A few words about Obama's selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inaguration.

[Skinner]

It should come as no surprise that President-elect Obama's selection of conservative minister Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration has been controversial here on DU, and it should come as no surprise that it has generated a lot of very heated discussion. This website will continue to host very passionate discussions about this issue for as long as our members want to talk about it. With this in mind, I would like to make a few comments, in hopes that we might be able to nudge the discussion in a slightly more productive, and less disruptive direction. Perhaps we can foster a little mutual understanding.


Reasonable people can disagree

I think we all agree that Rick Warren -- who compares homosexuality to pedophilia and bans gays from his church -- is an anti-gay bigot. Furthermore, Democratic Underground would not, under any circumstances, permit our members to use this website to argue that homosexuality is like pedophilia, or that gays should be banned from church. But that is not the issue here, because as far as I am aware no one has been making that argument here on DU.

The issue here is whether President-elect Obama should have selected Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Inauguration. To me, this seems like an issue where reasonable people can disagree. Even those reasonable people who fully support gay rights (as DUers are expected to do).

I have not publicly taken sides on this issue, and I do not intend to. But I am going to briefly share my understanding of what both sides are saying. Perhaps people might be more inclined to listen to the other viewpoint if it comes from me.

Those who are criticizing Obama's selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation argue that a known anti-gay bigot (and conservative extremist on many other issues) should not be given such a position of honor. Selecting Warren legitimizes his bigotry. It is a slap in the face to the GLBT community. It is the opposite of the unity that Obama promised, because Rick Warren does not preach tolerance and unity -- he preaches division.

Those who are defending Obama's selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation argue that inviting a known conservative sends a powerful message of unity. It shows that Barack Obama is willing to reach out across the partisan and cultural divide, even to those with whom he disagrees. Doing so is not comparable to offering Rick Warren a cabinet position or other government post -- he will not be able to make policy, and the "appointment" lasts for about two minutes. Obama's public overtures to social conservatives could provide him with some measure of political cover in the future if/when he tries to enact pro-gay policies like adding sexual orientation to ENDA or repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Both of these viewpoints seem reasonable to me. I believe that supporters of gay rights could hold either point of view -- or some combination of the two. Indeed, many DUers have expressed their strong disagreement with the selection, while at the same time arguing that it does not mean Obama has abandoned gay rights.


A word about expectations

I think some people may have unrealistic expectations about how Democratic Underground moderates these discussions. According to our rules: "Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

On one side: If you think that Democratic Underground would not or should not permit our members to criticize the choice of Rick Warren, an anti-gay bigot, to speak at Inauguration, then your expectations are not realistic.

On the other side: If you think that Democratic Underground would not or should not permit our members to defend Barack Obama, a Democrat and a supporter of gay rights, then your expectations are not realistic.

Of course, if someone posts something that is anti-gay, by all means click the "Alert" link to let the moderators know. Bigotry -- anti-gay or otherwise -- is not welcome on Democratic Underground.


A plea to dial down the rhetoric. And to listen a little.

I think most DUers understand and can accept the points I made above. You understand that reasonable people can disagree on this, and you understand that there is going to be disagreement here on DU. Disagreement does not necessarily make a person anti-gay or anti-Obama.

I hope that everyone will make an effort to calm down the overheated rhetoric a little, and make an effort to be more respectful when you post. Avoid deliberately misrepresenting or overstating what other people post. Resist the urge to put the worst possible spin on the other side. Please make an effort to see the other side. Do not insult fellow DUers who hold a different view. Do not paint entire groups of people as single-issue purists or bigots. And in particular, I think people need to understand that for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered DUers, this is a very personal issue. If any of us did not enjoy full and equal rights, it is unlikely that we would consider equal rights to be a minor issue.

[MineralMan]

1. Well said!

[Dammit Ann]

2. thank you.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Thank you nt

[leftofthedial]

4. Threads have been locked for nothing more than criticizing the choice.

The lack of tolerance of criticism here--both by mods and posters--been disappointing since the Obama created this division with his choice.

Thank you for speaking to this issue.

[Skinner]

7. I do not have personal knowledge of all the locked threads...

...but I am doubtful that this is the case. I look around, and I see lots of disagreement with the choice. My guess is that the locked threads you are referring to went astray in some other way -- most likely over-the-top, flame-baiting style rhetoric.

[mindwalker_i]

44. Yeah well my thread got locked

fer talkin' about kittens.

Probably well deserved though :)

[saltpoint]

5. You know what? You should, like, run a political website or something.

Because you'd be pretty damn good at it.

Recommended.

[caseycoon]

19. LOL OC!

I agree! He really should do that!
:rofl:

[bobbolink]

93. What, you wanna give the guy a Class A headache or sumfin?

Geeez, wadda thing to wish on somebody!!

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[saltpoint]

172. Hi, bobbolink. Yep. This Skinner guy has got what it takes to run

JUST such a website.

And don't forget -- you heard it here first!

:hi:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

301. Next time, wish him something nicer...

Like juggling rabid, shaved cats.

[saracat]

6. I can agree to a point but what you fail to acknowledge is that Warren is evry bit offensive

in his statements about women and Jews. He is offensive to almost the entire constituency of the Democratic Party.

[Skinner]

9. Yes, he is every bit as offensive in his statements about women and Jews.

My parenthetical comment "(and conservative extremist on many other issues)" was intended to acknowledge that Warren's views on homosexuality are not the only offensive thing about him. Nonetheless, I focused on gay rights because the vast, vast majority of discussion here on DU and elsewhere has focused on his views regarding gay rights.

I did not in any way intend to excuse any of his other views, which are similarly despicable.

[saracat]

11. Thank you. It is just that those views have often been overlooked

and I feel they should equally be part of the discussion. It also goes to the argument that this choice is offensive to a much bigger audience than any single group and should be considered offensive in the general area civil rights.

[TZ]

17. Yes. As a Jew I find him to be a bigot

(as are many fundies towards Jews) yet, I am not outraged at him leading a two minute prayer.
I have thought about talking about this, but declined to because I did not feel like being shouted down.

[defendandprotect]

59. Personally, I find it offensive that any "prayer" is included ....

And wouldn't it at least been time to have a female -- recommend we alternate --

and why not someone NOT attached to religion prejudiced against females.

????

[TZ]

96. Yeah.

Did you know that by Jewish law, its not considered right to pray in secular environments?
Also as a secular person, I would rather see the whole invocation thing thrown out.
But I know its not gonna happen. Maybe thats why I'm not particularly worked up about this thing. I've found that I rarely find any religious figure to NOT be some kind of bigot--whether its gays, women, jews or atheists.

[defendandprotect]

155. True.....

But I know its not gonna happen.

A lot of this stuff has been eliminated .... including Bibles in most courthouses ...

The Humanists have taken this Inauguration prayer thing up and will be working

on it. Keep speaking out against bigotry.

[BigBearJohn]

225. Absolutely right. Let's all bow our heads and thank God for condemning all these nasty gays.

HEAVY :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

49. I'm glad you pointed this out, saracat. It's not possible to marginalize

the concerns of the gay community when you realize that they are taking all the heat for Warren's active bigotry across the board.

I have little doubt that before the ceremony, one of us will find some material of his where he also attacks black people. Warren is in the same club with Sarah Palin and seeks to line his pocket by working the fear and hatred of extremists.

[sarcasmo]

67. Don't forget how offensive he is to us Atheist.

[defendandprotect]

46. Absolutely...and trying to make this simply about gays is wrong ...

[Two Americas]

91. yes

I don't stand with the GLBT community because I am gay, or because they are. I stand with them because they are human beings, and because I recognize that I am as well and understand what that means.

I don't speak out against bigotry because of the group being targeted, nor because of whatever pretext is being used to target them, I speak out against bigotry.

We should not let the right wingers make this issue be about being for or against some imaginary "gay agenda." The agenda at work here is the agenda of bigotry.

This is not about gays. That is the right wing framing.

For decades now the right wingers have used a particular tactic. They say "sure you would say that, you are a liberal" anytime anyone says anything that contradicts their narrow extremist agenda. That is a clever way to marginalize and silence any and all critics of their dogma, by prejudicing the audience against them. We should not use that tactic against each other here. But people are doing that - saying that "the gays" - by insinuation - are "bitching, moaning, whining" and are being selfish in putting "what they want" above some supposed common cause. That is a lie.

On another thread, someone posted "don't forget the poor" to which someone else responded "everything is not all about you!" That is another variation on this theme, the same tactics being used here to smear GLBT folks - not because they "are gay" - oh no we are far too progressive to say that - it is because they are speaking out (AND are gay,) just as the phrases "everything is not all about you" and "what you want" target people for speaking out against persecution of a particular group while being a member of the persecuted group. That is a clever and deceptive way to express hatred toward all in the group without being held to account for doing so.

White people from an earlier generation, born around 1900, had this notion about "good Negroes" and "bad Negroes." They were not opposed to Negroes, oh, no, not at all. They were opposed to those who spoke out, who organized and agitated for civil rights. The "good" ones were those who were pleasant and deferential and mild. Whites speaking out for civil rights were then seen as confused - why would they support another group of people to which they didn't belong? The assumptions were that only people of color would care about civil rights, and that there was a "right way" for them to "advance their cause." If they did not use the "right way," well, then whites were let off the hook and could oppose the civil rights movement without saying that they did.

We can all look back and see how wrong headed that was, and how the "liberal" whites were promoting racism while avoiding being held to account for that. Yet we are seeing the exact same thinking being expressed here today.

In another thread someone said that we were "extremists" who were "confused as to where we stand" and who would be "left by the side of the road" by the "progress bus." Others have said "you get more flies with honey than vinegar" - in other words, there is a right way to "advance your cause" - polite, retiring, deferential - and a "wrong way" and the "wrong way" supposedly not only sets back "your cause" but also somehow hurts all of us "progressives."

[Marrah_G]

131. Wow- I wish I could recommend this post

Well done TA

[jhrobbins]

186. I didn't think it was all that good......

:sarcasm: :rofl: :hide: :yourock: (what I really think)

[Mithreal]

141. What Marrah_G said. nt

[defendandprotect]

161. We are all one --

excellent post ...

Obviously, we all need to keep enlightenment and consciousness-raising

a high priority here and not take anything for granted which brings the

kind of shock I feel now about DU --

As we can see in the wider world, slaves are easily made and oppression

falls upon those seen as "inferior" in the good book with great speed as

we go backwards into religious fanaticism, crusades and torture.

Our world is a better place today because of inclusion of homosexuals --

and there is still much to do to lift that oppression, particularly for

the young.

[Jamastiene]

173. OMG!

Well said.

:applause:

I wish you would make this an OP and let us know so we can Recommend this one to the top of the Greatest Page. :thumbsup:

[Kajsa]

257. I wish I could recommend this post, too!

It's excellent, TwoAmericas!

This is one of the best posts I've read in a while.

:) :yourock:

[Raster]

276. A damned big THANK YOU! I wish I could recommend THIS post!

We Can Do Better (and so can you Mr. Obama)!:kick:STOP the H8!

[jhrobbins]

184. Jeez, if I were a woman, I would hit the Warren trifecta! All three in one fell swoop.

[tekisui]

8. I was just about to post this exact thing.

:)

[AwakeAtLast]

10. I am so glad you posted this

I have been reading many sides and every time I see the vitriol, my heart breaks a little. I'm hoping that this will be a bump in the road and once Obama takes office he will be free to show the GLBT community that he aims to make their lives better.

Thank you for your well reasoned post!

[Number23]

142. My heart has been breaking too. Or rather the SW Atlanta has been coming out of me a bit lately.

:)

It is very difficult for me to understand why someone else would have a hard time understanding that someone can be FOR gay marriage and gay rights and still not be angered beyond belief by Rick Warren's invocation.

I think it just boils down to everyone is entitled to their beliefs and we should all treat them with a little more understanding. But I swear if I read one more post claiming that MLK never had to compromise in order to advance the civil rights movement, all bets are off. :)

[dipsydoodle]

12. The voice of reason.

Thank you.

[slackmaster]

26. By definition

:D

[Scurrilous]

13. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Jack Rabbit]

14. K/R

!!

[TZ]

15. Thank you

Diasagreement is fine. What is NOT fine is people attacking and name calling simply because someone disagrees with someone. period.
You know there is a problem when people are expressing FEAR of saying anything simply because they do NOT want to be labelled something they know they are not.
The bullying of opposite views has to stop.

[lenegal]

177. Totally agree. I left Wes Clark's blog because Hil lost and the PUMAs took over the board

I used to read the blog religiously. When Hillary lost, the infighting between the O and H candidates was horrific. People who had been friends for 5 years, well, were no longer friends.

This went on for months and months. All that is left are the bitter Obama detractors and very few voices of reason.

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. How about a "General Discussion: Rick Warren" forum?

To free up some space in GD for threads about:
how all of us, gay or straight are still having our phones illegally tapped;
how all of us, gay or straight, can have our right to habeas corpus revoked on the president's whim;
how all of us, gay or straight, are subject to the injustices of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions act;
how all of us, gay or straight, will be paying for the mismanaged bailouts;
;-)
Seriously though, good post, good points.

[Bluebear]

37. Did you even read this? To gays this is NOT a small issue.

Your wink aside, you are doing what is bening asked NOT to do: minimize this for those of us who this really affects.

[rpannier]

220. Talk about a condescending post

I see how little thought you put into your posts

Have a nice day

[Hugin]

18. Here's my view of the situation.

Let me start off by saying, I'm firmly in the GLBT camp on this one. Civil Rights are non-negotiable and shouldn't
ever be on the table... For any group.

I think there's only one reason Warren is on the itinerary and that's for Obama to try get past all of the Right-Wing
Theories and Mass e-mails that are claiming somehow Obama is not a Christian or a Full American and that the 'Heathen'
Democrats will somehow subvert the Inauguration process by sneaking a Koran into the swearing in ceremony. If Warren is
there and participates those arguments can be dispelled. I'm not naive enough to think they'll entirely dissolve because
there are always the fringe Phelpsesque right wing groups, but, for a large group of them, in order to believe... They'll
have to give up a major spokesman of their beliefs.

Obama is using Warren so that claim never happens. He's doing it to buy legitimacy for his Presidency in the eyes
of this foolishness from the Right-Wingers. It's an embarassing shame Obama has to.

And I honestly believe that is the ONLY reason.

[AllentownJake]

27. I think we all know Jesus himself could come down from the clouds

bless Obama publicly on the inaguration stage and that would still be said.

You can't argue with people who say I hate him because he is a communist muslim that sits in that church. 3 statements that don't agree with one another with anyone with an 8th grade education on world history or religion/philosophy.

[tbyg52]

63. I think you are right about that.

But at least he could have tried to find the least objectionable one.

What the heck, maybe Warren *is* the least objectionable one - I don't keep up with those kinds of people, unless they're in the news.

Edited to add: And thanks, Skinner. Perfect summary.

[Ms. Toad]

166. He is not the least objectionable one

There are plenty who are either silent on the issue of gay rights, or actually on the right side.

