* Should homosexuals, in the course of pursuing happiness, be allowed to avail themselves of the full package of legal rights afforded to heterosexuals by the state of marriage? [or civil unions, if you prefer—if the answer to that is “yes,” then tell us why “marriage” needs to be legally defined at all]

With the limitation to civil unions, the answer is an unqualified yes.  With regard to legal marriage, as long as churches are given full protection from being sued or punished if they refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, the answer is, again, yes.

We define marriage legally because it is an institution with various legal and economic points which are different from shacking up.  To use our hostess as an example, if Marc is charged with a crime, Amanda can be compelled to testify against him, where if I am accused of a crime, Elaine cannot be compelled to testify against me, because we are legally married.

Economically, marriage is, in one way, a form of corporation.  For example, Marc could set up his 401(k) to be inherited by anyone he chooses should he die, while I must have my wife’s written permission to assign my 401(k) to anyone but her, should I pass away.  The list is nearly endless.

We have marriage legally defined because marriage has been a part of human civilization for as far back as we have any records; it’s part of every culture and society, and society considers it to be the preferred arrangement.

* Should women be allowed to avail themselves of reproductive rights [i.e. control of their own bodies], especially under the terms of Roe v. Wade?

Women—and men—should have every right to use contraception, to prevent conception.  But once a human life is created—and human life begins at conception as far as I am concerned—then the right to life of the child outweighs every consideration other than an immediate threat to the life of the mother.

Mr Ess asked:

So, Dana, how did I do?…

Poorly, I’m afraid.  You are arguing against your caricature of me, and not against me.

Rebecca: Your statement concerning the Full Faith and Credit clause is inaccurate.  From Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident:

And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events

Congress has the power to apply the Full Faith and Credit clause by legislation.

While I can easily see the Congress repealing or amending the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy, it’s difficult to see a repeal of DoMA.  If the voters in California rejected same-sex marriage when the question was put to them, why would you think that many congressmen from Idaho or Iowa or Virginia or Georgia or Indiana would stick their political necks out to do something that the voters clearly oppose?  They really don’t need to do so, and won’t.  For their own safety, you can count on the House and Senate leadership keeping such legislation from ever seeing the light of day.

Mr Ess wrote:

You’d have to get Dana drunk in a hometown bar before you’d be able to penetrate his conservative, protective shell of feigned ignorance and wingnut talking points…

I suppose, then, that you’d be disappointed to know that my drink of choice is Mountain Dew.® While I’m not a committed teetotaler, and do take that sip of sacramental wine every Sunday, other than that I simply don’t drink alcohol.  I just don’t like the stuff.

Gracchus wrote:

I do hope he just stepped away to have a snack, and that he returns to answer those questions. That’ll be just as much fun as his slinking away.

Well, I stepped away for much longer than a snack; hope you’ll forgive that, but I don’t have the luxury of trolling on Pandagon all the time! 

Thanks for the response.

Our constitution says that there shall be no religious test to hold federal office, and I agree with that.  However, that does not mean the voters cannot or should not take a candidate’s procl;aimed faith, or lack thereof, into consideration; the voters have the right to base their votes on whatever criteria they choose.

So you disagree with Warren’s public statement on this matter—one point in your favour. Warren makes it clear that he thinks people who don’t believe in the Invisible Bearded Sky Man™ are unfit for public office.

Do you think it unreasonable that Americans who support the Constitution should object to a man who opposes one of its key provisions having a place on the Inauguration stage?

With the limitation to civil unions, the answer is an unqualified yes.  With regard to legal marriage, as long as churches are given full protection from being sued or punished if they refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, the answer is, again, yes.

The Founding Fathers would be proud of that answer. Rick Warren? Not so much. The protection you mention is already in place under the terms of the Establishment Clause, so all this hand-wringing from the right over churches being “forced” is bed-wetting nonsense. In any case, I would challenge you to name any supporter of gay marriage on this site who’s ever demanded that churches be punished if they refuse to perform a same-sex marriage.

Personally, I think that the state should get rid of the redundancy—make “civil unions” (available to any couple) the basis of the package of legal rights and privileges you describe, and leave “marriage” to hoo-doo men like Warren as a ceremony that’s meaningless in the eyes of the state. The exception I mentioned would be to grandfather in existing marriage licenses pre-dating civil unions as an equivalent.

