Rick Warren to Deliver Invocation at Inauguration

[sauu4equality]

Just wanted to let everyone know about this. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/obama-inauguration-rick-w_n_151785.html) My gut reaction was to feel punched in the gut again and lose all hope for gay rights. But Rick Warren in his interview with beliefnet did not oppose civil unions. He is a step up from Dobson and even his mind seems to be changing a bit. However, he is still very anti-gay and I feel unfit for this role. I can still see this as a political move, but someone is going to feel very betrayed by the end of Obama's presidency. Now, fundies and moderate Christians who oppose full equality are going to be angry if Obama attempts to gain full equality for GLBT folks. And we are already planning on being upset because he likely will not even seek civil unions. As someone who is opposed to any rigid view of religion and is disgusted by people with "answers", having a Christian-Exclusionist deliver the Invocation is just annoying and, in my mind, un-American. A universalist should always be chosen for this honor. :headbang: :injured:

[antiochian]

So, Obama's tryin' to smooch up to the religious powers-that-be? That's just what we need. Get the nutty religious leaders into the Presidential circle, and we're JWF. Had enough of that with Bush, thank you.

[Matt Algren]

You beat me to it sauu. FWIW, here's my post on the subject (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2008/12/homophobic-bigot-to-give-invocation-at-president-obamas-inauguration/), with contact links for the committee members and Obama's LGBT liason for the transition team.

antiochian, this was decided by a committee of House and Senate leadership (again with the linky) (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2008/12/homophobic-bigot-to-give-invocation-at-president-obamas-inauguration/), not the Obama team. Frankly, it has John Boehner's fingerprints all over it.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Andrew Sullivan today 12-17-08 (see his blog at www.andrewsullivan.com) also expresses his disappointment about Rick Warren having a prominent role at the inauguration.

I think Obama's people are making the assumption that Rick Warren is a fit representative of spiritual people in America, and that he is not viewed as excluding some Americans as "second-class." This is obviously a mistake on Obama's part. We ought to let him know.

I'm not at all opposed to protesting the new administration. I voted for him and look forward to the end of the Bush dysfunctional dictatorship, but we need to keep the pressure up on the new administration to do the right thing--there will be others pressuring for the wrong thing for sure!

Steven Webster

[Unmasked]

The cards predicted anger and betrayal this election season. I was hoping that it would be just Prop 8 and similar ballot initiatives that lead to those feelings. We'll have to wait this out. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it's a play to the religious (I think either Rick Warren is going to lose favor or Obama will gain a modicum of good will at my school, it'll be a nice break from "die baby killer muslim die"), or maybe we've been had. I hope we haven't. The right to have Uncle Sam out of our bedrooms is an important one. It's creepy, having him watch like that.

[Daniel]

Why? He tried this same kind of thing during his campaign. And it was offensive then. And it's still offensive now. It's the same situation all over again. Obama didn't 'get' it that time, and he doesn't seem to be 'getting' it now.

The Obama people are released this some talking points.

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/12/obama-camp-rele.html

My response? I agree with Hilary Rosen, who made some cogent remarks last night on CNN to Anderson Cooper.

"First the glibness, that, well it's just a bunch of gays being unhappy that people don't agree with them, is wrong. You know, (at) one time the Bible was used to justify slavery. If this was a preacher, out there, using more weapons against African-Americans we wouldn't even be having this conversation, so second of all, the fact that we're even having a conversation, means that this is a mistake in choice. This is a day when people are to be brought together. There are hundreds of preachers across the country with stature and thoughtfulness and other ways to bring this country together on an inauguration day for the new president. That's the choice he should have made."

There is a disconnect going on. Having the KKK on stage would be offensive to blacks, right? So how is this any difference? Here you have a man (Warren) who believes that marriage and God's favor are reserved for straight people. The KKK believe that marriage and God are reserved for white people.

Bigotry, no matter if it is about race of sexual orientation, is- at the end of the day- bigotry!

If Obama wants to be inclusive, then he can do that behind the scenes, where this kind of thing is supposed to happen. He has his rights. We don't have ours. And for him to parade someone who doesn't want us to have our rights before the nation is not inclusiveness, it's an affirmation of the status quo.

When did our civil rights- or lack of them- become a talking point? Obama just isn't getting it here, putting out the thought we should all play nice and get along- 'you have your preacher and I have mine...what the problem?' He may think he is above all this. But guess what? This is going to bite him in the ass.

The problem Mr. President Elect, is that you have arrived at the table, and we are not happy with the scraps you can throw our way. We aren't dogs. And you aren't the master.

And we will have civil rights with or without you.

[Daniel]

Obama Selects Evangelist for Invocation

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: December 17, 2008
Barack Obama has selected the Rev. Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor and author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, a role that positions Mr. Warren to succeed Billy Graham as the nation’s pre-eminent minister and reflects the generational changes in the evangelical Christian movement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/us/politics/18inaug.html?hp


The nation's pre-eminent minister?

So there you have it.

This isn't a case of 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first'. What I mean by that is that the minister who supports full equality- and is participating- isn't getting the 'pre-eminent' positioning here. Are we talking about him? No.

What are we talking about? Warren. And his anti-gay views. And Obama's myopia.

Wanna define yourself? Have people like Warren speak for you by placing them in front of the camera's and 'invoking' God. That'll do it. Will anyone be reading your talking points...blah blah blah?

Nope.

Ok...the buzzer just went off. Times up. All in favor of protesting raise your hand!

[Matt Algren]

Ok...the buzzer just went off. Times up. All in favor of protesting raise your hand!
I'm wondering how loud the silence will be during the prayer. Maybe a couple thousand little ipods with little speakers playing Diana Ross's "I'm Coming Out"? Aretha will be there; how about R-E-S-P-E-C-T?

And I'm not sure religious conservatives will be jumping up and down over this any more than we are. As much as Warren toes the line politically, there's long been frustration within religious circles because he doesn't teach exactly what they want.

[sauu4equality]

One advantage to this pick is that Christianists (Andrew Sullivan's word as far as I know) can no longer say that Obama's appointment was not ordained by "God." Because their holy man will be blessing his Presidency. Now, they have to work to make this country better too. And economic prosperity will once again breed progressive public policy. I find it very interesting that all of these people (the recent thwarted NAE VP and Rick Warren and even the LDS) seem to be rhetorically supporting civil unions. Well, fellas, I gotta see it to believe it. You want to make an equal institution to marriage? Then do it. We all know this is lip service, but lip service is what convinces people to change their minds. And what happens in country's that have civil unions for a while? They get Gay Marriage. Something I think conservatives truly fear, but we have their word...and maybe to some Christianists that still means something.

[keltic63]

Washington Blade article (http://www.washingtonblade.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=23066)about this topic.

and btw, the "stephenclark" who made the first comment is not me. I'm "Steven"

[keltic63]

aaaaaaacccckkkkk!!!!!!!!!



Obama's digging himself a big hole! (http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=23069)


Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues. He also said it's "no secret" that he's a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians - and he said that support will continue.

[Daniel]

From the article posted by Steve...

The president-elect says a "wide range of viewpoints" will be presented during the inaugural festivities.

Agree. The First Law of Holes is....STOP DIGGING!

This has the making of a Clintonian Mistake. Remember Don't Ask Don't Tell? That started in the first weeks of Clinton's administration. And here is Obama, not even in office yet, stumbling on gay rights from the get go.

So....gay rights have been reduced to a viewpoint.

Nice. Nice nice.

How about we reduce civil rights for blacks to a viewpoint?

All hell world break loose if we did that!

[keltic63]

I've made contact with the transition team:


I'm writing to say that I'm heartily disappointed with the recent selection of Rick Warren to participate in the Inauguration Ceremony. I am a gay man, legally married in MA recently, and have given my support to the Obama campaign and election. This choice of Warren is like a slap in my face. Inviting Warren to offer a prayer, when he has compared my loving relationship to child abuse is a huge insult, and shows a disregard for the community that rallied behind Obama. To brush this off as a symbol of "coming together" on social issues, is to say that my life, my rights, and the question of my equality is open for debate by this new administration. Civil Rights for gay and lesbian people is not simply a social issue, a concept to be debated, it is a reality that so many of us have to live, and often endure, everyday of our lives. Please, reconsider the inclusion of Rick Warren in this Inauguration. Stop digging in your heels, and listen to the cries of the people who helped you get elected!
Steve Clark


I encourage you to do the same (http://change.gov/). I had trouble getting the "contact" page to load. I couldn't link to that page, perhaps you'll have better luck.

[Matt Algren]

I've made contact with the transition team:



I encourage you to do the same (http://change.gov/). I had trouble getting the "contact" page to load. I couldn't link to that page, perhaps you'll have better luck.
Remember to contact the members of the Inauguration Committee as well. Also the LGBT liason to the transition team. Names and links at my blog (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2008/12/homophobic-bigot-to-give-invocation-at-president-obamas-inauguration/).

[sauu4equality]

Dear Mr. President-Elect Obama,
While you have been very friendly to gays and lesbians in the United States of American and made use of our support in the election, it has come to my attention that your view of gays and lesbians is biased and unscientific. You said recently that you would use facts, evidence and science in your presidency to make decisions about policy. I know you don't believe it (obviously by your anti-gay marriage rhetoric), but the vast majority of gays and lesbians are born that way. While there may be some instances where a person can be attracted to both males and females (bisexuals), scientific evidence clearly shows that gays and lesbians exist very early in life. There is strong evidence to suggest a genetic connection to male homosexuality.
If you want to believe that polygamist relationships are somehow morally equivalent to positive gay and lesbian relationships go ahead. But I think some of the women oppressed by the now renounced LDS policies might have something to say about that. The decision to outlaw polygamy was made because women were being exploited. No exploitation or coercion exists in a good, loving gay or lesbian relationship. Incest has been shown to cause birth defects and be very unhealthy for children born of incestuous relationships. Child molestation shows no correlation to male homosexuality. All scientific evidence (respected, peer-reviewed scientific evidence) shows that gays and lesbians make excellent parents and deserve all of the same protections as straight couples/parents. I understand your trying to be a centrist and a unifier, but the idea that someone that equates being gay to incest and rape is a good choice for one of America's religious leaders is asinine. Reverend Warren’s view of gay people has been used by many to commit violent acts against them. There is also evidence that this view has severely damaged gays and lesbians and has forced us into the dark corners of society. So, I ask you to be true to your word and believe in "science" rather than radicals that want to control society's values. Propelling Reverend Warren to an acceptable choice for a religious leader only further condones violence against gays and lesbians.
Just because you do not believe that two people that love each other and enter into a partnership is not a marriage does not give you the right to call gay and lesbian couples something different than straight couples in the court of law. So, while it is obvious that you view gays and lesbians as perverts, but respect the right of these perverts to have their relationships in a free society, it is important that you support our right to see ourselves as people deserving of respect. Please, review respected scientific journals if you need help or inspiration in letting go of your religious biases.

[Matt Algren]

KE2GExB_n7Y

How do you long-timers do it? I've been out just over a year and I feel like I've been beat up lately.

[sjbouza]

Mr Obama is defending (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_minister) his choice of Rev Warren for the Inauguration...

But Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he said.

Obama also said he's known to be a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so.

In his defense I do see his point, however, I still am a little ticked off at him. Obama could have looked at how this would play out to the LGBT community. Maybe he did and he is trying to bring all sides to the table to get a strong dialog going. Let's hope that is what is happening. I would hate to have Reve Warren be the next "little bird on the window sill" like Bush had with Dobson.

Only time will tell. I hope and pray that he does keep his promises to the LGBT community. If not then I see a large loss of support from us in the future. Is he willing to take that risk? Is he going to pull everything out of his hat just at the end of his first term so he can say, "see I did what I promised, now support me again and I will get more done."? Or is he going to pull the, "well I just didn't have the time to get it done this term, next term I promise!"?

We shall see and time will show how much his word is worth, especially to us in the LGBT community.

Peace,
Scott

[tdogg]

Now, Obama would have really made a statement for inclusion if he had selected Bishop Gene Robinson to participate instead of Warren. I'm just slightly less excited about watching the Inauguration than I was prior to this announcement. I'm still holding out hope for real 'change' but time will tell.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I just watched PBS's Newshour. There was a substantial conversation including Harry Knox of HRC about the invitation to Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration.

One of the remarks made about Warren was that he was invited because he has supposedly taken the place of Billy Graham as "America's Pastor." My feeling is that Billy Graham never made the kind of harsh anti-LGBT statements that Warren has made and that he never took public, political stands against LGBT persons.

Obama has not made bad points justifying the invitation, but I think it is a sad commentary on the state of the Christian faith in this country that Rick Warren is now deemed to be "America's Pastor." I think there is all the more reason for Soulforce to press for dialogue with Warren (as they did earlier this year).

Steven

[tymejumper]

Obama picking Warren is tantamount to McCain choosing Palin. It's also as sucidal a move!

[Steven E. Webster]

Obama picking Warren is tantamount to McCain choosing Palin. It's also as sucidal a move!

No, I have to disagree. Rick Warren will never become President of the United States under any circumstances. Asking Rick Warren to say a prayer at one event is nothing like nominating him Vice President of the United States. It's also not a "suicidal move." Let's see what Obama does as President--I still have hope.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I'm glad for Barney Frank's statement. He does well in expressing his disappointment with Obama's choice and responding to Obama's justification as "irrelevant."

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/18/7504

Steven

[Daniel]

The mayor of San Francisco- Gavin Newsom- was on Rachel Maddow this evening and made a salient point.

He noted that asking Warren to speak was tantamount to rewarding him for his stance against gay marriage as well as being a very tough pill to swallow for the couples who's rights are in question.

I don't think Obama 'get's' it, that is, unless he is trying to shuffle the deck for his next election. In that case, his action could be viewed as pure politics.

Then again, Obama mentioned Warren on the at the beginning of his autobiography. Obama, it could be posited, is simply playing out his own likes and dislikes and the larger matters of symbolism are lost on him.

[scrupulous_stoic]

I agree with the point that this position just rewards Warren's positions, including his outrageous statements of homosexuality in general. However, Obama has stated, time and time again, that he would try to bring everyone together, so it shouldn't be any surprise he would pick someone such as Warren (who could add ex-McCain supports into Obama's ranks).

Personally, I believe that Obama's choice is not a sign of things to come, but negates the support that the gay community gave to him.

Also, "Fierce supporter of LGBT rights?" That is why you didn't say anything concerning Proposition 8 until the last opportune time...

[tdogg]

I
Personally, I believe that Obama's choice is not a sign of things to come, but negates the support that the gay community gave to him.

Also, "Fierce supporter of LGBT rights?" That is why you didn't say anything concerning Proposition 8 until the last opportune time...

I agree with you that it's not a sign of what is to come but it does act as an affront to GLBT people. Not a wise choice, at least from my point of view and I didn't see anything in Obama's justification that leads me to believe it is a wise choice for any reason. Perhaps he is wooing the conservatives, but either way it does end up as a reward for Warren's anti-gay stance. Especially with the timing to close to Prop 8 winning (and all the other homophobic ballot initiatives.

I will put more weight on Obama's actions than his choice in this matter. However, I'll be watching a bit more diligently and grading a little more harshly because of this choice. Obama has publicly said he will work to repeal DOMA and DADT, and that he is committed to passing a Federal hate crimes bill. If those get delayed too long, it will make me suspicious and lose some respect.

With the backlash from the GLBT community, I also feel Obama owes us a better explanation and some recognition of how we feel about his choice. His "I'm the dad thats why" isn't going to work with me on this one. But again, I'm not going to judge his first term by this one decision. I've lost all respect for Warren with his outspoken anti-gay opinions, his arrogance and self-righteousness and his support for Prop 8. He's just the second coming of Jerry Falwell.

[scrupulous_stoic]

I agree with you that it's not a sign of what is to come but it does act as an affront to GLBT people. Not a wise choice, at least from my point of view and I didn't see anything in Obama's justification that leads me to believe it is a wise choice for any reason. Perhaps he is wooing the conservatives, but either way it does end up as a reward for Warren's anti-gay stance. Especially with the timing to close to Prop 8 winning (and all the other homophobic ballot initiatives.

I will put more weight on Obama's actions than his choice in this matter. However, I'll be watching a bit more diligently and grading a little more harshly because of this choice. Obama has publicly said he will work to repeal DOMA and DADT, and that he is committed to passing a Federal hate crimes bill. If those get delayed too long, it will make me suspicious and lose some respect.

With the backlash from the GLBT community, I also feel Obama owes us a better explanation and some recognition of how we feel about his choice. His "I'm the dad thats why" isn't going to work with me on this one. But again, I'm not going to judge his first term by this one decision. I've lost all respect for Warren with his outspoken anti-gay opinions, his arrogance and self-righteousness and his support for Prop 8. He's just the second coming of Jerry Falwell.

In his own words, Warren is more of a Dobson.

I agree. We shall see what happens in the first term... though I will probably be in Canada or the Netherlands at that time...

[Emproph]

Indefensible because it was 100% AVOIDABLE.

A divider, by anti-gay self definition, was sought out, and is being defended in the name of unity.

That defense of the divider, is additionally divisive.

Tymejumper is spot on:
Obama picking Warren is tantamount to McCain choosing Palin. It's also as sucidal a move!

Furthermore, any religious leader who still touts the merits of Proposition 8, must then also support the LIES that were told to pass it.

Either Rick Warren is consciously aware of those lies, or is too stupid to understand what lies are.

In either case, he’s grossly unqualified to be speaking on behalf of, or in relation to Americans as a whole.

And SINCE that’s that case, Barack Obama is either consciously aware it, and his “unity” spiel is just another disingenuous political ploy, or he’s accidentally made a very very obvious and avoidable mistake.

And that’s strike two on the LGBT front for him. The Donnie McClurkin fiasco was strike one.

Which makes strike two, all the more meaningful.

[Daniel]

Indefensible because it was 100% AVOIDABLE.

A divider, by anti-gay self definition, was sought out, and is being defended in the name of unity.

That defense of the divider, is additionally divisive.


Other than that I agree with you. :D

Spot on yourself Emproph!

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Andrew Sullivan has been discussing the Warren mess the last couple days. This morning he mentions the visit last summer by Soulforce where Warren spurned dialogue with LGBT people.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/rick-warrens-in.html

Steven Webster

[Matt Algren]

Rick Warren is also connected to an ex-gay group, though they try to keep it on the DL. (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2008/12/rick-warrens-ex-gay-group-what-you-need-to-know/)

[tdogg]

I
And that’s strike two on the LGBT front for him. The Donnie McClurkin fiasco was strike one.

Which makes strike two, all the more meaningful.

Patrick (or anyone), could you give me a lesson on the above? I've either not read about McClurkin or don't remember (I am getting long in the tooth). Thanks!

[Alecto]

Maybe this should be it's own topic (if so i'll make it) but it seems to fit here:
I continue to grow aware of blatant, blood-boilingly obvious unfairness in every day life, and one of those things is that we're expected (like other minorities) to treat our oppression as a "political" discussion, or an "academic" discussion. We're supposed to "tolerate other views" about our very personal and very real PAIN, and it's frustrating to me that other people don't seem to see this. I feel like there's a question in here somewhere about who else here sees it, and how they might get others to see it, but I can't really form specific questions so much as stand in exasperated awe.

[Jennifer5]

Perhaps I'm just the nieve girl. I haven't lived long enough, I haven't yet learned how to see the bad in everyone. Instead I find myself always searching for a reason to believe.

I don't like what I hear about Rick Warren, but I do not think that this is a reason to be upset.

Reverse it. Make the setting Bush's inauguration, say that Mel White was speaking. Bush supporters would have still wanted him and the GLBT community and liberals would have probably considered giving him a chance.

Rick Warren represents part of America that Obama could not reach otherwise.

We all scream and shout that we want a President that will bring everyone together, but then continue to complain when we see it actually happening.

Again, I'm nieve. I believe that Obama knows that he is doing and I really hope I don't end up disappointed.

Please do explain this to me because I do not understand. You cannot have it both ways. Do you want a united nation or do we want to continue on a path of politics based on arguing about who's right and who's wrong?

"United we stand, divided we fall."

Think about it.

[Matt Algren]

I think your premise is flawed. Every opinion is not worthy of respect. We don't bring the KKK to the table to talk about race relations. We don't bring anti-Semites to the table to talk about Judaism. We don't bring sexist mofos to talk about gender equality.

Likewise, we shouldn't be asked to sit across the table from anti-gay bigots, people who run ex-gay programs, and people who compare us to pedophiles. We (gay or not) shouldn't be expected to recognize their views as worthy of respect.

[Petrese]

It won't make any difference. Most gays have never really experienced discrimination and only really begin to understand when they come out or are in the middle of something that comes up against their orientation like wanting to marry. And so a lot of gays know the discrimination is there and there is a risk it will affect them but until it actually does they only have an opinion about things like Rick Warren from a perspective of theory.

Most straight white middle class people have this same perspective and are in a majority and so a selection of Mr Warren is seen as maybe not as bad as it really is, and it is really bad. The reason I think that it really doesn't make any difference is because the opinion of the majority of people in this country towards gay people is already set and one more reinforcement won't even have an effect. Rick Warren is Not going to change his views and most all Americans won't change theirs either. We are only going to achieve a minimal amount of equal rights changes but the change of attitude towards gay people is only going to come through a change of generations, maybe two or three more at the least and so we won't see it in our lifetimes.

[Jennifer5]

I think your premise is flawed. Every opinion is not worthy of respect. We don't bring the KKK to the table to talk about race relations. We don't bring anti-Semites to the table to talk about Judaism. We don't bring sexist mofos to talk about gender equality.

Likewise, we shouldn't be asked to sit across the table from anti-gay bigots, people who run ex-gay programs, and people who compare us to pedophiles. We (gay or not) shouldn't be expected to recognize their views as worthy of respect.

That's a different argument though, from an emotional standpoint the Rick Warren's might be the equivilant of the KKK. However, from the physical standpoint they are not.

The opinion portion of who Rick Warren is, will never be against the law. No matter how wrong it may be.

At this point in time, according to our current laws, he is just another citizen who has done nothing wrong. Therefore treating him like he is evil (even though you may feel that he is) would be wrong and a form of discrimination in the eyes of the public.

If we want to see real change, sometimes we're going to have to work with people that we do not like. Luckily, that does not even include Rick, he's only speaking. But when it comes to ending a war, improving education, and getting health care, opinions about equal marriage rights are not relevant. If Obama seeks the opinion of a Rick Warren when it comes to dealing with human rights, then we have a reason to be seriously upset. We have to choose our battles or we're not ever going to accomplish anything.

[Alecto]

I don't think it's fair to choose someone who, spiritually, merely continues the myth that it's the gays versus the religious, and then complain that we're being unreasonable when we don't like it. This was a free choice, there were more qualified people to speak to the entire country, but Obama picked Warren. By "choosing our battles", we give consent with our silence.

[tdogg]

The disappointment is based upon Obama's premise of 'real change'. When you take that with his promise of 'equality' and then measure it against his stated personal belief that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, then the choice of Rick Warren to participate on this huge historical day (Jan 20th) feels like a slap in the face. In the grand scheme of his term as president, perhaps not a major factor. But it still feels like a slap in the face and I believe we have every right to feel disappointed, discouraged and to let Obama know we are not pleased. We will see how 'fierce' Obama is in working towards equality when we see what he does, or doesn't do, while in his first term. I'm not sure he really thought this decision through and now that he has made this bed, he's going to have to lie in it a while.

The group I'm involved in here in Sacramento is tossing around an idea to gather up all our "Purpose Driven Life" books we bought or received as gifts, write Rick Warren a personal message inside and then borrow or rent a truck and drive them down to the steps of Saddleback Church. We are call it the "Purpose Driven Drive Back". If we can generate enough interest, then we will go forward. If anyone has one they want to 'lose' let me know!!!

[Jeff Lutes]

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/12/that_weird_hug_from_rick_warren.php#more

[Jennifer5]

Nate was able to put my feelings into words.


The Inaugural Prayer, An Opportunity for Change
The facts: President-elect Obama, a very progressive and justice-minded leader, chose Rick Warren to give the prayer at his presidential inauguration. Rick Warren pastors a very large evangelical church and he supported Prop 8 which aimed to ban marriage for lesbian & gay Californians.

The drama: Progressives and LGBT people everywhere are ticked off, upset and are demanding Obama disinvite Warren and choose a more inclulsive faith leader.

Look folks, we are reacting to Obama as if he is a Bush. As if we don't really believe he is a man of integrity. As if we don't really believe in his leadership. AND we are demonizing Rick Warren because he has done something we don't agree with.