That is part of what is so painful and outrageous about this choice. Obama selected "one" who was a leader in the fight to ban new marriages (and nullify existing ones - based on some lines of legal reasoning) as well as "one" who compares us to pedophiles, rather than select "one" who is either silent (at worst) or on the side of secular (if not religious) rights and marriages (at best).

Had he made that kind of choice as a bridge to the evangelical community I would not have objected at all - and I have seen comments from others which seem to indicate that it is true for many who are frequent posters regarding this outrage.

[jhrobbins]

187. What she said......

[defendandprotect]

164. I also imagine ....

some kind of a deal and maybe more ...

Coomsby on Air America the other day noted that the press seems to have stopped

asking Obama about all of Rahm's conversations with Gov. Blago ---

It's not just me ...

[Jamastiene]

174. This is the first time I have heard anyone express this

insight on the situation. You may have a good point there.

[caseycoon]

20. K&R Very well said n/t

[The_Commonist]

21. Well said...

Thanks for this.

[HamdenRice]

22. Well said. It's important to establish it is a topic over which reasonable people can ...

reasonably disagree.

[NYC_SKP]

23. Thank you. I hope DU member Jackeens for Obama reads this.

The most disappointing behavior I have ever seen at DU occurred yesterday in threads containing escalating attacks among DU members.

Jackeens_for_Obama came to us earlier this year and was known for posting inspiring YouTube videos and picture threads.

She wrote some things that she regretted in response to attacks, and she apologized at length.

And then she was attacked in her apology thread. Her picture threads were belittled, mocked, and these comments remained on the board.

Shame on the members who went after her.

It's embarrassing, and it is conduct unbecoming a good democrat, a good citizen, a good human being.

These have indeed been sad times for DU.

[Bucky]

34. Hey, no personal call-outs. That's a longstanding DU rule

The point of Skinner's post is that we should respond to fair arguments. I bet you can let this one DUer's bad behavior slide off your back and there won't be long term negative consequences.

If you model respect, which is what I understand the main anti-Warren complaint to be rooted in, then you'll probably inspire respect more than if you use a peace making thread like this one for tattling on someone.

[stillcool]

77. she's gone..

got her tombstone yesterday..so she's no longer an 'issue'.

[lamp_shade]

114. No she's not... and I look forward to hearing from her again soon.

[stillcool]

120. I saw the tombstone...

was it rescinded?

[Marrah_G]

133. Yeah in like five minutes

It speaks loudly.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

148. It was unfriggenreal

[lamp_shade]

115. She's quite a gal, eh? I look forward to her next post, with or without pictures.

[Marrah_G]

132. .

:puke:

[merh]

24. Thank you for the OP

I have trouble with being called names for trying to point out that the folks have made Warren more important than Lowery, thus they have exalted warren's hate and ignored what Lowery brings, the message of civil rights for all.

When I hear a song I hate on the radio and I don't want others to hear, I turn it down, I turn it up for the good stuff.

Sadly, that is not what the majority has done here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. We expect more of Obama than a mediocre radio station

We don't want Lowery's message cancelled out by a nasty right wing bigot.

Obama and his committee could have made hundreds of better choices, while still staying religious, for the invocation. Someone who actually represented Obama's ideals, rather than someone who gets him a few marginal votes he would like to pick up, or get them to withhold criticism for a few extra days.

Prag's suggestion above that they're doing it to shut up the "he's not a real Christian" idiots makes some sense as an explanation, but it's still pretty cowardly, if it's true; because it cedes the ground of "what is a True Christian" to the loudmouthed bigots.

[merh]

112. It is you that has done the cancelling of Lowery's message.

I have yet to see a thread of celebration about Lowery's participation.

Not one - have you seen any? Do you have a link to one?

I'm not suggesting anyone shut up. I'm suggesting that people let Obama know via his website and all means available (focusing on telling the 7 members of his transition team that are GLBT how hurtful Warren's participation is) that Warren's involvement is wrong and a slap; turning our backs on Warren if he does give the prayer; minimizing his moment and celebrating Lowery's involvement.

And as Obama has choices, so do we, we can choose to giving power and focus to the hate and hurt or we can choose to magnify the good, change the focus to Lowery's message and celebrate it - the press needs to know that Lowery is the voice of reason and hope for the community, that he is right, it is about equal rights for all.

[Two Americas]

160. they wouldn't know that?

Are you saying that his transition team would not know how hurtful Warren's participation would be?

People objecting to this are not necessarily focusing on hurt and hate. That demeans us and diminishes us to portray this as merely a matter of personal feelings and to then lecture us about how to handle those supposed personal feelings.

People may or may not be "hurt." That has nothing to do with the validity of their opinions.

Opposing hatred is not necessarily "giving power" to it.

Screw "choices." The right wingers are free to make the "choice" to persecute people, while our supposed "choice" is to choose how to feel about being persecuted - with serenity and inner peace about it being the prized and desired emotional state. The two are not equivalent, and suggesting that they are is reactionary and highly authoritarian and suppressive.

[noamnety]

25. I respectfully disagree with your characterization of Obama

as a "supporter of gay rights."

He seems to be very selective in that, and specifically is not supportive of equal rights for gays. And therein lies a large part of the problem. People are trying to mischaracterize this as "reaching across to the enemy" as a brilliant political move when in fact Obama and Warren share the same basic view on second class status for gays.

Much as I appreciate that he thinks they are acceptable for entertainment purposes and is allowing them to march in a parade, that is not the same as "supporting equal rights for gays" which should be the standard, not "supporting some limited rights for gays including the right to appear in public (under certain conditions)."

[Skinner]

41. My understanding is that his voting record and his public statements indicate...

...that as a matter of public policy he supports gay rights across the board except for the right to marry. (On the right to marry, it should be noted that he opposed prop 8 in California, so even on that issue his position is somewhat nuanced.) That record, I am fairly certain, would qualify him as the most pro-gay president in history.

Does that mean he qualifies as a "supporter of gay rights"? I think, from a presidential politics standard, it does. But I do not expect others to agree. Indeed, opposition to gay marriage is not permitted here on DU, so even my own views are context-sensitive.

[noamnety]

45. for the record: it's not "across the board except for the right to marry."

It's also don't ask don't tell, which he claims he wants to repeal - oh, but not now, it's not the right time yet. We just need to discriminate against gays in the military for another year or so, and in the meantime continue firing them for not staying in the closet til it's politically convenient for Obama to let them out.

[Skinner]

52. As I said, I do not expect others to agree.

I think the fact that he is on record as supporting a repeal of don't-ask-don't-tell means he is a supporter of gay rights on that issue. For you, he does not qualify as a supporter unless he commits himself to an immediate repeal.

Reasonable people can disagree, I think.

[noamnety]

62. To clarify my position in stronger words

It would be one thing if he said There are a lot of hugely pressing problems and I want to get to that, but this other thing is even MORE urgent. He can't rewrite all the laws in one day, I get that.

But he's specifically said he supports firing them from the military if they don't stay in the closet for at least another year. He doesn't believe 2009 is the right time to stop discriminating against gays.

I don't have a lot of ways to interpret that.

[George II]

246. It would do you well to read this. It might give you a different perspective on Obama's position...

...of gays in the military:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/19/obama-vetting-first-openly-gay-military-chief/


Obama Vetting First Openly Gay Military Chief
By David Knowles
Dec 19th 2008 8:20AM

Lost in the furor created when Barack Obama announced he had selected anti-gay-rights mega-pastor Rick Warren to deliver his inaugural invocation are the appointments the president-elect has made and is poised to make that show him to be anything but hostile to gay community. Newsweek details on a history making front-runner for the job of Secretary of the Navy:


Bill White, president of the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum in New York, is being backed by congressional and former military leaders to be the next secretary of the Navy. Among White's vocal supporters are retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Rep. Jerold Nadler, a New York Democrat whose district includes the newly renovated Intrepid museum which sits on an aircraft carrier in the Hudson River.


White, who is openly gay, would not run afoul of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" regulations since the Secretary post is technically a civilian job. But Obama has also signaled that he may lift the ban on soldiers who are out of the closet.

Obama also appointed Nancy Sutley to chair the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Sutley, a lesbian, is currently the deputy mayor for energy and environment in Los Angeles, and is helping the transition team review the E.P.A.

So, while the choice of anti-Prop-8 Warren was a symbolic blow to many in the gay community, the actual selection of those who will be working in the new administration can be seen in largely positive terms. And on that note, time for a little Friday dance music:

[George II]

235. As I've said to people here many times over the last several months...

....would you have preferred that John McCain been elected President? Instead of merely complaining, do you have any alternative or option available that is better?

[noamnety]

238. Oh, I am so sorry.

I forgot that democrats are above criticism no matter what they do, because republicans are worse.

[George II]

244. What has been posted by many here about Obama after the Warren announcement..

...has gone well beyond the point of "criticism". I would guess that's why Skinner felt compelled to post this OP!

[noamnety]

247. McCain was/is not relevant to this discussion.

If you are trying to eliminate criticism of democrats by saying we should shut up because "McCain would be worse" you have a very different view of the role of citizens in a democracy than I have. Our role goes beyond "vote, then shut up for four years if the better person won."

If you want to discuss the merits of picking a homophobic bigot to usher in the new "change" on the heels of that bigot spearheading a successful movement to violate human and civil rights for gays we can discuss that.

I was not a Hillary supporter, but I did recognize the historic nature of a woman rising to that level in the primaries. A first woman president would have been as historic as the first black president. If you want to discuss the symbolic nature of Obama beginning his victorious win over the first viable woman candidate with a speech by a male supremacist, we can discuss that.

If you want to brag that you've been repeatedly telling people to accept whatever Obama does without criticism because McCain was worse, that seems like a separate topic unrelated to this thread, but I am happy to discuss why that is wrong-headed as well.

[George II]

249. Not what I said...in any shape or form.

[noamnety]

251. Then what is your point

in boasting that you are repeatedly asking those who criticize whether they'd rather have McCain?

[George II]

269. This.....

....would you have preferred that John McCain been elected President? Instead of merely complaining, do you have any alternative or option available that is better?

During my entire 35+ year working career, I was told that if I disagreed with a decision made by management or superiors, I should be prepared to propose my own alternate or idea. I haven't seen that here.

[noamnety]

283. In other words,

I need to stop criticizing anything the dems do, because there are only two parties and the other is worse. You haven't added anything new, you still haven't explained why McCain is at all relevant to a discussion of an action OBAMA has taken. You're going to need another tactic for the next 4 years, methinks, besides "McCain would have been worse, so shut up."

We obviously have an alternative idea - don't begin your presidency with your first act being the honoring of a bigot on a national stage. Simple solution.

[George II]

294. No, not "in other words"....

...but what would you offer in place of what you're complaining about? Surely you are not complaining for the sake of complaining - what else is there?

[Bluebear]

47. Honoring someone who equates me with a child-molester is not gay friendly

Respectfully, if this is the most gay-friendly administration to come, this is not a good signal.

[Skinner]

56. Obama's is not the most gay-friendly administration to come.

There will come a time in the future when a president supports gay rights across the board.

My reference to him likely being the "most pro-gay president in history" is a comparison to past presidents. And it is based only on his past record and his stated positions upon taking office. We do not know yet what (if anything) he will accomplish as president.

ON EDIT: For the record, I did not use the term "gay friendly" so I would appreciate it if you would not put the phrase in quotes, which suggests that it is a direct quote.

[Bluebear]

69. Done :)

[Skinner]

74. Thanks. ;)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

149. Or someone who calls gays "perverted"

[rpannier]

221. He's going to have to work at that

Clinton expended a lot of political capital on issues effecting gay rights, esp in regards to the military.

I was in the service in 93 during all the hysteria over letting gays openly serve.
He took a serious hit that slowed his presidency, but that took a lot of courage.

He was able to keep people like Sam Nunn from passing a law that would have barred gays from serving.

He ended the policy of being openly homosexual as a criterion for barring someone from a security clearance in government jobs.

The list is larger.

With all due respect, Obama will have do a hell-of-a-lot to be more gay friendly than Pres Clinton was.

The Clinton's have attended many Gay Pride Parades. One DUer pointed out that HRC has attended one every year. Obama zero.

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. .

:thumbsup:

[Terran]

202. I suggest you check out this OP for Obama's positions

on GLBT equality. He opposes same-sex marriage but supports every other aspect of civil and economic equality that I can think of.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7995450&mesg_id=7995450

[noamnety]

210. What kind of equality is that?

Obama is a straight man who has opted to take advantage of the privilege of being married. Being married and having a family is part of what defines him, so much so that his family regularly makes appearances on stage with him.

For him to be using that privilege and trying to pass himself off as a supporter of equal rights for gays, while saying he doesn't want them to enjoy the same privileges he enjoys is offensive.

For other straight people - especially those who are married - to excuse him for that is offensive. For them to characterize him as being a gay rights supporter under those circumstances ("except for that one area") is offensive.

He claims to be for equal rights, but clearly some people aren't as equal as he is.

Are his wife and children covered under his federal employee health insurance currently? Is he using that privilege as well?

I'm pretty sure he could figure out that anyone claiming they were for equal rights for blacks - except they should have to sit in the back of the bus - isn't for equal rights. I'm not seeing a middle ground on that. Either they are equal, or they are second class citizens who he is gracious enough to grant "some" rights to ... and in return we are supposed to be "grateful" for those crumbs, while maintaining second class status.

"every other aspect of economic equality" is no standard of equality. Please don't try to pass that off as anything other than what it is - second class status that we're expected to be grateful for.

[Terran]

252. Fine. I'll take what he's offering

and you can wait 50 years for the right to "marry". That is the only difference I see between what he supports and what straights have.

[rpannier]

222. Will he be willing to spend political capital for Gay Rights?

Maybe, maybe not.

So far only Bill has. It hurt him, but that's what a friend does.

[Bucky]

28. Well, if reasonable people can agree to disagree pleasantly on this topic, then I can too

Personally I don't trust reasonable people. For everyone that I have called a "goose-stepping nazi weasel" during the course of this debate, I apologize.

And I promise this time I do not have my fingers crossed behind my back while issuing my apology.



Thank you for making this statement, Skinner. Your timing is excellent. I know it can't be easy trying to strike a balance between allowing a free, vigorous verbal melee and not policing people's emotional discharge on a painful subject.

We've survived not just 8 years of Bush, but also 8 years of periodic DU cannibalism--and yet the site remains vibrant, active, and a useful place for airing and hearing differences.

[AllentownJake]

29. Thank you Skinner

I believe some people better toughen up because if they think that the President isn't going to face substantial and sometimes justified critism from members of his own party over the next 4 years they are seriously deluding themselves.

He's the President soon not a candidate anymore and Dissent is patriotic. Or that's what I've been hearing for the past 8 years.

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. thank you - excellent post!