Do that and all this “definition of marriage” nonsense becomes a non-issue. Of course, that’s precisely the reason Xtian fantasist leaders would oppose such a reasonable solution—that and their bigotry.

Do you think it unreasonable that Americans who support the ideals of the Declaration of Independence should object to a man who (by his support of Nuremberg-style legislation like Prop 8) opposes one of its key provisions having a place on the Inauguration stage?

Women—and men—should have every right to use contraception, to prevent conception.  But once a human life is created—and human life begins at conception as far as I am concerned.

1/2 a point—unlike you (but like Bush), Warren is opposed to the use of contraception. However, he does believe that a non-cognizant blastocyst attached to the womb lining of a 16 year old rape victim is the equivalent of, say, a 35-year-old Jewish concert pianist, married with children, who was imprisoned in Germany ca. 1943 (do you?).

The abortion issue excepted (and it is a big exception), you’re in agreement on these key issues with myself and most liberals and progressives who post on this site (and very likely Obama). And you stand directly against Rick Warren (and Pat Robertson) on those same issues. Combine that with your defense of Obama, and they might take away your troll card.

So my follow-up question is this: given that the Inauguration is a celebration of the underpinnings of Western liberal democracy that you and I appreciate, don’t you find it offensive (or at least odd) that a man who (QED above) loathes several of its key principles will be given a prominent role at that celebration?

I mean, I’m all for free speech and inclusivity, but this makes as much sense as inviting a Christian Identity preacher to give the invocation at the opening of the Boise NAACP centre.

Also, I’m curious: is it the abortion issue that drives you to troll? Or perhaps the mockery of your belief in invisible men? Or is it just some bizarre and empty passtime?

what does this mean? “IMHO, the entire LBGT “community” are a bunch of brown-shirts trapped in rainbow attire.” i do not understand.

Denelian, “Brown Shirts” is a reference to the SA, the action arm of the early Nazi party as it rose to power in Germany. They’re the wankers who were used to smash windows and beat up opposing political groups, and were themselves purged as the Nazis turned into a government. 

In the end, though, Obama is making the same mistake as the MSM: giving bigoted believers in the supernatural, no matter how “reasonable” they present, equal standing with the reality-based community on issues like science and the law.

Teeny tiny minor problem - you live in America, where believers in the supernatural are the vast majority.  I believe Obama was elected President of America, not an atheistic sin of depravity like Sweden.

But Gracchus, you err: I don’t “loathe Western liberal democracy.” I simply disagree with the decisions that the voters took in 2008, just as you disagreed with the decisions taken by the voters in 2004.

Dana, I recall you writing on your blog that you would prefer that Republicans win by cheating to Democrats winning by a fair vote. Would you care to correct my recollection or expand on that comment here?

Feel free to explain how this position is consistent with “Western liberal democracy"…

Gracchus asked:

So you disagree with Warren’s public statement on this matter—one point in your favour. Warren makes it clear that he thinks people who don’t believe in the Invisible Bearded Sky Man™ are unfit for public office.

Do you think it unreasonable that Americans who support the Constitution should object to a man who opposes one of its key provisions having a place on the Inauguration stage?

Depends on what he meant.  Did he mean that atheists should be constitutionally barred from holding public office, which would be at odds with the Constitution, or that people should not vote for atheists, because he considers them to be unfit to hold public office?  If it was the latter, then he has every right to express such a view, and voters have every right to take his views into consideration, or dismiss them.

Gracchus answered:

The Founding Fathers would be proud of that answer.

No, I rather doubt that.  The Framers would have thought that homosexuals should be confined to an insane asylum.  We shouldn’t apply a 21st century mindset to eighteenth century men.

Rick Warren? Not so much. The protection you mention is already in place under the terms of the Establishment Clause, so all this hand-wringing from the right over churches being “forced” is bed-wetting nonsense. In any case, I would challenge you to name any supporter of gay marriage on this site who’s ever demanded that churches be punished if they refuse to perform a same-sex marriage.

The Establishment Clause means that we cannot establish an official Church of the United States.  However, civil law already regulates aspects of religion: a church may not attempt to perform a plural marriage, Catholic Charities must, at least in California, provide contraceptive services as part of its health insurance program, Catholic schools must have state-accredited teachers, certain Indian churches which wish to use peyote cannot, things of that nature. 