Cut it out.

President Obama is the most powerful and progressive leader we have ever had. Everything about his campaign said this man is different. He is integrity. He is equality. He is leadership. And he is change.

Stop throwing a temper tantrum. Try on that this really is the wisest choice to make. What if Obama really knew what he was doing?

Example: What if this experience causes Pastor Warren to really get confronted with the injustice and lack of compassion of some of his beliefs, teachings and actions about LGBT people? What if this is the source of Pastor Warren leading a change in the American church?

If Obama is teaching us anything, it is to expand our vision. To take off the blinders that are creating our "my way or the highway" tunnel vision.

Now. Standing in that Obama really knows what he's doing and is really committed to integrity and justice, you may still disagree with a choice he's made.

Instead of attacking him... or DEMANDING he do something... What would it be like to make a powerful request that acknowledged your faith in him AND requested that he choose someone else... or even better, created an interfaith group that gave inaugural prayers from several faith traditions. Such a group could be balanced with conservative and progressive faith leaders AND would have room for Pastor Warren.

Finally, let me say some things about Rick Warren. I disagree with his position on Prop 8. I disagree with some of his theology. And, I really respect him for his commitment to making a difference, helping people and being God's love in the world. He is not a bad person. He is not our enemy.

Our enemy is the mis-information that causes bias and fear.

When we go on the war path, attacking a human being who has been affected by the misinformation, we ABSOLUTELY give up our right to stand as people committed to justice and love.

[Emproph]

And that’s strike two on the LGBT front for him. The Donnie McClurkin fiasco was strike one.

Which makes strike two, all the more meaningful.
Patrick (or anyone), could you give me a lesson on the above? I've either not read about McClurkin or don't remember (I am getting long in the tooth). Thanks!

From Ex-Gay Watch: Open Forum: McClurkin Turns Obama Gospel Concert Into Ex-Gay Harangue (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/10/mcclurkin-turns-obama-gospel-concert-into-ex-gay-harangue/)
Posted on October 29th, 2007 by Mike Airhart
The gay community is saying that Donnie is a threat and that he is trying to convert young children or control their minds. "I’m not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children. Someone has to be the voice for them, and the children are only hearing one voice right now," he says.

To my knowledge, this was recognized, but has never been resolved by the Obama campaign.

[Emproph]

If we want to see real change, sometimes we're going to have to work with people that we do not like.

And I would normally agree with that, but let’s not kid ourselves about the full and devastating nature of those that we may not like.

We do so at our own peril.

It’s complicated, I know, but it’s important.

AND we are demonizing Rick Warren because he has done something we don't agree with.

If Obama is teaching us anything, it is to expand our vision. To take off the blinders that are creating our "my way or the highway" tunnel vision.

Seriously, you’ve got to be kidding me. “My way or the highway” describes them.

We are not the one’s who need to “expand our vision” or “take off the blinders.”

This is precisely the propaganda they wish to sell!

As progressives, we accept, understand, and are willing to implement the principles of the Golden Rule when it comes to Freedom For All.

They not only have absolutely no desire for the same, but specifically have designs on imprisoning and silencing those who “disagree” with them.

Long story short, they’re insane when it comes to conscience and morality. And thus, they are dangerous - even to themselves - if that’s what it takes for you to take pity on them.

Obama knows exactly what he’s doing, and if you think that catering to the hateful bigot demographic is somehow politically necessary, then so be it. But let’s not kid ourselves as far as what that means.

To do so is to allow for another Bush administration.

[Daniel]

That Obama 'knows' what he's doing.

We tend to have faith, even blind faith in our leaders. And Obama has campaigned on a message of hope and change. We need these things, but to practically deify the man saying these things, is to make an idol of him. And of course, when things go badly, and they will at some point, we will throw stones at the idol we have erected saying it is the idols fault.

What I see as the problem? Obama may be a very smart man, but I doubt very much that he has thought about matters of faith very much as far as gay people are concerned. As such, I expect him to be going on automatic pilot here.

As it is, he's previously stated outright that his opposition to gay marriage is religiously based.

[Steven E. Webster]

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/12/that_weird_hug_from_rick_warren.php#more

Jeff,

Thank you for the thoughtful article! I don't know that this situation is so much a commentary on Obama as it is the sad state of religion in this country!

Steven Webster

[Jennifer5]

If we want to see real change, sometimes we're going to have to work with people that we do not like. And I would normally agree with that, but let’s not kid ourselves about the full and devastating nature of those that we may not like.

We do so at our own peril.

It’s complicated, I know, but it’s important.

Seriously, you’ve got to be kidding me. “My way or the highway” describes them.

We are not the one’s who need to “expand our vision” or “take off the blinders.”

This is precisely the propaganda they wish to sell!

As progressives, we accept, understand, and are willing to implement the principles of the Golden Rule when it comes to Freedom For All.

They not only have absolutely no desire for the same, but specifically have designs on imprisoning and silencing those who “disagree” with them.

Long story short, they’re insane when it comes to conscience and morality. And thus, they are dangerous - even to themselves - if that’s what it takes for you to take pity on them.

Obama knows exactly what he’s doing, and if you think that catering to the hateful bigot demographic is somehow politically necessary, then so be it. But let’s not kid ourselves as far as what that means.

To do so is to allow for another Bush administration.
Patrick, that's just it, you would normally agree because you believe in that way of thinking. The only thing is, this really is the same as every other situation where it applies.

From dictionary.com,

Progressive :: making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

The definition encourages new and experimental methods, so why can't we give it a try?

We've seen here on the forums, how people feel when we jump to conclusions. From time to time someone drops in and starts asking questions about sexuality, but we are so quick to correct their wording that they feel unwelcome.

Why is it that we cannot let Obama do this, without questioning his judgment? This man hasn't let his country down yet. Why do you just assume this will be a first?

This group would know better than any other what it feels like to be expected to fail. How do you feel knowing that some of you will never please your families? Wouldn't it be a blessing to at least have one group of people, who you could always count on to be on your side?

I know that it's not the same, because he is going to be the President. He is not just another person. However, he has the same feelings and throughout his campaign the people that believed in him were the only reason he kept going. Why let him down now?

[Matt Algren]

Nate was able to put my feelings into words.100% unadulterated nonsense. Let's look at just a few bits of it.

The Inaugural Prayer, An Opportunity for Change
The facts: President-elect Obama, a very progressive and justice-minded leader, chose Rick Warren to give the prayer at his presidential inauguration. Rick Warren pastors a very large evangelical church and he supported Prop 8 which aimed to ban marriage for lesbian & gay Californians.

The drama: Progressives and LGBT people everywhere are ticked off, upset and are demanding Obama disinvite Warren and choose a more inclulsive faith leader.

Look folks, we are reacting to Obama as if he is a Bush. As if we don't really believe he is a man of integrity. As if we don't really believe in his leadership. AND we are demonizing Rick Warren because he has done something we don't agree with.
Let's stop right there. I'm not demonizing Rick Warren because he's done something I disagree with. I'm putting the bald facts out in the open: He's a homophobic bigot who thinks we shouldn't have rights, or more to the point, that we shouldn't exist. He runs an ex-gay group through his church. He's compared me to incestuous pedophiles IN THE LAST WEEK. He's compared love between man and man or woman and woman to immature slutting around. He tells the lie that marriage has had a static definition for 5,000 years and that Prop 8 (or others like it) would take away his freedom of speech.

This is not demonization. These are facts. And no amount of political spin makes them anything less than what they are: Evil.
Cut it out.

President Obama is the most powerful and progressive leader we have ever had. Everything about his campaign said this man is different. He is integrity. He is equality. He is leadership. And he is change.We're all given to hyperbole every once in a while. It's okay.

Stop throwing a temper tantrum.Telling facts and standing up to the schoolyard bully is NOT throwing a temper tantrum. It's what people in civilized countries are supposed to do.

Try on that this really is the wisest choice to make. What if Obama really knew what he was doing?

Example: What if this experience causes Pastor Warren to really get confronted with the injustice and lack of compassion of some of his beliefs, teachings and actions about LGBT people? What if this is the source of Pastor Warren leading a change in the American church?Oh, come on. Good can come of bad decisions, but let's not put lipstick on a pig.

If Obama is teaching us anything, it is to expand our vision. To take off the blinders that are creating our "my way or the highway" tunnel vision.Bigotry must be opposed. I'm glad to have both tunnel vision and blinders if that's what I'm watching.

Now. Standing in that Obama really knows what he's doing and is really committed to integrity and justice, you may still disagree with a choice he's made.

Instead of attacking him... or DEMANDING he do something... What would it be like to make a powerful request that acknowledged your faith in him AND requested that he choose someone else... or even better, created an interfaith group that gave inaugural prayers from several faith traditions. Such a group could be balanced with conservative and progressive faith leaders AND would have room for Pastor Warren.
There should never be room for bigotry in church, no matter the faith.

Finally, let me say some things about Rick Warren. I disagree with his position on Prop 8. I disagree with some of his theology. And, I really respect him for his commitment to making a difference, helping people and being God's love in the world. He is not a bad person. He is not our enemy.Yes. He. Is.

Our enemy is the mis-information that causes bias and fear.

When we go on the war path, attacking a human being who has been affected by the misinformation, we ABSOLUTELY give up our right to stand as people committed to justice and love.Were Rick Warren affecting no one but himself, I'd probably agree that he's not harming anyone, so leave the bigot to his bigotry. But --and this is important-- he's harming people right now. As we speak. There are gay men and women sitting in his church right now being told that they are worthless if they "engage in homosexual behavior". There are people in his ex-gay program (Celebrate Recovery) gaining the tools to hate themselves more effectively. There are kids in his congregation ingesting his attitude and learning for the very first time that they will never be good enough.

That must be stopped.

Rick Warren is not a victim. He is an aggressor.

Patrick, that's just it, you would normally agree because you believe in that way of thinking. The only thing is, this really is the same as every other situation where it applies.

From dictionary.com,

Progressive :: making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

The definition encourages new and experimental methods, so why can't we give it a try?Trying to appease your oppressors is not new or experimental. It's the oldest defense mechanism in the book. It doesn't work.

We've seen here on the forums, how people feel when we jump to conclusions. From time to time someone drops in and starts asking questions about sexuality, but we are so quick to correct their wording that they feel unwelcome.Show me. Link me to those threads. Thanks.

Why is it that we cannot let Obama do this, without questioning his judgment? This man hasn't let his country down yet. Why do you just assume this will be a first? He's asking a homophobic bigot to pray for the nation. Under no circumstances is this acceptable. As a religious person, the idea is offensive.

This group would know better than any other what it feels like to be expected to fail. How do you feel knowing that some of you will never please your families? Wouldn't it be a blessing to at least have one group of people, who you could always count on to be on your side?

I know that it's not the same, because he is going to be the President. He is not just another person. However, he has the same feelings and throughout his campaign the people that believed in him were the only reason he kept going. Why let him down now?
Woah. Wait a minute. We're not the ones letting someone down. We're not the ones giving a bigot a microphone.

[u-dog]

Is it possible that we are having trouble seeing the forest for the trees? From our point of view Obama has invited a homophobe to pray for the nation at the inauguration. As a result we are miffed with Obama and are beginning to make assumptions about whether Obama is really supportive of our agenda.

But a homophobe isn't the ONLY thing that Rick Warren is. He is also an important leader in a new generation of Evangelicals who are wanting to expand the moral agenda of the Evangelical movement beyond abortion and homosexuality. These young evangelicals have a deep concern for AIDS in Africa, hunger world-wide, poverty, and Climate change. Obama is undoubtedly thinking about how he will address a broad range of issues and priorities AND what allies he can bring into the circle to get those issues and priorties moved to the front burner.

Just because Obama is courting these evangelicals does NOT necessarily mean that he is throwing GLBT folks under the bus. It COULD mean that but there is as yet no evidence that it DOES mean that. I think that the best way for us to stay on Obama's agenda in a positive way is to be as supportive of him as possible unless and until he ACTUALLY does something to undermine us.

If his reason for asking Rick to pray is part of a strategy to save the planet ... well... I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt... at least for a while.

[Jennifer5]

100% unadulterated nonsense. Let's look at just a few bits of it.
Nonsense, is not usually how one chooses to respectfully disagree with another individual's feelings.

Let's stop right there. I'm not demonizing Rick Warren because he's done something I disagree with. I'm putting the bald facts out in the open: He's a homophobic bigot who thinks we shouldn't have rights, or more to the point, that we shouldn't exist. He runs an ex-gay group through his church. He's compared me to incestuous pedophiles IN THE LAST WEEK. He's compared love between man and man or woman and woman to immature slutting around. He tells the lie that marriage has had a static definition for 5,000 years and that Prop 8 (or others like it) would take away his freedom of speech.

This is not demonization. These are facts. And no amount of political spin makes them anything less than what they are: Evil.
We're all given to hyperbole every once in a while. It's okay.

Telling facts and standing up to the schoolyard bully is NOT throwing a temper tantrum. It's what people in civilized countries are supposed to do.


Oh, come on. Good can come of bad decisions, but let's not put lipstick on a pig.
Again, why do you insist that this is a bad decision. We don't actually know that yet.

There should never be room for bigotry in church, no matter the faith.
...but it is more than likely that there always will be. The church seems to be the home of bigotry.

Yes. He. Is.

Rick Warren is not a victim. He is an aggressor.
That right there is the opinion that always bring you down. Desiding that he is a bad person who cannot changes, gives you no room to grow. If you had been raised the way he was, you could have been him. He suffers from misinformation.

Trying to appease your oppressors is not new or experimental. It's the oldest defense mechanism in the book. It doesn't work.
That's where you're wrong. Loving your neighbor does work.

Show me. Link me to those threads. Thanks.
I'm honestly not going to go searching for those threads, but I have seen it happen. If you do not remember this or believe me, that is fine.

He's asking a homophobic bigot to pray for the nation. Under no circumstances is this acceptable. As a religious person, the idea is offensive.
The diversity of this nation means that it happens everyday.

Woah. Wait a minute. We're not the ones letting someone down. We're not the ones giving a bigot a microphone.
We are letting someone down. He'll be expecting it and like any strong person, he'll hide it. However, he can't not be disappointed to see that this example of diversity is being rejected.


When all is said and done the following quote by Martin Luther King Jr. still applies:
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

[Jennifer5]

Is it possible that we are having trouble seeing the forest for the trees? From our point of view Obama has invited a homophobe to pray for the nation at the inauguration. As a result we are miffed with Obama and are beginning to make assumptions about whether Obama is really supportive of our agenda.

But a homophobe isn't the ONLY thing that Rick Warren is. He is also an important leader in a new generation of Evangelicals who are wanting to expand the moral agenda of the Evangelical movement beyond abortion and homosexuality. These young evangelicals have a deep concern for AIDS in Africa, hunger world-wide, poverty, and Climate change. Obama is undoubtedly thinking about how he will address a broad range of issues and priorities AND what allies he can bring into the circle to get those issues and priorties moved to the front burner.

Just because Obama is courting these evangelicals does NOT necessarily mean that he is throwing GLBT folks under the bus. It COULD mean that but there is as yet no evidence that it DOES mean that. I think that the best way for us to stay on Obama's agenda in a positive way is to be as supportive of him as possible unless and until he ACTUALLY does something to undermine us.

If his reason for asking Rick to pray is part of a strategy to save the planet ... well... I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt... at least for a while.

Bingo.

I think that's exactly the sort of thing that Obama was thinking about, when making this decision.

[Matt Algren]

Just because Obama is courting these evangelicals does NOT necessarily mean that he is throwing GLBT folks under the bus.Yes it does.

Look, I'm not saying Obama will be a bad president. Quite the contrary, I think he'll be the right president at the right time in a lot of ways. I didn't vote for him because I thought he'd put us first on his agenda. I always knew that we weren't, and I was prepared to live with that, especially given the alternative.

But if nothing else, his choice of a homophobic bigot to pray on behalf of the entire nation on his very first day in office should serve as a reminder to all of us that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are expendable. If Obama has to sacrifice us to get the evangelicals on his side, he'll do it. If he has to sacrifice us to get a Supreme Court Justice nomination through, he'll do it. If he has to sacrifice us to [fill in the blank, anything works, really.] he'll do it.

We are politically expendable. Our lives, our freedoms, our rights, and our needs as human beings are secondary to all else. Our job, or at least mine, is to keep on reminding people of that so we aren't terribly shocked when DOMA isn't repealed because the fundies will get upset or DADT isn't repealed because the Marines will get upset or marriage equality doesn't happen because the straight people will get upset or the Matthew Shepard act isn't enacted because the Republicans will get upset.

Their needs, rights, and freedom are up here [I'm holding my hand way above my head], and ours are down here [touching the carpet].




And if there's one thing we should have learned from the past eight years, it's that [I]no public figure should get the "benefit of the doubt". That way tyranny lies.

[Daniel]

Bingo.

I think that's exactly the sort of thing that Obama was thinking about, when making this decision.

But positing what Obama was thinking when he made his decision to invite Warren to give the invocation is wishful thinking at best. It's trusting that the guy we are projecting all our hopes on will do right by us. Will he? Perhaps.

What can we go on here?

What the Obama has said and done.

I heard him say with my own ears that he does not support gay marriage. I heard him say with my own ears that his opposition to gay marriage was based on his faith and religion. That much is pretty clear.

I heard him say that he is a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian rights, which is an exaggeration to say the least. If he was a fierce advocate, he would be supporting gay marriage. A fierce advocate is not someone who does something half-ways.

His exaggeration is just that- an exaggeration. So he says most of the right stuff. What has he done for gay rights so far? Nothing! (oh...the rejoinder will be he's not in office yet....ok...what has he done at the State or Federal level? Anybody know? Not a thing that I know of. All we have is a platform on which he made promises.)

This is NOT the time to give the man a pass! If I have learned ANYTHING from living through the 80's and 90's and the beginning of AIDS, it is that we must NOT sit down and act like good little boys and girls. That will get us nowhere- fast. Obama has said that discussions should not be disagreeable. Really? How polite of him. And was that how his civil rights were acheived in the 60's? I think not. Blacks sat at lunch counters and were thought to be quite disagreeable.

To sit down now and shut up would only tell Obama that....yep....that's Ok....I'm fine with that....

Now. As for letting Obama down: he's a big boy. He can take the heat, believe me.

[tymejumper]

Jen, I don't think you are naive, I think it's very sweet that you have so much hope for this administration, Jester is the exact same way. It's great you girls are so positive. We need someone to have hope now days. love::love::love::love::love:

As a cynical adult, however, I must state my feelings are that the problem we run into here is the fact that Obama does not live with discrimination because of the person he loves.

He does not have that thought in the front of his mind. 40 years ago, his parents could not have been married, but to be honest, he does not remember much of that because he was pretty young. He also was afluent enough that he did not face discrimination poorer black people faced. He most likely did not get denied housing, or a job, or a promotion just because he was black.(or multiracial). Other poor black people faced that type of discrimination every day and have some basis for understanding what we face to some small degree. Just as I can not relate to a poor black person and feel their discrimination, Obama can not relate to us gay people and feel the pain and fear we face daily.

It most probably did not even cross his mind about the reverands leanings reguarding gay people. I don't believe that he even thought about how we would feel, we are the furthest from his mind right now. His family is not directly affected by these issues so he does not give a second thought about it. I don't think he did it for the reaons of drawing us together, nor to piss us off. It was extremely poor judgement on his part. We are not throwing a temper tantrum, but don't make promises to get votes then promptly forget me. Will it result in bringing the Evangelicals to understand inclusiveness? I highly doubt it. They have made up their minds, don't confuse them with the facts. There are none so blind than those who will not see.

I still reguard it as a slap in the face, until it is proven otherwise. There will have to be alot of righting of the wrongs Warren has supported against the gay community before I will feel that he is a good choice. LGBT Americans feel that Obama has let us down, and pretty quickly also. Has he? Only time will tell. I will reserve my final judgement until it all plays out, my initial assesment remains as quoted above.

I want a president that puts me first, as a gay American. One who looks out for my safety, my rights, my family, and reflects my beliefs. I wanted Hillary for president anyhow, Obama was just the lesser of two evils in my book.

[Zerbie]

Patrick, Daniel, and Matt have it right on the money.

Too many people want to treat all matters involving gay people as two equally valid viewpoints to be discussed politely, equally respected and represented, all in the name of "balance."

That is the moral crime - that peoples' essential humanity and their rights as citizens are painted as 'issues' to which there are two opposing, yet equally valid "opinions." Peoples' lives are not opinions, neither are they issues.

Don't be seduced into believing that when these things happen we can all 'just get along.' Follow that line of thinking and be in for a horrible shock sooner or later. If we love, we stand against that which devalues our own or another's essential being-ness.

When one party is determined by words and actions to invalidate the humanity of another person or group, the ONLY ethical or responsible option left is to stand up against that action. When a third party has not yet seen or acknowledged the wrongs of Party A, then the responsible thing to do is to attempt to raise his awareness. If we truly love our neighbor, we will stand against the sorts of slanderous remarks attributed to Warren.

[Sherrie Z]

There are so many valid points and approaches in this discussion ... and lots of diverse opinion as there should be. I hope the Obama team is listening to your various concerns and suggestions as you're sending them in. For myself, I especially appreciate Zerbie's comments above ... really excellent points!

Of course I feel that inviting Warren was a huge mistake, and I would strongly prefer that he would not be on the stage during the Inaugural Ceremony.

I'm assuming for now that it is unlikely that Warren will be un-invited now that he's officially on board -- but that shouldn't stop any of us from protesting or suggesting whatever we feel would be appropriate as a response.

Meanwhile, I thought I'd suggest an alternative option to the Obama team. Just FYI, I wrote this letter below prior to reading the discussion here.

------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a letter that I sent today to the Obama Transition Team via their change.gov website


Subject Heading: An Inaugural Ceremony we could ALL believe in


Hello Obama Team!

I'm guessing you've been swamped with comments in connection with your decision to invite Rick Warren to give the Invocation at the Inaugural Ceremony. I have a suggestion that I hope can help with what has now become a significant controversy.

While I would have strongly preferred a different choice of minister, I understand your positive intent to invite everyone to the table. And I'm all for making inroads with evangelicals on issues that conservatives and progressives can share and work on together.

For now, you've got the conservative religious guy and the liberal religious guy on each end of the ceremony ... and on the surface that would sound like a very reasonable and inclusive-sounding plan.

However, Rick Warren in particular is especially polarizing due to his extreme views on LGBT issues. And I really want ALL Americans to feel respected during the ceremonies, as I'm very sure you all do too.

As I understand it, the current plan is to include some LGBT visibility among the various groups participating in the general inaugural events. That's a positive step but it's clearly not enough under the current circumstances. To restore faith and counter the fallout from the Warren invitation, I feel that we now need something of similar proportion and impact -- and a new gesture in direct response to the controversy.

So here's a suggestion that I think could be a way to defuse the explosive and damaging impact of "the Warren controversy" -- and that would also further demonstrate your positive spirit of inclusiveness.

How about adding a third religious leader to share the stage with the two you have already invited? How about including an openly gay minister in the mix? Perhaps a lesbian minister or rabbi? Or maybe an evangelical leader from the LGBT community?

Such a gesture could go a long way to defuse the offense that has been taken by LGBT Americans and their families and friends and supporters. In addition, depending on the specific leader, it could also expand representation of women and/or another religious community. This gesture would also reinforce your excellent track record of responsiveness and adapting when troubles arise, and as additional feedback comes in. And of course, including an LGBT leader on the Inaugural Ceremony stage would also be a significant demonstration of very positive change.

I'm imagining something like having the LGBT religious leader give a brief reading immediately following the Invocation, perhaps reading a quote from Martin Luther King, maybe a poem or a Bible passage ... something simple and classy that wouldn't take much time but would be very significant in it's impact in showing that everybody in America can now share the stage and come together as one nation.

Many Americans might consider the LGBT community to be relatively marginal, or as representing only the farthest left extreme of Obama's base. And some might think that inviting representation from any group that protests or disagrees with any given decision would set an unrealistic precedent.

However, the LGBT community is probably close to 30 million Americans ... and when you consider that most would have family and friends in support, this multiplies into many more millions ... and when you remember that most Democrats and some Republicans are also in support ... this represents quite a significant percentage of Americans that are probably offended by Warren's extremist views toward the LGBT community.

It is also important to remember that just as there are some progressive evangelicals, and many who are supportive of the LGBT community ... so are there LGBT persons of all political and religious persuasions, including some with conservative affiliations. With this in mind, a strong new gesture of support for LGBT persons in response to the Warren controversy would go well beyond the narrow framework of a culture war between the extreme right and the extreme left ... and would most likely be welcomed by many more Americans than one might guess at first glance.