[NMMNG]

31. I'll tell you what

When Obama invites someone from the Christian Identity movement or the KKK to the Inauguration I'll accept your little olive branch. Until then I refuse to take yet another instance of his parading rabid homophobes to appease the RRRW and other such individuals in his fan base. It's vile and disgusting that he feels so secure in throwing under the bus repeatedly, but that so many can defend his actions is unconscionable.

[DevonRex]

43. Oh boy. This might not work out well.

[stillcool]

90. I think people have forgotten..

that it was Obama and the black people in California who caused the passing of Prop 8.

[PatSeg]

118. Not really

I live in California and I can tell you that people were bombarded with deceptive advertising claiming that Prop 8 was a "Free Speech" issue or an "Education" issue. Much of the advertising was directed to black people with photos of Obama implying that Obama supported Prop 8.

This proposition had a lot of money behind it and they used classic Rovian tactics to cram it down voters' throats.

[Number23]

144. "Obama and the Black People??!"

The fact that you can acknowledge even in this thread what so many are quietly coming to realize speaks volumes....

[stillcool]

165. Quietly coming to realize?

It was all over here for days after Prop 8 passed. I think what I came quietly to realize, was that Obama had come out against it, and the claims against black people causing it to pass were exaggerated. But it fits in nicely with this, doesn't it?

[Number23]

167. Ahh, I see. Your initial comment was more about the thinking of certain other posters

than what actually happened in California.

On that, my friend, I think we can completely agree. :fistbump: So sad that even during this historic time that alot of old habits are being displayed.

[stillcool]

171. funny the things that slide on by...

[NMMNG]

197. WTF are you talking about?

Why are you posting such asinine non-sequiturs?

[stillcool]

203. I'm sorry? Isn't that how it went down?

Have I been mis-informed?

[NMMNG]

205. You've either been misinformed

Or you're being incredibly disingenous. I rather think it's the latter, which I haven't the time or desire to bother with.

[stillcool]

211. sorry...I read all about it...

right here on DU..for days. I have not seen anyone dispute the findings that it was Obama and the black people in California that caused Prop 8 to pass. Was there some discussion that I missed about this?

[NMMNG]

241. Don't insult my intelligence

with your pathetic attempt to race-bait. As I said, I have neither the time nor desire for such games.

[stillcool]

258. insult your intelligence?

how so? Because I happen to have the misfortune of not being able to forget, and sweep such charges under the rug?

[NMMNG]

293. I knew from your first post what you were talking about

Why is it that you assume because I'm a lesbian I had something to do with it? GLBT people are not a monolith, we don't all think the same way or share the same opinions and to accuse me of participating in something like that with no evidence whatsoever is pretty screwed up.

BTW, the "If you don't support Obama you're a racist" meme was very much in vogue here for quite a while. Shall I accuse you of participating in it simply because you're an Obama supporter? Put down your broad brush and get the stick out of your ass.

[TankLV]

263. We haven't - and we WILL remember...

[TankLV]

262. THANK YOU! YOU "get it"...

sadly, even the admin doesn't...

welcome to the "gay bashing underground"...

[Joe the Revelator]

32. Well said Skinner

[terrya]

33. I think I need to leave DU for a few days.

The more I think about this, the angrier and angrier I get.

I, along with many other gay and lesbian Democrats, who were passionate supporters of Obama, who were just as joyous when he made history 11/4, who cried tears of joy seeing the Obamas and Bidens on that stage in Grant Park...we are bitterly disappointed and angry about this selection of Rick Warren. I was told by a very dear friend, when I said that I was supporting Obama and that he would be good for GLBT Americans, not to trust politicians. But...I did with Barack Obama. And, you and some may laugh, but I did put my trust, my belief that he would do good, would stand by GLBT Americans, in the President-elect. And, again you may laugh...but this not only makes me angry, and bitter...it hurts a little. I guess I really don't have the stomach for the nuts and bolts of politics. Not when politics means selecting a Rick Warren to appear at what will otherwise be a great day for this country.

[Bluebear]

38. Correction: it hurts a LOT

[Bucky]

40. Just a few days only, then Terrya

FWIW, I think you are on the right side of this issue. You have every right to expect your president to stand up for your civil rights. This is an expectation rooted in the Declaration of Independence, the Petition of Right, and the English Bill of Rights.

On behalf of all straight Democrats, I apologize for your and my president symbolically stabbing you in the back. When it comes time for him to stand up and do better than he has this week, I'll be right by your side demanding that he do so.

[HEyHEY]

75. I'm thinking of leaving for good.... this site and its patrons are a husk.

No substance, no real beliefs.

[Career Prole]

163. Can I just be "husky" instead?

I've always been husky...and I already have the clothes. :hi:

[JVS]

35. Well said

[CreekDog]

36. The part about not "misrepresenting" and "overstating" other's positions is key

that happens so much around here.

so many people are just blithely called bigots or told they support bigotry. and i don't mean people who really ask for it, but others too.

i'm trying to be patient and gave space for people who have been wronged to vent, but right is right and wrong is wrong and it's wrong to misrepresent the opinions of others, and call them horrible names without justification.

we had a poster here yesterday who while arguing against the lack of gay cabinet member, called a DU member "trash". he said outright, "you are trash." they were arguing over how to interpret lack of a gay cabinet member and she said (to defend Obama) that Obama had chosen Nancy Sutley to be on the White House Council of Environmental Quality. Now, that's not a cabinet position, which was acknowledged, but why would you call someone you disagree with on this "trash"?

and how does that advance civil rights for anyone?

[TZ]

85. once again

You show why I respect you as a poster here. Even if you have abominable taste in music...:hug: :hi:

[CreekDog]

92. you are too kind

:hug:





















even if you *now* have abominable taste in music. :rofl:

[DevonRex]

39. I agree. Hopefully the personal attacks will now stop. Also...

I hope that threads that are NOT about Warren can remain Warren-free. It does no good to ignore Warren threads if all the others are turned INTO Warren threads. That leaves us nowhere to go if we simply wish to avoid the fray and discuss other issues.

That would be my only request. Thank you very much for your post. I fall into a category that is a combination of the 2 scenarios you posed. I dislike the Warren pick but I understand Obama's intent.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

57. Yup

I am a new guy, but I think in the rules it states that you should not go in to unrelated arguements in topic specific threads. Case in point. There was a thread this morning about Obama introducing science in the whitehouse. THe first couple of post were positive, but eventually someone turned it in to a Warren thread. I don't think that is fair.

To Admin, thanks for the post. For some reason, I don't think this will be the last one youmake about the topic.

[Pale Blue Dot]

48. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I'm thankful that it's YOU running this website and not one of us. I don't know how you do it sometimes.

Sincerely,
A normally reasonable person who got several of his inflammatory posts deleted this weekend.

[Fire1]

50. Thank you, Skinner. I have read many, many attempts at reason

and reconciliation over the past week, but to no avail. Hopefully, these sentiments coming from you, will make a difference.

[uppityperson]

51. Thank you. Toning down the rhetoric does not mean ignoring issues.

Thank you.

[riona]

53. I think people who blog here understand and accept that

religious freedom in this country is a huge plus. We don't always agree with a particular dogma, but it's hands off for the most part. However, most of us have waited years for a president intelligent enough to separate human rights from issues that we feel are clearly of a religious nature. Now, as to the inauguration, the entire country is involved. It's the horrible time to make a point that the president is open to working with fundamentalists. Politicians send messages by their choices and this choice is hurtful on many levels and totally unnecessary. IF the president feels that he wishes to include a religious segment, he should realize that someone more "generic" would be the best way to show respect for all.

[xchrom]

54. ...

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

[defendandprotect]

55. This really doesn't make a lot of sense ....

And in particular, I think people need to understand that for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered DUers, this is a very personal issue. If any of us did not enjoy full and equal rights, it is unlikely that we would consider equal rights to be a minor issue.

Again, this is about Human Rights for all -- equality for all --

When any citizen is made second class, even if by organized patriarchal

religion, then it is an issue for all of us to awaken to.

And that is supposedly the lesson learned with the Jewish Holocaust in

Germany.

Additionally, organized patriarchal religion continues to NOT acknowledge

the full personhood of females as it acknowledges the full personhood of

males. This anti-female rhetoric continues to be preached from these

pulpits as vile propaganda.


when he tries to enact pro-gay policies like adding sexual orientation to ENDA or repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

There are at least two UN agreements having to do with women and homosexuals

which are still absent US sign-on.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

58. Well said, Skinner. A few additional suggestions, however.

Because the debate about Warren has inevitably spilled over into the debate about the rights of gays to marry and the recent referendums in California, Florida and Arizona.

In a prior post, you made note of the fact that DUers should be in support of equal rights for gays, including the right to marry. And I think and hope almost all of us here at DU, myself certainly included, would be supportive of that proposition.

However, I think a few here have taken that one statement a bit to the extreme and I think some clarification is needed. To wit, when the issue of civil unions is raised, some have immediately reacted rather venomously to any mention of civil unions, and immediately have decried anyone who has indicated their support of civil unions as a homophobe, a bigot, or a proponent of "separate but equal" legislation. And unfortunately, under that line of thinking, this would include a great number of elected Democrats, including the President-elect.

I think almost all of us here want to see the legalization of gay marriage--that should not be in dispute. But there are many unanswered questions, most notably how is that going to happen and how long a time frame do we expect to see this happen. This--unfortunately--is an issue that is going to have to involve the changing of social norms and societal thinking. That is something that is much, much, much easier said than done. Old attitudes die hard. Realistically, we cannot expect things to change overnight, or even in a year, or five years. We're dealing with something that is going to have to involve the gradual shift of a cultural paradigm.

So I would urge some restraint from immediately classifying anyone who utters the words "civil union" as the second coming of Fred Phelps or Anita Bryant. People have to remember that for a lot of people who in the past have had reservations about anything tangent to gay rights, an endorsement of civil unions is a positive step in the right direction, and not something to be scorned. The fact of the matter is, there are many, many, many people out there who may be supportive of things such as gay adoption, gays in the military, and civil unions for gays, but may not have yet embraced the concept of gay marriage. While these people may not have fully arrived at where we as progresives and liberals would want them to be, they still are in the right direction. Tearing these people apart and labeling these people as "bigots" would only serve to do more harm than good and discourage the further changing of social attitudes and norms on the issue of gay marriage.

So what does that mean for DU and civil unions? I think DU should clarify and stress that while we as a community do support equal rights for gays, including the right to marry, the concept of civil unions should not be frowned upon if and only if it is to be used as a stepping stone towards the future acceptance of the right to marry by gays in all 50 states of the union. Advocacy of civil unions should be encouraged--not as a substitution for marriage, but rather as a means to an end where no second thought is given as to the right of gays to enter into a legal marriage.

I encourage Skinner and DU to take the above suggestion under advisement and urging some restraint on all sides when considering this rather contentious topic.

[Skinner]

72. We expect members to support full and equal rights. That includes gay marriage.

There are large parts of this country where gay marriage is not popular. There are many places in this country where gay marriage would not fly, but civil unions might be an attainable goal. Indeed, in almost every state, civil unions would be a step in the right direction. I don't see why people shouldn't be able to say so, and support efforts to enact civil unions.

But let me be clear: Civil unions are not a substitute for marriage. They are not equal. As a stepping stone to marriage, yes, they are an improvement. But civil unions are not the ultimate goal. Equality is the goal, and we expect everyone here to support that goal. Equality means marriage for gays and straights.

[QC]

76. Thank you! n/t

[MH1]

79. What about members insulting other members as "homophobes"?

Even when it is done by broad brush painting of, e.g. "some DUers are such bigots and homophobes"?

Is that okay then?

[MADem]

195. Or racists, for that matter.

Because of course, if you take firm objection to Obama's mismanagement of this entire Warren debacle, you are, of course, a racist and that's the ONLY reason why you have a problem with Obama vis a vis this issue...or at least that's what I was told yesterday.

I must say, I was rather astounded at the moxie of that ignorant argument. This joint ain't debate club of late, I guess.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

84. I think "support" of the right ot marry is not an issue, and we should all do it.

But as I said--and I think you would agree--the practicalities and realities of the situation do not necessarily make it realistic for attitudes to be changed overnight, no matter as much as we would want that to be the case. And in such situations, as you agree, civil unions are a good transitory tool, but certainly not the end game to be desired.

My concern is just for people who are vocally sympathetic for areas of equal rights for gays, but due to some old persistant attitudes simply may not yet be comfortably vocally supporting gay marriage per se at this point in time. Note they may very well embrace gay marriage down the road, but at this point in time, their willingness to embrace civil unions should not be condemned. These people should not be called bigots or homophobes, as some people on this board have insinuated. Doing so only would serve to put an ugly face on what should be a positive campaign of equal rights.

[Lyric]

88. I think Skinner answered your question already.

My concern is just for people who are vocally sympathetic for areas of equal rights for gays, but due to some old persistant attitudes simply may not yet be comfortably vocally supporting gay marriage per se at this point in time. Note they may very well embrace gay marriage down the road, but at this point in time, their willingness to embrace civil unions should not be condemned. These people should not be called bigots or homophobes, as some people on this board have insinuated. Doing so only would serve to put an ugly face on what should be a positive campaign of equal rights.

We expect members to support full and equal rights. That includes gay marriage.

If I am interpreting Skinner correctly, his position is that while it is acceptable to discuss how to implement civil unions in the interim period between no equality and full equality, the site's position is that every member here MUST support gay marriage. If a person does not support gay marriage (not just civil unions,) then that person should probably never say so out loud on this website.

Skinner, if I am reading you wrong on this, please let me know.

[MH1]

89. It's too late.

Doing so only would serve to put an ugly face on what should be a positive campaign of equal rights.

That horse left the barn a long time ago.

Meanwhile, no one cares that there are others' rights excluded when the focus is on marriage, and not on domestic partnerships.

[ruggerson]

86. Thanks, Skinner

n/t

[bluedawg12]

119. "Equality is the goal, Equality means marriage for gays and straights"

Thank you Skinner! May I be so bold? :hug:

Understanding feels good.
.......

CU’s are a dangerous "improvement" and only a half measure.

The current legal fight is in the Courts and in legislatures.

Strategy will have to vary State by State.

In California for example the fight is currently exactly for marriage and to repeal Prop8.

In New York for example, the Democratic majority is currently in the process of deciding on a legislative proposal for gay marriage- they need support and encouragement to do the right thing.

As States pass marriage fairness laws, they build on the body of legal precedent.
As Courts repeal marriage ban laws and mini DOMA's and anti -gay propositions, they build on the body of legal precedent, the ulitmate goal is repeal DOMA and federal laws enforcing Constitutional rights as well as legal fights on a State level.

The problem with temporary measures is that we are talking about law, a bad law is as bad as no law. You then have to repeal it.

If we start accepting civil unions, say from 2009 and on, then, to achieve full marriage rights the next argument against gay marriage will be, you have CU, why are you back again, asking for marriage?

Passing a bad law, a half measure, a measure that would do nothing to guarantee equal State and Federal rights as long as DOMA exists, is that it is just one more law that would have to be repealed.

We have only so many resources, so many attorney's and our efforts and platform is now going forward with the fight for full and equal marriage rights.

