Obama Appoints Gay Man To Faith-Based Council

Gay Politics:

Fred Davie, the openly gay president of Public/Private Ventures, has been named to serve on President Barack Obama's Policy Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Davie will work to provide objective, nonpartisan advice to the president on a variety of public policy matters, including strategies to increase the effectiveness of social services delivered by community and faith-based organizations.

Read the whole story: Gay Politics

Comments

[jackinhack]

Way to go Mr. President

[orangepetal]

It seems his expertise will be perfect for the mission.

[tr24]

What "mission?" This was a horrendous pick for a faith-based post!

[complice]

I'm sorry, but as a conserative Christian, you don't have a monoply on faith. Accepting certain passages in the bible, like those from Leviticus or Romans--and conveniently discarding those that contradict/don't suit your personal needs--as the literal, inerrent word of God is not a requisite for Christianity. Who are you to question this man's faith?

[orangepetal]

The only faith I'm seeing is they gonna try to help needy people get on their feet, or at least help with the burden during a difficult phase. this man already works in a program that helps people. He has experience he will be bringing with him to the job. Did you read what was written ?

[texanna]

I would've been happier if the headline had read "Obama Disbans Faith-based Council After
Reviewing Constitution". Now that is change I'm hoping for.

[jcwtts1]

of course you would.

[antaeus]

You are not alone. Take heart. Sometimes it seems like we are surrounded by religious zealots who have no shame about placing their private superstitions above our shared civil government and its laws, but our number is growing.

[Zanti]

Obama wants to give aid to religious groups engaged in charitable works, and this has something to do with placing "private superstitions above our shared civil government and its laws"?

You have every right to disagree with Obama's plan, but you should at least offer a rational objection.

[Zanti]

I suspect Obama has, in fact, reviewed the Constitution. Hence, he knows that the C. forbids the formation of a state church or any requirement (test) for membership in same. And he knows that the C. forbids the limiting of religious freedom.

And he knows that, beyond these things, the government is not supposed to aid religion, in the sense of spreading the gospel of a particular faith or church. So the SCOTUS has ruled.

And, guess what? His plan violates none of these requirements. No national church (religion) is being established. No aid is being given to religion, per se--rather, the aid is going to charitable works. And nothing in the C. requires that govt. ignore or shun the institution of religion. We are, last time I checked, a representative democracy.

Of course, what Obama can't do is stop people from broadly and subjectively interpreting the C.'s very specific state/church clauses.

[omo]

If you read the Black Aids Day article on this page you will learn that 1 in 16 black males and 1 in 30 black females will contract AIDS during their lifetime. These are epidemic rates. And every infected female runs the risk of passing on the disease to her offspring. And her ability to care for her children will be seriously compromised.

If this person is an honest man of faith (personally i put no faith whatsoever in a gay god or any other gay male), then he will address this issue openly and challenge the gay community to take responsibility for
what is happening in their ranks and for infecting the women in their lives. Because I can guarantee you, the women are not going around giving this disease to each other. They are getting it from men.

It is so two faced for the gay community to 'welcome the downlow brothers' into their midst, knowing that those brothers will be taking gay diseases back to their wives and families. I will be watching this man to see what he has to say about such unchristian behavior from his gay brothers.

[complice]

Interesting. So now the gay community is tacitly responsible for encourging men to live on the down low? And where exactly do you suppose the impetus to live on the down low comes from? Oh, that's right, it comes from their churches and their communities, who completely ostracize and reject open, well-adjusted gay and lesbian men and women from their ranks.

People who are free to live their lives without fear of rejection and the burden of having to hide their true identites don't go creeping around on the down low.

[RogerTheShrubber]

Hear hear. And that's what makes it even more stunning that, in the context of an appointment in the "faith based office" of government, we have to hear nonsense from fundie-types spouting ignorance and bigotry. Shouldn't even be an office of "faith based anything" in government. But, since it's there... might as well have a broad spectrum of appointees/members. Hopefully this man will have a positive influence and provide wise counsel.