I can't tell you enough how much I appreciate the intelligence and compassion that Obama, Biden, and you as team members have displayed since the initial announcement of Obama's run. I volunteered and donated and cheered you on, and many of my friends and my family have also been very enthusiastic supporters.

I very much want for my LGBT friends -- and their supporters, like myself -- to be able to maintain the excitement and hope that we all have felt toward all of you too. Many of your strongest supporters are very uneasy now and some are very upset and concerned about this controversy and about what it might indicate about their hopes for the future.

Of course there will never be complete agreement from every American to every decision you make, and we will always have controversies, and groups within our nation that don't agree with each other. I haven't agreed with every decision at every turn, but I've been impressed with your responsiveness and willingness to be open and to adapt to changing circumstances.

And there will always be protests, as there very well should be ... and there will probably be many protesters at the Inauguration. But it would be especially discouraging to have so many of your strongest supporters be the ones protesting -- and feeling disappointed and angry instead of cheering as they would much prefer to be doing -- especially during what should be a very special time of celebration for all of us.

Your response to this particular high profile controversy could be an opportunity to inspire America with a new approach. The gesture suggested above or something similar could potentially transform what is now seen by many as a mistake into an opportunity to demonstrate an even fuller and more expansive spirit of inclusiveness. And it could go a very long way to reassure and inspire your most enthusiastic and hopeful supporters.

Hoping the controversy will blow over, or that it won't be too much of a distraction, or that the current plans will be sufficient -- would not take seriously enough the loss of faith and enthusiasm and participation that could be lost from Americans who would otherwise happily continue to work with you to bring about the changes that our country urgently needs.

I have very much appreciated your strong support for the LGBT community. I very much hope that you will use this wonderful historic occasion to reinforce that support -- while the whole world is watching.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Best wishes,

Sherrie Z [last name deleted]
San Francisco, CA


[NOTE: I included my last name for the Obama team version, but deleted it here for this online post.]

[u-dog]

His exaggeration is just that- an exaggeration. So he says most of the right stuff. What has he done for gay rights so far? Nothing! (oh...the rejoinder will be he's not in office yet....ok...what has he done at the State or Federal level? Anybody know? Not a thing that I know of. All we have is a platform on which he made promises.)



You all can get your panties in a knot a MONTH BEFORE THE MAN IS EVEN INAUGURATED if you want to. Go with God. I believe that I will wait and save my outrage, disappointment, sense of betrayal until I see how PRESIDENT Obama actually proceeds to work through his stated agenda. We have elected this man to do a superhuman task. We want him to save the planet from Global warming so that gay people of the future will have someplace to live. We want him to save the global economy from a decades long depression so that gay people will have jobs. We want him to save the American health care system so that gay people will have hospitals in which to visit their spouses (assuming that they are allowed to). We want him to re-invent the world energy system so that gay people don't have to pay $10 a gallon to get around. We want him to solve world hunger so that poor gay babies in other countries don't starve.

This is a rather tall order and I think that he will need some wiggle room to accomplish it.

Now... If we are looking back two years from now and he has done nothing about eliminating DADT or repealling DOMA or if he has declined to sign the hate crime legislation, then I will join you all in your outrage. Until then, give the man some room to work.

[Matt Algren]

You all can get your panties in a knot
Really?




Really?!?

[Daniel]

You all can get your panties in a knot a MONTH BEFORE THE MAN IS EVEN INAUGURATED if you want to. Go with God. I believe that I will wait and save my outrage, disappointment, sense of betrayal until I see how PRESIDENT Obama actually proceeds to work through his stated agenda. We have elected this man to do a superhuman task. We want him to save the planet from Global warming so that gay people of the future will have someplace to live. We want him to save the global economy from a decades long depression so that gay people will have jobs. We want him to save the American health care system so that gay people will have hospitals in which to visit their spouses (assuming that they are allowed to). We want him to re-invent the world energy system so that gay people don't have to pay $10 a gallon to get around. We want him to solve world hunger so that poor gay babies in other countries don't starve.

Go with God? "We want him to save..."

Jesus! It's the Second Coming! How could I have missed it? I mean really U-dog, you've opened my eyes at last!

Obama is the man who is going to make everything, and I mean EVERTHING right!

Let's go with him! Whatever he wants! Whatever he needs! Whatever he says! Doesn't matter! He's God!

He's going to SAVE us!

Yes he can! Yes he can! Yes he can! Yes he can!.........

[nmwolfboy]

If we are looking back two years from now and he has done nothing about eliminating DADT or repealling DOMA or if he has declined to sign the hate crime legislation, then I will join you all in your outrage. Until then, give the man some room to work.Amen. While the announcement of Warren to deliver the invocation was a visceral punch in the gut for me, i think all the outrage i'm hearing from some (not all, SOME) gay people is premature. The President-elect also chose civil rights giant (and supporter of gay rights) the Rev. Joseph Lowery to deliver the benediction. While i would prefer the choices were flipped, with Lowery delivering the invocation instead of Warren, i think Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend may be on to something (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=E7635CE4757FDDF883D5ED37ED 86331E?diaryId=8687). And good old Andrew Sullivan, with whom i tend to disagree more than agree overall, also has a valid perspective (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/taking-yes-for.html) i think.Dish readers will know my own conflicted feelings about the selection of Rick Warren for the Inaugural Invocation. But feelings must at some point cede to reason. And I sense an understandable but, the more I think about it, misjudged response on the part of my fellow gays and lesbians. In our hurt, we may be pushing away from a real opportunity to engage and win hearts and minds.

Why not take Obama's choice of Warren as an opportunity to shine more light on the utter lack of compassion and integrity in Warren's anti-gay views? To get our truth out there while the media's looking for angles to cover? If all we do is protest and complain, i fear it's like a Christmas gift to those who oppose our equality. i've also recently noted reports that some conservative evangelical Christians are not happy with Warren's acceptance of his role in the inaugural ceremonies. Erosion of some of Warren's base is hardly something that saddens me.

One reality that i think some lgbt folks may be missing is that if Obama had gathered together a representative group of, let's say, 100 evangelical Christian clergy and then had randomly picked one to deliver the invocation, that randomly chosen pastor would most likely share Rev. Warren's views on gay rights & abortion rights. The evangelical right exists, and much of the prejudice & ignorance we face is rooted in the soil they're tending. At least since the announcement of Warren, he's been on the defense in the media and his lame bigotry is there for everyone to expose & critique. We've known about Warren for some time - many others are only now waking up to his un-Christian stances toward women and lgbt people.

[Zerbie]

But that's the whole point, Scott. If we didn't speak out and say 'hey, we're concerned about Rick Warren's role in the inaugural,' there would be no context to bring those bigoted views into the spotlight and question them.

I'm concerned about Warren's role. But I'm not really upset yet since - think about what his role is NOT - it is not a cabinet position. He will not be part of the administration. Therefore, he will not be setting policy.

Voicing our concern is the perfect way to raise awareness, which is what needs to take place.

[nmwolfboy]

Agreed, Zerbie. i'm just concerned that the media will only report the anger over Warren's choice, and not the reasons why his rhetoric is bankrupt, or why our rights are important. Definitely speak out, yes. But if we focus more on Obama in this choice than on Warren i fear we may help others in their predisposition to marginalize us.

[Matt Algren]

Go with God? "We want him to save..."

Jesus! It's the Second Coming! How could I have missed it? I mean really U-dog, you've opened my eyes at last!

Obama is the man who is going to make everything, and I mean EVERTHING right!

Let's go with him! Whatever he wants! Whatever he needs! Whatever he says! Doesn't matter! He's God!

He's going to SAVE us!

Yes he can! Yes he can! Yes he can! Yes he can!.........
Now now, boy. Remember your place.

[Zerbie]

Agreed, Zerbie. i'm just concerned that the media will only report the anger over Warren's choice, and not the reasons why his rhetoric is bankrupt, or why our rights are important. Definitely speak out, yes. But if we focus more on Obama in this choice than on Warren i fear we may help others in their predisposition to marginalize us.

Nothing to be done about that, unfortunately. The media loves a controversy, and it loves to portray everything in black & white instead of in the fullness of what is really going on. We have very little control over what reporters write or say, and sometimes they get things just plain WRONG.

Luckily, we have the internet, blogs, letters to the editor, etc. We can only do the best that WE can. The rest, I suppose, is luck of the draw.

[nmwolfboy]

Just ran across a blog post (http://hollywoodfarmgirl.blogspot.com/2008/12/big-ricks-yamaka.html) from Melissa Etheridge's wife, Tammy, about their meeting with Rick Warren this past Saturday.

[u-dog]

Go with God? "We want him to save..."

Jesus! It's the Second Coming! How could I have missed it? I mean really U-dog, you've opened my eyes at last!

Obama is the man who is going to make everything, and I mean EVERTHING right!

Let's go with him! Whatever he wants! Whatever he needs! Whatever he says! Doesn't matter! He's God!

He's going to SAVE us!

Yes he can! Yes he can! Yes he can! Yes he can!.........

Am I totally inarticulate?

Does Daniel actually NOT understand what I say?

Does Daniel deliberately distort what I say?

Perhaps I will never know. Who really cares anyway.

Just for the record though. I am not proclaiming that Obama is the Messiah and I do not expect him to solve all the world problems single handedly in a single four year term. (or even in two)

My point is as follows: We have elected Obama to a particularly difficult job during a particularly difficult moment in history. Let's give him some room and some time to show us how he intends to tackle them before we call for his impeachment.

In the words of the immortal Forrest Gump: "That's all I have to say about that"

[u-dog]

Really?




Really?!?


Absolutely. (take care WHERE you place the knot though. Serious injuries have been known to result from excessive panty knotting.

[Matt Algren]

Absolutely. (take care WHERE you place the knot though. Serious injuries have been known to result from excessive panty knotting.
I'm just trying to figure out when protesting bigots speaking on behalf of the entire nation became a bad thing. I'm amazed that there are so many people willing to sit in the corner while the big men decide what's best for them and when best to give it to them. When has that ever worked?

And who's called for Obama's impeachment?

[u-dog]

I'm just trying to figure out when protesting bigots speaking on behalf of the entire nation became a bad thing. I'm amazed that there are so many people willing to sit in the corner while the big men decide what's best for them and when best to give it to them. When has that ever worked?

Not bad. Go for it!

And who's called for Obama's impeachment?

Ironic Hyperbole Matt. No one is calling for his impeachment.

[Matt Algren]

Just ran across a blog post (http://hollywoodfarmgirl.blogspot.com/2008/12/big-ricks-yamaka.html) from Melissa Etheridge's wife, Tammy, about their meeting with Rick Warren this past Saturday.
Just thought I should point out that it's surprising that Rick agreed to meet with Ms. Etheridge. When Soulforce tried to have a conversation with him last summer, the best he could offer was a weird hug before he ran in the other direction.

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/12/that_weird_hug_from_rick_warren.php

Maybe hugging lesbians is just more fun. (He did say something the other day about wanting to have sex with every beautiful woman he sees.)

[nmwolfboy]

Just thought I should point out that it's surprising that Rick agreed to meet with Ms. Etheridge. When Soulforce tried to have a conversation with him last summer, the best he could offer was a weird hug before he ran in the other direction.

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/12/that_weird_hug_from_rick_warren.php

Maybe hugging lesbians is just more fun. (He did say something the other day about wanting to have sex with every beautiful woman he sees.)
Or maybe none of us is as two-dimensional as we sometimes like to think.

For the record, i don't think protesting is a bad thing, or i wouldn't have done as much of it as i have over the years. But neither do i think that anger alone will move us forward toward the goal of equality.

[nmwolfboy]

Jesus! It's the Second Coming! How could I have missed it? I mean really U-dog, you've opened my eyes at last!

Obama is the man who is going to make everything, and I mean EVERTHING right!

Let's go with him! Whatever he wants! Whatever he needs! Whatever he says! Doesn't matter! He's God!

He's going to SAVE us!

Yes he can! Yes he can! Yes he can! Yes he can!.........http://www.nmwolfboy.com/pix_deposit/straw-man.jpg

[Daniel]

Now now, boy. Remember your place.

Can I have more please? (holding my bowl out)

Pretty pretty please?

[Matt Algren]

Or maybe none of us is as two-dimensional as we sometimes like to think.

For the record, i don't think protesting is a bad thing, or i wouldn't have done as much of it as i have over the years. But neither do i think that anger alone will move us forward toward the goal of equality.
I don't think he's two dimensional, but I do trust the words from his own mouth last week when he compared you to an incestuous pedophile and a whore. I trust the words from his own mouth last week when he said that marriage equality would impinge on his freedom of speech.

I'm not making this shit up. There's video of it all. From last week.

[nmwolfboy]

Look, i'm NOT defending Warren. i'd just prefer that people focus on the ignorance that Warren spreads, rather than jump to the conclusion that the President-elect has thrown gay people under the bus. It's not like Warren's been appointed to any Administration post. And frankly, i like seeing Warren on the hot seat. :D

And i wasn't just referring to Warren when i wrote about seeing people as two-dimensional.

Besides, Warren doesn't even know me, so he wasn't comparing me to a pedophile and a whore. :)

Pax et bonum,
scott

[u-dog]

Look, i'm NOT defending Warren. i'd just prefer that people focus on the ignorance that Warren spreads, rather than jump to the conclusion that the President-elect has thrown gay people under the bus. It's not like Warren's been appointed to any Administration post. And frankly, i like seeing Warren on the hot seat. :D

And i wasn't just referring to Warren when i wrote about seeing people as two-dimensional.

Besides, Warren doesn't even know me, so he wasn't comparing me to a pedophile and a whore. :)

Pax et bonum,
scott

I don't wanna fight but I'm happy to hold Scott's coat.

[Daniel]

Here's one snippet from Rev. Gene Robinson


http://www.towleroad.com/2008/12/rick-warren-def.html

Gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, who advised Obama several times during his campaign, weighed in on the invitation to Rick Warren, and said that hearing about the selection was like was like "a slap in the face.":

"I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table, but we’re not talking about a discussion, we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know."

My point exactly. It ain't a discussion. It ain't a panel. It ain't a conference. It's a ceremony which the whole world is going to be watching.

Know what? Obama is not going to withdrawl his invitation. That would be seen as a sign of weakness. And that would infuriate Warren's supporters. As it is, Obama, who has been likened to Lincoln, hasn't even fought his own civil war- and here he is- trying to bring us all together as if he had- after the fact. That's what is premature.

Our community is going to have to eat this one. A bitter pill it is too. Especially if one is just married and watching from- say- San Diego, Laguna or Santa Barbara.

I hope that we all remember what's happened here. And by that I mean the ruckus that us gay folks have raised. It's important to stand up and speak one's mind and heart. It's important to call a spade a spade.

It's important to not sit back and expect others to do for us what we have to do ourselves.

Just saw the movie Milk a few days ago. And I was moved by the scene where Milk asks- yea- demands that everyone working for him be out- right then and there- no one can work for him and be in the closet.

We still have some who are in the closet here, don't we?

Let's not confuse our reticence to speak truth to power with our own reticence to be out. And I mean all the way out.

And that's all I'm going to say on the matter.

[tdogg]

I agree that we need to give Obama a chance to do the right thing once he's in office. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with that. I also agree we need to let Obama know how we feel about his choice of Rick Warren to perform the invocation. This is not an insignificant part of the inauguration. It's a big deal and I take offense to Obama's choice. I believe that our president elect does believe in equal rights under the law. He says he is a 'fierce' advocate of equality. I have yet to actually see substantiation of that claim, but I am hopeful.

In the same breath I also believe we must let our president elect know if his choice or Warren is offensive, hurtful, and/or angering. He is displacing some, maybe a lot, of trust with this decision. Really, everything he is doing now, prior to actually taking office, is being scrutinized, analyzed and will set the tone for the first year. This isn't the tone I was hoping he would set.

So, while we must give him a chance to live up to this claim of being a 'fierce advocate' for us, we must also give him some feedback on how he's doing so far. Not so great with this particular choice. So, not much else we can do but send our emails, calls, protest, whatever. It takes all actions to make ourselves known, stand up for ourselves and equality. I believe we must build some bridges between GLBT and religion, and I am hard at work trying to figure out how to do that. But we certainly aren't starting with the likes of people like Rick Warren.

[tdogg]

Just saw the movie Milk a few days ago. And I was moved by the scene where Milk asks- yea- demands that everyone working for him be out- right then and there- no one can work for him and be in the closet.

We still have some who are in the closet here, don't we?

Let's not confuse our reticence to speak truth to power with our own reticence to be out. And I mean all the way out.


I feel this is the single most important thing anyone can do to progress towards full equality. I feel for those who chose to remain hidden for whatever reason and I would never discount anyone's reason. Likewise I wouldn't choose to say anything derogatory or disrespect anyone for their choice. But it does, I believe, set us back in our fight for equal rights. It's one of our obstacles - that we can blend in and remain hidden.

[Daniel]

Removed it's anti-gay language from it's website.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/rick-warren-pulls-anti-gay-language.html

"So does Rick Warren now welcome gays, all gays, as members of his church? Or is he simply embarrassed of his views - embarrassed of God's views, per Warren's own admission? And if Warren is embarrassed of God's views, then what is he doing as a public spokesman on religion? And whose idea was it to remove the anti-gay language? Warren's, or Obama's?"

[nmwolfboy]

Let's not confuse our reticence to speak truth to power with our own reticence to be out. And I mean all the way out.

And that's all I'm going to say on the matter.By all means speak truth to power. And as we do, let's not fall prey to the myopia that hurt and anger can sometimes foster. The prize we seek is far too vital for us not to consider the long view.

While initially the news of the choice of Warren did make my stomach turn, what's kept me nauseous has been what seems to me to be an increasingly reactive stance of some lgbt leaders. i share the feelings, but worry that reliance on angry protests alone in this instance could lead to a pyrrhic victory for us. Rather, i suspect this is a time to stand tall with dignity and challenge Warren's (and by extension the fundgelicals') slanderous rhetoric.

My personal angst over the announcement of Warren's role in the Inauguration prompted me to go back & review the Soulforce Credo About My Adversary (http://www.soulforce.org/article/679). I believe that my adversary is also a child of the Creator, that we are both members of the same human family, that we are sisters and brothers in need of reconciliation.

I believe that my adversary is not my enemy, but a victim of misinformation as I have been.

I believe that my only task is to bring my adversary truth in love (nonviolence) relentlessly.

I believe that my adversary's motives are as pure as mine and of no relevance to our discussion.

I believe that even my worst adversary has an amazing potential for positive change.

I believe that my adversary may have an insight into truth that I do not have.

I believe that one day my adversary and I will understand each other and that if we conduct our search for truth guided by the principles of love, we will find a new position to satisfy us both.

[antiochian]

Bad Christmas Gift Idea= "The Purpose Driven Life"

[Daniel]

Warren to speak at King memorial Lake Forest pastor will speak at historic Baptist church.

By ERIKA I. RITCHIE
The Orange County Register

LAKE FOREST – Just one day before giving the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration, a local pastor will be the keynote speaker at the Martin Luther King Jr. Annual Commemorative Service, officials at Saddleback Church said.

Rick Warren – pastor of the 22,000-member Saddleback Church – made national headlines in recent days when proponents of gay marriage criticized the selection of Warren to give the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration.

The service is scheduled for Jan. 19 at the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and is included in the official program of the 10-day King Center's Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration, which begins on Jan. 10.
The Reverend Mark Whitlock, senior pastor at Christ Our Redeemer AME Church in Irvine, said Obama’s invitation opened the door for positive communication between the conservative movement and the civil rights movement.

“I think this is nothing but a wonderful statement about the progress that makes up our lives,” said Whitlock. “Rick Warren – someone many would consider in the southern Baptist tradition – has embraced diversity. We can come together in the common love of Christ in contrast to our social opinion.”

Phil Munsey, pastor of Life Church in Mission Viejo with a congregation of 2,200 of which 22 percent is African American, is not surprised with Warren's selection.

“I think it's unique given the backdrop of demographics of Orange County being so low for the African American community,” said Munsey. “To have an Orange County minister participating is an honor. Rick Warren's influence in the nation is intriguing. Even though it appears he's offended the liberals in his statement, Christians have to hold on to their belief system without being offensive. The controversy is countered by Warren's offer to participate in the MLK event. It shows the seeds Rick Warren has sewn towards reconciliation to bring people together. It's hard to do that in a divided nation.”

Last Thursday Warren praised Obama for his courage to take flack from supporters and invite the evangelical minister to deliver the open prayer at next month's inaugural.

"I commend President-elect Barack Obama for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn't agree on every issue, to offer the invocation at his historic inaugural ceremony,'' Warren said in a statement issued by the church Thursday afternoon.

Then Warren gave a similar rationale for his selection as Obama did earlier in the day – that Americans need to put the politics of the past aside and come together.

"Hopefully individuals passionately expressing opinions from the left and the right will recognize that both of us have shown a commitment to model civility in America,'' Warren's statement continued."

At that time gay activists and many rank-and-file Democrats were aghast at Obama's choice for this high-profile assignment, a moment that will likely be watched by a record number of Americans and people around the world. But supporters of Warren and members of the church he leads defended the pastor and his message.

Warren has been highly visible during the past campaign and in his association with presidents. Warren hosted Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain at Saddleback during the campaign for a discussion of social issues. And Warren was recently in Washington, D.C., presenting President George W. Bush with a medal for his work to combat global HIV/AIDS.

It is very hard to hold onto the belief that gay people should not have civil rights because of a quasi-literal interpretation of the old testement (why aren't we stoning adulterers?) and have that belief not be perceived as being offensive.

[Daniel]

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/12/biden-etheridge.html


"I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine. When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future."


The sticking point for Warren? Apparently it's gay marriage. However, he believes that we deserve equal protection under the law? That's great.

Know what? I'd like to hear these thoughts from the horse's mouth.

[tdogg]

I'd like to see Warren actually DO something to demonstrate that he is for equal rights under the law. He demonstrated just the opposite by supporting Prop 8. Now, if he wrote a Friend of the Court to the CA Supreme Court, supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop 8, then maybe I could begin to believe him. Meanwhile, he either lied to Melissa or he's so afraid of his conservative counterparts that he is unable to tell the truth publicly. It's time for him to put up or shut up.

[u-dog]

just saw the movie milk a few days ago. And i was moved by the scene where milk asks- yea- demands that everyone working for him be out- right then and there- no one can work for him and be in the closet.

We still have some who are in the closet here, don't we?

Let's not confuse our reticence to speak truth to power with our own reticence to be out. And i mean all the way out.

And that's all i'm going to say on the matter.

********* 924**********

[sauu4equality]

Just ran across a blog post (http://hollywoodfarmgirl.blogspot.com/2008/12/big-ricks-yamaka.html) from Melissa Etheridge's wife, Tammy, about their meeting with Rick Warren this past Saturday.

Rick Warren has no intention of letting us "wear our hats." He has said he does not want the "homosexual lifestyle" to be normalized. He has said that "gay relationships" are the equivalent of rape and incest. The damage he has done and the violence against gay persons he has legitimized make him hateful toward gay people. That blog was so ridiculous I can't even believe it...different hats? It is real easy for someone that doesn't need these marriage rights to talk about taking less than full equality. She is ignorant of all the cases that companies have used the distinction between marriage and civil unions to discriminate against those with civil unions. And someone needs to let her in on this little secret. No one has once said that Rick Warren seems like a bad guy. Hence the "Dobsen-Lite" label. But he is hateful toward gay people in a more dangerous way because his friendliness legitimizes his hatred to so many.

[sauu4equality]

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/12/biden-etheridge.html




Know what? I'd like to hear these thoughts from the horse's mouth.


Won't happen. He's just being friendly behind closed doors. He has no intention of allowing Civil Unions. As soon as he beats marriage, he'll be after Civil Unions. He's got an Ex-Gay Ministry...come on...let's not be naive. Hopefully, he changes his mind. That's what we need to happen. But right now he is effectively anti-gay no mater what Tammy thinks...:mad:

[Matt Algren]

And now for the completely ridiculous damage control, in which Rick Warren says that he never said the things he said on video last week (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2008/12/rick-warren-makes-baby-jesus-cry/). That was apparently his evil twin.

(That would explain the bad goatee...)

[Daniel]

Don't think you could say that about most folks around here. But this is an assertion made by Warren about those who criticize him. Towleroad is chock-a-block with news on this latest development, the key thing being Warren's 2 part address to his church.