Any allies that want to help, educate the public, explain the reasons for supporting gay marriage rights, donate, be an activist for this cause are welcome.

[AntiFascist]

151. I would also add...

the current fight is being staged in California where Civil Unions are not a viable option (we have registered domestic partnerships which are not at all equal to marriage). The fight is not over by any means in light of the fact that there are several more months before the California Supreme Court rules on the validity of Prop 8 and in light of state attorney general Brown's recent decision not to defend Prop 8 and his advisement to the state supreme court to overturn Prop. 8. Anyone who claims that the fight is over in California because the vote of the people currently stands is flat out WRONG!

[jhrobbins]

189. Interestingly enough though is that I have found some in my community

in Austin that are not sure about what they want and some even think that CU's are fine.

[Lyric]

83. Whereas I believe that embracing "civil unions," even on a temporary basis

sends the message that we GLBT Americans are willing to "compromise" on our rights, and that we are willing to "settle" for now, so long as progress is likely at some vague, ill-defined point in the future.

While many of us might be willing to take physical advantage of the rights and benefits that go along with obtaining a civil union or domestic partnership, we are not willing to concede an inch on the political issue of marriage. In fact, smart politics generally involves asking for more than you expect to be given, and accepting what's offered as a "stepping stone" without ever indicating that acceptance of such is "good enough" for now. Civil unions WILL become more and more widely available, because as it becomes obvious that society is changing in our favor, the opposing side will offer them up frantically in an effort to forestall offering us actual marriage. There is no doubt about this; an examination of the embrace of "Jim Crow" and "separate but equal" schools for non-whites shows us that society will always try to force a middle ground before capitulating to the ultimate goal. Why should we pursue something that is inevitably going to be offered to us anyway? Pursuing civil unions, whether alone or as a stepping stone, robs us of the moral high ground, without offering any significant recompense in return.

Another consideration is the fact that civil unions really ARE inadequate, second-class measures. There are no federal benefits, and state benefits change from state line to state line. This is an incredible hardship to gay families, because we are never entirely sure from one state to the next what rights and privileges we do and do not have. Additionally, pursuing civil unions simply adds fuel to the right-wing argument that such institutions ought to be "good enough," and that those of us who insist on marriage are simply being selfish and unreasonable. A fight that might have otherwise taken years could take decades instead. Civil unions do not serve to lessen the second-class status of gay couples. Rather, they reinforce it, making it all the harder to convince people that our relationships deserve exactly the same status as heterosexual relationships.

While there are already federal statutes and regulations in place to handle marriages, there are no such laws to handle civil unions. The most important goals that we have are twofold: firstly, we want federal recognition of our relationship equality, and to add entirely new statutes and procedures for defining civil unions is an enormous and unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars. How does it make sense to take money away from schools, the poor, and other federal services in order to create an expensive new bureaucracy, when marriage laws are already in place and would serve just as well without the added expense? Our second important goal is to repeal the DOMA, and for the Supreme Court to enforce the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution, so that even in states where gay marriage is technically not permitted, we can still get married elsewhere and our home states will have to obey the Constitution and recognize those marriages as valid. It is obvious how this would work in regard to marriage, but not all states have "civil unions." Would it even be possible to force a state to draft entirely new legislation for the sole purpose of recognizing civil unions performed in another state? I fear that this alone would be an obstacle to implementing the FF&C clause if we had civil unions rather than marriage--which is an institution that ALL states already have adequate legislation for.

Finally, there are practical matters to consider. For example--how will family court judges view civil unions as opposed to marriages? If my ex attempted to fight me for custody of our son, would the judge rule in preference to his heterosexual marriage as opposed to my "lesser" civil union? Would civil unions be considered differently for the purpose of adoption? These things could change from state to state, creating more confusion and more bloated, overcashed lawyers as helpless gay couples try and sort the whole mess out. Unlike civil unions, marriage has a widespread, culturally-set definition. If I tell someone that I am married, that person understands that I am part of a family, related to my spouse, and they understand what the boundaries and borderlines are. If I say that I am "civilly joined," who would understand what that actually means? It's confusing, and serves only to further set gay and lesbian people apart.

There are lots more reasons why pursuing deliberately pursuing civil unions (even if just as a stepping stone) is a bad idea. But consider this, in closing: it is incredibly easy to lecture about patience and prudence when you are in the position of having access to marriage. It's not so easy from the other side of the fence. It genuinely hurts GLBT people to hear that we should pursue the lesser option and be patient. It doesn't just hurt our feelings; it hurts our dignity, our solidarity as progressives, and our very humanity.

If you're starving to death, and someone offers you a small piece of candy, you take it--but you don't waste your energy actually asking for a small piece of candy, because in the end, candy is not what your body needs to survive. You demand real food, and you accept whatever tidbits and morsels are offered in the interim. Do you understand now?

[Starry Messenger]

99. I wish I could rec this post. n/t

[northamericancitizen]

143. Thanks to you,

I know understand the difference between civil union and marriage.

[jhrobbins]

190. There are so many nuanced advantages to marriage and so many

straight people take them for granted and don't understand why it is important for us to have this right. It goes way beyond the immediately obvious advantages. I have even thought of adopting my partner so he could have 'standing' where I am concerned and vice versa.




He is somewhat reticent to this idea because he thinks I might ground him. :rofl:

[Oak2004]

116. You are aware that when Civil Unions were adopted, people were not "ready" for them?

The people of Vermont were not made "ready" for civil unions before they were adopted. The VT Supreme Court ordered parity in marriage rights under state law, the legislature came up with "civil unions" as a way to meet the requirements of the order in the most minimal way possible, the complainants whose suits brought about the court ruling said they were prepared to accept civil unions for now, but might take the issue of full equality up at a later date, and then all hell broke loose.

There were calls for impeachment of the Supreme Court. Tons of money was pumped into Vermont from outside right-wing groups. The Republicans won a massive victory. That's why Vermont has a Republican governor: he won that year, and for some reason Vermonters are loathe to vote out an incumbent governor.

Some county clerks refused to issue licenses for civil unions.

After a year or two, most people stopped caring. It was obvious to all but the most dense that civilization did not collapse, that heterosexual marriage was as intact (or not) as ever, and that their children remained safe from leather-clad men soliciting in schoolyards. The House returned to a Democratic/Progressive majority, then to full Democratic control, and then the Senate turned Democratic. Life went on.

You kid yourself if you think acceptance of civil unions came before civil unions. It was the other way around, just as it was for the civil rights of African Americans, and just as it will be for full marriage equality.

Little in politics truly happens "gradually". Politics is better modeled as a battle between opposing forces, usually holding each other to a stalemate, and sometimes with one force making a majot breakthrough, after which the lines are redrawn and a stalemate is reestablished.

[Trajan]

60. You Rock ....

Honestly .... I have been avoiding the forums out of personal dismay, simply because I want to try to be happy, and not get wrapped up too much in angry issues ....

The issues are there, and they will always been there, and someone (including me) needs to deal with them .... Yet we live a life, and that life should be positive and generally happy ...

One might ask "How can I be happy when THIS or THAT is happening?"

One might be absolutely correct that bad things are happening, and that Something must be done !, but is it really necessary for EVERYONE to absorb EVERY negative element of our existence and live it, day in and day out, in order to be just and proper ?

I don't think it is wise to spend every waking moment in a world of negativity while the time of our lives tick away, slowly but inexorably, and is finally spent ...

The negative aspects of life will ALWAYS exist, in one form or another, but there are positive aspects too, and we should all find a way to have POSITIVE experiences as we whittle down our remaining moments on earth ....

DU has been exceedingly negative, with a "Debbie Downer" character that cannot be tolerated very long by anyone who wants to enjoy a few moments of their life ...

What could be more important than all the bad things that are happening ?

To Wit:

Turn off the TV News, and watch a classic film you have never seen ...

Alternatively, READ a classic book or story you have never read ...

Ponder modern art and sculpture, ESPECIALLY if you do not like it ....

Take in a play, a pipe organ recital, a string quartet, or a punk rock band ...

Write a poem, or read a poem ...

Visit a local landmark, on foot; rain, shine or snow ...


In short: EXPERIENCE all of life's little wonders ...

GET OFF YOUR ASS AND HELP SOMEONE WHO NEEDS IT, and STOP sitting on your ass in front of a computer, nitpicking every possible negative aspect of life you can find ....

or not ....

Nuff said ....

And now : Time to improvise some music ....

[uppityperson]

61. Having read through GD, had to come kick again.

[Stardust]

64. Your thoughtfulness and even-handedness never cease to amaze me...I'm in awe.

:hug: :fistbump: :kick:

[grantcart]

65. Always a joy to read your posts - a couple of points

1) I could except a well known conservative pastor, even one that has a problem with same sex marriage to the innauguration if they still had a strong committment to civil unions. Rick Warren's anti gay hateful blather is a symptom of a much larger rampant anti intellectualism. That he thinks that monogamous marriage has a 5,000 year history among all cultural groups is laughable in a world where 25% polygamy is still sanctioned by religion (Islam) or accepted informally (Buddhists and others) and excepted by legalites with serial monogamy in the rest (especailly among conservative bigots). He called Micael Schiavo a 'Nazi' and believes the Bible comes to us by 'supernatural' means.

2) Lincoln did it. FDR did it. Washington, Jefferson and all of the great ones did it. They all fuck up. I still have great affection for Obama and have every reason to believe that he will be a great President.


I wouldn't bet that my TV survives January 20th however.

[LeftCoast]

66. What I object to is that I'm being told I have no right to be angry

That my concerns are not important.

I also object to being called 'hysterical,' 'silly,' and a 'PUMA'. It's the same thing every time my civil rights come up as an issue around here.

[Gman]

68. So how many times now has Skinner had to ask to tone it down?

And again, Skinner makes some very fine and reasonable points about this debate as he has with so many others. I'm guilty of using the "purist" tag as I see the gay rights issue as just one piece of a huge agenda and plan that will take years to put into place. Progress does not move quickly. My use of the "purist" term offends some people and for that I apologize.

My point is that this party is made up of so many different groups and there is no, nor can there be a "purist" ideology. It cannot be because political parties are, a coalition of groups, each having it's own priorities and agenda. Too often a group's priorities are seen as more important than anyone else's. They come to expect "pure" behavior from the pols they supported.

For this administration to be successful, everyone needs to pull for everyone's issues and not take the attitude of "I don't care about them, I want my stuff or it's over." That happened to Ann Richards when she was governor of Texas. When Ann ran for reelection, too many of the faces that were at the meetings four years prior were conspicuously missing from the reelection committee meetings. The missing faces were all parts of groups that got pissy because there were too many "favorites" in Ann's administration. Frankly, I couldn't blame them at the time for having had a gut-full of it, not showing up and doing nothing for Ann. The attitude was that the governor in Texas is largely ceremonial and the Democratic Lt. Governor (Bob Bullock, one of the finest men I've ever known) is where the real power was so just how bad could it be if Bush won.

The lesson that was to be learned was that no one group should be the favorites or else everyone goes down. That's why Ann lost her reelection to Bush. The tragic thing was we all were well aware that Bush intended to run for president, but people sat on their hands in the GE and the rest is history. Of course "no one could have foreseen" what Bush would do as president.

Yes, I understand why the GLBT caucus would be outraged by Warren giving the invocation. But jeez, cut Obama some slack. He's got to do what he's got to do. And if that means in a ceremonial manner reaching out to the other side in order to neutralize them then I say go for it, that's a great idea. That's right in line with keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. Then after Warren has his 2 minutes, we get down to the real business of the country.

p.s. Don't be surprised to see Obama sign an executive order abolishing don't ask don't tell minutes after the inauguration.

[noamnety]

70. Obama hasn't "neutralized" Warren.

Obama has fueled him and as a direct result he now is doing national television interviews to export his bigoted views to an even wider audience. If you thought this was just "2 minutes" of publicity with a screened script, you were mistaken.

[Gman]

104. This one act does not at all neutralize Warren

only a series of similar acts over the next 18 months will take the fire out of the fundies. As I see it, the idea should be to take away as much incentive for the fundies to vote in the GE and make it a lot easier to elect even more Democrats in 10 and 12 and this thing with Warren is just one way to begin doing it. The fundies were the biggest threat to electing Obama this year. The electoral vote notwithstanding, this was a very close election.

[bluedawg12]

138. The religious right will not yield on gay rights

do our leaders want to seem to be yielding to the religious right?

[Raster]

277. That is precisely what *appears* to be happening. For an occasion of such historical magnitude,

one would think that persons that typified inclusion, acceptance, and compassion would be asked to participate. Not a sexist, homophobic, antisemitic bigot with a cross to grind. I expected better of President-elect Obama, much better. Either a very smart man made a very stupid mistake, or another feckless politician pandered to right-wing theocratic blowhards. And no, I will not sit down and shut up.

We Can Do Better!:kick:STOP the H8!

[ruggerson]

80. He cannot write an executive order abolishing don't ask don't tell

This is primarily what bothers me about a lot of the gay rights discussions here. Most of you (and I like you and agree with you much of the time, GMan) have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to individual issues concerning GLBT rights.

Don't Ask Don't Tell is a statute. It was approved by Congress and it is the law of the land. Before Clinton was President, it was just military policy to exclude lesbians and gays from national service. Historically, this kind of thing had always been the President's prerogative to decide. When Clinton got into office, he was going to write an executive order ending the ban. That's when the Republicans in Congress, along with Sam Nunn and various military brass got involved and told him if he did that, they would write a statute completely banning gays from serving. And they had the numbers to override a veto. Don't Ask Don't Tell is the resulting compromise from that confrontation. The only way it can be undone is for COngress to pass legislation repealing it and for Obama to sign that legislation.

[Gman]

102. Then I stand corrected...

I seem to distinctly remember Clinton issuing an executive order establishing don't ask don't tell. I thought it was one of the very first things he did on inauguration day, or at least that's the way I remember it.

Then perhaps Congress will move very quickly to pass repealing don't ask don't tell since the new congress starts 1/5. They can have it on Obama's desk the day he is inaugurated. This needs to be one of the very first, if not the first piece of legislation the new congress passes. It shouldn't be that big a deal.

[ruggerson]

106. One would hope

considering that 80% of the country supports letting gays serve openly. But they are scared to death of LGBT issues. Otherwise you would see many more Democrats fully supporting marriage equality.

[HEyHEY]

73. Good luck with that "tone it down" business.

Though, personally I don't think anyone should have to listen to someone defending a choice to have a hate monger play the role Warren has been handed.

[EFerrari]

78. I think you did a good job of restating the two positions that most members

seem to hold, Skinner.

I don't see, though, how a reasonable person can find a place to stand where this choice is defensible if one supports progressive values. If Obama's buying political cover for his policy, he is also paying out social cover to the most divisive, toxic elements in our culture. The Invocation may last two minutes, but the images from that moment will serve Warren for the rest of his career.