[RogerTheShrubber]

"Gay disease"? Um, have you heard anything at all about the epidemiology of the HIV pandemic on the African continent? Viruses and other disease-causing agents don't have sexuality. Should we call HPV (human papilloma virus) a "hetero disease" because the vast vast majority of infections occur within heterosexual relationship? Should we shame women, in general, for letting men "into their midst" (as you would put it) who have HPV? I don't buy into the whole "down low" thing myself, but your ignorance and bigotry shine through in your comments. (e.g. "...I put no faith whatsoever in any other gay male"??) I only hope you don't actively spout your misunderstanding of disease and epidemiology to anyone else.

[omo]

What part of AIDS epidemic in the Black Community do you NOT understand ? And why should this faith based gay guy not be called on to address it ? I repeat, women are not giving this disease to each other ? And yet when a female speaks out about this great health risk to herself and her children she is so scolded by the so superior gay males.

Hypocrisy, thy name is gay.

[M1]

Wow, that was an incredibly unintelligent comment.

[diogenes1967]

When I read your posts, omo, I am outraged by so many forms of bigotry, including homophobia but also racism.

[tr24]

co-sign OMO! This is the dirty little secret, about the lethality of this lifestyle choice.

[complice]

In one sense, your comment could almost be construed as correct. Living one's life on the so-called "down low" and making risky, uninformed decisions (many of which carry consequences for more than just the immediate parties enaging in said behavior, such as the spouse or girlfriend at home) with one's sexual health is a dangerous, irresponsible, and potentially lethal lifestyle choice. However, if you're referring to simply being gay--which, being the virulent homophobe you are, is the likely the case--as a "lifestyle choice", then your claim is absurd.

If merely being homosexual constitutes some kind of increased health risk, why, then, do lesbians have the lowest incidence of HIV/AIDS of any demographic in the world? Unprotected sex is lethal, not being open and honest about one's true sexual identity. Shame, self-loathing, and stigmatization drive people to do some terribly self-destructive things, including stepping outside the confines of their sham marriages and having unprotected sex with another man.

To thine own self be true.

[BlackWidowPilot]

Still in denial about the science of human sexual orientation, I see.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[rmetz74]

I'd prefer there was no faith-based council - it has no place in government. But if there's going to be, I'm glad it' s going to reject the homophobia inherent in so much modern religion.

[tbone99]

Let these people of "faith" say to his face what they would say behind his back - they won't dare -

No,they'l'll hide behind their sanctimony while in public and make their crude remarks to their congregations, to increase donations

[jcwtts1]

I disagree that they won't dare of course they will. Your mistake is that you think people are homophobic rather than people who believe deeply in their faith. They will absolutely have discussion of homosexuality and out reach.

My frustration is that people whined for weeks about O, saying he was just like Bush. Where are they now? Where are the people who were so freaked out over Warren that they posted 20,000 times about how awful it was. How they were going to wear sheets to the inaguration and said some of the most hateful racist stuff I've seen on any blogs ever. You lost votes for your issues during those meltdowns. But you didn't lose O and his vote is the one that counts. He is a person of faith who believes in strengthening all communities. This program isn't about hate it is about out reach. People need to grow up.

[M1]

I did not like the warren pick and was very hurt by it. I never offered to wear a sheet of any kind nor stated that Obama was like Bush. What are you spounting about. Frankly, issues of equality are every Americans issue....not just gays.

I think you need to grow up.

[Zanti]

Spoken like a true "progressive."

[blueskybigstar]

Great idea. Humanize him, make them deal with him, and much will be done for the g community.

[alexis d]

::MORE WILD APPLAUSE::

So glad this man is our President.

[tr24]

HUGE mistake, President Obama! Y When the majority of all religions reject this lifestyle, why would you appoint a person whose lifestyle is counter to their respective teachings?

