Gay Rights Activist On Hardball, Repeatedly Frustrates Warren Defender

pamshouseblend.com:

On Hardball Monday night (hosted tonight by the insufferable Mike Barnicle, who believes all the LGBTs and allies who are mad at Rick Warren live in only five cities), friend of the Blend Mike Rogers of PageOneQ.com and BlogActive took the debate chair against the Rev. Eugene Rivers and shot down the feeble defense of Warren. Rivers unconvincingly attempted to say that Warren isn't a divisive figure and that LGBT anger is a "pseudo-controversy."

Mike Rogers disarmed Rivers by citing the fact that the Saddleback Church web site removed its anti-gay language as a result of the controversy, and thus it was an admission by Warren that he was in fact affected by the protests by those "angry gays" and allies who objected to his selection to deliver the invocation at the Obama inauguration. Beautiful.

Read the whole story: pamshouseblend.com

Comments

[SirReal1]

The whole "debate" would not bother me so much if such a huge part of it were not based on ignorance! I have my own feelings on which side is the "more ignorant" in this, but really, both sides lack a significant amount of critical thought and knowledge on this topic.

The reality, in virtually every species of mammal there is, is that there are TWO MECHANISMS affecting TWO ORGANS that determine the SEX of the individual. We've known this, unequivocally, for almost 2 decades now.

The primary sex organs are determined by the sex chromosomes, which I'm sure everyone knows, and in NORMAL development this would mean that (dependent upon the designated primary sex organ) the fetus WOULD experience a "bath" in one of the two primary sex hormones in the first trimester (during the initial development of the Central Nervous System (CNA) that would cause the brain to develop in accordance with the primary sex organs.

Unfortunately, due to the abundance of chemicals and toxins WE have dumped into our environment, NORMAL development can no longer be presumed (and in truth, hasn't been reliable in several decades) and the release of the appropriate hormones is NOT ASSURED.

[Smith808]

"critical thought and knowledge on this topic..."

That's impossible given the amount of acid you've been dropping.

[SirReal1]

Well, that was a very insightful argument. I can tell by the depth of information you provide that you have studied the subject in great depth.

You sure showed me up!

[vote-obama]

something to keep in mind to our friends in the LBGT community remember not to cut your nose just so you can spite your face because at the end of the day you are the one who is going to end up looking ugly.

[MAB]

I just saw that The San Francisco Boys Chorus is going to sing at Obama's inauguration. Now, my guess is that MOST of these young men are gay. So leave him alone, would ya, about Rick Warren!?! Geez! It's not like he's electing Warren to his Cabinet.

[Naturemedicinewoman]

Marriage a religious bond? Sometimes commitment means more than marriage - divorce is a style in our world. Commitment means communicating, loving, and working through all even in the mist of trouble and outside interference. Do we have the same legal rights for health coverage, death benefits, Civil Union, other ~ NO~ .
I suggest Rev. Rivers do his homework, as he grilled Rogers if he did his. Has he really looked at the site. Does he really understand the issue ~ NO. Separation of Church and State? Is there not a tax status with this?
I fought death for my right to be myself. Many years ago and present, I helped/help fight for the civil rights of African-Americans amd others. Now I find myself fighting for my own civil rights.

[Icantbelieveher]

I remember when I was growing up we had a couple in our church. The man was black and the woman was while. I heard people saying how they were going to hell for interacial marriage! The people making that claim were some of the same type of republicans that are saying the same thing about gay marriage! They claim that America is center right, but they have to keep adapting to the natural progression of society! America is center left -- which is progressive. It's why women were given the right to vote, it's why black-Americans were given equal rights, and it's why the gays were able to come out of the closet at all! In a few years there will be something else for the republicans to fight against!

[LisaO8]

Hopefully they will start eating their own:)

[happyboston]

Mike Barnicle is a plagiarist, i don't know how he gets a gig like Hardball. *sigh*

[pkafin]

"Mike Barnicle is a plagiarist". Is that an original statement?

[Coinyer101]

noone HAS to join in the celebration.

[friscosf]

Can we PLEASE get over this ?
Yes, the LGBT community has a complaint
I think it was dumb to invite Warren, too

But, it doesn't mean Obama is a homophobe
It doesn't affect the drift of his Administration
The Democrats are back !!
The LGBT community will be protected and their rights enhanced under the Obama Admin

Yes, he shoud have been more sensitive !!
It's ALL symbolism

[snesich]

Barack Obama and his team have to take full responsibility for what was a bad decision. Rick Warren should not have been invited to such an important event. Because of his anti-gay views, he doesn't merit this selection. Obama's team made a terrible mistake. They screwed up while they were focusing on other things of greater importance than the list of speakers on Inauguration Day. Or, they sincerely believe that they need to extend a symbolic hand to those who largely oppose them, particularly since they plan to implement strongly pro-gay, pro-human rights policies once Obama takes office.

However, if people had said, back in August, at the time of the Obama-Warren interviews, "Hey Barack! What are you doing? Why are you sitting down with this Warren guy? Why are you legitimizing his anti-gay views? This is a bad decision. Don't do it!" I'm certain that Rick Warren would never have been chosen for this role on Inauguration Day.

Obama made a bad choice here. I agree. But those of us who are supposed to watch his actions closely, and hold his feet to the fire, apparently weren't doing our jobs, months ago, when we didn't raise one single objection to Rick Warren at the time of his Obama-McCain interviews.

[snesich]

Where were we in August when Barack Obama (and John McCain, after him) sat down for a very long, nationally televised interview with Rick Warren? At the time, I heard, over and over, that Warren was a "different" even "progressive" type of evangelical Christian. That Warren emphasized issues such as AIDS prevention, poverty and global warming. That he wasn't a Falwell or a Robertson. This was supposedly a respectable man. And I don't recall anyone criticizing Obama for giving Warren such prominence and such legitimacy.

At the time of the Obama-Warren interview, not one single time did I hear anyone, anywhere, in the media, on the blogs, or in conversation, mention one word about Warren's homophobia and anti-gay marriage views. Not once.

Why didn"t anyone, anywhere, mention Rick Warren"s homophobia in August?

Just to be sure, I went back and searched for any criticism that occurred in August, before, during or after the Obama-Warren interview. Nothing turned up anywhere.

So if Warren is---as so many are now claiming---a virulent gay-hater in the tradition of Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and others, why didn't we hear about this before? Did we fail to do our homework? Did the Obama team overlook the obvious?

Or could it be that Warren's anti-gay marriage stance only became noticeable after Proposition 8? Clearly, Warren never led with this issue. But it appears that only after the election have people noticed that he had this stance.

[Coinyer101]

again, a lot of people never knew warrens views until they came out in the runup to the prop 8 controversy. you cut and paste well, but, apparently you dont read or unnerstand the replies.