It's not necessary to attack Obama as a person or as a politician over this. But it is necessary to challenge him on this score as a Democrat, as a self-identified advocate of civil rights. And I suspect that as more information on Warren comes to light in the next few weeks, that will become as obvious to Obama as it is to some of us right now.

Thanks
b

[Bluebear]

81. The definitive post.

[ruggerson]

87. Word

n/t

[Skinner]

95. I respectfully disagree.

In a nutshell, the progressive argument in favor of Obama's choice is this: If inviting Rick Warren to the inauguration gives Obama some political cover, his chances of successfully passing progressive legislation increase.

(To be clear: I'm not saying this argument is correct. I am not taking a side. My point is that reasonable people -- including progressive people -- can be on either side of this.)

[EFerrari]

109. I understand and appreciate that you're not taking a side. n/t

[bleever]

213. This exchange is the cream that defines

DU.

I have hope for America, because of this kind of very rarified, but essential, exchange.


Yes, we can.

[enlightenment]

134. I think that those of us who disagree with that argument

would find it a bit more worthy of thought - which is what you're asking us to do - if it were accompanied by some proof that;
1. that it is PE Obama's intent and,
2. that it is a realistic expectation

I've seen a number of people comment that they 'believe' PE Obama has 'a plan', or 'will do the right thing', or similar statements that are touching in their sincerity, but not in any way an a posteriori argument which, given the level of heat in the debate, is necessary if it is to be seriously considered.

Given some evidence that PE Obama is indeed 'using' Warren as a method to reach Warren's supporters and others of that ilk - given some evidence that this 'method' will actually improve his chances of passing progressive legislation - I (speaking only for myself) would be willing to consider the argument.

Unfortunately, what is offered is faith, hope, and belief - and that's just not a basis for serious consideration.

Reasonable people can certainly disagree, but I don't think that reasonable people should be expected to accept a position based on belief rather than fact.

[Hugin]

137. If I may interject something here...

I stress... In my opinion Obama's decision is not to 'reach' Warren's supporters, but, to 'defuse' them. To render them
unable to use the events surrounding the Inauguration to fuel their warped theories and feed the RWNM.

But, like you, I'd like some sort of evidence this is the intent of the action.

There are many other open questions about various appointments and the treatment of pro/anti progressives in past weeks
that leaves Obama's 'Wait-and-See' account almost at it's limit with me.

[Duende azul]

168. Good points.

[madmadmad]

82. SORRY INJUSTICE FOR ONE IS INJUSTICE FOR ALL, AND NOT CALLING OUT BIGOTRY FOR WHAT IT IS

IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN A PROGRESSIVE FORUM. PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE RICK WARREN IS A DEFENSIBLE SELECTION BELONG OVER AT THE FREE REPUBLIC.

THE ONLY PORTION OF YOUR STATEMENT I AGREE WITH IS THAT FOR THE GLBT THIS ISSUE IS PERSONAL.

PERSONAL BECAUSE THIS MAN WHO WE BELIEVED IN, WORKED FOR AND PRAYED FOR, WOULD STAB US IN THE BACK BEFORE HE IS EVEN IN OFFICE. NO ONE ON THIS BOARD WOULD BE DEFENDING OBAMA IF HE HAD SELECTED FRED PHELPS, OR EVEN PAT ROBERTSON. THE FACT THAT THAT PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD, JUST LIKE OBAMA, ARE SO QUICK AND EASY TO THROW THEIR GAY AND LESBIAN COMPATRIOTS UNDER THE BUS IN THE NAME OF UNITY *SICKENS* ME. AREN'T WE SICK OF THE ORWELLIAN DOUBLESPEAK OF THE LAST 8 YEARS? THESE IS NOTHING *UNITING" OR *INCLUSIVE* ABOUT THIS SELECTION- IT IS DIVISIVE AND WRONG.

SO YEAH, THIS IS FUCKIN PERSONAL- MY PROGRESSIVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS TURN ON ME? AFTER I'VE BEEN IN THE TRENCHES WORKING ALONGSIDE THEM FOR CHANGE FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS? FUCK THEM ALL.

SHAME ON YOU, SKINNER- I UNDERSTAND ALLOWING THE DISCUSSION AND THE ANGER TO CONTINUE- THAT'S WHAT THIS FORUM IS ABOUT. BUT FOR YOU TO STAY SILENT AND NOT TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST BIGOTRY AND HATE IS PLAIN OLD WRONG, AND *NOT* WHAT THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT IS ABOUT.

THIS IS *FOR SURE* A CASE OF YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US- NO MIDDLE GROUND. I'M SORRY YOU ARE AGAINST US. I HAD THOUGHT BETTER OF YOU.

[DevonRex]

94. I'm sure Skinner will take your hurt and anger into account when he

reads this post. But it was unfair to him, nonetheless.

[madmadmad]

101. IT IS *UNFAIR* TO ME THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT UNIFORMLY CONDEMNING THIS INDEFENSIBLE BETRAYAL.

I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT- ALL THAT BULLSHIT ABOUT HOPE AND CHANGE, WAS JUST THAT- BULLSHIT.

BY PUTTING A RIGHT WING HATEMONGER UP ON STAGE, OBAMA IS GIVING A BIG "FUCK YOU" NOT ONLY TO GAYS AND LESBIANS, BUT TO *EVERYONE* WHO SUPPORTED HIM AND BELIEVED IN HIM, AND WHO HAVE CHAFED UNDER THE RADICAL RIGHT WING AGENDA THAT HAS BEEN SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS FOR YEARS BEYOND MENTION.

HE PROMISED US THINGS WOULD BE DIFFERENT. HOW IS BOWING AND SCRAPING TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT ANY DIFFERENT? JUST ANSWER ME THAT.

[LibraLiz1973]

103. It isn't and you are right to be angry.

[uppityperson]

140. Do you SERIOUSLY believe an Obama administration will be the same as the bush one?

Totally, fully, completely the same? No differences?

[Spryboy]

176. I don't think anyone is suggesting that

I don't think anyone here will disagree with the idea that Obama will be far better than Dubbya was.

Of course Obama will be a vastly superior President.

I don't think that's the point.

[undeterred]

110. "YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US- NO MIDDLE GROUND"

This kind of reasoning reminds me of the way people on the right think and act. It never works, except to repel the people who are most likely to support you.

[rpannier]

223. You're Either for Us or Against in the Cause of Civil Rights for Blacks, Hispanics and Women -

No Middle Ground

You have a problem with that too I suppose.

Thank God we didn't need you in the 50's and 60's.

[Chovexani]

97. Skinner I don't think you actually understand

I'm not trying to be nasty either, I swear. I don't think you're a bad person, Skinner. I just really, really think you don't understand, and you can't, because hetero privilege won't allow you to. This guy is like Klan, okay? He's Klan. There really isn't any other way to put it. This is the equivalent of inviting a Christian Identity "pastor" or a Holocaust denier to give a prayer. The "other side" Obama is "reaching out to" is wearing robes and actively trying to kill us or people they even think is us. This after the McClurkin incident in the primaries, when another anti-gay hatemonger was asked to play a prominent role in an Obama event, and then went on a tirade about how evil we were. It was a cynical ploy then and it's a cynical ploy now, and I disagree that reasonable people can disagree on it. Reasonable people that have been paying attention instead of being swooning Twilight-ish fans can see the pattern. And your post also neglects to mention the context in which this is going on.

We had Prop 8 pass, in no small measure because of this Klansman being invited to bless this historic occasion, and Obama's own "nuanced" words were so nuanced they could be used in pro-Prop 8 ads, and were. There are DUers whose marriages are in jeopardy over this as we speak. And we were called hysterical, single issue voters, Hillbots, whatever. Hate crimes are on the rise, here in NYC we had a brutal one just recently. Specific to DU, we just lost a member of our family. If we're vociferous it's because we're in pain and in grief and feeling like no one gives a shit. Picking this guy would be awful at any time but particularly now, it's salt in the wound, spit in the eye. And the reactions of people here defending it like it's no big deal to me are more hurtful than what Obama did, as hurtful as it was.

But thanks for re-affirming my decision to let my star lapse. This site has had a horrible record when it comes to homophobia and it's my belief that as long as there is no LGBT person in a position of authority that will continue to be the case. There are many, many good people here who are true allies but there is a shit ton of knapsack unpacking that needs to get done, from the top down and i just don't see it happening. People don't perceive homophobia as bigotry, just another legitimate point of view to be given the time of day instead of shunned and condemned like the horrible thing it is. LGBT people are not people with lives and families who are struggling, we're "issues" and a "special interest group". I see this everyday in the language that is being used about us on this site. And no one seems to care until we start screaming and fighting back and making things just a little bit uncomfortable.

[WritersBlock]

100. What more do you want the man to do?

Really. Please tell us. Skinner's post was, I thought, a very inclusive one to all DUers. He has stated this site's support for gay rights, and as far as I know, he always has done.

What more do you want from him?

[Chovexani]

105. Take a real stand against homophobia

Instead of offering up these half-assed statements every time we get too loud for him to ignore. Start permabanning people who post hateful anti gay rhetoric, instead of giving them a slap on the wrist. Bring back the awesome pinned post he wrote after the 2004 election (a time of virulent anti-gay talk on this site) saying homophobia is not tolerated here. It really is not that difficult.

There is a long history here that you and a lot of people are not aware of.

[WritersBlock]

107. I've been here four years and I have never, not once, seen any hateful anti-gay rhetoric.

Maybe I've just missed the posts and didn't see them before they got deleted.

From what I have seen, Skinner *has* taken a real stand against homophobia.

[Chovexani]

113. It's possible to be on a site for four years and not be privy to everything that is going on

Particularly when it's not something you're looking for. If you don't hang out regularly in GLBT then you've probably not seen any of what I'm talking about.

Just last night, there was a DUer who posted some really vicious statements, was banned, and then unbanned again. This is not the first time this has happened. And there was a huge blowup over the summer about a series of threads that I started, that a lot of people (self included) are still unhappy with the outcome. If you are friends with the right people or say enough of the right things you can get away with anything, apparently.

Really, trust me when I say there is context here that you're missing. I'm not trying to be mean when I say that either.

[WritersBlock]

124. Fair point.

That's why I asked what more it was you wanted, because from what I've seen (GD & GDP), this site has been extremely supportive of gay rights. I can only go by what I've seen, but as I am not familiar with the episodes you mention in your post, I trust your judgment on them.

[Raster]

279. Come hang around in the GLBT forum. There are persons who visit only to

intimidate and stir trouble.

I invite all the non-GLBT members of the DU community that truly are interested in ridding this online community of GLBT bigotry to come and visit the GLBT forum. Read the threads. Participate in the discussions and see what passes for "credible discourse."

We Can Do Better!:kick:STOP the H8!

[madmadmad]

117. EVERY POST SUPPORTING WARREN TO BE ON THAT STAGE IS HATEFUL, ANTI-GAY RHETORIC.

EVERY POST THAT CLAIMS INCLUDING A BIGOT AND HATE MONGER IN THE INAUGURAL CEREMONY IS *UNIFYING* AND *INCLUSIVE* IS HATEFUL, ANTI-GAY RHETORIC.

EVERY POST TELLING US TO "GET OVER IT" IS HATEFUL, ANTI-GAY RHETORIC.

EVERY POST THAT TELLS US OUR STRUGGLE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS DOESN'T COMPARE TO THAT OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS IS HATEFUL, ANTI-GAY RHETORIC.

EVERY POST THAT STAYS SILENT ABOUT OBAMA'S BETRAYAL OF HIS SUPPORTERS IS HATEFUL, ANTI-GAY RHETORIC.

EVERY POST TELLING US THAT THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT PROBLEMS TO FIX RIGHT NOW IS HATEFUL, ANTI-GAY RHETORIC.

[Ms. Toad]

175. Personally, I can tolerate reasoned arguments

supporting Obama's invitation to Warren.

What I do find beyond the pale are:

Posts telling me to "get over it," (it's not that bad, it's wrong but it's only two minutes, etc. or that generally minimize the gut blow this invitation was to me)

Posts telling me that my struggle for equal rights doesn't compare to that of African Americans (or that it's "just" rights - it's not like I am in any real danger, or am suffering from real violence, or that I am a bigot or an anti-semite for suggesting any similarity between Obama's invitation to Warren and an invitation to the head of the KKK or a member of the Nazi party to give the invocation)

Posts telling me that there are more important problems to fix right now (or that I need to be patient, wait my turn, etc.)

When someone who has made it a large part of his life work to attack me and my family is honored by someone who says he is a fierce advocate for gay rights, I have a right to feel betrayed, hurt, angry; to express those feelings; to expect an apology and some mitigation from that "fierce advocate."

From my perspective, we can discuss whether there might be political horse trading going on - and whether the trade-offs are ultimately worth it in the long run. (My opinion is that for this particular evangelical leader, they are not, but for a different one they might be - but I'm willing to discuss that.)

What is not up for debate is what I am feeling, and whether I should STFU because expressing my legitimate pain, anger, and feelings of betrayal makes you** uncomfortable.

(**"you" being posters who have been telling me just that - including those who insist that there is no room for anything BUT logical analysis. Sorry, but my reactions to attacks on me and on my family (such as those delivered by Warren) are not a logical exercise, and no one has a right to insist that I sit silently at the table while my attacker is given a place of honor.)

[kickysnana]

239. Translation: Me, me, me, me me...FU

Is that what you meant to say?

Everyone who disagrees with something you say is not hateful or homophobic but you feel that way.

People who say they are with you but there might be more wrongs in the world than just yours and things aren't always black and white are not hateful and homophobic. Where is your empathy?

Warren was a really bad choice.

Sexual orientation should never be considered for anything except reference (ie possible mate)

In a perfect America nobody should be discriminated against but they are because life is a journey and all people are imperfect.

As so many of your group have said this is not my fight and I cannot totally understand, but you have to be 110% with us or else you are hateful and homophobic. You are not inspiring me to be with you because you are lashing out at friends who to trying to share their thoughts.

I speak out. I write to politicians. I donate.

By all means alert on trolls and disruptor but please stop yelling at me or I will go away.

[MessiahRp]

254. Dude I know your name is "madmadmad" but turn your Caps off and chill out

I am strongly against the discrimination of my gay brothers and sisters but screaming at everyone is not helping your cause any.

Rp

[Two Americas]

295. "your cause"

Your use of that phrase is a big part of the problem, and one of the reasons why people are so upset.

This is OUR cause. All of us.

I object to the ongoing effort to marginalize and isolate GLBT folks and their supporters here. That is 90% of the religious right program right there - that there is a special interest group called gays who "wan"t something and have an "agenda" - and putting an "I am against discrimination" fig leaf over that doesn't change it. It costs absolutely nothing to say "I support your cause" and it signals that you are not really on board, since you see it as "their cause" and not your own.

[MessiahRp]

297. That's not true so you can take your misdirected angst elsewhere

I might have said "your cause" but I didn't mean for that to mean it was not my cause as well. Rather I was trying to talk to the poster about how their CAPS LOCK yelling on a MB is not going to get through to people.