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/12/rick-warren-say.html

I listened to both parts. Not only does Warren make an effort to re-frame statements recently made (thank you Matt), he makes others which are troublesome, the main point being his beliefs about gay people. While believing that he is called to love everyone, he also believes that gay people have made some kind of 'choice', the implication that being gay is not God's will for their lives. Oh...he doesn't quite come out and say it that way, but if you follow his statements closely, this is what is evident. All done with a smile of course.

This may be the central issue which underlies all others. In Warren's worldview, gays need God's love, and he is going to give it to us for our own good.

Oh...and Warren visited a gay book store in West Hollywood.

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/12/rick-warren-sta.html

What to make out of all of this? I am not sure. But I wonder if this is about damage control. However, after hearing Warren's own words, I have the sense that the love that Warren wants to give us may not be for our own good. It all smells like 'love the sinner and hate the sin' thinking, just a little nicer, a little more cozy.

Gore Vidal remarked 30 years ago that if facism ever came to America, it would not come in the form of a figure like Hitler, but the calm soothing tones of an Arthur Godfry.

Warren is just such a figure. Which is why the separation of church and state is more important than ever. And why symbolism matters. The symbolism in question? His invocation at the inauguration.

[Rick336]

Saddleback Church takes anti-gay language off its website.

Click here: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid69443.asp



Rick

[Daniel]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122201848.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Richard Cohen says it better than anyone I have read so far...

The conventional thing to say is that Obama has a preacher problem -- first the volcanic Jeremiah Wright and now the transparently anti-gay Warren. But the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama's inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.

This was apparent to me almost a year ago when I reported that Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, had given a major award to Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. The award was presented in Wright's name and featured in a cover story in the church's magazine, Trumpet. When I asked the Obama campaign about this, I was told that Obama himself did not agree with Farrakhan. What a relief!

And what a joke. I never for a moment thought Obama viewed Farrakhan any differently from the way I do. But I also thought that as a U.S. senator, as a presidential candidate or even as a mere citizen, he had an obligation to denounce the award -- maybe quit the church. Do something! He did nothing.

Now we have a repeat of that episode. This time it is not Obama's preacher who has decided to honor a bigot, it is Obama himself. And, once again, we get the same sort of rationalizations. Obama says he does not agree with Warren about all things. Obama says he himself is not anti-gay and, in fact, although he does not support same-sex marriage (as opposed to civil unions), he has been a stalwart champion of gay causes. Therefore, it seems to follow, he can honor an anti-gay activist.

I can understand Obama's desire to embrace constituencies that have rejected him. Evangelicals are in that category and Warren is an important evangelical leader with whom, Obama said, "we're not going to agree on every single issue." He went on to say, "We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." Sounds nice.

But what we do not "hold in common" is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.

Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue -- the rights of gays to be treated equally -- as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate.

[Matt Algren]

Don't think you could say that about most folks around here. But this is an assertion made by Warren about those who criticize him. Towleroad is chock-a-block with news on this latest development, the key thing being Warren's 2 part address to his church.

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/12/rick-warren-say.html

I listened to both parts. Not only does Warren make an effort to re-frame statements recently made (thank you Matt), he makes others which are troublesome, the main point being his beliefs about gay people. While believes that he is called to love everyone, he believes that gay people have made some kind of 'choice', the implication that being gay is not God's will for their lives. Oh...he doesn't quite come out and say it that way, but if you follow his statements closely, this is what is evident. All done with a smile of course.

This may be the central issue which underlies all others. In Warren's worldview, gays need God's love, and he is going to give it to us for our own good.

Oh...and Warren visited a gay book store in West Hollywood.

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/12/rick-warren-sta.html

What to make out of all of this? I am not sure. But I wonder if this is about damage control. However, after hearing Warren's own words, I have the sense that the love that Warren wants to give us may not be for our own good. It all smells like 'love the sinner and hate the sin' thinking, just a little nicer, a little more cozy.

Gore Vidal remarked 30 years ago that if facism ever came to America, it would not come in the form of a figure like Hitler, but the calm soothing tones of an Arthur Godfry.

Warren is just such a figure. Which is why the separation of church and state is more important than ever. And why symbolism matters. The symbolism in question? His invocation at the inauguration.
It's the standard turnaround. "You're not the victim, I'm the victim! Look at all these bad things you say about me! Quit making me a victim!"

When in reality, everything he's pointing to is justified reaction to his hateful bigotry.

And of course, now he's having pictures taken with The Homosexuals and kissing the heinie of Melissa Etheridge, who I expected to be able to see through his nonsense.

(Good As You (http://www.goodasyou.org/) has been a good source too.)

[Daniel]

It's the standard turnaround. "You're not the victim, I'm the victim! Look at all these bad things you say about me! Quit making me a victim!")

Of the dynamic understood in psychology: projection makes for perception.

Which is why beliefs really do matter. Know what? I would feel a lot better if the president of the United States was sworn in with his hand on the Constitution rather than the bible. And I have capitalized one and not the other for a reason.

What's more important here anyway? God? Jesus? The Virgin Mary?

No! No! No!

I want civil rights up to and including marriage. Not anyone's morality on a stick!

[Matt Algren]

And now for a mood-lightener. This morning it was announced that Barack Obama will be sworn in using Abraham Lincoln's Bible (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/23/obama-lincoln-bible-for-i_n_153052.html). Really cool idea, I think. Nice symbolism, other issues aside.

Comedy Central has this:

Barack Obama to Swear into Office on Homosexual Atheist's Bible (http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/12/23/barack-obama-to-swear-in-to-presidency-on-homosexual-atheists-bible/)

Such a thumbing of the nose at all the good old fashioned family values on which this country was founded will almost certainly come as a blow to all the decent Americans who were hoping that anti-gay rights Christian Pastor Rick Warren's prayer at the inauguration was a signal to their ranks that he would be continuing the current administration's policy of coddling them.

No such luck. By deliberately choosing the Bible of Abraham Lincoln -- a man who, if not an absolute homosexual, certainly had strong homosexual leanings, and who believed in neither the Bible nor a personal god -- Obama seems to be giving aid and comfort to the enemies of American values.

The day seems to belong to the degenerate heathen sodomites.

Now come on. That's funny.

[Daniel]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/gayabe.htm

C.A. Tripp's book The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln makes the case that Lincoln had several homosexual relationships throughout his life. But the controversy surrounding the book has overshadowed an important fact that Tripp revealed -- a fact even harsh critics accept as true: Ann Rutledge was not the love of Lincoln's life.
Tripp's extensive new research proves it simply cannot have been the case.

And many experts, including Pulitzer Prize winning Lincoln historian David Herbert Donald now concede it is so.

Matt- it is highly ironic that Obama has chosen to take the oath of office with Lincoln's bible. And funny too. You can't make this stuff up, can you?

[tymejumper]

Once again I have to say, cynic that I am, I will believe it when I see and hear it! Let Warren actually come to our defense at the Inaguration and this would end the contraversy once and for all. I highly doubt it will happen, but then again, things more surprising have happended.

Much Metta All

[nmwolfboy]

Rick Warren has no intention of letting us "wear our hats." He has said he does not want the "homosexual lifestyle" to be normalized. He has said that "gay relationships" are the equivalent of rape and incest. The damage he has done and the violence against gay persons he has legitimized make him hateful toward gay people. That blog was so ridiculous I can't even believe it...different hats? It is real easy for some rich POS that doesn't need these marriage rights to talk out her ass. She is completely ignorant of all the cases that companies have used the distinction between marriage and civil unions to discriminate against those with civil unions. And someone needs to let her in on this little secret. Maybe, if she left her ivory tower every once in a while she'd be a little more informed. "Honey" seems to get it. No one has once said that Rick Warren seems like a bad guy. Hence the "Dobsen-Lite" label. But he is hateful toward gay people in a more dangerous way because his friendliness legitimizes his hatred to so many.What i found most interesting about Tammy's blog is that she made such a turnaround. In the days before the blog entry to which i linked, she expressed much of the same outrage that i've seen from some of us in the gay community.

'Rich POS', 'doesn't need these marriage rights', 'talk out (of) her ass' and 'ignorant'? Seems like making assumptions about people we don't know personally isn't just the province of those who want to deny our rights.

There's one question that keeps circling around in my mind. Which is more important: salving our hurts with self-righteous anger, or using the media opportunity of Warren's appointment to once again make the case that recognition of our equality is the right & moral thing?

[nmwolfboy]

Bad Christmas Gift Idea= "The Purpose Driven Life":lol::D:lol::D:lol::D:lol::D:lol:

[sauu4equality]

What i found most interesting about Tammy's blog is that she made such a turnaround. In the days before the blog entry to which i linked, she expressed much of the same outrage that i've seen from some of us in the gay community.

Seems like making assumptions about people we don't know personally isn't just the province of those who want to deny our rights.

There's one question that keeps circling around in my mind. Which is more important: salving our hurts with self-righteous anger, or using the media opportunity of Warren's appointment to once again make the case that recognition of our equality is the right & moral thing?

I will edit my post because I think name-calling is wrong. Although I stand by the fact that she is ignorant. She obviously from her blog has no idea that civil unions do not allow for equality. It is very frustrating to hear ignorant comments come from those that are in no need of protection or marriage rights. I read Andrew Sullivan religiously, but his constant pandering to the other side seems almost like self-hatred to me. You wanna sit around and take civil unions only to see more discrimination in the work place, fine. I'm sure I can find a lesbian that wants to make an arrangement and get marriage benefits. If thats what we have to do then so be it.

[tdogg]

Bad Christmas Gift Idea= "The Purpose Driven Life"

But if you do happen to get one for Christmas, my buddy and I are planning "Purpose Driven Drive Back". We are putting the word out to see what response we might get, to collecting these and driving them back to the steps of Saddleback church. Preferably a firm yet non-violent note will be written in the first page(s) of the book prior to our collecting them, so that Rick Warren will have some reading material.

I will be happy to reimburse anyone on the SF forums for postage should you be interested in mailing your PDL book to me for the collection and return, hopefully with a nice little note for Ricky. :love:

[nmwolfboy]

You wanna sit around and take civil unions only to see more discrimination in the work place, fine. I'm sure I can find a lesbian that wants to make an arrangement and get marriage benefits. If thats what we have to do then so be it.i've already indicated that i'm for full marriage rights. My partner & i live in New Mexico, where we don't have either civil unions OR full marriage rights. :unhappy: In fact, if Prop 8 hadn't passed, we had planned to get married this Christmas, since we're visiting family in California. Not being able to marry this week as previously planned makes for a bittersweet holiday.

[Emproph]

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg288/vvtrs/gif%20icons/thGetYoPopcornReady.gif

[Daniel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28rich.html?hp


Warren’s defamation of gay people illustrates why, as does our president-elect’s rationalization of it. When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.

It is even more toxic in a year when that group has been marginalized and stripped of its rights by ballot initiatives fomenting precisely such fears. “You’ve got to give them hope” was the refrain of the pioneering 1970s gay politician Harvey Milk, so stunningly brought back to life by Sean Penn on screen this winter. Milk reminds us that hope has to mean action, not just words.

By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history.

Since he’s not about to rescind the invitation, what happens next? For perspective, I asked Timothy McCarthy, a historian who teaches at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and an unabashed Obama enthusiast who served on his campaign’s National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Leadership Council. He responded via e-mail on Christmas Eve.

After noting that Warren’s role at the inauguration is, in the end, symbolic, McCarthy concluded that “it’s now time to move from symbol to substance.” This means Warren should “recant his previous statements about gays and lesbians, and start acting like a Christian.”

McCarthy added that it’s also time “for President-elect Obama to start acting on the promises he made to the LGBT community during his campaign so that he doesn’t go down in history as another Bill Clinton, a sweet-talking swindler who would throw us under the bus for the sake of political expediency.” And “for LGBT folks to choose their battles wisely, to judge Obama on the content of his policy-making, not on the character of his ministers.”

[Steven E. Webster]

Daniel,
Great article by Frank Rich.

Bill Clinton screwed up big time on Don't Ask Don't Tell early in his first term. (Not the only thing he screwed up!)

Obama, I here, is going to delay action on Don't Ask Don't Tell, but I think he should be pushed to at least lay out a process of dialogue to move the military and congress to end this policy. Clinton would have been much smarter to have had such a process.

But times have changed since Clinton's day---many in the military may be ready to support change now. A little leadership from the Commander-in-Chief might go a long way in motivating the military to change.

Steven Webster

[BruceChris]

This is going to have to include a few redneck funde-vangelests. We may have to hold our noses, but we shouldn't take it too personally.

Trying to look past Jan 20, Bruce Chris

[nmwolfboy]

You're right Daniel, the Rich column is excellent. Here's another column that made some sense to me: What Would Obama Do if Obama Was Mad at Obama About Rick Warren? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-quigg/what-would-obama-do-if-ob_b_153794.html)
Warren is the anti-gay-marriage pastor who Obama picked to lead a prayer at the presidential inauguration. People are pissed. People I know. People I respect. People I love.

So recently I've spent a lot of time arguing -- mostly with myself -- about what tactics and strategies make the most sense for the people who feel they've been slapped in the face by the Warren pick.

There are sensible people who look at Warren and see a man who belittled their marriages, lied about the perils California faced if it didn't pass Proposition 8, and -- in helping get gay marriage repealed -- thwarted their deepest aspirations for equality. Imagine that there was someone who'd belittled Obama, lied about him, and tried to thwart his most high-stakes aspirations. Would Obama invite that person to lead a prayer at the inauguration? The answer is no. Absolutely not. Because the Secretary of State doesn't lead inaugural prayers.

Which brings us to Lesson One of what Obama would do if Obama was mad at Obama about Rick Warren. He'd move on. He'd refuse to be distracted. He'd brush the dirt off his shoulder and immediately return his focus to winning. Winning, lest we forget, has nothing to do with dictating when and where Rick Warren gets to lead prayers. Winning is about achieving durable equality for gay and lesbian couples who want the law to recognize that their bonds are every bit as legitimate as my bond with my wife.

Victory -- durable, lasting victory -- is the most powerful answer to Warren. Victory is the most powerful answer to a slap in the face from the president-elect.

[Matt Algren]

You're right Daniel, the Rich column is excellent. Here's another column that made some sense to me: What Would Obama Do if Obama Was Mad at Obama About Rick Warren? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-quigg/what-would-obama-do-if-ob_b_153794.html)
Nonsense.

People act like it's impossible to be mad about a bigot praying on their behalf and work on other things at the same time. And that's silly. Moreover, Obama's endorsement of Rick Warren (which is what this amounts to) sends a clear signal to the gay community, a signal we should neither ignore nor accept.

[Alecto]

I think the heart of the issue is what this symolizes. To Obama, this pick (hopefully) symbolizes an effort to reach those who probably weren't coming out in large numers to vote for him. It might even be a deliberate (though, if true, naive) effort on his part to invoke dialogue between two other parties. Or, I'm wrong, and we should be really angry.

To us, it most readily symbolizes a condoning, admiration, or even praise of a man that has overtly (and deliberately?) lied to further his religiously motivated politics.

Personally, I'm not rallying for Obama to "take back" the appointment. But you can be damn sure I'm going to tell everyone I know exactly how appalling Warren's behavior has been. (And if I see one more news outlet saying that people are upset because Warren "supported prop 8", I'm gonna flip. Cause that's not the part that bothers me: it's how he went about it). And I'm also going to be keeping a very close eye on Mr. Obama: as I said before, winning on a platform that supports gay rights REALLY doesn't give you any passes.

[u-dog]

Ok ... let me expand a little on an argument I alluded to earlier.

I am currently reading Friedman's book "Hot, Flat, and crowded". He makes the argument that in order to prevent the DOUBLING of CO2 levels by mid-century we need to take MAJOR action on at LEAST 8 of 15 possible strategiies. These are HUGE, expensive, intensive initiatives. Getting sufficient movement on even ONE of these initiatives will be political miracle. Getting movement on EIGHT of them will be nearly impossible. It would be largest peace-time mobilization of public and political will in the history of the nation. It would be in the same category as the national effort to win WWII. However, if we don't do it ... catastrophic climate change will be the inevitable result.

Obama cannot pull that off without the support of the evangelical right and the only place he can look for leadership on this issue is the "emerging church" movement within the evangelical movement. Rick Warren is an important voice in that movement.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS INVITATION IS MEANT TO BUILD A BRIDGE? Not a bridge to anti-gay anti-abortion evangelicalism but rather to that part of the evangelical movement that is trying to broaden the social agenda to include AIDS and environmentalism? That part of the movement that is trying to de-emphasize sexual morality?

IS IT POSSIBLE that if that is the case ... it might be worth it? I'm JUST talking about this stupid prayer. Might it not be worth it? to save the f***ing planet? maybe?

I'm not talking about throwing the whole GLBT agenda under the bus. I'm JUST talking about this STUPID PRAYER.

If Obama backs down on DADT or DOMA or Hate Crimes or Civil Unions ... then I will join the crusade. but until then ... I"m cutting him slack and I think you should too.

[Matt Algren]

Ok ... let me expand a little on an argument I alluded to earlier.

I am currently reading Friedman's book "Hot, Flat, and crowded". He makes the argument that in order to prevent the DOUBLING of CO2 levels by mid-century we need to take MAJOR action on at LEAST 8 of 15 possible strategiies. These are HUGE, expensive, intensive initiatives. Getting sufficient movement on even ONE of these initiatives will be political miracle. Getting movement on EIGHT of them will be nearly impossible. It would be largest peace-time mobilization of public and political will in the history of the nation. It would be in the same category as the national effort to win WWII. However, if we don't do it ... catastrophic climate change will be the inevitable result.

Obama cannot pull that off without the support of the evangelical right and the only place he can look for leadership on this issue is the "emerging church" movement within the evangelical movement. Rick Warren is an important voice in that movement.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS INVITATION IS MEANT TO BUILD A BRIDGE? Not a bridge to anti-gay anti-abortion evangelicalism but rather to that part of the evangelical movement that is trying to broaden the social agenda to include AIDS and environmentalism? That part of the movement that is trying to de-emphasize sexual morality?

IS IT POSSIBLE that if that is the case ... it might be worth it? I'm JUST talking about this stupid prayer. Might it not be worth it? to save the f***ing planet? maybe?

I'm not talking about throwing the whole GLBT agenda under the bus. I'm JUST talking about this STUPID PRAYER.

If Obama backs down on DADT or DOMA or Hate Crimes or Civil Unions ... then I will join the crusade. but until then ... I"m cutting him slack and I think you should too.
What you're saying is that we should be okay with it as long as the evil man smiles while he's hurting people (like, you know, with his ex-gay program) and as long as we get something out of it. So to answer your question, no it's not worth it.

President-elect Obama is giving Rick Warren his seal of approval, which reciprocally adds perceived value to Rick Warren's beliefs. Those beliefs include bigotry toward YOU, comparison between pedophiles and YOU, prejudice against YOU and understanding that YOU are broken and need fixed.

That's what this stupid prayer does; not to you and me, but to the 22,000 members of Saddleback, all the other evangelicals who listen to James Dobson every day and think YOU should be wiped off the map, and people who just aren't sure about this civil rights thing.




And don't hold your breath for repeal of DADT. Congressional leaders have already said that they won't bring it to the floor before 2011.

[u-dog]

What you're saying is that we should be okay with it as long as the evil man smiles while he's hurting people (like, you know, with his ex-gay program) and as long as we get something out of it. So to answer your question, no it's not worth it.

how did you get THIS out of anything I said?

President-elect Obama is giving Rick Warren his seal of approval,

I don't THINK so.

That's what this stupid prayer does; not to you and me, but to the 22,000 members of Saddleback, all the other evangelicals who listen to James Dobson every day and think YOU should be wiped off the map, and people who just aren't sure about this civil rights thing.


and as long as we get something out of it. So to answer your question, no it's not worth it.

So ...what you are saying is ... Equal Marriage rights is the most important issue in the world? Making sure that he gives the cold shoulder to an anti-gay pastor and religious movement is WAY more important than assembling a broad political coalition that might save human civilization from destruction?

I think I'm going to try to maintain a little more perspective than that. sorry.

[Matt Algren]

how did you get THIS out of anything I said?



I don't THINK so.





So ...what you are saying is ... Equal Marriage rights is the most important issue in the world? Making sure that he gives the cold shoulder to an anti-gay pastor and religious movement is WAY more important than assembling a broad political coalition that might save human civilization from destruction?

I think I'm going to try to maintain a little more perspective than that. sorry.
To begin with, you're really reaching for an excuse with this global warming plan you've imagined. Waaaay too many leaps and hoops to jump through to get there.

And as I've said before, I don't expect him to change his mind on this. I think he should, and I think it's the right thing to do, but I don't actually expect that he'll throw away the political capital on civil rights. I'm not so naive that I think he's anything but a grudging advocate of civil rights for LGBT people.

The point, or at least MY point, is that we should never forget where we stand with the Obama administration, and we should never let other people forget it either. This issue is important not because it affects me, but because it's an injustice that is hurting people as I type.

It's important that we be heard, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit quietly in the kitchen like a good boy because some others are embarrassed by the political inconvenience of their legislated inequality. I, and goddamn it YOU, deserve an equal voice. Forgive me if I keep reminding people of that until the job's done.

[u-dog]

My point is that WE DON'T KNOW WHY Obama decided to ask Warren to pray. Maybe its because he is a closet evangelical bigot.

It's unlikely but possible.

Maybe its because he has a bigger agenda (like global warming ... or something else) and he is throwing a bone to the evangelicals that he hopes to capitalize on later.

Or maybe ... none of the above.

But the fact is ... HE HASN"T EVEN BEEN SWORN IN YET. All I'm saying is that we should give the guy 48 hours in the fucking White House before we consign him to GLBT hell.

SHEESH.

[NathanATX]

Nate was able to put my feelings into words.

Jen, I feel badly that you've had to defend my words for me.

Here are a couple of follow-up posts I made in that conversation with some people on facebook.

Response 1:
It's interesting that you heard "give in" in what I wrote. The difference is Obama is really on our side. Most of the communication I've read from lgbt groups is coming from "we don't really trust you're on our side and, see you just proved it." And then they proceed to "demand" Obama do something. Not a powerful conversation, and, in my opinion, not really rooted in reality.

Do we need to be reminded that Obama acknowledged us in his acceptance speech? Do we need to be reminded he just appointed an out lesbian to his cabinet? (edit: that fell through that day :( ) And the list goes on...

We need to be communicating with him as if he is our partner in creating a just and fair America. Because, really, he is.

Rick Warren supported Prop 8 and that really sucks. And he's not a monster. He has simply been misinformed and is acting out of that misinformation.

Attack him and he'll feel more certain his misinformation is correct.

Speak powerfully to the lies he's been told AND hold him accountable to being loving.Response 2:
You all have some very well thought out points. Thank you for sharing!

When I wrote "An Opportunity for Change" I was referring to the opportunity that we, as the LGBT community, have to alter how we seek change.

We attack Obama and we harm our relationship with him, make him resistant to our logical and heartfelt concerns.

When we demonize Rick Warren or Fred Phelps we are failing to see these men as human beings, just like us. A human being has the potential of experiencing things, learning things, etc., that can ALTER his/her beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, etc. Just like you and I have grown, changed and morphed into the amazing people we are today ;) the same is possible for Rick Warren. Demonizing him for something he has done is essentially giving him an ontological life sentence. "This is who you are and the only way you can ever be."

If we have that way of thinking about others, it's probable that we have it for ourselves. That is the opportunity for change.

The essence of compassion is being able to see yourself in someone else's shoes. Had you lived their lives, been taught what they were taught, felt what they felt, etc., etc., that YOU would be capable of doing the EXACT same things.

Compassion isn't about letting people get away with harming others, being irresponsible, etc. But it is about responding to only what someone said or did... not "who" they are.

It really sounds like some are hearing "just give up" or "let Obama do what he wants" or "Rick Warren shouldn't be held accountable for what he did" or something along those lines.

That isn't what I'm saying.

I'm saying take the personal demonization and "life sentencing" out of the equation. When you do that, you also take the fear out of the equation. Because, really, that's what is there.

We're being afraid Obama won't really support us. We're fearful Rick Warren will cause more harm. We're fearful we won't get the protection we desperately need.

Do not be afraid.

[Jennifer5]

Jen, I feel badly that you've had to defend my words for me.

Here are a couple of follow-up posts I made in that conversation with some people on facebook.

Don't feel bad, I did it because I wanted to. They may have been your words, but they represented my feelings. :love: I was just glad that I was able to defend it somewhat.

