Rick Warren to Deliver Invocation at Inauguration

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by tdogg

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
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]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lutes

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/12/that...arren.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]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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]

Originally Posted by Jennifer5

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.

Originally Posted by Jennifer5

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]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Bingo.

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

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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 [insert any they] 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 no public figure should get the "benefit of the doubt". That way tyranny lies.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Jennifer5

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:

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

You all can get your panties in a knot

Really?




Really?!?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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. And good old Andrew Sullivan, with whom i tend to disagree more than agree overall, also has a valid perspective 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.