I agree that we all should be 100% in this together and I agree that what is happening to GLBT people is inhumane. To use your rage to lump me into some sort of right wing narration is wrong and frankly I think your statement in regards to how it relates to me is out of line.

Rp

[Two Americas]

299. no rage here

Telling people what does and does not help "their cause" is a common way to dismiss people.

Is the problem that the other member used caps clock? Or is the problem that "they" are not going about "advancing their cause" the way you think is best?

I am not talking about you, nor challenging you - why take it personally anyway? - I am talking about and challenging what you said.

[MessiahRp]

300. Well mostly the way they were going about it...

Caps Lock yelling doesn't help but neither does being angry and taking an offensive attack onto people (as the user was suspended for). Obviously there are better ways to get through to people than to yell at them.

Rp

[Creideiki]

243. One of the fanboys got so upset that we would criticize His Almighty Barack-ness

that we were told that we were only racists hoping Barack would fail.

And stayed.

Hopefully I'll have an escape pod to get away. I'm hoping to find someplace where everyone is valued as a human being. You know, a messageboard that is concerned with actual progressive values so that the next time I vote against a racist amendment or a sexist amendment in my home state, I don't feel like the good little reliable vote. DU is not that place. It is not for progressives, it is for the Obama Faithful, and I have a problem with this (as Lewis Black might say)--I have thoughts. I hope those of you who will be here long after the gay flight will realize you only get the world you deserve, and without us, it will be a few shades greyer, a few thoughts darker. But I doubt it. I think the people who remain behind will be relieved that they're not being challenged in their prejudice.

I'm not coming out of the GLBT forum again before I leave, may even occasionally drop in to say hi to the GLBT people and actual, true friends and allies, but this has gone from a daily visit to someplace I come to if it's a slow news day at real progressive havens.

[JohnnieGordon]

270. I have a suggestion: massive ignore list

If you're totally at the end of your rope and will now be retreating to the GLBT forum, you might as well get radical and go on an ignore list binge. Then you wouldn't have to remain the GLBT forum only. Believe me, if the double standard between racism and homophobia isn't cleared up, I too will be compiling a massive ignore list. My ability to participate will be greatly reduced, but if DU does ultimately see me as a 2nd class citizen, a bias for the opinions of heterosexuals here is sadly unavoidable. But I won't let it stop me from reading and learning from the people here I do like.

[Two Americas]

157. absolutely

"Take a real stand against homophobia."

That is it exactly. Why is there so much confusion and controversy about this here?

Take a stand against the abuse, and the persecution and the denial of equal rights. This is not asking for much from our politicians.

Why embrace the right wing context for this - that "the gays," some special interest group, "wants" something and has an "agenda?" Why then give half-hearted, mealy-mouth, tentative and qualified "support" for this supposed agenda and then claim that this support somehow balances out giving a proponent of the homophobia that leads to abuse, persecution and denial of equal rights a platform and a nod of approval and legitimacy?

[mentalslavery]

292. excellent "broader context" political analysis

Framing this within the broader context of the liberal political Platform is more accurate as well as effective. The same thing could be said for poverty and what is commonly referred to as "Minority Agenda" as well as "Affirmative Action" and "Entitlement Programs" frame substitution. Civil rights and equality are fundamental tenets in the liberal political philosophy as well as the Democratic Party Platform. Additionally, both are supposed fundamental aspects of our Constitution. It is very "interesting" that a political party (R) whose members claim to be representatives of citizens does not take a stand on the fundamental rights of the document the swear to uphold.

[LeftCoast]

128. Thank you! I agree with what you said 100%

Consider this a K&R to your post!

[BigBearJohn]

224. Wow, Chovexani, I sure do wish I could write as succinctly as you. Thanks for your input.

The only thing I would say is that I do believe Skinner is trying to be the peacemaker here.
He is trying to keep the board alive and calm. It sure is not easy to balance all the emotion
that is going on here.

So another question might be, just how CAN we keep the peace? Or should we?

It's hard to think when I'm so mad. So, maybe I'll just step back for a few days.

One thing I will say, though, THERE ARE SOME VERY INTELLIGENT AND SENSITIVE PEOPLE HERE ON DU.
And they are the one's that keep me coming back.

[bridgit]

98. Calls to reason & balance are better understood as admirable

[BlooInBloo]

108. "Reasonable people can disagree" - do you have actual EVIDENCE of that?

Or is it more of a hope?

What I learn from DU is that:

Anyone who thinks that Obama's absolutely craptacular choice is not quite as bad as the Holocaust is a gay bashing bigot.

[bluedawg12]

130. Address the thread as it comes up

rather than taking your generalization about all gays across this forum.

That is not helpful and exacty what Skinner was just talking about.

[BlooInBloo]

136. Thanks for showing an example of what I'm talking about.

[lamp_shade]

111. Ditto to your statement "Both of these viewpoints seem reasonable to me".

[dcsmart]

121. there is one fence..pick a side

Obama is not for gay marriage. he has said that. Warren agrees with that, but goes far beyond that. As i said in another post,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8007110
234 dcsmart

i think we are talking about constitutional rights. Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Obama is morally wrong on this issue. Marriage is a right of all people in this country (provided that certain laws are followed, age and such). So, in this case both Obama and Warren are wrong. Warren is a bigoted right-wing preacher and i do not think obama should have picked him. Even though he does not agree with gay marriage, obama, as far as we know, disagrees with it for different reasons. if obama does not agree philosophically with Warren on many issues, then why give him the spotlight on such an important day. it is fine to want to bring the country together, but who in the country are we talking about. Not everyone one is this country wants to be brought together. right-wing religious fundamentalists probably didn't vote for him and even if some did, so what. a bigot is a bigot. either you are for equal rights for all people which includes being married in "marriage" or you are not. this is not a PR issue. Warren represents a bigoted christian agenda. so, i think there is one fence and two sides: the side that supports equal rights for all people (not just americans) or one that supports selective rights for all people. when it come to human rights, there is yes or no.


EDITOR
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY
http://timetofight.tumblr.com/

[Truth Teller]

122. Reasonable people don't support anti-gay bigots delivering Inagural Invocations

Particularly for a PE claiming to be a progressive.

[leftstreet]

123. Skinner: As a 'political' person, do you personally think Warren is a risky choice?

I mean, based on your observations and experience.

(Take away teh gay for a minute.)

This guy is no Billy Graham. He's unprofessional, not very articulate, makes outrageous statements about everything from human sexuality to assassinating political leaders, and he looks like the 'before' person on What Not To Wear.

The motivations behind inviting him aside - is the risk of this guy's potential Ted Haggard moment worth the fallout for Obama and the Democrats?

:shrug:

[Blue-Jay]

125. No.

Yours was a very well-reasoned post, but I have to say NO. I won't calm down about this. I'm not a GLBT person, but I find his choice of Warren to be a slap in the face of every voter who supported Obama with the hope that he would stand for equal rights for everyone.

Don't get me wrong: I don't regret voting for president elect Obama. Not at all... But I'm still pissed about this, and he needs to do some serious work to regain my support. (Yes, I realize that MY support probably means very little to him in the "real world", but it is what it is.)

But NO. I won't calm down about this until he makes some sort of amends for such a heinous action.

[Odin2005]

126. Thanks, Skinner.

This is getting out of hand.

[Richd506]

127. K & R!

And I'm bisexual!

[achtung_circus]

129. K & R to keep it at the top. Both sides need to read this and digest this. nt

[mmonk]

135. Pretty much says it all.

I know I can never support the choice. I can never support Democratic party support of such thinking he represents for our party. I can never support the further erosion of the establishment clause in the first amendment. But I can support people who support Obama's decision without supporting the decision myself as well as supporting him for president (since I have and was a delegate for Obama).

[mecherosegarden]

139. Thank you! N/T

[AntiFascist]

145. There is another point which should be discussed which is separate from GLBT rights....

the more I learn about Rick Warren the more I come to realize that he is a lot like Sun Myung Moon, not that he holds the same maniacal delusions, but that he strives to associate with powerful leaders and that many of his goals seem to be protective of the ruling class in preaching that they can do no wrong. Much of the airtime he received in his recent interview on NBC was devoted to blaming the current economic conditions on the sinfulness of the people, for example. While the Left is focused on the outrage over his anti-gay bigotry, we are ignoring the insidious nature of other right-wing ideals being preached to his flock.

[Fire Walk With Me]

146. I believe that this questionable selection of Rick Astley to present at the Inauguration

contains not a roll of common sense. I'm feeling let down and let go of.

[Mithreal]

147. We need more "unreasonable" people with "unreasonable" views

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Reasonable implies fairness.

Some of our community are being treated very unfairly by this "appointment" even if the "appointment" is brief, even if it is only courting evangelicals.

Reasonable implies rational thinking.

For some this is a very emotional subject and rational thinking is easily left behind. Reasonable is the best excuse for making no progress.

OVERALL, I agree with you for whatever that is worth.

[blaze]

150. k&r n/t

[Starry Messenger]

152. Your posts are always food for thought.

I'm glad you weighed in. It was needed. Even though I am not religious, there is a Zen saying I like: "Make positive effort towards the good." I try to adhere to it as much as possible.

"And in particular, I think people need to understand that for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered DUers, this is a very personal issue." is a very important point and I hope that all posters will reflect on that before they hit the "post message" button.

Also visiting the GBLT forum here at DU and reading is always salutary. There are great people and excellent reading.

[Canuckistanian]

153. Fair enough

Although I have strong feelings on the issue, I certainly agree that no one should be actively prevented from expressing their feelings, either overtly or from DU societal pressure.

And as you say, his "influence" will last approximately two minutes.

Let's hope that PE Obama has heard these protests and will now be more motivated to end this last bastion of bigotry and intolerance.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madmadmad]

194. your point is gay rights don't matter. got it. totally rational.

[bertman]

156. Thank you, Skinner. As a straight man who has marched and lobbied for equal rights for my

gay and lesbian sisters and brothers, whose business partner and dear friend of 23 years is a lesbian, and who believes that gays should be able to marry, it was particularly infuriating to be called a bigot because I expressed my opinion that Obama probably made a politically astute move by choosing Warren.

Toning down the rhetoric would definitely help.

[Time for change]

158. Well said

I especially like the part about resisting the urge to put the worst spin on what people on the other side say.

I fully agree that gays should have all the rights that other people have, including marriage. I am disappointed that Obama picked Rick Warren to give his invocation, as I am about a number of other things he has done or said, but that doesn't cause me not to be hopeful that Obama will have a very productive presidency. And I also believe it's possible to be against gay marriage without being a "hateful bigot". And I don't think that that makes me a bigot either.

[trickyguy]

159. Have you ever NOT enjoyed full and equal rights.

If not then I'll consider your arguments. But if you are one of the priviledged

who have never had to face discrimination head-on then please go eat s***.

[blogslut]

162. K&R

n/t

[Aristus]

169. Thank you, Skinner.

Personally, I would have chosen Jim Wallis. But I will admit, choosing Rick Warren is a politically savvy way of reaching out to conservative evangelicals. No doubt they, too, will feel betrayed if President Obama eliminates Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell and opposes gay marriage bans. But let's take it a step at a time. As long as the bigots and haters are nowhere near the policy-making apparatus, I'll be happy.

And it should shut up the "Obama is a-one o' them Mooslims" crowd for good. :thumbsup:

[CitizenPatriot]

170. Thanks, Skinner.

A really well thought out post.

You know, as much as we've all been fighting in the past few days, I have to agree with Nance's wonderful post that reading everyone's feelings and opinions has been wonderful. Painful, but good.

One thing I came away with from this was that even though we don't agree on how to get there, everyone wants to go to the same place. I knew that before, but it was visceral today.

I've learned a lot from reading people's feelings, and it caused me to reinvigorate my efforts to make people aware of the need to overturn Prop 8. In the last days of Bush's Reign, there are so many things to be distraught over. Domestic violence up by frightening numbers-- and it's now the largest cause of death for women ages 15-44!, the environment being sold off, the UN agreement last night, the Katrina murders, ETC. So many things which break my heart and pull me towards activism. Some days, you don't know where to go first.

Thanks to all my GLBT brothers and sisters for sharing their feelings, for not being quiet, for insisting we listen. And thanks to all the posters who expressed their belief in Obama's strategy and his progressive promise.

It's been a rocky few days -- but one thing is for sure, when it comes to equal rights for all, we are all in this together.

[Jamastiene]

180. Thank you.

I wish you would make this an OP so we could Recommend it.

[CitizenPatriot]

199. I'm humbled...

I'm not very good about OPs unless they are some sort of call to action, which mostly get dropped like a stone! But thank you for the reply. It truly warms my heart and confirms my feelings about all of this.

:pals: :pals:

[lenegal]

178. Thanks Skinner K&R

n/t

[Malikshah]

179. We will have to agree to disagree here. Rick Warren is no mere social conservative.

He is a new generation of hatred. Would Jerry Falwell have been given the place of honor and be accepted? Would Pat Robertson?

Rick Warren is of their ilk, if not worse.

I do not agree that those who are accepting Obama's choice are making a reasonable argument. They are, in my opinion, putting a political veneer on a non-political issue for many people here. Basic civil rights, heck, basic human rights, are under attack by the likes of Rick Warren. This is not a political issue. It is a human one.

To ignore that is not reasonable. Nor should it be accepted by reasonable people.

Appeasement of a threat like Rick Warren does no one in our society any good.

[GeorgeGist]

181. To accept your posit ...

one must agree that Rick Warren holds reasonable views. eom

[Douglas Carpenter]

182. Kick and recommended.

[Jamastiene]

183. I may need some further parameters set for debate.

I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Are you saying that we DO have a right to criticize decisions PE Obama makes that we feel are against civil rights for all?

Are you saying that we DO have a right to make our argument that "reaching out" to the right wing will NOT end well, regardless of any hopes our fellow DUers have about that idea?

Here is one scenario to further clarify the second question:
For most of my life, I have dealt, up close and personal, with right wingers who believe the same type of hateful ideology as Warren. In my experience, the offer of compromise and/or diplomacy with them never works.

My personal belief is that it is very naive for people to believe the right wing will reciprocate any olive branch offered. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

Am I allowed to make that argument?

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

201. I believe you understand correctly...

I also believe that for the past 8 years, dissenting voices have been dismissed as 'Un-American' and that label was used to keep us in the shadows.

By extending to our detractors the 'courtesy' they denied us, their hypocrisy will be out in the open and plain for all to see.

I'd much rather see them slither away in disgrace than portray themselves as make-believe martyrs claiming their voices were silenced, even if that would be 'quid pro quo'.

(I hope I'm allowed to make that argument.)

[Grinchie]

185. Then explain why you censor news about foreign Donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Sure I mentioned something about the Corrupt stinking DLC Vermin, but that doesn't give you or whoever the right to censor News that sheds light on the corruption and compromised postion it places upon our new Secretary of State. Since when is it a no no to tie Bill Clinton, father of the DLC to the DLC? It makes no sense, unless of course, you connect the DLC to Nafta, CAFO's, WalMart and Blue Dogs, or whatever the "Center Right" Democratic sellouts are called.