[tdogg]

That Rick Warren is praying the stupid prayer does piss me off. I think the question might be more why is there even a prayer, rather than who gives it. But yes, Obama's choice here rubs me the wrong way.

But, I also believe there are huge issues that our new president elect will be facing in his first term. Equality is high on my list, but perhaps not as high as bringing our soldiers home. Let's end the stupid war (even stupider than the prayer). Let's bring our own home. Our new president will need to work ferociously on the economy and a national budget stripped bare by the last 8 years (and the war). We have the highest ever rates of unemployment. We have horrid health care, our school systems are failing, our prisons are bursting at the seams. And of course, we have the whole global warming/climate problems, environmental issues, the very air we breathe is no longer safe. And on top of this all is the volatile global situation of countries, and governments and religion.

So Obama will be an extremely busy man. He won't be able to do everything he would like to or promised us, certainly not in his first term and maybe not even in the second if he should stick it out for another 4 years. I agree, let's give him a break. Warren is a crapper and I'm sorry he's going to be giving the Inaugural invocation, but I think that is a done deal and we need to focus on the bigger issues, the big picture. If we can come up with some positives, that would be a start. Like how Warren's anti-gay stance and homophobia has been highlighted in the media. He looked like an idiot talking about how he feels on same sex marriage, and then denying those same statements a week later.

Basically, the religious wrong continue to make themselves look less and less credible. In the long run, Warren will be a vague memory. I'm with U on this one - I'll reserve my judgment for what Obama actually does, or doesn't do, after he is sitting in the White House for a while.

[u-dog]

Well put tdogg! I don't know why people don't think your smart. ;)

[Matt Algren]

Amazing. Less than two months after the election and even the Califonia queers are making excuses. You think THAT'S going to convince th government to make contraversial changes for a tiny minority group? "Yes sir, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind acting like I'm a human being deserving of respect? Not right now, of course. Just sometime in the next generation or so. I'd be forever in your debt, sir."

[NathanATX]

Amazing. Less than two months after the election and even the Califonia queers are making excuses. You think THAT'S going to convince th government to make contraversial changes for a tiny minority group? "Yes sir, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind acting like I'm a human being deserving of respect? Not right now, of course. Just sometime in the next generation or so. I'd be forever in your debt, sir."

So, Matt. I want to really acknowledge for your passion and commitment to the queer/LGBT community. Who you are is a stand for justice and that is crystal clear. I have a couple of requests for you.

First, I want to ask you to consider that some people in this conversation might be feeling something coming from you that isn't what you intend... maybe hostility, anger, etc.? I don't know. Just look and see if your communication is leaving people really clear on what your opinion is AND leaving people empowered, acknowledged and respected.

Second, I'm really curious about what you think we should do moving forward. Let's say the Warren prayer happens. How should we think? What should we do? How should we communicate? How should we work for the changes that we all agree need to happen? What will be effective? What actions will create real cultural change in the experience of being queer/lgbt in the US?

Have a great New Year!

Nathan

[Emproph]

I consider you guys to be my friends. Some of you I know better than others. I don’t wish to hurt anyone, but I’m afraid that some of you are going to have to forgive me here.

I am with Matt 100% on this, and I am absolutely appalled by the depth of the naivete that I’m seeing.

It is not only fully clear to me why we lost the marriage amendments, but I have come to the conclusion that we deserved to lose.

I realize now that the lies they told to pass those measures are now, and were completely irrelevant all along. All my donations were in vain. Any victory would have been short lived.

If our movement -- who supposedly knows the meaning persecution -- is so incapable of seeing the magnitude of the danger we face, then truly there is no hope. For us, or democracy as we know it.

We may as well just close up shop and hand it over to the theocratic dominionists right now.

After all, whether or not we should be imprisoned for being who we are is just a matter of opinion, isn’t it?

As Americans, we should value the opinion that some Americans should be stoned to death, just as much as we value the opinion of the person who doesn’t want to be stoned to death. We wouldn’t want to be unfair to the expression of those religious beliefs now would we?

And after all, it’s not like they’re singling individual people out to be imprisoned and/or put to death, they’re simply saying that all of us should be treated like child molesting perverts. What could possibly be more equitable than that?

Hear that, all ye psychopathic bullies? Rick Warren says gay people are the equivalent of child molesting rapists. And Barack Obama approves of that message.

If you’re a Christian like Rick Warren, remember that the Bible says that the presence of homosexuality in society is evidence of a God who has turned his back on that society (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:26-32;&version=31;).

The solution is simple, eliminate homosexuality in order to earn back God’s favor. It’s your only hope of avoiding the same fate as Sodom and Gomorrah - total annihilation.

And if the worst happens, and you didn’t play your part in taking down the Satanic homosexual agenda, what will you say on that day, on that Judgment Day?

That in the spirit of freedom and love, you just wanted to allow the unrepentant to run their course?

You knew their goal was the destruction of civilization, you were told by your leaders! Did you think Satan's minions would be satisfied with partial destruction?

For what does it gain a man’s soul to allow the gay child molesters next door to live "in peace" and ravage the souls of the young, causing them the same eternal fate of damnation? Would not it have been better to burn down their house for the sake of the children?

Was my Word not clear enough for you? Did my words not convey to you that homosexuals have no conscience? And that they are devoid of all moral compunction?

So my child, what did you do to warn the least of my beloved, of the scourge of homosexual damnation?
----
And we’re back.

There are people who not only believe that crap, but they seek it out. This isn’t about marriage, or about being offended, or about whether or not you were personally vilified. This is about the very real, and very painful effects that hatred causes to REAL people, EVERY DAY.

Rick Warren, spreads that hatred, and whether or not that spreading of hatred is the result of ignorance, the effect is the same - VIOLENCE against the innocent.

So when I hear all this lovey-dovey talk about how we should be understanding of Rick Warren’s perspective, it literally makes me want to go on a projectile vomit rampage in the worse way possible.

This is a no brainer! You don’t give a platform to someone who advocates violence, and you certainly don’t excuse the person who gave them that platform!

What is most at issue here is the symbolism of the advocacy of VIOLENCE.

And please understand that I am not discouraging anyone from reaching out to Rick Warren, or any other criminal for that matter. I am also not discouraging anyone from reading potentially positive (necessary evil) political motives into Obama’s choice of Rick Warren.

But the seriousness of the situation has yet to be agreed upon. The level of danger has yet to be agreed upon. The level of threat has yet to be agreed upon.

Point being, WE ARE NOT EVEN HAVING THE SAME DISCUSSION.

I’m all for agreeing to disagree, but as far as I see it, discussion-wise, we’re not even in the same universe.

We haven’t reached the point of being able to agree to disagree yet.

What offends me about this matter, is that people are being beaten up and killed, because of people like Rick Warren. And it’s bad enough that Barack Obama has given Warren’s anti-gay views a stamp of approval, but it’s even WORSE to see members of my own equality movement respond with what I can only describe as aggressive complacency, it’s absolutely disgusting.

Unless you’ve had the shit beaten out of you because you were gay, or at least know the DEPTH of the reality of the pain of what that means, then you’ve got nothing productive to add to this conversation and shut the fuck up.

And at this point, THAT’S what’s pissing me off.

Ignorant opinion being expressed as valid, without refuting ANY of the arguments in favor of the seriousness of the matter that have been presented.

Warren, Obama, and the anti-gay industry can go to hell, what sickens me most is knowing that some of my own allies steadfastly refuse to see the danger.

Again, reach out all you want, but don’t be reaching out to the oppressors at the expense of their victims and expect to sell that position as just another opinion.

And if you want to sell that position as a necessary political evil, then do so, but know that "what ifs" don’t cut it on that front.

You better have some good reasons for what I see as excusing the unnecessary promotion of violence.

end rant.

[NathanATX]

So what's next, Patrick?

Warren may or may not do the inauguration prayer.

He's a poor choice for many reasons, some of the glaring ones being his statements about LGBT people. He only represents one relatively small faction of Christianity, which is only one of many religions in the US.

The fear around this is so palpable...

Where there is fear, there is no power.

We do both(all?) agree that Warren shouldn't be doing the prayer.

Now. What do we do about it that will be effective and move us towards the ultimate goal we have? Living in a society that protects our rights and our families. Living in a society where we can actually have LOVE present even for the Rick Warrens and others with whom we disagree.

It sounds like you're hearing my lack of reaction as acquiescence. I'm genuinely concerned about Warren being honored this way. And I'm curious as to how we still fulfill on what we are committed to.

[Jennifer5]

We do both(all?) agree that Warren shouldn't be doing the prayer.

Now. What do we do about it that will be effective and move us towards the ultimate goal we have? Living in a society that protects our rights and our families. Living in a society where we can actually have LOVE present even for the Rick Warrens and others with whom we disagree.

It sounds like you're hearing my lack of reaction as acquiescence. I'm genuinely concerned about Warren being honored this way. And I'm curious as to how we still fulfill on what we are committed to.

I'll jump in and agree that Warren shouldn't be doing the prayer.

As for a way to effectively move forward, how about we stop talking about Warrren and start talking about us. I think the way the Equality Ride is done, is the perfect way to treat this situation. We need to face our problems head on by telling our stories. Tell the people why the actions of the 'Rick Warrens' hurt the community.

In my opinion, we need the upper hand, right now we're on the defense. We have to take control and demand our equal rights. We need someone who is out as GLBT to speak in a situation that is the equivalent to the inaugural prayer.

[Emproph]

What do we do about it that will be effective and move us towards the ultimate goal we have?

1) We need to agree that the approval of violent behavior can result in worse consequences than the violent behavior in question.

2) We need to be able to assess each situation using that criteria.

3) We need to agree that we need to agree on #1.
--
If we are unified in our understanding of the threat, we will be unified in our response to it.

It may still not be enough, but we don’t stand a chance unless we make every effort to be unified in our understanding of any given situation.

Like I said, it’s not about Warren anymore. This is now about us. We need to define ourselves as a community.

We need to agree that the goal of unified understanding is the most important goal.

[Jennifer5]

1) We need to agree that the approval of violent behavior can result in worse consequences than the violent behavior in question.

2) We need to be able to assess each situation using that criteria.

3) We need to agree that we need to agree on #1.
--
If we are unified in our understanding of the threat, we will be unified in our response to it.

It may still not be enough, but we don’t stand a chance unless we make every effort to be unified in our understanding of any given situation.

Like I said, it’s not about Warren anymore. This is now about us. We need to define ourselves as a community.

We need to agree that the goal of unified understanding is the most important goal.

I love a discussion where we can all start off disagreeing and after arguing some of the points, quickly find our common ground.

I agree with what you said Patrick. I agree that approving of violence can be more dangerous then the violence itself.

Albert Einstein said, "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

I also agree though that this is not about Rick Warren and I think we need to think on that.

This is not about Rick Warren, it's about what he represents. It's about GLBT people being discriminated against. It's about people thinking that that is ok. It's about misinformation and a lack of awareness.

What can we do about it? Share your stories and help education people.

Just as people thought that AIDS was a gay disease, people think that gay people are sinful (remember, I completely disagree with this, but I'm making a point). These people are not necessarily evil, but they are completely unaware of the facts. People do not understand that sexuality is something that you are born with.

I think we also need to agree that Rick Warren is not our enemy.

As Nate said in the article I posted, "Our enemy is the mis-information that causes bias and fear."

[Matt Algren]

Nathan, I am mad. I'm damn mad. I'm mad that three more states have laws on the books saying we're not worthy of marriage. I'm mad that there's one more state saying we can't have kids. I'm mad that my boss could fire me if he found my blog. But the biggest reason I'm mad is that this movement is scared of its own shadow, afraid of being seen as aggressive, of speaking out of turn. Of standing up for what's right. A man compared all of us to child molesters and less than six weeks later will be given just about the highest honor a clergyman can get from the government. And we're so scared of rocking the boat, on the whisper of a hope that they might recognize our personhood sometime in the next four or eight or twelve years, that we're actually debating whether we should say "Dude. What the fuck?" We're having a conversation about whether it's an okay thing for Mr. Obama to have done! I'm mad because I, and you, and tdogg, and Jennifer, and everybody else who logs in here is worthy of respect but we aren't willing to stand up and DEMAND it. And until we all do that, we're just wasting our time.dib2-HBsF08

[Jennifer5]

Nathan, I am mad. I'm damn mad. I'm mad that three more states have laws on the books saying we're not worthy of marriage. I'm mad that there's one more state saying we can't have kids. I'm mad that my boss could fire me if he found my blog. But the biggest reason I'm mad is that this movement is scared of its own shadow, afraid of being seen as aggressive, of speaking out of turn. Of standing up for what's right. A man compared all of us to child molesters and less than six weeks later will be given just about the highest honor a clergyman can get from the government. And we're so scared of rocking the boat, on the whisper of a hope that they might recognize our personhood sometime in the next four or eight or twelve years, that we're actually debating whether we should say "Dude. What the fuck?" We're having a conversation about whether it's an okay thing for Mr. Obama to have done! I'm mad because I, and you, and tdogg, and Jennifer, and everybody else who logs in here is worthy of respect but we aren't willing to stand up and DEMAND it. And until we all do that, we're just wasting our time.dib2-HBsF08

Matt, you can be mad. Be as mad as you want, but tell me, how do you think we should solve this problem??

Do you disagree with the points I, and others, made?

[Matt Algren]

One more thing (and forgive the big block of text; I'm typing on my phone and I can't do line breaks.) On December 7th a man was killed in New York because somebody thought he was gay. A week later a woman was gang raped for 45 minutes in California because she's a lesbian (BTW, they arrested three of the four rapists today. Two of them are under 16.) Last week a man and his transgender girlfriend were murdered in Indiana. These acts of violence are an indirect result of the inequity afforded by the government and the bigotry perpetuated by Rick Warren, Jim Dobson, et al. This isn't an academic issue with theoretical consequences. We're fighting for our lives. Never forget that.

[Matt Algren]

Matt, you can be mad. Be as mad as you want, but tell me, how do you think we should solve this problem??

Do you disagree with the points I, and others, made?

Gosh, thanks for your permission. Did you actually read what I spent 20 minutes typing? Maybe Emproph is right. Maybe we aren't even having the same conversation. As for agreeing, you're totally right that we've been forced into a defensive position. Unfortunately, wanting to be on the offense doesn't mean we should let slander and outright lies be. And I disagree 100% with your assertion that Warren isn't the enemy. He has access to all the refutation of his assertions and more. He's chosen to keep lying to the thousands, if not millions, who seek him out for guidance. He is an Echthros, not a victim.

[Jennifer5]

Gosh, thanks for your permission. Did you actually read what I spent 20 minutes typing? Maybe Emproph is right. Maybe we aren't even having the same conversation. As for agreeing, you're totally right that we've been forced into a defensive position. Unfortunately, wanting to be on the offense doesn't mean we should let slander and outright lies be. And I disagree 100% with your assertion that Warren isn't the enemy. He has access to all the refutation of his assertions and more. He's chosen to keep lying to the thousands, if not millions, who seek him out for guidance. He is an Echthros, not a victim.
Yes, of course I read what you wrote... that's why I was able to respond to it.

You want to talk about being mad? You're not the only one. Right now, I'm a little mad that my opinions are being walked all over because you think that no matter what someone says, you're right. In my opinion you aren't even participating in this discussion.

Part of discussing this and arguing about it is listening to what everyone else is saying, but I'm I'm hearing from you is the same thing over and over again. Am I doing this too? :confused:

Matt, what is your solution to dealing with Warren? What do you think we should do about it? OK, you're mad, I don't care anymore. What're you going to do about it?

[tdogg]

Here is the kicker - it's January 1st and the Inauguration is in 20 days (well actually 19 because the first day of the year is nearly over). I can tell you, not much can or will happen to keep Rick Warren from being the prayer man on 1/20. Even if Obama changed his mind, it's getting a little late in the game. So no matter how we feel about Warren, there isn't much we can do about him praying for 2 minutes before the great event. I guess we can hold a grudge and hate Obama for it, but I'm not ready to do that. No matter how pissed I am about Warren, I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water, not just yet.

Yeah Matt, maybe we don't deserve marriage equality. We had over 1,000 volunteers working on No on 8 election day - STATEWIDE. Do you see the problem with this number? I asked if the number was city or state wide, and it was the entire state of CA. Somewhere between 1,000 and 1,700 - I forget the exact number. That is a paltry number. We could have used many more people, not to mention a new game plan.

I protested on 11/15 - the majority of protesters were straight. We had about 1,500 people in Sac. Where was everyone??? Too damn busy to take a few hours out of their Saturday and join us.

Then we had the 11/22 statewide protest/rally. 5,000 showed up. STATEWIDE. Many were straight supporters. Where were all the GLBT people??? That was my thought - do we even deserve marriage equality since we can't even show up at our own protests/rallies.

So, I don't think you are being fair to question whether we deserve equality because a few of us are willing to give Obama a chance instead of eliminating our hopes because he chooses Rick Warren to pray. I will not cave into any attempts to demean my opinion or feelings on this. Sounds like we are working against each other, and that is the entire problem with our struggle. No on 8 didn't work because people worked against each other.

I deserve equality, so do any and all other members on this forum. Regardless of how we feel about Obama choosing Warren or what we might be willing to do, or not to do about it. Don't take that away, no matter how angry you might be. I get it. But I'm far more disappointed and pissed at my own people, that so many should do nothing in the struggle. But that's how it always is, a few work their asses off for the rest. I won't stop, I'm going to continue struggling with or without you. :love:

[Matt Algren]

Well of COURSE I think I'm right, Jennifer. I AM right. I keep repeating myself because I honestly don't think you get the major impact that this seemingly minor infraction has on both our community and our struggle. We can't (or shouldn't) just shrug our collective shoulders and pretend it doesn't matter. That's like when I was a kid and my Mom would tell me that if I ignored the bully he'd quit. Didn't work then, and it doesn't work now. It just emboldens the bully and his friends for next time. Now, what should we DO about Warren? Keeep up the pressure on Obama until Jan. 20. After that, keep reminding ourselves and others exactly where we rank on his administration's scale of important issues: Dead last. And make goddamn sure he knows how unacceptable that is.

[Jennifer5]

Well of COURSE I think I'm right, Jennifer. I AM right. I keep repeating myself because I honestly don't think you get the major impact that this seemingly minor infraction has on both our community and our struggle. We can't (or shouldn't) just shrug our collective shoulders and pretend it doesn't matter. That's like when I was a kid and my Mom would tell me that if I ignored the bully he'd quit. Didn't work then, and it doesn't work now. It just emboldens the bully and his friends for next time. Now, what should we DO about Warren? Keeep up the pressure on Obama until Jan. 20. After that, keep reminding ourselves and others exactly where we rank on his administration's scale of important issues: Dead last. And make goddamn sure he knows how unacceptable that is.

Obama is not our problem.

Rick Warren isn't even our problem.

I thought that misinformation was our problem, but I'm starting to think that that isn't even it.

WE are our problem.

Ever hear the phrase, "United we stand, divided we fall."?

[u-dog]

Well of COURSE I think I'm right, Jennifer. I AM right.


Of course Chicken Little said much the same thing.

[Jennifer5]

Of course Chicken Little said much the same thing.

You can do better than that.

What is your solution to the problem?

[tdogg]

I believe there are organizations that have provided the opportunity for folks like us to send our thoughts to Obama on his choice of Warren for the invocation. We can email, call, send postcards or letters. I think that's great, we should be doing something. I don't think it's going to work, if the objective is replacing Warren on Jan. 20th. But good luck, who knows, maybe it will. I'm not going to waste a ton of effort and emotion on this one. There are other things to do and I'm doing what I feel is my priority.

It doesn't mean I'm happy about the choice of Warren. But to think that's our number one top priority for 2009, well I'm not convinced Matt. But I'll leave the door open for you to attempt to convince me. Meanwhile, I am doing quite a lot for our cause, including challenging everyone to donate any copies of Purpose Driven Lies for our local Purpose Driven Drive Back. Send to me and if you can't afford the postage I'll reimburse you. If/when we receive enough copies, preferably with a personal message written in by the donor, then our little local activist group will happily and personally drive them down to the steps of Saddleback Church.

That's about all I can do about Warren before Jan 20th. So, Matt, what are you doing? I'm sincerely curious because it could give us some ideas for things we can do to address this issue.

[Matt Algren]

Just to clarify, tdogg, that was Emproph who said we don't deserve it. I see his point, though I disagree slightly with the wording. The core problem, to me, is that we aren't willing to fight for it. We shouldn't HAVE to fight for it, but until we gather the will to fight I fear that we're doomed to failure.Obama is not our problem.

Rick Warren isn't even our problem.

I thought that misinformation was our problem, but I'm starting to think that that isn't even it.

WE are our problem.

Ever hear the phrase, "United we stand, divided we fall."?I agree, to an extent. The problem, with respect, is that you aren't even standing.

[scrupulous_stoic]

After reading through this thread after I gave my two cents worth, I felt compelled to add in another reply.

I agree with Emproph; perhaps we didn't deserve the victory we were hoping for on November 4th, as we were too lethargic to counter the Yes on 8's intense mobilization. However, with our loss, two results have been able to bolster our cause. First, people are becoming more engaged, educated, and enthusiastic than before November 4th. Perhaps the numbers of people showing up at the rallies are not comforting (I went to a candlelight vigil and the protests on 11/15), but many are writing, reading, and speaking in favor of gay marriage. There is now increased opposition to DOMA, as well as to the asinine requests to nullify the 18,000 same-sex marriages that happened in California. That is a start.

Secondly, we have seen how those unwilling to give us equal protection and recognition work. We need to exploit their weaknesses, and bring them down before they indoctrinate the masses with their vile rhetoric. Already they are bringing their drivel to New Jersey and New York, and we must stand vigilant, now more than ever.

The problem I see with this turn of events is that, as Matt said, we are being too gentle. Granted, those who vandalized churches have no support from me whatsoever, but we must recognize that the Christian Right see this as a Kulturkampf, and will stop at nothing to dehumanize us. There is talk that Warren's words on bestiality and incest were taken out of context, yet I cannot see how they were, especially since he has said he envisions himself as a latter-day Falwell. I am growing tired of conforming to his, and others', shattered worldview, a view that would viciously undermine us with no remorse if it had a chance. I am growing tired of those who are willing to compromise with Warren and his ilk, seeing that we need to go "beyond marriage" to gain equal rights. We pride ourselves on being progressive and advanced, yet this nonsense occurs.

We must begin to prepare ourselves. The Mormons have had a troubled history with mainstream Christian sects, yet they stood united on this issue. We must also gain the same common ground, lest we do more harm with an open palm than with a clenched fist. Having gone to a Mormon church for 6 years, I can tell you that they are afraid of us, and see us as a threat. They are preparing their youth to "fight for righteousness," and the hierarchical structure of the Church gives no leniency to descent. We have to stand unified for our own sake, so that we may continuously fight for our well-being.

You guys are great. by the way. Every one of you. :)

[Jennifer5]

I agree, to an extent. The problem, with respect, is that you aren't even standing.
You're right, on this one I'm not... or least I haven't been so far, and you may be right; I should be standing. However, you're already standing, are your allies behind you?

[tdogg]

Just to clarify, tdogg, that was Emproph who said we don't deserve it.
You are so right, sorry Matt!
I see his point, though I disagree slightly with the wording. The core problem, to me, is that we aren't willing to fight for it. We shouldn't HAVE to fight for it, but until we gather the will to fight I fear that we're doomed to failure.I agree, to an extent. The problem, with respect, is that you aren't even standing.

I agree with everything in this post Matt. Some of us did and are still fighting for equality and my comments are in no way my opinion that any of us don't deserve full equality. But I was appalled at the lack of action before and after the election. I'm just saying I don't think Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration is a valid reason for dismissing Obama for the next four years. We must battle, but we can't all fight every single thing, so I pick my battles. I work full time, manage a household, have pets, family and a wife. I simply cannot do every single thing possible for equality. I think most of us are in the situation. But I'm fighting with everything I have given my finances and time constraints. I donate several hours a week for our struggle. I'm doing quite a lot actually, but it's a lonely world out there. Not enough of us are fighting.

I'm still waiting for some ideas on what we might be able to do about Warren before the 20th, and well, just about anything else that might further our cause.

[dsdrane]

I liked this movie better when it was 1993 and Bill Clinton was about to be inaugurated.

He tried to do the right thing, and look where that got him.

Few politicians do anything because it's right; however, if they have souls, they try to lift as many boats as they can, and they absolutely pick their battles. They have to. Politics is the ultimate tug-of-war. There is no winning (in the short term)...at least not in a democracy. Ideally there is progress in the direction of enlightenment, but the other side never quits trying to tug back.