I brought up this point several times on this fine site, and every time my concern was pooh-poohed as being unreasonable.  Yet, when I responded that, if the Establishment Clause addressed my concerns fully, then additional language to insure it was simply a redundancy, which harmed no one—and that additional language was still resisted here.  Why?  If my concerns are unfounded, adding the kind of language I’d like to see wouldn’t harm your cause in the least.

Gracchus wrote:

1/2 a point—unlike you (but like Bush), Warren is opposed to the use of contraception. However, he does believe that a non-cognizant blastocyst attached to the womb lining of a 16 year old rape victim is the equivalent of, say, a 35-year-old Jewish concert pianist, married with children, who was imprisoned in Germany ca. 1943 (do you?).

Yes, I do believe that an unborn child, at every stage of development, is a living human being, regardless of the circumstances of his conception.

I’ve seen it argued here many times—as well as by Amanda in her book—that pro-life people want to end artificial contraception.  Amanda pulled out some obscure group with no real support as her “evidence.” But while there may be a few people who hold that position, the point is that they are very few.  I do see a difference between contraception designed to prevent fertilization—spermicides, barrier methods and sterilization—and methods which are designed to prevent implantation, such as the IUD or the so-called “morning-after” pill.

The fact is that the vast majority of people in the US support the availability of artificial contraception, and that simply will not change.  Griswold v Connecticut established that the state had no right to impede the use of artificial contraception, and in the few years before that, few did.

I rather doubt that President Bush wants to ban artificial contraception by itself; y’all are interpreting that from his attempts to restrict funding to agencies which provide both contraception and abortion.  Apparently Mrs Bush had to use fertility drugs to get pregnant in the first place, so the Bushes themselves might not have ever needed artificial contraception, though it’s possible they used it at first.

Phoe: you are taking a throwaway laugh line as serious; it wasn’t.

Gracchus wrote:

The abortion issue excepted (and it is a big exception), you’re in agreement on these key issues with myself and most liberals and progressives who post on this site (and very likely Obama). And you stand directly against Rick Warren (and Pat Robertson) on those same issues. Combine that with your defense of Obama, and they might take away your troll card.

As I have said, you (plural) were arguing against a caricature of me, and not me.  I believe in as little government interference in the lives of people as is possible to retain civilization.  I am an absolutist on the First and Second Amendments, which would, doubtlessly, put me on both sides of the usual Pandagon crowd.

The difference on abortion is simple: I believe that an unborn child is a living human being, who has rights. 

So my follow-up question is this: given that the Inauguration is a celebration of the underpinnings of Western liberal democracy that you and I appreciate, don’t you find it offensive (or at least odd) that a man who (QED above) loathes several of its key principles will be given a prominent role at that celebration?

Hardly.  Rick Warren supported Proposition 8, which really has the dander of the Pandagonistae up, but, though I don’t know if Barack Obama addressed Propositioon 8 directly, he did say that he supported civil unions but was opposed to same-sex marriage; that’s actually consistent with Mr Obama’s position.

And while there are some differences between Messrs Obama and Warren, if Mr Obama were to confine his coronation inauguration to people with whom he was in 100% agreement, you’d have a small inauguration indeed!  For one, you couldn’t go! 

Also, I’m curious: is it the abortion issue that drives you to troll? Or perhaps the mockery of your belief in invisible men? Or is it just some bizarre and empty passtime?

You can’t engage the enemy unless you advance onto the battlefield. 

To me, there is little fun in political debates only with those who agree with you.  I don’t read every thread on Pandagon, and since Jesse Taylor returned, read less than previously, simply because the volume of posts has increased so much.  But some threads are fun.

Phoe: you are taking a throwaway laugh line as serious; it wasn’t.

I didn’t pick it as a throw away line; at most, half in jest.

Would you care to provide a link to that thread so people can judge for themselves?

“why why WHY must they ALWAYS conflate homosexuality with pederasty and beastiality? WHY?!!?!??!?!?!?!!?!?

i am going to go scream into the freezer now.”

Why?  Cuz otherwise they have nothing to talk about, no argument, no basis for “righteous” indignation.  They are so berefet of intelligence, of logic ability and full of fear.  Anger (and angry talk) is simply deep-seated fear. 

This too shall pass; a few years (months?) after the inauguration Warren (as much as he disgusts me) will be forgotten under the crush of really important issues.  Such as how to dig out from under the really stupid economic policies of previous administrations.

c.f. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/20/134147/77/824/675491