Given the response, I can see that if corruption of malfeasance is associated with Democrats, especially the Clintons, it is quietly quashed, attacked and the poster is vilified in an attempt to divert attention from some cleary shady dealings, instead of reviewing the situation and examining the facts.

FISA Immunity, Clinton, Emmanuael, Vilsack et al make me want to puke. Rick Warren is nothing compared to the influx of DLC Corporatists into the Obama Administration. I don't believe Obama is responsible for these picks, but by golly he's going to answer for it when they start stabbing him in the back.

I may be a Democrat, but I am not so naieve as to fall in line and forgive elected or nominated officials for making mistakes, blunders, Lies, or stupid decisions without it affecting my outlook of their ability to lead.

Is this Rhetoric toned down enough for you?

[tavalon]

188. Just starting a website shouldn't mean that you have unusual wisdom

and yet here you are, wise beyond your years.

And again, I honor how hard it must be to keep your opinions to yourself in deference to community unity.

There are many things that make this place wonderful and you are definitely one of them.

[dothemath]

191. more than a few ....................

and with that, ladies and gentlemen, I will have no more to say on the matter.
It is time to move on. Back to American Idol or Survivor.

Mr. Obama has done something you would be hard-pressed to find one person that would have thought it possible for him to do 2 years ago, including me.

Let it go. America has a chance to survive - something we have not had for at least 8 years. If he does not have a perfect score in all things, in your opinion, fine. If you compared yourself to him, how would you fare?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

192. "To me, this seems like an issue where reasonable people can disagree."

Er...

I have a great deal of difficulty in considering "reasonable" a person that thinks this choice by Obama is a-OK.

Therefore -- no, I don't think it's an issue where reasonable people can disagree. And I think I'm being reasonable in saying that.

[hunter]

302. Bullseye.

I don't think this is an issue where reasonable people can disagree.

It's reasonable to discuss how to keep Rick Warren away from the inauguration -- simply rescinding the invitation (my choice) would set off a political firestorm that would give Warren even more media exposure -- but it's NOT reasonable to accept or defend this very bad decision by the Obama administration.

Rick Warren is a first order scumbag, and his religious institutions reek of racism not overtly expressed as with their anti-gay rhetoric, but every bit as pervasive. Yeah, "everyone is welcome" in that religion, but it is clearly the domain of the white heterosexual male, and everyone else has second, third. or fourth class status, including President Obama.

[smiley]

193. the most reasonable viewpoint on this subject I've seen so far.

period.

[Danger Mouse]

196. Thanks Skinner. I hope this helps calm things down a bit.

[McCamy Taylor]

198. Good post. One correction. NONE of us has equal rights now---or Constitutional liberties.

Arguments about who is more oppressed play right into the hands of the corporate classes who raise their champagne glasses in a toast every time we fall for one of their Divide and Conquer diversions.

We are all serfs. The system can reach out and snuff the life from any one of us at any time. "If we do not hang together, we will all hang separately."

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

200. From TheDesperateBlogger.com

DB Editorial: Uncomfortable with ‘Gay Crush’ on Rick Warren

December 19, 2008

O.K. faithful readers and readers ‘of faith’, how about a quick show of hands: If not for the extensive coverage (during an otherwise slow news week) of the disappointment and outrage expressed by Pro-Choice and Gay Rights groups over the President-elect’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at next month’s inauguration, how many would even be aware that there was an invocation delivered at Presidential inaugurations, let alone give it a second thought?


First, to get a couple of things out in the open:

1. I am a strong advocate for the separation of church and state. The Holy Roman Empire ended badly, the Church of England has caused more than a bit of a ruckus, and I don’t see a lot of people planning their next vacation in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
2. I also don’t understand why it’s so God-awful important to so many people to have “Thou shalt not kill” and the other nine Commandments, only one of which is actually law, prominently displayed over the heads of judges, particularly in courts where capital cases are heard.
3. I try to limit my adversarial discussions on the abortion issue to Pro-Lifers who have adopted at least one otherwise unwanted child simply because the mother chose not to keep it rather than out of their own desire to be a parent. I always have time and respect for people who put their money where their mouth is whether they agree with me or not.
4. My girlfriend and I are from different religious backgrounds. No church will marry us. We acknowledge and respect this as their right. But I’m still waiting to hear a reasonable, non-faith based argument as to what makes me so special that I have the civil right to marry the person of my choice while other (generally more) responsible adults do not, simply because I am a man and have chosen a woman with questionable judgment.
5. ‘Proposition 8′ is blatantly discriminatory and should, (and I believe will) be overturned by the judiciary. For those who argue that ‘we are a democracy and if the majority support a law their decision should be final’, I remind you of two things: First, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. If you don’t believe me, kindly refer to the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’. (Hint: It shows up shortly before ‘God'.) Second, we should be more honest with ourselves. If majority opinion were the rule of law, we probably still wouldn’t have a Black voter, never mind a Black President-elect.

Now that you have a clearer picture of where I’m coming from, let’s get back to this sordid business of the Pastor and the President-elect…

Why is anyone disappointed, shocked or outraged? I heard a leading Gay Rights activist yesterday saying, “…Barack Obama has closed the door on us…” Pro-Choice groups are up in arms because Mr. Warren is an anti-abortion rights advocate.

I hate to say this, my ‘glass-half-empty’ friends, but lighten up. We’re talking about a two-minute invocation, not a Cabinet appointment. It’s time to remind ourselves that we’re not going to be ‘the opposition’ any more. There’s really going to be a President who supports our causes. So what if he has Rick Warren, a conservative pastor, doing the invocation? He has Joseph Lowery, a liberal minister doing the benediction, and Pepper & Rosenberger, a moderate caterer, doing the refreshments. What’s the big deal?

The President-elect, during the transition, has clearly demonstrated that he intends, as promised, to govern from the ‘center out’, not from the ‘left in’. He is not closing his door on his supporters; he is demonstrating that, unlike his predecessors, it is open to his opponents. The ‘new opposition’ is going to be treated the way we always felt we should have been. Isn’t that a refreshing change?

[WillParkinson]

285. Sometimes people will never understand...

"I hate to say this, my ‘glass-half-empty’ friends, but lighten up. We’re talking about a two-minute invocation, not a Cabinet appointment. It’s time to remind ourselves that we’re not going to be ‘the opposition’ any more. There’s really going to be a President who supports our causes. So what if he has Rick Warren, a conservative pastor, doing the invocation? He has Joseph Lowery, a liberal minister doing the benediction, and Pepper & Rosenberger, a moderate caterer, doing the refreshments. What’s the big deal?"

What's the big deal?

We cannot say it will only be two minutes. You do not know what the future holds between Mr. Obama and Mr. Warren. People who continue to say it's not a Cabinet appointment cannot predict what will happen. Nor can I, but I am not stating it either way.

And if you have to ask what the "big deal" is then it simply means you need to read more threads or haven't paid enough attention to what people have been saying.

[tomp]

204. yes, we know the positions.

i'm just gonna keep callin' 'em like i see 'em. don't think i'm violating any rules.

don't agree that the pro-obama's choice people are reasonable in their position. does that make them unreasonable people? in this case, yeah.

the whole "reasonable people can disagree" thing is just a cop out.

[FrenchieCat]

206. Thank you Skinner.

After the hard fought primaries, this was a set back.

The Gay Community voted as a whole, close to 2 to 1 for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama.

NBC exit polling found that among the 4 percent of California voters who identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual, 63 percent voted for Clinton, 29 percent for Sen. Barack Obama and 1 percent for John Edwards. In New York, 7 percent of voters self-identified as LGB and 59 percent voted for Clinton, 36 percent for Obama and 3 percent for Edwards.
http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2008/02/those-gay-exit.html

Primary elections have consequences.

After hearing about Donnie McClurkin 24/7 from many DUers here throughout the primaries, I understand why many chose not to support Obama at that time. The point is though, that meant that many in the Gay community understood quite well that Barack Obama has never stated that he was for Gay Marriage (neither has Hillary for that matter), and that he has a tendency to reach out to the other side, usually more than us Liberals would like. Bottomline is that the Gay Community was well aware of what they didn't like about Obama, and as a whole, the community did not overwhelmingly believe him to be the "best" on Gay Issues.

So once the primaries were over, all of us had a decision as to whom we would support, and it appears that the Gay community as a whole overwhelmingly chose to support Barack Obama (73% for Obama to McCain's 27%...or something there close to); not because Obama changed his views as they were in the Primaries, but because his views were better that those of his opponent, John McCain.

So although I understand why folks are hurt about Prop 8 passing, and about Warren giving the invocation, and what that all means...

These same folks shouldn't now be so outraged that Obama doesn't support Gay Marriage,
or be taken aback that he is more tolerant of bigots than what they believe is appropriate.

It just seems that now, some as upset as they are, are claiming to have been Obama's
biggest supporters who gave all that they had to see him in the office....and they are greatly dismayed that he has now slapped them in the face with the Warren insult.

I believe that Obama does truly appreciate and cares about the hard work done and donations made on his behalf I'm sure....but still, most knew all along that he wasn't 100% what they wanted or would get...hell, I even knew I wasn't gonna get all that I wanted from him, nor when I wanted it, and I was a staunch supporter of his during his most difficult period on the way to the Presidency; during the primaries.

I believe that Barack Obama will be very good on GLBT issues, but he won't be perfect, and he won't get it all done (I don't think), and there will still be much work to do. I believe that in picking someone else, he could have avoided controversy.....

But I think he picked Warren not because Warren is the most bigoted, but because he is the most recognized pastor to mainstream America. Whether we like it or not, Warren has sold over 20 million books. He has prayer groups and seminaries all over the nation, with a video, tapes, workbooks and everything. The Purpose Driven Life is a must read in just about every Protestant Church I know of, including the Black, Asian and Hispanic protestant churches. In Obama selected him, he is given credit of having exercized 2 minutes worth of tolerance, and he will request the same when he needs it from the other side. Millions will tune in that might not have otherwise, and they will hear the see the entire program....as Warren is first.

I'm looking forward, not to what Warren will say in his 2 minutes, but what Barack Obama will say to the nation in his 45 minutes. Those are the minutes that will matter most to mainstream America. The message that Barack Obama will give to the nation will be the one that will be remembered and be written about in history books. Not Warren's two minutes.....that in fact, since it is first, many will miss. We can make it a bigger story, and give Warren that much more importance, but January 20th will not be about what Rick Warren has to say; it just won't.

And the next 4 years will also not be about Rick Warren, they will be about President Obama, and what is done in the relatively short time that he has. He is not a stupid man, and he is ready to attempt to fulfill the promises he made to those who voted for him.

Some can write Obama off now, but it will not advance their cause....I don't think.

I've been called a fan, and other things as well, but I don't care. I didn't wait to get here, only to take my ball and go home.

[EFerrari]

207. There is nothing mainstream about Warren with his "cure the gay" program

that any mental health professional would have to call fraud.

[FrenchieCat]

208. The point is that Mainstream Americans don't follow Warren in that way....

Many don't know his stands on those issues specifically, although I imagine most know that he stands against Gay Marriage. But what they know is that he has written a popular book (which was on the best sellers list forever), and many have read it. The book doesn't get into the issue of Gay Marriage or any of that. Certainly now Mainstream Americans will get to know more about him due to this controversy.....but believe me, those folks just don't have the information on what you are referring to. In fact, that's why those are some of the millions that are still persuadable to understanding better the plight of Gay Americans when it comes to Human Rights. Prop 8 didn't pass by that large of a percentage. It wouldn't take that many more if needed, to get it undone. Mainstream Americans can be and should be the answer to growing support to help the Gay Community defeat the type of ballot measures put up with the purpose of keeping them oppressed.

[David Zephyr]

284. I don't fit your profile. I'm gay & I supported Obama, not Hillary. Picking Warren was opportunistic

Your rationalization of a very insulting and demeaning decision by Barack Obama is disappointing. And your post reads like you think it was a payback to the entire GLBT community for those that supported Hillary. You really went out of your way to stress that silly point.

You know better.

It is triangulating when it wasn't even necessary.

I won't watch his inauguration and I have now have a very low opinion of Obama now.

Your rationalization won't change that one bit.

Now here's hoping you enjoy the inauguration and the fireworks.

Whooopeee!

[FrenchieCat]

286. I respect your decision......for you.

That was Skinner's whole point of his post.

[mudesi]

209. One side is NOT REASONABLE on this one

Sorry, but this is quite simply not a case of where reasonable people can disagree. I disagree with the entire premise of your OP.

The side that defends Obama is not reasonable. Rick Warren is no different than the head of the Ku Klux Klan. Would you be saying this is a case where reasonable people can disagree if Obama had a Klansman up there? Why the double standard when it comes to gay rights?

No, he won't be able to make policy, and yes, he'll only be up there for two or three minutes. So what. It's still a slap in the face and gives credibility to a hatemonger.

It's not too late for you to reconsider your position on this. I don't think anybody will think less of you if you post another thread stating that you were wrong on this one. You're the admin, after all. You can do what you want. I hope after some more thought you'll realize that there is no grey area on this one.

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

229. Defending Obama DOES NOT Equal Defending Warren

And until I see some evidence that Warren would incite (or commit) acts of violence out of hate, I think the Klan reference is a bit over the top. I will never defend his views, but I will defend his right to free speech -- especially when all of us have had that right deeply curtailed in recent years... Denying those who oppose us the rights they denied us when they were able would make us no better (or reasonable) than them.

[Peggy Day]

212. This doesn't seem to me as bad as increasing troops in Afghanistan by 30-40,000

I think this guy is really bad news, but
in the overall scheme of things, this person will talk for what, a few minutes?
However, the increase in troops will be much worse, and last longer.
I'm trying to give this pres-elect a break, but I'm not liking most of what I see so far.

[FrenchieCat]

216. The problem is that you haven't seen him get sworn in yet.....

so there ain't been much to see.....yet. :eyes:

[HughMoran]

214. I came by DU to see what was going on

I haven't posted in a while, but figured that this Warren issue had dominated conversation here. It apparently has and I'm glad I've missed it. Guess I'll be spending some more time away from DU - I don't need the stress.

[Skittles]

218. nice to know it's all about you

[HughMoran]

250. Et tu, Brute?

:eyes:

[Skittles]

261. it is a legitimate issue

people have the right to be outraged by suck a sick pick and I'd be sorely disappointed if they were not

[HughMoran]

267. I never said it wasn't a legitimate issue

...but as I expected, the first thing I saw was Skinner's "referee" post. For Skinner to have been driven to post this, it had to have been a bloodbath. I've found that it's not worth the hurt feelings and raised blood-pressure knowing that once this issue has passed, I still want to be able to have a reasonable discussion with my fellow DU Democrats. I'll bet you that there are many people who have been pissed off to the point of ignoring or otherwise losing respect for people who are otherwise good people. Is it worth it to get angry and bitterly fight over an issue that, although very worthy of disagreement and argument over, will have little effect on the future of our country in this really troubled time? Sometimes, ignorance really is bliss.