Personally, I'm thrilled (and not a little bemused) to see some tarnish on President-Elect Obama's halo. He made a big miscalculation with Warren. Fortunately, what we do know about him is that he learns and adapts. Our opportunity here is to not only make sure he knows that, but to make sure he knows he's going to have to atone.

Warren will make his prayer. And it will be quickly forgotten (by most). Obama, on the other hand, is around for -- God willing -- at least another four years, so our task is to figure out how he might regain our trust.

And, as others have said, we're going to need a unified message. However, as someone who has been educated in and involved with politics to one degree or another for over 20 years, I will tell you: getting intelligent, passionate, liberally-minded people to agree on anything is like herding cats. It's often been our electoral downfall. We're smart, independent people...we don't like orthodoxies; we don't like swearing fealty to any one idea; we bristle at marching in lockstep with any one leader. Look at the last primary season; Obama barely won! And he's The One!! :rolleyes:

That said, I have hope for my skinny ex-Senator. He didn't appoint Hillary Clinton to be Secretery of State because it was right; he did it because it was smart. He learned first hand that it was better to have her on his team than out there somewhere, not on his team. He learned and adapted.

Our task, then, cognizant of our "herding" challenges, is to figure out how to teach him that it is in his interest to have us on his team, too. (And, simultaneously, that it is very much not in his interest to have us out there somewhere, not on his team.)

The good news is that we can all have a hand in doing this. Just like both big money and small personal donations helped Obama rake in more donations to his campaign than any other in history, this GLBT campaign will need both lobbists and people in goverment at the federal level as well as grassroots battles to fight all the Prop. 8s out there...and maybe even win some new battles. President Obama will be coming back to us in about 3 years to seek our support. It's our job to make sure he understands that it a) doesn't come free and b) should never be taken for granted.

In short: don't get mad; get even. :cool:

[wmanion]

We are not the only ones disappointed with the choice of Warren for the inauguration prayer. A lot of Obama's base is disappointed and a lot has to do with the fact that Warren, in himself, is representative of the last eight years. He does not represent the "Change be can believe in," the change that was promised to get Obama elected. The religious right was instrumental in George Bush getting elected twice. Warren does not represent a woman's choice to have governance over her body. He is far from being aligned with the promises that were told in this election. The most positive thing about Warren's choice is that our objections have been heard, in magazine articles, on radio and on television. Of course, they sometimes fail to tell the whole reason why the GLBT community is upset with this choice. Most make it sound like we are just a bunch of whiners who have now been disappointed by Obama. What they fail to see is that it is Warren's lies about our community that is most upsetting to us and he does not represent the "Change we can believe in." With that being said, we have to rise as a community and make it known that our disapproval is because of his lies and not because he as an American who does not deserve a place at the table. It is self-evident that we will not be welcome at Warren's table. However, he must be welcome out ours. Now, it is very nice that Obama can say he can bring Warren to the table even if they do not agree on many issues, but this in itself is to vague. Obama needs to take a stand and spell out on what issues he does disagree with Warren. It was written in the Huffington post that we only actually made up of 5-7% of Obama's base so he doesn't really need us. I disagree because 5-7% can definitely sway an election. I am disappointed with Obama's choice but not because I do not think Warren deserves a place at the table, I am disappointed because Warren believes we have no place at the table and he does not represent any kind of a change that I can believe in.

Bill

[Matt Algren]

You're right, on this one I'm not... or least I haven't been so far, and you may be right; I should be standing. However, you're already standing, are your allies behind you?
Time will tell. The war is long, and this is one battle. And I don't think we should write Obama off; we just should be aware of his stance and adapt accordingly. Already DADT is off the table for two years at least. We can't let them forget us. As I've said before, I believe ultimate victory will come through the Supreme Court. But we shouldn't become complacent or take that for granted. Somebody asked what I'm doing; the answer is 'Not enough.' One by one. With that, I'm off.

[tdogg]

Time will tell. The war is long, and this is one battle. And I don't think we should write Obama off; we just should be aware of his stance and adapt accordingly. Already DADT is off the table for two years at least. We can't let them forget us. As I've said before, I believe ultimate victory will come through the Supreme Court. But we shouldn't become complacent or take that for granted. Somebody asked what I'm doing; the answer is 'Not enough.' One by one. With that, I'm off.

Matt, I agree with you on this post. It's going to take time, and it's going to take all of us. No matter what we do, it's not going to be enough. It never is, but we will realize our goals. We will get there. Our effort will dictate how long it will take to get there. I think we have the same objectives, it's just the action plan that goes in different directions sometimes.

[u-dog]

You can do better than that.

What is your solution to the problem?


Matt thinks that some of us are being hopelessly naive and clueless.

I think that some of us are doing the Chicken Little thing and equating RW's invocation with the sky falling.

The solution is the same as its always been. The election hasn't changed it. Prop 8 hasn't changed it and Obama's choice of a invocator hasn't changed it. Prop 8 passed by a tiny majority. That is to say that MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR GLBT FOLKS failed by a tiny majority in California. fifteen years ago ... even 10 years ago ... Marriage equality wasn't even on the radar. Now it is front and center and the difference between having it and not having it is a few percentage points. This means the struggle is STILL a struggle between those who advocate for equality and those who advocate for oppression to convince the folks in the middle that they are right. The momentum is NOT shifting in favor of the forces of oppression. The momentum is swinging TOWARD US. The solution is to continue to speak a reasonable, consistent, positive message about human rights and equality. The solution is to continue to enlist allies wherever they can be found especially among those who are in power ... like the new President of the United States.

[Emproph]

These people are not necessarily evil, but they are completely unaware of the facts. People do not understand that sexuality is something that you are born with.

I think we also need to agree that Rick Warren is not our enemy.

And I disagree 100% with your assertion that Warren isn't the enemy. He has access to all the refutation of his assertions and more. He's chosen to keep lying to the thousands, if not millions, who seek him out for guidance. He is an Echthros, not a victim.

Part of discussing this and arguing about it is listening to what everyone else is saying, but I'm I'm hearing from you is the same thing over and over again. Am I doing this too? :confused:

Matt, what is your solution to dealing with Warren? What do you think we should do about it? OK, you're mad, I don't care anymore. What're you going to do about it?

Jennifer, have patience with me here. I know you’re young, and I don’t mean that in a patronizing way, I mean it to say that when I was in high school, I too used to believe that people were basically good. And technically, that’s basically true.

Long pause. Thinking…

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/felixpaces.gif

If you cannot understand that some people are truly evil, then you cannot understand that they are the enemy.

If you cannot understand that they are the enemy, then you cannot understand the threat they represent.

If you cannot understand the threat they represent, then you cannot defend yourself against it.

If you cannot defend yourself against the threat, then what are you doing here?
--
This might help.

I recently read a book called “The Sociopath Next Door (http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230868454&sr=8-1).”

According to the author, 4% of the population, or 1 in every 25 people, have no conscience.

They feel no guilt for anything they do. They anticipate no consequences for their actions, other than getting caught.

Their personalities run the gamut, meaning that they’re not all crooks and criminals, but the defining feature that they all have in common, is that they do not care who they hurt, and further, they use peoples weaknesses to get what they want.

No matter what they do, THEY FEEL NO GUILT.

Now take that a step further. Those who are incapable of feeling guilt or shame, are naturally going to step on as many people as it takes to get to where they want to be, simply because there’s no reason not to.

It is the sociopaths of society who run the show.

By definition, they are unreachable.

Pathology refers to disease.

Socio“pathy,” is the only disease, that causes no dis-ease.

There’s literally no treatment, because there’s no way to convince them that there’s something wrong with them.

Now I’m not saying that Rick Warren, or anyone else is a sociopath. You would have to know that person intimately, or they would have to be diagnosed by a professional to determine that.

What I am saying, however, is that sociopathy is the closest thing to calling someone evil that there is.

Furthermore, in addition to sociopaths, there are those with sociopathic tendencies. Which is why I’m not suggesting that you or anyone else condemn someone as unreachable.

What I am suggesting, is that you open your mind to the reality that some people are what you would call evil.

This is everything that I have been about here at Soulforce, but I just haven’t realized it.

It’s not that I’ve been saying don’t be non-violent, it’s that I’ve been saying don’t be non-violent to the point of self-abuse.

Rick Warren is not worth my time because Rick Warren doesn’t need my time, but Rick Warren’s victims DO need my time.

What needs to be done with Warren, is that nothing needs to be done with Warren.

There’s no hatred or breach of non-violence to it!

The priority is to meet the needs of those in need.

His victims take precedence over him.

And if that means screaming bloody f-ing murder when he compares LGBT youth to child rapists, then Rick Warren deserves that condemnation.

The only thing that needs to be done in regard to Rick Warren is for the LGBT community to wake up and realize that this isn’t about any simple disagreement on the issue of marriage or “religious belief,” it’s about the ABSOLUTE unacceptability of the promotion of VIOLENCE.

The promotion of hatred IS the promotion of violence. And as Matt said, he’s made the choice to lie, based on his behavior and words, that is a firmly established fact.

We are so beneath him, every anti-gay word that came out of his mouth during those interviews was a typically nonsensical anti-gay industry talking point. We weren't even worth his time to make sure his arguments were valid.

He may be a coo coo bananas genius, and as the saying goes, you’ve got to be smart to be fooling yourself, but that does not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. And the resulting consequences of those actions/words.

To give him and Obama a pass on this, is to give a pass to unnecessary violence.

Again, whether or not he is a sociopath, or just has sociopathic tendencies is not the issue. The issue is that we don’t know, but his behavior strongly indicates in that direction.

Therefore, he, and those like him, must be assumed to be capable of ANYTHING, capable of any danger.

You don’t cater to people like that, you protect the vulnerable.

Hate the sin, not the sinner, remember? There’s no conflict with non-violence here. I love sociopaths and those with sociopathic tendencies like I love wild animals who have yet to be tamed. But if you think I’m going to let go of that tranquilizer gun while they’re out of their cage, you’ve got another thing coming. Why? Because I’ve seen the damage and injury that wild animals can do - even though they may not “know” what they do.

And if I know the injury they can cause, and know that that potential for injury is nearby, then I am responsible for doing everything in my power to prevent it.

And I'm not saying to prevent Warren from giving the speech, I'm saying let's agree on the seriousness of the precident it sets, and its potentially far reaching effects.

[Emproph]

Matt thinks that some of us are being hopelessly naive and clueless.
Me too!

I think that some of us are doing the Chicken Little thing and equating RW's invocation with the sky falling.
I'll admit to that. The sky is officially falling, but not because of RW's invocation, because RW's invocation is not being taken with the seriousness that it should be.

[dsdrane]

The sky is officially falling, but not because of RW's invocation, because RW's invocation is not being taken with the seriousness that it should be.

I've been around this place long enough to know your passion and your incredible thoroughness...and I fully appreciate the alarm you are sounding. It needs to be sounded. Apathy by most allowed Prop. 8's passage in California. Remember the rallying cry from the early 90s: out of the bars, and into the streets! It's just as true today.

We're lazy, and we take what we think we have (if we actually have it at all) for granted.

But the sky is not falling. If Rick Warren's participation in the inauguration were sky-falling worthy, we would have been skyless since...forever?

Clearly, the sky is always in danger of falling, and people need to be ever-mindful of that possibility. The government in Israel is, and that's why they're pounding the hell out of Gaza right now, despite the constant and withering criticism of just about everybody else.

And where has it gotten them? Nowhere.

Polar orthodoxies preclude cohabitation. Infer Warren's potential sociopathic bent all you want, but he holds sway over lots of people who are I fervently hope are not similarly afflicted. These are the ones we must engage -- the "hearts and minds" we must win over.

The war will not be won with ultimatums; we simply don't have the power. Rather, it will be won by cajoling and convincing, just like we do every day with family, friends and coworkers. It's called diplomacy; and it works by having the better argument/inducement, ideally won with the other side's willing acquiescence.

That said, screaming bloody murder can be very productive in giving weight and urgency to the diplomats.

In much the same way that Prop. 8's passage (re-)ignited some much-needed activism, I truly believe Obama's choice of Warren can be a similar catalyst. Every MSM commentator in the universe will spread the message for us for free.

In the meantime, we should be setting up our lemonade stand....

[Daniel]

If we are eating each other alive here, or are having a discussion that amounts to something. But you know what? Even saying that may be going too far. Do we have to agree? Do all our conversions have to amount to something? I wonder about that.

I wonder about a lot of things.

We are a very small segment of the population, and it is only recently that we have been starting to experience being thought of as a distinct class of persons, both legally- where it really matters- and socio-politically.

We can disagree. And we should, very strongly in fact. Isn't that the definition of a democracy? Or at least a sign of a living breathing one? And if the passing of Prop 8 showed us anything, it is that we can't be asleep at the wheel. We have to have more discussions- even more heated arguments- about things before the flame of our passion for justice will amount to something.

I agree with the voices asserting that the 11 days after the passing of Prop 8 was a second Stonewall. It galvanizied out community. The response to Obama and his choice? A clear-eyed understanding of what is at stake- it's symbolism, meaning and importance to real people in real time.

I don't hold out any hope that Obama is going to change his mind. But I do think we should hold his feet to the fire. He really shouldn't get a pass on this one. As well, those who feel that we should take a wait and see attitude might spend some time reflecting on what may be causing the level of anger that has been expressed here. Anger doesn't come out of no-where. Dismissing it? Well. That only makes one more angry.

Know what caught my eye a few pages back? The dimissal of Warren's prayer, which was called "stupid".

Really? That strikes me as a rather presumptive comment considering that a forum such as this swims in the waters of the importance and substance of prayer.

So Warren's prayer doesn't matter? It's "stupid"? That's an interesting thought. What would make it not stupid?

What is the role of ceremony anyway? Aren't most of those here participating in ceremony- if not leading it- in all it's pomp and curcumstance- on at least one day of the week?

I guess, if one can distance himself/herself from the symbolism involved, one can be equally distanced from the suffering that is cause by it.

[Jennifer5]

Jennifer, have patience with me here. I know you’re young, and I don’t mean that in a patronizing way, I mean it to say that when I was in high school, I too used to believe that people were basically good. And technically, that’s basically true.

Long pause. Thinking…

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/felixpaces.gif

If you cannot understand that some people are truly evil, then you cannot understand that they are the enemy.

If you cannot understand that they are the enemy, then you cannot understand the threat they represent.

If you cannot understand the threat they represent, then you cannot defend yourself against it.

If you cannot defend yourself against the threat, then what are you doing here?
--
This might help.

I recently read a book called “The Sociopath Next Door (http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230868454&sr=8-1).”

According to the author, 4% of the population, or 1 in every 25 people, have no conscience.

They feel no guilt for anything they do. They anticipate no consequences for their actions, other than getting caught.

Their personalities run the gamut, meaning that they’re not all crooks and criminals, but the defining feature that they all have in common, is that they do not care who they hurt, and further, they use peoples weaknesses to get what they want.

No matter what they do, THEY FEEL NO GUILT.

Now take that a step further. Those who are incapable of feeling guilt or shame, are naturally going to step on as many people as it takes to get to where they want to be, simply because there’s no reason not to.

It is the sociopaths of society who run the show.

By definition, they are unreachable.

Pathology refers to disease.

Socio“pathy,” is the only disease, that causes no dis-ease.

There’s literally no treatment, because there’s no way to convince them that there’s something wrong with them.

Now I’m not saying that Rick Warren, or anyone else is a sociopath. You would have to know that person intimately, or they would have to be diagnosed by a professional to determine that.

What I am saying, however, is that sociopathy is the closest thing to calling someone evil that there is.

Furthermore, in addition to sociopaths, there are those with sociopathic tendencies. Which is why I’m not suggesting that you or anyone else condemn someone as unreachable.

What I am suggesting, is that you open your mind to the reality that some people are what you would call evil.

This is everything that I have been about here at Soulforce, but I just haven’t realized it.

It’s not that I’ve been saying don’t be non-violent, it’s that I’ve been saying don’t be non-violent to the point of self-abuse.

Rick Warren is not worth my time because Rick Warren doesn’t need my time, but Rick Warren’s victims DO need my time.

What needs to be done with Warren, is that nothing needs to be done with Warren.

There’s no hatred or breach of non-violence to it!

The priority is to meet the needs of those in need.

His victims take precedence over him.

And if that means screaming bloody f-ing murder when he compares LGBT youth to child rapists, then Rick Warren deserves that condemnation.

The only thing that needs to be done in regard to Rick Warren is for the LGBT community to wake up and realize that this isn’t about any simple disagreement on the issue of marriage or “religious belief,” it’s about the ABSOLUTE unacceptability of the promotion of VIOLENCE.

The promotion of hatred IS the promotion of violence. And as Matt said, he’s made the choice to lie, based on his behavior and words, that is a firmly established fact.

We are so beneath him, every anti-gay word that came out of his mouth during those interviews was a typically nonsensical anti-gay industry talking point. We weren't even worth his time to make sure his arguments were valid.

He may be a coo coo bananas genius, and as the saying goes, you’ve got to be smart to be fooling yourself, but that does not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. And the resulting consequences of those actions/words.

To give him and Obama a pass on this, is to give a pass to unnecessary violence.

Again, whether or not he is a sociopath, or just has sociopathic tendencies is not the issue. The issue is that we don’t know, but his behavior strongly indicates in that direction.

Therefore, he, and those like him, must be assumed to be capable of ANYTHING, capable of any danger.

You don’t cater to people like that, you protect the vulnerable.

Hate the sin, not the sinner, remember? There’s no conflict with non-violence here. I love sociopaths and those with sociopathic tendencies like I love wild animals who have yet to be tamed. But if you think I’m going to let go of that tranquilizer gun while they’re out of their cage, you’ve got another thing coming. Why? Because I’ve seen the damage and injury that wild animals can do - even though they may not “know” what they do.

And if I know the injury they can cause, and know that that potential for injury is nearby, then I am responsible for doing everything in my power to prevent it.

And I'm not saying to prevent Warren from giving the speech, I'm saying let's agree on the seriousness of the precident it sets, and its potentially far reaching effects.
Ok, someone with sociopathic tendencies is not exactly what I call evil and I suppose we that some people are 'evil' is I don't agree with you on this.

My father was a narcissist with sociopathic tendencies. You met him and he wasn't what most people would call evil. Although, there were absolutely times when I kind of thought he was (as you've all seen). However, after everything that he put us through, I wouldn't call him "evil." I refuse to believe that some people are "evil", but perhaps you could convince me that some people make these bad decisions because they are sick.

Carrying the tranquilzer gun around the wild animal is simply being cautious. We are not assuming that the animal is evil we just know that is has much to learn or that it is against it nature to be nice to us.

So, if I can't agree with you that some people are evil... where are we going to find out common ground? Because I know it's here somewhere.

[FoxInSox]

Someone way back in this thread mentioned that Warren supports reparative therapy, but he and Saddleback try to keep it on the DL.

As a recently former conservative evangelical, I don't really think that's on the DL. The current attitude, in general, by the conservative evanglical community is that we are all supposed to beleive that preferring people of one's own gender isn't a sin, but acting on it is, and that one can stop that behavior in much the same way an addict can stop using drugs. The drive is always there, but the behavior can change.

Of course, I live in Texas. Dallas, actually. Home of the seriously conservative, TBN, and Stepford Wives. I think my experience of the fundies is probably skewed.

The linked article (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2008/12/rick-warrens-ex-gay-group-what-you-need-to-know/) discusses Saddleback's association with an ex-gay ministry called Celebrate Recovery.

Celebrate Recovery is general 21 step program that specifically claims Jesus as their higher power. People with all kinds of addictions and other problems participate.

In fact, I participated for about two years. For 3/4's of that time, I was rather blissfully unaware of the ex-gay reparative therapy approach. After I found out, I sat and considered what I would do. My participation in this group powerfully aided my own recovery, and I have several very dear friends in the gorup. So much healing happened there, you know?

In the end, I decided that I could no longer participate in good conscious. I finished my step study, and I left. Very sad leaving for me. None of the people I knew from my CR group were 12-stepping their way to being straight, but ... so much of what makes 12 Step programs work is the group dynamic. I just can't be part of a group that promotes homosexuality as a sin or addiction or mental illness.

Still, it's really sad. I dearly love the people in that group, and I was deeply impacted during my time there.

Anyway...probably a bit off topic this far down in the conversation, but I wanted to share.

[FoxInSox]

Also, FWIW, Rick Warren wasn't the primary force behind CR. John Baker is. Baker is a recovering alcoholic and a associate pastor at Saddleback.

[NathanATX]

And if that means screaming bloody f-ing murder when he compares LGBT youth to child rapists, then Rick Warren deserves that condemnation.

The problem is, Patrick, that I wasn't aware of anyone screaming anything when he actually said those things. People are only screaming now.

What I'm hearing is an intense frustration with the lgbt community and our allies regarding our lack of vigilance, coordination, and utilization of our collective voice.

So we're "busy." We don't know how to function as a collective voice. We are lazy and apathetic. We are over-reliant on the "goodness" of people and ignorant of the threat that power-hunger can be.

How do WE change this?

[FoxInSox]

I've already given my copy of PDL away, or I'd be glad to join in that.

Nevermind Warren's stance on GLBT issues, its just another 10 Step Plan to Living Perfect Christian Life. (blech)

[tdogg]

I've read a lot of opinions on the Warren invocation here, but I have yet to read any suggestions for action. Any suggestions? Warren praying at the inauguration isn't the end of the world. I agree that we need to hold Obama's feet to the fire, but I don't agree that he should be dismissed simply because he made a bad choice in this. He's certainly not going to be a perfect president, there have been none to date. He's going to make mistakes, he's going to piss people off. It's what he does with the mistakes that count. Will he learn from this, will he take our plight seriously? That's what I'm holding out for.

Make him accountable for this decision, of course! Simply write him off as worthless to our community, absolutely not. Let him know how we feel about his choice of Warren, definitely. Deluge him with accounts of how we feel and what this has done to GLBT people. He must know, otherwise he'll having nothing to learn and grow from, from this experience.

We have to take it seriously, but seriously, he isn't likely to change his mind at this late stage. So, does anyone have any suggestions of how we, as a community, can address this issue knowing that Obama isn't going to change his mind? I'm not open to completely dismissing him over this, but I'm open to reasonable suggestions of what we might do collectively to address our concerns here.

[u-dog]

I've been around this place long enough to know your passion and your incredible thoroughness....


Thanks for a thoughtful re-articulation and analysis of the issue!

[u-dog]

Know what caught my eye a few pages back? The dimissal of Warren's prayer, which was called "stupid".

Really? That strikes me as a rather presumptive comment considering that a forum such as this swims in the waters of the importance and substance of prayer.

So Warren's prayer doesn't matter? It's "stupid"? That's an interesting thought. What would make it not stupid?



The relative importance and unimportance of RW's invocation consists of two things only:

1. what he says
2. That it is he who is saying it.

What he actually says may or may not be stupid but, as one who has been called upon to give invocations at public events before I can tell you that what he is likely to say will be remembered by maybe a dozen people nationwide and one or two of those will be his wife and his mother ... probably NOT his kids. The ONLY thing that will be remarked upon by the press and talked about is whether or not he prays "in the name of Jesus". That leaves his identity as the only other issue.

I'm going to guess that maybe ... 25-30 percent of America even knows who Rick Warren is and an even smaller percentage knows or cares what he thinks about gay marriage. Asking him to invoke at the inauguration was probably, in hind sight, stupid. Brian McClaren or Jim Wallis certainly would have been better choices even though their public profile is lower than Warren's.

So, when I said that this prayer was "stupid" what I meant was that its significance is minor and six months from now we will have forgotten that we even had this argument.

Obama will almost certainly tackle the big issues for which he needs broad consensus first while he still has maximum political capital. These would be things like the economy, the war, the climate. He will then either tackle or NOT tackle the more divisive issues that will cost him political capital. These will include things like DOMA, hate crimes (though he might do that right away) and DADT. I will define "the sky is falling" for myself as meaning "if he hasn't tackled one or more of these big issues by midway through his first term.

I think I don't have any more to say on this issue and have been about as clear as I can be. Maybe I'm wrong. Its happened before.