[cyoohoos]

Why is his sexuality even an issue? That the real question. Why do bedroom habits need to be public and a consideration for a job. What happens between ADULTS shoudl stay between ADULTS

[tr24]

Why spit in the face of religion, by appointing this guy is my question? I could care less about his bedroom, as long as he and the gay community don't try to promote their lifestyle to my children. Then this becomes a problem. I'm sorry, but I'm not from the school of "it's okay to be gay."

[retroredux]

Because they need to get over it and deal?

[darter22]

Because after they work with him for a couple of years they are going to find out his lifestyle does not make any difference.

[tbone99]

Because God loves all people?

[Razorbazk2005]

Didn't Jesus "DIE" for everyone?

[tr24]

He sure did! No doubt about it. He loves the sinner (person), but not the sin.

[goldnchyl]

Those, on this thread, who are opposed to a Faith-Based Council, I would venture to say, don't understand the concept of being ones brother's keeper. There is an important place for charitable hearts particularly in the midst of so much greed. Churches have been the main source of support for the excluded and downtrodden throughout our history.

[rmetz74]

I disagree. I think faith-based organizations have a tremendous role to play in society... But not in government, by virtue of the Constitution.

The fact that some people here believe gays have no place on a faith-based council is evidence of the wisdom of the Separation of Church and State. When we start allowing religion to infiltrate government, we undermine the anti-discrimination laws that protect all people in the secular, public world that is the government's responsibility.

[Zanti]

Let me make sure I'm hearing this right--secular means public? Religion, then, is not a public thing, by definition?

Funny, I see churches all of the time. Right out in the open. How more public can you get?

[oldbrit]

Yes.

But, not with tax dollars.

[Patricia84]

It's official! I love this man!

[1differentdrummer]

I'm waiting for the headline that says "Obama appoints right-handed person to........."

[nightslider]

Yea I hear dear old Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright saying why not me lord?
Ya gotta wonder how they are taking this "snicker"
Gotta hand it to Obama he is definitly painting with a broad stroke on his canvass, as to the final picture only he knows what he wants to frame as his body of work, and were all guessing and gassing up the place trying to figure out his next stroke,
Hope its Howard Dean for Sec of Health.

[hortonhearsawho2]

Jess is probably thining back to the good old days of marching and making a difference­...fightin­g intolerance and ignorance...last word hit a note their pal...

[Kalel]

It looks like having Warren perform the invocation was a head fake to set up this move. Bravo 'Bama!

[goldnchyl]

bama? That's your president you're referring to.

[Mitch McFadden]

So,remember. Only refer to him as Mr. President, President Obama, or Super President Honor Tradition Man.

Grow up.

[naijaman]

What? I thought the all-knowing Huffington Post community said Obama was aa homophobe when he selected Rick Warren to give the invocation. I guess the world didn't come to a screeching halt on January 20th like the all-knowing Huffington Post folks said it would?

LOL.

[M1]

Shud up! LOL

[BarackstarObama]

This is a very good idea from President Obama, and Warren is just clueless, but it wasn't meant to be an insult to anyone.

[antaeus]

Warren was and remains an insult. Nobody said he was the end of the world. We said that after he helped lead the Prop. 8 campaign in California that is was too soon to give him the honor. We still think that.

Or do you subscribe to the Faux News "Fair and Balanced" doctrine? Any extreme voice is acceptable for inclusion, just as long it is "balanced" with another. Is that what you think?

[hortonhearsawho2]

They have HP on your planet, cool...

[tr24]

Obama should have never picked this guy for a "faith-based" post. What type of example does he set?

[rmetz74]

An excellent example of tolerance, inclusion, and wisdom.

[complice]

He sets a wonderful example, actually. Now go s odomize your wife or something and keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Obama should have never picked that guy for his inaugural invocation. What type of example does he set?