[Skittles]

280. YES IT IS WORTH IT

it's a real shame you, and many other DUers, do not seem to understand that

[HughMoran]

281. Enjoy!

I'll take a pass on this one.

[Skittles]

215. Democrats should not apologize for this hideous pick

it is disgusting beyond belief

[enigmatic]

217. yep

:thumbsup:

[Douglas Carpenter]

219. Kick and recommended.

[alphafemale]

226. thank you Skinner. nt

[Baby Snooks]

227. "Conciliation"

You cannot "conciliate" between right and wrong. Which too many are trying to do in this. There are absolutes. Right and wrong are absolutes. Separation of church and state is also an absolute.

Separation of church and state should begin on the steps of the Capitol.

Does anyone realize how offensive it is to those who are not Christian to have a Christian invocation?

Like it or not, the bottom line is that Barack Obama is sending the message, again, that this is a Christian nation. It is not.

But if we are not vigilant in protesting, it could very well become one.

I have written off Barack Obama. He is just another politician. Just another panderer.

[LynneSin]

228. I think what is overlooked is that Obama choose exact opposites for the Innvocation and Benediction

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2008/12/60178434/1

According to Affirmation, which describes itself as newsletter for United Methodists for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns:

Lowery, noted over the years for his ability to not only "talk the talk" but "walk the walk," addressed a series of justice issues that still challenge us in this first year of the 21st century. Among these issues are ... the risk the church takes when it restricts, limits and excludes those whose orientation is homosexual. Dr. Lowery wondered out loud, "how could the church, because of a person's sexual orientation, deny ministry to those whom God has called?" He then suggested that he would prefer to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.


_________________________________________________

I know I'll get slammed again for some reason or something will be read into my post that I didn't write but someone assumes that I wrote anyways or assumptions will be made that I support Warren (I don't) or do not support GLBT rights (I do support them). Obama has put into play 2 very vocal and very opposite opinions when it comes to GLBT rights. Perhaps afterwards there will be some cocktail party or luncheon or something where these 2 men (Warren & Lowery) will find themselves side by side for a bit of time. Now Lowery has never been one to back down from an opinion no matter the time or place (He preached about ending the war when he spoke at Dr. Coretta King's funeral) so it would be interesting to see Lowery and Warren together in a room - because my money is on Lowery bringing up the issue.

[Baby Snooks]

230. Reminding us TWICE that this is a Christian nation...

What happened to separation of church and state?

[LynneSin]

233. LOL

Yeah, that's true too. Why even have these preachers in a ceremony for a country that is to keep religion and the government separate. Great point!

[Vote4Change]

231. ... fully support gay rights (as DUers are expected to do)?

Sorry, I didn't know that supporting gay rights was a requirement for membership at DU. I thought DU was a place for promotion of and discussion of all of the issues that matter to people fed up with the neo-con rule of the last 8 years and who favor most of the progressive positions those left of center favor. I never thought DU was a place that would exhibit a lack of the tolerance that it preaches and declare unwelcome one who might disagree with a lifestyle choice as opposed to a government policy position. I guess I was wrong.

I admire President-elect Obama for following through with his promise to "reach across the aisle" in an effort to recreate a sense of unity in this country instead of continuing the "either you're with us or you're against us" mentality of the King George the Prevaricator regime. I would be just as happy if there were no religious invocation at all at the inauguration ceremony ... in fact I would favor that. So, according to DU, if I am not an avid supporter of gay rights, then I am not welcome at DU.

So be it. Adios.

[mondo joe]

253. There is no "lifestyle choice". NT

[noamnety]

255. Adios.

Yes, if you are "intolerant" of equal rights, you are not welcome here.

"I never thought DU was a place that would exhibit a lack of the tolerance"

Exactly. We don't want to see it here, take it elsewhere.

[gollygee]

260. You are correct. Intolerance isn't tolerated here.

So bye.

[Maven]

265. PEACE OUT

[Lisa0825]

272. If you think it is a lifestyle choice, chances are you never belonged here anyway.

There are other sites for folks who think such things.

Good riddance.

[JohnnieGordon]

275. Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out

If you'd stayed though, as you most likely will, you'd find it's pretty easy to jerk gay DU'ers around with impunity. It's quite easy to project disdain for gays and gay rights, without actually saying you're opposed to any specific civil right for gays. And you certainly wouldn't be tombstoned or even have your posts deleted. Projecting hostility while remaining within the bounds of the TOS is part of the thrill for homophobes here.

[bullwinkle428]

298. OK, so you hate Bush, but also hate "teh gays" nearly as much?

Tell me where I'm wrong.

[graywarrior]

232. Thank you for make a statement on this

I have mostly avoided all threads pertaining to this issue. I do not wish to take sides and will not make a judgement until this plays itself out. Having read Obama's first book, this move to have Warren deliver an invocation is no surprise. This is a time for critical thinking, not E over I.

So get ready. My guess is that Obama is gonna piss off some more people over the next four years--just like he promised.

[George II]

234. Wonderful post....(more)...

I particularly appreciate your very poignant comment - "Do not paint entire groups of people as single-issue purists or bigots"

My parents were progressives before anyone even used that word - going back to the late '30s/'40s. When my brother told our family that he was gay (I suspected it for a couple of years anyway), my parents embraced him and he was still a very important part of our family.

From that time on, my parents, mother in particular, began to work more and more on pro-gay issues to the point that it consumed her political activities. She reached the point where if a candidate and politician who she agreed with for years came out either against gay rights or didn't fully support them, she would no longer support that person. Forgotten was the fact that in most cases the oppponent of that candidate invariably was also not only anti-gay but against all the other ideals that my parents fought for for decades. Thankfully, as years went by she mellowed and realized her "error" and once again began looking at politicians for their overall positions.

To put the Warren situation in perspective - the huge flap concerns a single, 3-5 minute event during Obama's inauguration ceremony. Although Rick Warren is vehemently opposed to gays and gay rights, that is not his only issue. So too, Obama does not agree with Warren's position, and the invocation that will be delivered at the inauguration will not be an anti-gay diatribe! Once it's over it's over! Obama hasn't welcomed Warren into his administration, he won't have a cabinet post or advisory position in Washington. Essentially, he's going to give a relatively short, non-denominatinal prayer and be on his way. That's it!

Unfortunately, too many people put much more importance on this event than it deserves. Six months from now, if the economy hasn't turned around, if we haven't begun withdrawing our troops from Iraq, if our standing in the world hasn't improved, most Americans won't even remember the name Rick Warren.

So, as you say, let's not paint entire groups of people as single-issue purists or bigots. Sadly, Rick Warren himself has a much more open-minded and refreshing position on this issue:

"You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand."

[Gman2]

236. I predicted that Christianity in particular, would be our first real test of unity.

It has come true in spades. To show the kind of hate the Saul, later Paul showed to christians, is sure to find them running back to their other choice. That would be tragic. We need to solidify christians, not as activist haters, but just like all the rest of us. Citizens that have an equal voice. There seems to be a lot of wanting to put everyone in a tidy box or group. That is not very democratic.

And I doubt the preacher man is going to bring up ANYTHING devisive. In fact, his exposure to the populace, and the responsibility that goes with representing people, will broaden his perspective. THINK BIG TENT. Not roach motel.

[mondo joe]

240. Warren isn't the definition of Christianity.

If you want to THINK BIG choose a Christian minister who thinks big, rather than one who divides.

[EndElectoral]

237. Reasonable people who actually read Rick Warren's bigotry should not disagree.

[iconicgnom]

242. The choice of Rick Warren is NOT supportive of gay rights. Quite the contrary.

Unfortunately, any notion of finding common ground with an anti-gay bigot leaves gays out in the cold, where the anti-gay bigot sets an agenda which has no intention, ever, of finding common ground.

There's just no way to square that circle.

[theFrankFactor]

245. Choosing Warren Telegraphs Weakness & Capitulation

Sorry, that's how I see it. He's represents NOTHING that should be embraced or even tolerated by Progressives and Liberals. He's a fucking backward asshole. I've just about fucking had enough of this "center-left" bullshit! Reaching "across the isle" to a fucking sociopathic homophobic, superstitious asshole for an INAUGURATION PARYER is... well, fucked up. It's bad enough Obama has decided to give all of Bill Clinton's lackeys a fuckin' job, now he wants to help soothe the nation of the loss of Jerry Falwell?

Warren's a fuck- stupid move.

[skooooo]

248. Thank you, Skinner. nt

[MessiahRp]

256. My observation...

I think that as much as this is a slap to the face of the GLBT community (not even close to the first time Obama has carelessly shown this insensitivity... see Donnie McClurkin) that alot of the angst here is also spill-over from the fact that Obama has avoided Progressives in his Administration and Cabinet like the plague. Yes we're starting to see some climate change experts added and he picked a Union supporter for Labor Secretary but Obama by and large has rewarded the same incorrect fools that helped get us in the messes we're in and stuck to Right Leaning Centrists and Republicans to fill out his top Administration positions.

This, in fairness, has created a lot of anxiety about how Obama plans to govern. You can't put a lot of people that have these viewpoints in key positions and somehow expect them to not push their policy positions internally in that dept. nor not give Obama advice that fits their positions in policy meetings. Also there's this blind thought that Obama is just putting them in because they know how to "get things done in Washington" and that despite their views Obama will be able to tell them what to do and they will fight hard for his views even if they are completely opposed to it. It's pie in the sky nonsense that we're supposed to swallow because Obama is our guy.

The fact it Obama has been fairly anti-progressive in almost every single appointment and when you throw Rick Warren into this, it's the cherry on top of a giant fuck you sundae to most of us.

A REAL Democratic Administration would never have a bigot giving the invocation, would never put in the pro-corporatist greed mongers into high Administration positions especially after watching those same people or their policies fail for 8-30 years.

The Rick Warren thing is huge. I don't want to underscore how dramatically insensitive Obama has shown himself to be to my GLBT brothers and sisters.

But there was a lit fuse already that helped spark much of this outrage and Obama and his team don't seem to care that they lit it.

Rp

[supernova]

268. Agreed.

I hadn't thought about it in that sense. This has gotten so rancorous because there really haven't been many (as we had wanted) progressive appointments to the new admin and alarm has been reaching new levels. Warren lit the match.

[anachro1]

259. YES, WE CAN?

<img src="">

IT SEEMS THAT WAS JUST A BULLSHIT SLOGAN WE ALL FELL FOR.

[TankLV]

264. Yep.

[Maven]

266. NO. It is not time to calm down, it is time rise up and demand better from the party we support.

And reasonable people, if they're really thinking through the effects of this decision, cannot disagree that giving mainstream cred and public attention to this hateful nutbag is a good thing for anyone except maybe Barack Obama and Rick Warren.

[Vickers]

271. I'm thinking some folks didn't read your post with an open mind.

Just a guess...

:P

[WillParkinson]

288. An open mind...

People will always view an open mind in their own context. What I say, to me, might be an open mind but to you a closed book. And vice versa.

[Vickers]

289. People view EVERYTHING in their own context. The point here

is Skinner was *specifically* asking people to try to see both sides, which by definition would mean looking at it from a viewpoint that differs from your own.

[WillParkinson]

290. It's hard to see a side...

Where someone who compares you to a pederast or someone involved in an incestuous relationship is being called a great choice for a speaker or to be told that we should just chill out because (insert any number of reasons given).

Or for a President-Elect who "rejects criticism that it slights gays" (http://www.365gay.com/news/obama-defends-choice-of-anti-gay-pastor/) but can't say why it doesn't slight gays other than to say he’s known to be a “fierce advocate for equality” for gays and lesbians, and will remain so.

If he's such a fierce advocate for equality for gays and lesbians why would he give time (and, no, not just the invocation but all the attention surrounding this and the interviews given Mr. Warren where he has continued to spout his diatribe) to a person who is the polar opposite.

And, finally, where people refuse to understand why we ask how come it's OK for him to consort with anti-gay types (Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren) but you don't see any anti-black people being invited. We're told it's a strawman argument, etc. and yet no one can fully explain it.

[Vickers]

291. QED

:P

[sandyj999]

273. Thank You Skinner. A Voice of Reason Is What is Needed.

I may be able to stay a little longer if people will heed what you just said, not that it matters a hell of a lot. If not then I will be on my way because negativity just draws negativity. We are all dealing with a lot and all this "discussion" is counter-productive.

[Umbram]

274. Good luck to anybody

wanting to have an intelligent discussion about this matter.

[aejlaw]

278. K&R - What effect will it have on the Right?

When a high profile religious leader from the Right appears tolerant, supportive or even just respectful of Obama, doesn't that make it a little harder for the Rushes and company to do their dirty deeds?

From a purely secular standpoint it is probably a good strategy to create some divisiveness among the Wing-nuts. After all they have mastered the "divide and conquer" strategy quite well. Perhaps Obama sees this as an opportunity to turn some tables.

The important thing is that we not divide ourselves in the process. I think Obama hopes we are smart enough not do that. Keep in mind this may very well be a calculated move by a highly competent political leader.

Besides, from a purely religious standpoint, I understand the "Fundys" are prone to being "born again", so who knows??? Maybe Obama will convert him!
:rofl:

[StudsT]

282. here are a few words... POOR and OFFENSIVE CHOICE.

I hope he isn't going to be giving tortures a pass next :puke:

StudsT

[WillParkinson]

287. I'm sorry Skinner...

I have read many posts where you come in and say things and ruffled feather get smoothed over. "The issue here is whether President-elect Obama should have selected Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Inauguration. To me, this seems like an issue where reasonable people can disagree. Even those reasonable people who fully support gay rights (as DUers are expected to do)." isn't going to be one of them, for me at least.

Mr. Obama took one of the most vile men around and brought him in on a day that should be a celebration for all who helped him get elected. That, to me, is akin to a slap in the face saying thanks for helping me out now go away.

Reasonable people do not tell others to "get over it" or "it's only two minutes". On the other hand reasonable people also don't tell people to "eat sh*t" because they do not or will not agree. Reasonable people make an honest effort to explain their viewpoints. Yes, it does get heated at times, especially if either side is being condescending or deliberately dense.

The saddest thing here, for me at least, is that there is a large number of people who honestly have not paid attention to what kind of person Mr. Warren is. People have posted video links in the forums to show some of the things the man has said and done. Interviews where he compares homosexuality to being a pederast or involved in an incestuous relationship. A pamphlet from his church that specifically states gays are not welcome. Then there are the anti-women views he holds. Yet, despite these things some still think that we're being oversensitive. This has given Mr. Warren a lot of facetime on TV for further interviews where he spews his garbage. And this is courtesy of the man who wants to bring us all together at the same table.

Somehow, though, we're expected to "get over it" or accept the fact that people don't see it that way.

As for Mr. Obama being willing to "reach across the partisan divide" I'm all for it. But not at the celebration of our hard work or the cost of further dignity.

[iconicgnom]

296. yes. n/t