[sauu4equality]

This is a general post to this thread. I feel very much caught in the middle of this (the irony). I find myself agreeing with Matt and Nancy Goldstein's article in the huffington post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-goldstein/harvey-milk-deserved-a-be_b_153950.html). Something I found on Andrew Sullivan's blog. Andrew started out very angry about the Warren pick and has since decided to take a centrist stance on the issue and wait it out to see what Obama is really made of. He describes Goldstein's article as devisive left-wing rhetoric. Something I've probably been guilty of many times. However, I've taken a similar approach to Andrew on this particular issue. I am so angry I could join a militia, but I know that wouldn't be effective. The angry tone of this thread leads me to believe that this would be the logical next step. Unfortunately, we aren't going to win that one. Maybe we should take the tactic of the "right to life" folks. They are constantly showing the world ugly pictures of abortion. What if we collect some autopsies or even a list of GLBT people killed for being who they are. Then we could travel the country showing just how ugly this hatred from the Christian Right is.

Basically my point is that I feel the anger and despair that Warren offering this prayer has brought to some or even all on this board. I feel it two-fold as I do not believe we should show favor to a particular religion in a civic event. As I said, I've been one step from joining a militia at times. But I also can understand those that are desparate to find peace and understanding with our adversaries. Those that want a next step to equality and are willing to ignore this unfortunate decision by Obama if it means there is an action we can take that may help our cause.

This entire argument/discussion is pushing me once again toward chaos theory. That justice is an idea just as goodness is just an idea. And that nothing happens for a reason. And that doing "what's right" is only something that exists inside an individual's head. In order to get away from this theory that removes meaning from life, I have decided to relax about the Warren pick. I will watch the inaugeration if I am not busy at work and I will still be overjoyed that my country has moved forward in the civil rights movement. I will be saddened that we could not see a less divisive character giving the invocation, but not to the point where I lose hope. So, I've decided that for me, choosing hope over hate is the most important thing. I am hopeful that life has meaning. I am hopeful that a loving God exists and he will eventually bring about divine justice for all. For me, it is important that I not hate even Rick Warren even though every fiber of my being wants to. I'm not going to try and tell anyone how to deal with the state of affairs GLBT's deal with in America. But this is how I am going to deal with it. I'm going to continue to be outspoken against lies about GLBT's. I'm going to continue to protest, give whatever i can to our causes and pray my guts out. But rather than move to that place of hate, I'm going to choose compassion and choose to hope that we are in fact moving in the right direction. And that righteousness exists outside of my brain.

I have no reason to believe that Obama will work hard for gay rights. But I am still overjoyed that a black man will become president. I don't know what Warren will do next. But I do remember that Falwell changed his mind on segregation. And I have hope that if Warren doesn't, then another influential religious man will. So, to sum up, I'm just as mad as Matt and I'm am just as hopeful that there is something we can do in the midst of this anger to further our causes as Jennifer. While I agree with Daniel that we are allowed to disagree on things, I don't think it is the desire of anyone on this board to have people leave. The presence of the regulars in this forum is something that I have come to enjoy. I am not preaching. I don't think there is necessarily a best answer on the discussion that has unfolded. I think all the conclusions that all of you have drawn are valid interpretations of the situation. I did feel that we are dangerously close to being disrespectful to one another. Something I can say that I have definitely been guilty of before. Rather than preaching I would describe this post as a plea to resolve differences that may have come about because of the divisive nature of this discussion. Because I'd like to think we're all friends here. And I'd like to see all of you post here again. :love::love:

Thanks,
Sauu

[Zerbie]

I refuse to believe that some people are "evil"

You must not refuse to believe in the possibility of evil overtaking some people, however rarely.

Consider: evil itself IS the sickness. It is very rare, but some few people have been completely covered over by it, and there is nothing functional left of them but the sickness.

To refuse to believe in evil can give evil free range with which to act. It will take advantage of your goodness to hide itself from your notice while it increases the damage it does.

By all means, consider it exceptionally rare, but do not 'refuse' to acknowledge its presence in the world.

[Daniel]

The ONLY thing that will be remarked upon by the press and talked about is whether or not he prays "in the name of Jesus". That leaves his identity as the only other issue.

I'm going to guess that maybe ... 25-30 percent of America even knows who Rick Warren is and an even smaller percentage knows or cares what he thinks about gay marriage.[/ Asking him to invoke at the inauguration was probably, in hind sight, stupid.

So, when I said that this prayer was "stupid" what I meant was that its significance is minor and six months from now we will have forgotten that we even had this argument.


You aren't upset as others are. And that's fine for you. But others such as myself, Matt and Emproph are pissed as hell (am I right about this gentlemen?)

Is the point here that you should be as upset? No. I'm not saying that. But your dismissal of the situation as 'stupid' is one hell of a putdown. And now you have backtracked your position to one of Obama being stupid.

This strikes me as a shifting of the target, rather than an understanding of the central issue.

You say it yourself U-dog, but I'm not sure you understand the importance of your words. You say that hardy anyone knows Warren's stance on gay marriage. I would add something else: the vast majority also don't understand why both Obama and Warren share the same view as regards gay marriage.

And this- I believe- is the central issue facing us, and one that should not be glossed over for a second.

It's not just that Warren's view is being broadcast to the world- and being affirmed. That is heinous in and of itself. Why? Because it broadcasts the lie that sexual orientation is something that is chosen. It broadcasts that it is Ok to lie even though there is evidence- and plenty of it- to the contrary. It's not a simple case of two views having equal importance. This is not about having an opinion. Beliefs shape policy. And the belief in operation here is that gay people are not as worthy as straight people in the eyes of God.

What do Obama and Warren share? A blind spot with regards to religion and gay people. Pure and simple. Not only is marriage being viewed as a religious matter, which it is not, legally speaking, the basis for this view is going unchecked. And that's another lie that is being broadcast.

Forget Warren for now. Will Obama learn from this? I- along with everyone else here- sincerely hope so. However, considering his track record with past preachers, I think it would be naive to assume that he will. It seems to me that, as far as matters of faith are concerned, this may be the one area of his life that is largely unexamined. I doubt that he has the time or the inclination to do anything about it. Why? Because he's going to be very busy. His thoughts about gay people, God and such, are the least of his concerns. Those things are- effectively- in the past.

He's all for gay rights if one takes him at his word, but when is he going to take the time to understand an issue that is central to our community? When is he going to deal with his own homophobia? For the fact is, if you believe that God has reserved marriage for straight people, you are- de facto- operating out of the belief- conscious or not- that straight people are better than gay people.

Hoping that Obama is going to examine his beliefs isn't going to make it happen. Obama needs to do the work just like every gay christian who think he/she can't be a christan has to. What would lead Obama to examine his own prejudices and beliefs regarding gay people, god and marriage?

That's the conversation we need to be having.

And that is why- I posit- we need to keep making a lot of noise about this. The issue goes way deeper than the appearance of things. In fact, it goes to the core of the matter.

Again, beliefs shape policy. And it would be stupid of us to assume that just because Obama has said good stuff about us that he will actually do something about it. Right now it's all words words words. Nothing more.

I'm not trashing the man, you understand. I think some good can come out of this. I really do. But wishing it so will not make it so. And taking a wait-and-see attitude is to wait for nothing.

We might as well wait for Godot.

[NathanATX]

What actions can we take outside of having a conversation here that would cause Obama to re-evaluate this issue?

We're making a lot of noise here, but what are we doing out there...?

And how can we facilitate/encourage/inspire others taking effective action?

[NathanATX]

So I'm going to take on being cause in the matter of Obama seeing LGBT people as fully vested and equal citizens AND children of God.

Now, since that is my commitment, what I'm taking on being responsible for... I see some pathways for action.



Call his office. Write him. Email him.
Call his wife. Write her. Email her.
Contact his transition team.
Contact each member of his new cabinet.
Contact each national democratic representative & senator.
Contact HRC, Soulforce, GLAAD, ACLU, MCC, etc. and find out what their suggested strategy is.
Write letters to the editor here in my hometown, in Chicago, in Warren's hometown, and in DC.

Now what's there for me to do is create a timeline of when I'll do these things. I'll have the timeline complete Sunday evening and begin taking action to fulfill on it on Monday.

What are you going to take on being responsible for? What actions do you see that you could take when you declare your commitment? By when will you have a plan of actions you're going to take in place?

Fire it up, ready to roll!

Get 'er done!

[Zerbie]

I've been planning to write to Obama and the transition team about this issue. The point isn't to vent - the point is to educate.

As I posted elsewhere a while ago, I believe Obama is, in a sense, unaware of what Warren's positions/actions re LGBT people really mean for LGBT Americans and their families. In that sense, I think he is innocent of mal-intent. But his claim of being a 'fierce' advocate for equal rights is far from accurate. He's more of a 'sort-of' advocate for equality. That's a lot better than we have had, but it's not enough, and the current furor over Warren is a great opportunity to approach him with information and personal stories.

He will be busy with the economy, climate change, international policy, and that's as it should be. But the downside is that he won't make time to consider LGBT issues in depth and take positive action unless he is pressed to do so. Which makes the pressing our job.

In addition to offering information and personal testimonies, how about we get some grassroots organizing going and visible around the nation? I liked the Join the Impact national events and it will only make sense to continue the likes of those national marches and demonstrations. The more we keep visible, the more we keep opening the doors to real conversations about the issues, (real conversations, rather than sound byte baloney.)

[u-dog]

I will commit to contacting Obama and his transition team to express my concern and dismay over the choice of Warren. I will contact selected democratic reps and senators to express my hope that issues of social justice for GLBT folks will not be shuffled to the bottom of the deck. I will research and (probably) support Soulforce and HRC efforts to get and keep the new president's active attention on issues important to GLBT citizens.

I will have contacted Obama, his transition team by Monday morning and researched HRC's and Soulforce's recommendations by a week from today. I will correspond with lawmakers during the month of January.

[Daniel]

I believe we need a many pronged effort, one that is collective as well as individual.

[scrupulous_stoic]

What if we were to make this movement global? Contact organizations in countries that allow gay marriage, such as Canada and the Netherlands, and have this go international. America itself would have not existed without foreign assistance. Perhaps a global perspective can help us organize and orchestrate.

[Rick336]

I saw Rick Warren in an interview on NBC just before Christmas. I'm not buying that this dude is heterosexual.

Rick

[Zerbie]

What if we were to make this movement global? Contact organizations in countries that allow gay marriage, such as Canada and the Netherlands, and have this go international. America itself would have not existed without foreign assistance. Perhaps a global perspective can help us organize and orchestrate.

Well, I have no idea how to go about doing that (if you do, please get busy!). But how about we strive to make this movement NATIONAL?

Let's make sure that we keep the coordinated national actions going. Is Join the Impact still going? We can all stay on board with their projects, if so.

Otherwise, I'm happy to share what I know is going on grassroots-wise in Phoenix for organizers in other cities/states who would like to get on board with their own versions of our events. For instance, organizers in Phoenix are planning a demonstration in front of the state capitol days before the session begins, to make our case for equality. It's being billed as a DOMA protest -- designed to raise awareness of the need for equal recognition in marriage.

Who among y'all is able and willing to organize a similar visibility demonstration in your area?

Sign me up to contact Obama and the transition team RE: Warren. I'm also signed up to participate in some of our local organizing events this month.

[Matt Algren]

email addresses for the Inauguration Committee, cribbed from my very own blog. (Like I wouldn't try to get a plug in!)

Committee Chairwoman Sen. Diane Feinstein (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe)
Sen. Harry Reid (http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm)
Sen. Bob Bennett (http://bennett.senate.gov/contact/email_opinion.cfm)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (http://speaker.house.gov/contact/)
Rep. Steny Hoyer (http://www.majorityleader.gov/email_and_rss/email_the_leader/)
Rep. John Boehner (http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact/)

One more email address (I totally stole it from the aforementioned Box Turtle Bulletin) is for Parag Mehta (mailto:parag.mehta@ptt.gov) , President-Elect Obama's LGBT liason on the transition team.

[scrupulous_stoic]

"Who among y'all is able and willing to organize a similar visibility demonstration in your area?"

I'll be able to.

[Rick336]

email addresses for the Inauguration Committee, cribbed from my very own blog. (Like I wouldn't try to get a plug in!)

Committee Chairwoman Sen. Diane Feinstein (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe)
Sen. Harry Reid (http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm)
Sen. Bob Bennett (http://bennett.senate.gov/contact/email_opinion.cfm)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (http://speaker.house.gov/contact/)
Rep. Steny Hoyer (http://www.majorityleader.gov/email_and_rss/email_the_leader/)
Rep. John Boehner (http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact/)



Thanks Matt. I used your list and sent a message to each member of the Inauguration Committee concerning Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation.

Rick

[Jennifer5]

You must not refuse to believe in the possibility of evil overtaking some people, however rarely.

Consider: evil itself IS the sickness. It is very rare, but some few people have been completely covered over by it, and there is nothing functional left of them but the sickness.

To refuse to believe in evil can give evil free range with which to act. It will take advantage of your goodness to hide itself from your notice while it increases the damage it does.

By all means, consider it exceptionally rare, but do not 'refuse' to acknowledge its presence in the world.
I think this is no to off topic, so I started a new thread...
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=65072#post65072

[Zerbie]

"Who among y'all is able and willing to organize a similar visibility demonstration in your area?"

I'll be able to.

Spectacular! :award:
Below I'm copying the info about our action here in Phoenix in case you'd like it to jumpstart your ideas.

Here it is:

Protest DOMA! Jan 10th
Kicking off the New Year with a new CHAPTER in the fight for Marriage Rights!

Saturday, January 10 - 1:30pm - 4:00pm
Protest for the Repeal of DOMA
Wesley Bolin Plaza (center "Bowl" area)
In front of the Arizona State Capital, Phoenix

This is not 'another rally about the last election.' This is the first protest in preparation for the 2010 election cycle. We need to be on the offensive. Our opponents have not stopped, they just don't have a ballot measure ready YET!

Please join us as we bring together individuals, couples and families from across the state to Demand Our Marriage Access!

Barack Obama promised during his campaign that he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). We expect that he will keep this promise, but know that it is not so much a victory as a change in the battle we will be facing.

Arizona, and every state where restrictions on marriage have been added to the state constitution, will face additional assaults on any legal protections which are currently available for relationships other than marriage. We can not wait for our opponents to formulate their argument against us. We must be visible now, defining and defending our relationships.

Some parking will be available on property, however the public parking lot off Jefferson Avenue will be closed to allow for the placement of portable toilets.
Please help us spread the word! You can use the links below to download fliers.

Color - 8.5x11 (one per sheet)
BW - 4.25x5.5 (four per sheet)

Color - 8.5x11 (one per sheet)
BW - 4.25x5.5 (four per sheet)

[scrupulous_stoic]

This is great, Zerbie! Thanks!

[Matt Algren]

The open letter to President-elect Obama is a national event. Text of the letter is below:

January 21, 2009

Dear President Obama,

Congratulations on your historic and inspiring victory. Your lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens, along with families, friends, and heterosexual allies, would like to welcome you to the White House. We are thrilled to see that true change has come to this country.

During your election campaign you wrote an open letter to us, making it clear that you were committed to gaining ‘full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country.’ In that letter you asked for our vote and promised to:

* Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and ensure that states treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws

* Enact a fully inclusive Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity

* Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

* Enact the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes against our community

* Confront the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the stigma surrounding it

* Amend the Uniting American Families Act to afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system


We come to you as esteemed citizens of the United States of America in need of equal protections under the law for all families. The LGBT community is part of this diverse country, but do not share the same rights as their heterosexual brothers and sisters. In the spirit of family, respect, and of course, hope, we will work with you to make these promises become a reality.

We paid attention to the statements you made during your campaign, and we voted for you. Now, as you take office, we ask something in return. Please keep your promises to the LGBT community and provide the leadership needed to achieve true equality for all Americans.

Sincerely,
Your Fellow Americans

You can find information on your local January 10th event by going to Join the Impact (http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Nationwide+DOMA+Protest?t=anon). I'm pretty sure there's something going on in every state, but remember that the goal this time is not to get 1,000,000 people protesting, but to get 1,000,000 signatures on the letter to President-elect Obama. It's imperative that things be done that weekend so the signature pages from each location can be checked and collated by his first day in office.

SimvCu0WCxU

[NathanATX]

Now THIS is exciting! People in action up to making a difference in the world! AWESOME!

What's next?

What are some results people are having?

Who else is going to join the party and get in the game of ACTION?

[NathanATX]

I am creating a google site called

n2justiceproject

"The nerve center of the relationship-building non-violent LGBT justice movement"

If you are interested in being on this project, go to: http://sites.google.com/site/areyoun2justice/

This will be a collaborative effort.
1. Compiling contact information data.
2. Building teams of people to take specific actions to communicate our message(s).
3. Creating effective scripts, conversations, email-able letters, etc., for the teams to use.
4. Creating action plans to effectively communicate with decision makers, policy makers, news outlets, bloggers, etc., ON TIME with these issues.
5. Assigning and delegating tasks, action plans to individuals and teams.

[Emproph]

#1 and most importantly, some of us are STILL not understanding each other and participating in the same conversation.

Daniel, I don’t know if you meant it this way based on what you were saying right before it, but this this line sums it up best for me.
I guess, if one can distance himself/herself from the symbolism involved, one can be equally distanced from the suffering that is cause by it.

It’s not the Warren pick itself that enrages me, it is what it represents. What I mean by “the sky is falling,” it is the inability of those in our community and our supporters to recognize the EXTENT of the threat that this symbolizes.

To put it bluntly, Rick Warren is a liar. By supporting proposition 8, he supported lies. Obama, in his attempt to “reach out,” is reaching out to liars and those who approve of lies, and thus, is sending that message of approval.

The lies in question, were in the effort to demonize gay people. When you demonize a group of people, you promote violence against them.

Therefore, Obama’s pick of Warren represents his approval of violence against gays - at least symbolically. By extension, it gives unwarranted credence to all the other anti-gay pastors out there who are also spreading hatred against gays in the name of religion.

There is a time and a place to reach out to people like that, and I feel that this is one of the worse messages that can be sent at this time and in this place. It’s not only injurious to the LGBT community, but further emboldens the liar/hate community.

And to further qualify the negligence of such a decision, the more the anti-gay community finds out about Warren, the more they’ll find out how unBiblically sound his views are, despite his anti-gay stance. Sure, it’s an added benefit, but it doesn’t justify the original negligence that lead to it. And it’s that original negligence that I don’t see being taken seriously enough.

And PLEASE understand, I’m not suggesting that we demand that Obama backtrack and rescind the invitation.
1) The fact that he chose Warren in the first place, and his glib response to the initial outrage tells me that he’s not capable of articulating WHY he rescinded the offer in any way that would be satisfactory to the religious community who don’t know the full story - and would unnecessarily take it as an offense.
2) The anti-gays would just use it against us as further cannon fodder. “See, this just proves that those evil gays want to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”

Polar orthodoxies preclude cohabitation. Infer Warren's potential sociopathic bent all you want, but he holds sway over lots of people who are I fervently hope are not similarly afflicted. These are the ones we must engage -- the "hearts and minds" we must win over.

That said, screaming bloody murder can be very productive in giving weight and urgency to the diplomats.

First of all, I agree that it is not productive focus on any sociopathic bend, other than to point out the similarities in the effort to illustrate that even so-called spiritual leaders are indeed capable of the worst kinds of dishonesty.

And I agree that the real focus should be on their followers, some of whom can be reached.

My point with the “screaming bloody murder” part, is that the end result of comparing LGBT persons with child rapists results in everything from spiritual to physical violence.

So when I hear that this isn’t something to get so upset about, what I hear is that violence against us isn’t something to be so upset about -- especially those who can’t defend themselves yet, or haven’t found a safe space yet, like kids, or gay people living in small towns. Not everyone can “pass.”

The problem is, Patrick, that I wasn't aware of anyone screaming anything when he actually said those things. People are only screaming now.

What I'm hearing is an intense frustration with the lgbt community and our allies regarding our lack of vigilance, coordination, and utilization of our collective voice.

So we're "busy." We don't know how to function as a collective voice. We are lazy and apathetic. We are over-reliant on the "goodness" of people and ignorant of the threat that power-hunger can be.

How do WE change this?

First of all, acknowledge the level of threat by understanding that the implications of this pick go MUCH deeper than the surface offense that it is. In other words, in regard to people like me, Daniel, Matt et al, stop seeing this and complaining about our anger as an over reaction to the surface offense.

Correct me if I’m wrong boys, but we’re not talking about this in regard to the event itself, but the even worse picture that lies behind it.

I’ve already explained how Rick Warren gives credence to all the other anti-gay liars out there, but also, this is strike two for Obama when it comes to dismissing our concerns as being simple disagreement.

The complaint about Donnie McClurkin was NOT the fact that he was “ex-gay,” but because he was ANTI-GAY, because he called gays child killers. Obama’s response was to hire someone who was gay to “balance” out the situation.

This “reaching out to those who disagree” Warren charade is in the same vein. So when I hear people in our own community and advocates characterizing this as just some sort of disagreement about marriage, I want blow my brains out.

Intentional lies and gratuitous demonization as a means to a political end doth not a disagreement on marriage make.

What actions can we take outside of having a conversation here that would cause Obama to re-evaluate this issue?

We're making a lot of noise here, but what are we doing out there...?

And how can we facilitate/encourage/inspire others taking effective action?

Daniel again says it best:

And that is why- I posit- we need to keep making a lot of noise about this. The issue goes way deeper than the appearance of things. In fact, it goes to the core of the matter.

I would add that our “noise” needs to include specifics as to WHY we are upset. And that this isn’t about simple disagreement, or religious expression.

I believe Rick Warren said that the passage of Prop 8 would prevent preachers from preaching against homosexuality, as though suddenly some how the first amendment would become null and void. LIE.

Furthermore, the Prop 8 website had a link to Focus on the Family which included a reference to the Dutch Study (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm) to show that gays are not monogamous, and that therefore, we don’t deserve marriage.

What Focus neglects to mention however, is that you couldn’t be in the study UNLESS YOU WERE NOT MONOGAMOUS.

They used a study on non-monogamous couples, to assert that all gays are not monogamous.

It is specifics like these that need to go out in those letters to show that our outrage goes far beyond any simple disagreement, or disappointment of inequality in regard to marriage.

Until we can educate our own community on the intentionally injurious lengths that these religious leaders are willing to go to, I hold little confidence in the effect that any letter writing campaign will have.

In fact, I would say that we would be better off with an organized letter writing campaign to educate the media.

Anderson “we’re keeping them honest” Cooper, Lou Dobbs, and Chris Matthews continue to have Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council on as a spokes person, and when one of our advocates happen to be there to counter them, they play right into and argue within the “freedom of religion” frame. It’s pathetic.

If it’s about religion, fine, then bring up the death penalty in Leviticus, and bring up the remarriage = adultery provision in the New Testament. And then bring up the Dutch Study and ask them why they lie.

Sure, they’ll have an answer for every thing, BUT MAKE THEM RESPOND, so that the world can see them dance and weave in defense of their own supposedly “deeply held moral beliefs.”

Simple simple simple, easy easy easy, and it’s not being done, not even by our own.

But what is being done by our own, “we should all calm down,” “we shouldn’t make such a big deal about the difference of opinion on marriage,” blah blah blah.

Openly characterizing intentional lies and deceit as a matter of opinion, only adds to the violence the anti-gay community is wreaking on us. Such minimization and undermining of the seriousness of the problem is doing their work for them.

Barack’s a politician, he’s proven that, and not just in our case. As dsdrane said, let the MSM do our work for us. After all, isn’t the media supposed to be the fourth arm of government?

[Daniel]

As I read it, I remembered the tale about the frog in the water. The water heats up, and the frog dies because he's gotten used to the heat- and it kills him.

Sometimes I think we are used to a certain level of violence. And our reaction is to either downplay it or make it into something it is not.

This is a natural thing to do. It's a survival tactic. But in terms of gay rights, it isn't going to get us very far.

The steam is rising!

You hit it right on the head: we need to be countering the lies that are put out in the media under the guise of freedom of expression, as if freedom of expresson means freedom from questioning.

[Rick336]

This has probably already been posted, but I'll post it again. This is a website for the Obama Transition team where you can go and tell them exactly how you feel about Obama's decision of Rick Warren for inaugural invocation.

When you get to the website, click on the button that says, "tell us your story."

http://change.gov


Rick

[Jennifer5]

The open letter to President-elect Obama is a national event. Text of the letter is below:

January 21, 2009

Dear President Obama,

Congratulations on your historic and inspiring victory. Your lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens, along with families, friends, and heterosexual allies, would like to welcome you to the White House. We are thrilled to see that true change has come to this country.

During your election campaign you wrote an open letter to us, making it clear that you were committed to gaining ‘full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country.’ In that letter you asked for our vote and promised to:

* Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and ensure that states treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws

* Enact a fully inclusive Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity

* Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

* Enact the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes against our community

* Confront the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the stigma surrounding it

* Amend the Uniting American Families Act to afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system


We come to you as esteemed citizens of the United States of America in need of equal protections under the law for all families. The LGBT community is part of this diverse country, but do not share the same rights as their heterosexual brothers and sisters. In the spirit of family, respect, and of course, hope, we will work with you to make these promises become a reality.

We paid attention to the statements you made during your campaign, and we voted for you. Now, as you take office, we ask something in return. Please keep your promises to the LGBT community and provide the leadership needed to achieve true equality for all Americans.

Sincerely,
Your Fellow Americans

You can find information on your local January 10th event by going to Join the Impact (http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Nationwide+DOMA+Protest?t=anon). I'm pretty sure there's something going on in every state, but remember that the goal this time is not to get 1,000,000 people protesting, but to get 1,000,000 signatures on the letter to President-elect Obama. It's imperative that things be done that weekend so the signature pages from each location can be checked and collated by his first day in office.

SimvCu0WCxU

Fantastic letter! I think that the way this was written will make it impossible to just ignore.

I honestly don't feel that Obama will let us down, but I think that this is a good way to ensure that he doesn't. :love:

[Zerbie]

Bravo, Patrick. Spot-on. You have identified the problem exactly.

I keep saying - when are people going to stop calling propagandistic lies used to strip a class of people of their civil status under the law, versus the rightful expectation to be treated equally under the law, "a disagreement"?!? You are precisely correct that the Warren issue is not about disagreement at all.

I believe Obama still believes that it is about disagreements. I believe he is operating out of his faith that by reaching out across lines of 'disagreement,' that politics and America can begin to heal of its rifts. The problem is that not all the rifts are as simple as disagreements. Too many lives are still on the line, not to mention the many lives our 'politics' have already cost.

I also believe that given time and outreach from many, Obama will start to see through the construct of gay versus anti-gay as a 'simple disagreement.'

[tdogg]

If there is a positive to be had from Obama's decision to have Warren pray on Jan. 20th, it's the backlash he is seeing from that decision. Obama is a smart man, he does tend to learn from his mistakes. What will make it difficult for him to gloss over this one, is the outcry from those who support, and even demand, equality. With the outcry, and the snowball effect it will likely have, Obama will not be able to put aside equality issues for any length of time. Unless he truly is 'the enemy'. I'm still giving him the chance I believe he deserves.

Meanwhile, I will make my outcry heard. I'm emailing the transition team (thanks to everyone for your links, that does make it easier). The louder we tell the truth, the more apt our new president (to be) is to hear us. And to learn from his mistake.

[Rick336]

Emproph,

Awesome post! You've made some excellent points and have definitely aroused my attention. I hope that you are speaking out in other public forums, Op-Ed editorials in newspapers, and open mike speeches at LGBT rallies. If not, then you definitely should be.

Rick

[Rick336]

If there is a positive to be had from Obama's decision to have Warren pray on Jan. 20th, it's the backlash he is seeing from that decision. Obama is a smart man, he does tend to learn from his mistakes. What will make it difficult for him to gloss over this one, is the outcry from those who support, and even demand, equality. With the outcry, and the snowball effect it will likely have, Obama will not be able to put aside equality issues for any length of time. Unless he truly is 'the enemy'. I'm still giving him the chance I believe he deserves.

Meanwhile, I will make my outcry heard. I'm emailing the transition team (thanks to everyone for your links, that does make it easier). The louder we tell the truth, the more apt our new president (to be) is to hear us. And to learn from his mistake.

I totally agree. Obama definitely needs to hear from us. Now.

http://change.gov/

Rick

[tymejumper]

Hey, I know I am generally slow, but does not Obama have a myspace page? we could send him messages there, it would get to him. We could look on facebook also. Just sayin......

[Jennifer5]

Hey, I know I am generally slow, but does not Obama have a myspace page? we could send him messages there, it would get to him. We could look on facebook also. Just sayin......
Yes he does have a myspace at least. You can look into facebook.

Thanks for pointing that out, it would be a very easy way to write him.

[Matt Algren]

The open letter to President-elect Obama is a national event. Text of the letter is below:

[letter]

You can find information on your local January 10th event by going to Join the Impact (http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Nationwide+DOMA+Protest?t=anon). I'm pretty sure there's something going on in every state, but remember that the goal this time is not to get 1,000,000 people protesting, but to get 1,000,000 signatures on the letter to President-elect Obama. It's imperative that things be done that weekend so the signature pages from each location can be checked and collated by his first day in office.

SimvCu0WCxU
Quick follow up on this issue. On a hunch I contacted the Ohio organizer and found that there had been no outreach to LGBT-affirming congregations. Hoping to fix that this week. Here's a copy of the email I'm sending to all the pastors I can find (so far just MCC, UMC, and Lutheran). Use it if you'd like.

Dear Pastor,

This Saturday, January 10, Join The Impact (http://jointheimpact.com/) (a group providing continued response to the 2008 elections) will be holding rallies across the nation with the specific goal of getting 1,000,000 signatures for an open letter to President Obama on his first day in office. This open letter reminds the new President of his public commitment to the LGBT community and respectfully requests follow-through. Text of the letter is at the bottom of this email.

In Ohio, there will be one central rally at the Statehouse in Columbus (information here) (http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Ohio). Because of the short notice, I'm afraid that many people won't be able to attend. (In fact, I'm one of them.)

I'm writing to ask that you make the open letter available for signing before or after church services this Sunday, January 11. Signatures in large numbers from members of LGBT-affirming congregations can have a major impact not just to President Obama, but to the sometimes religion-wary LGBT community as well.

In order to gather and collate 1,000,000 signatures by January 21, Join The Impact has asked that ALL signature sheets be mailed to them by January 12, so time is of the essence. Here is a link to the letter (http://attachments.wetpaintserv.us/ie%2BzftVKmp3UMuMQTk1A4Q%3D%3D18018) and another link to pre-formatted signature sheets (http://attachments.wetpaintserv.us/YDxT%24bMsuG6l%24mxWtkRMjQ%3D%3D181280) for your convenience. The name and contact information of the signature gatherer should be placed in the space provided at the bottom of each signature page.

The address to send signed signature sheets is:

[address]

Please join me in supporting this effort to correct many of the legal injustices our community faces as we struggle for recognized equality.

Grace and peace,
Matthew D. Algren

=============

[Text of the open letter]

[NathanATX]

I would like to schedule a conference call for Sunday, Jan. 11th at 8pm, CST. Please message me for the number OR got to http://sites.google.com/site/areyoun2justice/Home and fill out the application and I will email you the number.

- I also am getting in action by attending a training hosted by moveon.org on how to get results from Congress. Check their site to see if they have a similar training in your area.

[Jennifer5]

I would like to schedule a conference call for Sunday, Jan. 11th at 8pm, CST. Please message me for the number OR got to http://sites.google.com/site/areyoun2justice/Home and fill out the application and I will email you the number.

- I also am getting in action by attending a training hosted by moveon.org on how to get results from Congress. Check their site to see if they have a similar training in your area.

If there are some of you who, like me, can't remember the different time zones...

http://www.rocktour.net/time_zone_map_2.jpg

:rolleyes:

[Daniel]

This article throws a spotlight onto Warren's AIDS work in Africa and those he supports there.

The Truth About Rick Warren's AIDS in Africa Work by Max Blumenthal

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-07/the-truth-about-rick-warren-in-africa



Warren’s defense against charges of intolerance ultimately depends upon his ace card: his heavily publicized crusade against AIDS in Africa. Obama senior advisor David Axelrod cited Warren’s work in Africa as one of “the things on which [Obama and Warren] agree” on the December 28 episode of Meet the Press. Warren may be opposed to gay rights and abortion, the thinking goes, but he tells evangelicals it is their God-given duty to battle one of the greatest pandemics in history. What could be wrong with that?

But since the Warren inauguration controversy erupted, the nature of work against AIDS in Africa has gone unexamined. Warren has not been particularly forthcoming to those who have attempted to look into it. His website contains scant information about the results of his program. However, an investigation into Warren’s involvement in Africa reveals a web of alliances with right-wing clergymen who have sidelined science-based approaches to combating AIDS in favor of abstinence-only education. More disturbingly, Warren’s allies have rolled back key elements of one of the continent’s most successful initiative, the so-called ABC program in Uganda. Stephen Lewis, the United Nations’ special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, told the New York Times their activism is “resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred.”

Warren’s man in Uganda is a charismatic pastor named Martin Ssempa. The head of the Makerere Community Church, a rapidly growing congregation, Ssempe enjoys close ties to his country’s First Lady, Janet Museveni, and is a favorite of the Bush White House. In the capitol of Kampala, Ssempa is known for his boisterous crusading. Ssempa’s stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.

[NathanATX]

Unbelievable... man.

[Matt Algren]

This article throws a spotlight onto Warren's AIDS work in Africa and those he supports there.

The Truth About Rick Warren's AIDS in Africa Work by Max Blumenthal

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-07/the-truth-about-rick-warren-in-africa
This would explain why Warren gave GWB an International Medal of Peace (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2008/12/george-w-bush-receives-international-medal-of-peace/) for all his super awesome fantastic AIDS work.





[note that I brought this up weeks before he was making big news]

[Rick336]

This article throws a spotlight onto Warren's AIDS work in Africa and those he supports there.

The Truth About Rick Warren's AIDS in Africa Work by Max Blumenthal

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-07/the-truth-about-rick-warren-in-africa

I agree. This is really fucked up. If only there was a way to send this information to the Obama Inauguration team or to Obama's web site.

Rick

[NathanATX]

Hmmm... I know my mayor and she knows Obama...

I'll send her an email.

[Emproph]

Warren’s man in Uganda is a charismatic pastor named Martin Ssempa. [...] Ssempa’s stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.

From a Charlie Rose interview (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5555324196046364882&hl=en) he did a couple of years ago (August 17, 2006):

@ 30:00 mark:
Rick Warren: Here's an interesting thing, when I go out and I start telling people, 'do you want to work with us on poverty, disease, AIDS, illiteracy, injustice?' I often find people are more unwilling to work with us, than we are willing to work with them.

In other words, we're saying, 'You don't have to change your beliefs for us to work with you.' If you can only work with people that you agree with, then most of the world you're ruling out, okay? I don't insist that a Muslim change his belief for me to work on poverty. I don't even insist that a gay person has to change their beliefs, they're not going to accept my belief, or I'm not going to accept theirs.

But I just met with the president--the co-founder of ACT-UP. Eric Sawyer. And I said, Eric, how can I help you get your message--I know you care about people who are dying, how can I help you get your message out? He said, 'Use your moral authority.' I'm working with these guys.

[Emproph]

http://impactflorida.ning.com/

Could use some funding, but I like the effort.

4fWSmpXFkms

[Daniel]

Robinson, an openly gay Episcopal bishop, had reacted angrily to the selection of Warren, who opposes gay marriage, calling it a 'slap in the face.' But then Robinson was selected this week to give the invocation at the inaugural opening ceremony at the Sunday afternoon concert on the Mall. Today, Warren issued a statement praising Obama for selecting Robinson, saying the president-elect 'has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground. I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen.'"

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/01/rick-warren-pra.html

[tdogg]

Warren is trying like hell to 'save face'. He's going to have to do much better than that, IMO.

[Matt Algren]

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/01/rick-warren-pra.html
I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen....even the ones who think The Homosexuals are just like pedophiles.

[Matt Algren]

GRctKSeyQ-s

More at my blog.

[Emproph]

From Pam's House Blend (http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9077), via Faith In America (http://www.faithinamerica.info/):

Tonight's open letter is from Rodney N. Powell, a member of Faith In America's board of directors and a former student activist in civil rights movement, and he has no patience for the smooth, media-friendly mega-pastor Rick Warren's attempt to spin his brand of evangelical conservatism as enlightened or in any way reaching out to the LGBT community. He believes that Warren's actions and attitude are no different from those of segregationists and racists. Here is the powerful smackdown:

eHmFhTuMpVU

Transcript:
Dear Mr. Warren,

I am certain that you are aware of harm and history of religion based bigotry in the U.S., particularly related to black Americans, women, and homosexual Americans today, of all races and ethnicities. Therefore, I must assume that you do not care about the negative consequences of religion based bigotry, and the devastating social and psychological harm done to the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. Especially vulnerable teenagers, who are just beginning to discover and understand sexual orientation and sexual identity.

Your religious beliefs and attitudes that cause you to be intolerant of the lives, opinions, behaviors, and identities of gay Americans, is not the issue. This issue is the actions you and others take regarding these beliefs. I steadfastly support your right to hold these religious beliefs, including your belief in the inerrancy of Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. However, your religious beliefs do not give you the right to oppress gay Americans, and encode your religious beliefs into customs, and codify them into laws that deny justice, equal civil rights, and first class citizenship to other Americans. When you seek to force your views and intolerance on others, you are no different from racists, segregationists, sexists, anti-Semites, and other bigots throughout America’s history of religion based bigotry.

Dr. King, vigorously and harshly, challenged and rejected the acceptance of institutions and persons who advocated and advanced religion based racial persecution, and its resultant bigotry and hate. It is astounding to me, and I am certain, to other former student leaders of non-violent protests, during the civil rights movement, such as congressman John Lewis (http://johnlewis.house.gov/), that you will deliver the keynote address at the Martin Luther King commemorative service, at Ebenezer Baptist Church.

Mr. Warren, I do not believe Dr. King would find your spiritual leadership unifying, and I am certain he would not find it to be part of his vision for America, of the beloved community.

I suppose you will say you motive is to honor or please the god you love, however, I must ask whether attitudes and actions derived from misunderstanding, and bigotry, and deeply hidden prejudices please your god. Does it honor your god when innocent persons, especially teenagers, are devastated by words of condemnation and rejection.

Emmet Till (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till) and Matthew Shepard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard) were innocent victims of hate and bigotry, and their deaths are directly related to such words spoken by religious leaders.

What I do know, as someone who learned the meaning of justice from Dr. King, is that both religion based bigotry and political expediency that exploits it for votes, perpetuate hate and injustice. And both, miserably fail Dr. King’s vision of the beloved community.

Mr. Warren, your pastoral leadership would not please Dr. King, and it certainly does not honor him.

Sincerely,

Rodney Powell

[Emproph]

From Faith In America: Ending The Harm Caused by Religion-based Bigotry (http://www.faithinamerica.info/)

Tracey Zoeller: If I Were Your Daughter...

fvHY-Z7Aff0

Dear Pastor Warren,

I would like to ask you to stop and think about the pain your words and attitude towards me, are causing myself and those I love. When my family hears individuals such as yourself, compare me to pedophiles, can you stop and think for a moment about the pain inflicted, when you cause them to think about me in such an ugly context.

My father can no longer show me his love as he once did, because his church teaches him that my sexual orientation is act of choosing to live a sinful lifestyle. But I’m the same little girl that used to lean against his side, on so many Sunday mornings. He believes my salvation is in question, and I know that must make him incredibly sad. It hurts me to know I am causing him sadness. We no longer talk like we once did, there’s a wall between us now, because he believes I chose to be gay.

My sexual orientation was not a choice for me, Pastor Warren, no more than your sexual orientation was a choice for you. Can you understand the spiritual violence that you are inflicting upon me and others? If I were your daughter, would you still say I was the equivalent to a pedophile? Would you still use your Bible to condemn and reject me as an unrepentant sinner? Would I still not be welcome as a member of your church? Can you accept me, just as I am?

Sincerely,

Tracey Zoeller

(She is also the author of The Pastor's Daughter (http://www.amazon.com/Pastors-Daughter-Tracey-G-Zoeller/dp/1889829145/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232439821&sr=1-1))

Mitchell Gold: An open letter to Pastor Rick Warren

KbB6SsrUYzA

Announcer: Mitchell Gold, author of “Crisis (http://www.crisisbook.org/).” Forty stories revealing the personal, social, and religious pain and trauma of growing up gay in America.

Mitchell Gold: Dear Pastor Warren,

I’m Mitchell Gold, founder of an organization that works to help people understand the harm caused to gay teens and adults, and their families and friends.

We recently delivered to you a collection of personal stories from individuals who speak to you about the harm caused, when religion based bigotry and prejudice is used to justify rejection, condemnation, and discrimination, to gay Americans. You’ll find additional stories in a copy of my book “Crisis,” which I have also sent to you. I hope you will take the time to read them.

Pastor Warren, the issue is not about denying gay Americans the same rights as other Americans enjoy, although that is certainly something that for which we very strongly advocate. And the greatest harm does not come from you saying we shouldn’t marry. What causes so much pain, is when you say we are inferior, and when you look upon us as unworthy to share the same rights as others. More damaging is when you promote such rejection and condemnation, as the right thing to do if you’re a person of faith.

We’ve been down that road many times before. People of faith once were taught that rejection and condemnation, toward women, people of color, minority religious groups, or interracial couples, was the right attitude for them to hold. We know today those past examples of religion based bigotry and prejudice, have been proven wrong.

As you’ll recall, the Southern Baptist Convention, your Christian denomination, formally apologized to people of color on June 20th, 1995, for their role in the horror of slavery and segregation.

Why is that pastor Warren? I hope you can agree that it was because Americans of all faiths, realize the harm that was being done to those individuals targeted by such bigotry and prejudice. The pain felt by a young African teenager when saw individuals and institutions look upon him as unworthy and inferior, is the same pain, that millions of young gay teenagers feel today, when you say they are unworthy, inferior, and unfit to be fully welcomed by their family, friends, coworkers, or church. And make no mistake about it, your words do that.

Pastor Warren, I am sincerely and respectfully asking you place on your heart, the immense pain that is being brought to bear in the lives of gay Americans, in the name of traditional church teaching. It is my hope that you will come to understand that such harm can no longer be justified, and have the fortitude, to join others, including those in your own faith community in calling for its end. It’s important for you to connect the dots of the history of discrimination in America. I call upon you to say that religion based bigotry has no place in the soul of your church, or in America.

Respectfully,

Mitchell Gold
_____________

Also, they collected and sent a collection of letters (http://www.faithinamerica.info/pdf/Warren.pdf) as well. Intro:

Dear Rev. Rick Warren,

Faith In America is a nonprofit organization that works to educate Americans about the harm caused by religion-based bigotry and prejudice.

Several weeks ago we began collecting examples of that harm as it exists in the lives of gay Americans, their families and their friends. Most are from people who have experienced the pain of rejection and condemnation but some are straight allies who, like more and more Americans, understand why it can no longer be allowed to flourish in our society.

We hope you will take the time to read these examples and open your heart to an understanding of why we can no longer allow religion to be used in a way that exacts such a horrific human toll on the lives of so many Americans.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Gold, founder

[dsdrane]

Anyone else notice the deafening LACK of applause when Rick Warren was announced at the Inauguration?

Even CNN commented on it.:cool:

[Emproph]

Rick Warren was at the Inauguration?

[christa08]

Rick Warren was at the Inauguration?

Yes he was. Maybe I'm biased...but I couldn't even stand the sound of his voice :sick: There were some good parts of his prayer but I guess I just didn't think it was that great. Probably because of the mouth it was coming out of.

[Matt Algren]

Yes he was. Maybe I'm biased...but I couldn't even stand the sound of his voice :sick: There were some good parts of his prayer but I guess I just didn't think it was that great. Probably because of the mouth it was coming out of.
I'm sure that was part of it, but it was way too specifically Christian for a prayer that should include everybody. Reciting the Lord's Prayer was weird. And the weird accent he put on the girls' names was odd too.

Loved Rev. Lowery's benediction, though.

[sjbouza]

And the weird accent he put on the girls' names was odd too.

I actually found it a little creepy to tell you the truth. I can just see the little baby from the investment commercials, "I underestimated the creepiness".

If Warren really wants to spew the Bible against the LGBT community, maybe he should take a look at the part that says GLUTTONY is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Me thinks he is an offender!!! It is obvious he isn't repentant of that sin, not by a longshot!!!

Peace,
Scott

[christa08]

I'm sure that was part of it, but it was way too specifically Christian for a prayer that should include everybody. Reciting the Lord's Prayer was weird. And the weird accent he put on the girls' names was odd too.

Loved Rev. Lowery's benediction, though.

I agree with all of the above. I also found it weird that he recited the Lord's Prayer. Rev. Lowery's prayer made me laugh...it was cute. :)

[Matt Algren]

I actually found it a little creepy to tell you the truth. I can just see the little baby from the investment commercials, "I underestimated the creepiness".

If Warren really wants to spew the Bible against the LGBT community, maybe he should take a look at the part that says GLUTTONY is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Me thinks he is an offender!!! It is obvious he isn't repentant of that sin, not by a longshot!!!

Peace,
Scott
Not to mention pride going before something something. Look at pictures of him from a couple years ago and you'll notice that he had a lot less hair than he does now. It's either a major combover or he's got plugs.

Oh, and people are going nuts over the end of the benediction. It was obvious to me that it was a reference to a song of some sort (especially given his Civil Rights background), but people are foaming at the mouth thinking that Rev. Lowery was being all racist against the poor white folks.

[dsdrane]

I disagree about the "Lord's Prayer" being weird. I can see how it would strike too "Christianist" a tone, but this is hardly surprising from someone like Warren. But, as a prayer, you can't get much more basic, and I think it nicely presaged the return to basics Obama paid homage to in his inaugural address.

Give us "our daily bread"; "forgive our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us"...what's not to like?

Don't blame the messenger for the message.:)

[tdogg]

It was cheesy, insincere and reeked of hypocrisy. But then, perhaps I'm wrong about hypocrisy and Warren truly doing a turnaround today based upon all the input over him praying at the inauguration...

Nah, I think it was hypocritical. I hope he listens to his prayer over and over again. Perhaps he'll see where people might find it, well, cheesy, insincere and hypocritical.

Not only was there a lack of acknowledgment or applause, the live feed we had at work started to go downhill during his prayer. It would stop every few seconds, and sputter on again only to stop a few seconds later. Funny and fitting during the prayer, but annoying during the rest of it. I went back to my office to watch the live cast from my little portable TV.

Rev. Lowery was great. He more than made up for Warren. I would have to agree though that I didn't find the Lords prayer to be weird.

[Matt Algren]

Seriously, there are people in the whacko corners of the web getting apopleptic about Rev. Lowery's benediction, specifically because he had the thing at the end about yellow being mellow and such. I thought it was awesome, and after a little digging I found out that I was right (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/01/translating-the-inaugural-benediction/)!

[Steven E. Webster]

Seriously, there are people in the whacko corners of the web getting apopleptic about Rev. Lowery's benediction, specifically because he had the thing at the end about yellow being mellow and such. I thought it was awesome, and after a little digging I found out that I was right (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/01/translating-the-inaugural-benediction/)!

Matt,
Thanks for this discovery! I'm sure you recognized earlier in Lowry's benediction the quote of a verse from the hymn that is known as the African American National Anthem (titled, "Lift Every Voice and Sing"). So it turns out that Lowry's benediction was packed with literary allusion!

Steven Webster

[Matt Algren]

Matt,
Thanks for this discovery! I'm sure you recognized earlier in Lowry's benediction the quote of a verse from the hymn that is known as the African American National Anthem (titled, "Lift Every Voice and Sing"). So it turns out that Lowry's benediction was packed with literary allusion!

Steven Webster
And that's exactly why I think this is important. There's a gap in our white knowledge of African American folklore that hindered our understanding of an apparently basic piece of oral tradition. This is just one example of the problem with that.

Seriously, what do we know about 'them'? Where is that knowledge from? All I can think of right now is Uncle Remus and Li'l Black Sambo. That is unacceptable!

We (all of us) need to work for the day when African American folklore is considered just American folklore. (The book that I referenced on the blog is a fascinating read so far. There's so much we're missing out on!)

[Unmasked]

I actually found it a little creepy to tell you the truth. I can just see the little baby from the investment commercials, "I underestimated the creepiness".

If Warren really wants to spew the Bible against the LGBT community, maybe he should take a look at the part that says GLUTTONY is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Me thinks he is an offender!!! It is obvious he isn't repentant of that sin, not by a longshot!!!

Peace,
Scott

Hey...easy on that one...we have some people that are a little sensitive about their weight here. *shifty eyes*

[Rick336]

I actually found it a little creepy to tell you the truth. I can just see the little baby from the investment commercials, "I underestimated the creepiness".

If Warren really wants to spew the Bible against the LGBT community, maybe he should take a look at the part that says GLUTTONY is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Me thinks he is an offender!!! It is obvious he isn't repentant of that sin, not by a longshot!!!

Peace,
Scott


:lol: That's hilarious.


Rick