Gays and Rick Warren Could Come Together?
It seems the party is over for gays.
It was all too good to be true. A mention in Obama's acceptance speech on that heady night in Chicago. Then came the news that the gay and lesbian marching band would be in the inauguration parade. And an open lesbian was appointed to head the White House Council on Environmental Equality along with rumors of a gay man for Secretary of the Navy.
But everything ground to a halt thanks to Rick Warren -- party-spoiler-in-chief.
Obama might have wanted to show his big tent was big enough for friend and foe. Or he thought the gays would be too busy with their marching band to notice who was giving the invocation. Or maybe that's why we got the hunky shirtless Obama-in-Hawaii pics -- a little aloha for those easily-distracted homosexuals. They got eye candy and the Music Man -- what more could they want?
My first question is this. Wasn't this the same Obama who was upset that the Yes on 8 people slyly used robo-calls in Obama's voice, targeting African Americans, suggesting he was for Prop 8? Doesn't the choice of Rick Warren make that indignant protestation sound a little weak?
And my second question is this. When it comes to showing magnanimity, big-tent inclusiveness, suck-it-up-for-the-good-of-the-country-ness, why is it the gays who always get to be the sacrificial lamb?
I mean even the Pope took a gratuitous Christmas swipe at the gays and transgenders when demanded that the "natural order" of man and woman be respected and not messed with under notions of "gender" which "effectively results in man's self-emancipation from Creation (nature) and from the Creator." (This is from a man who wears a dress and red shoes. Remember that joke -- What did the transvestite say to the Pope when he came down the aisle with his incense-burner? "Darling, I just love your gown. But did you know that your handbag is on fire?")
Remember in 2006, President Bush was looking desperately to change the headlines and unite his fractious party before the mid-term elections. Gas prices were soaring. Haditha was blowing up in the US military's face. The issue of immigration was breaking the Republican party into two. The President had a new spokesperson (Tony Snow), a new treasury secretary (Hank Paulson), a new chief-of-staff (Josh Bolten) but nothing was changing the headlines. What did the President do? He called for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage even though he knew he had no hope of getting it passed.
At that time I'd written, well at least the gays helped prevent a small island nation somewhere (think Grenada) from getting invaded.
Now Obama wants to show that he is willing to antagonize some of his base in order to fit everyone into his larger tent. And of course he chooses the gays. There may be no red states and blue states in his America, but you can always pick on the pink state.
Oh well. It could be worse. We could be Iranians. Warren at least doesn't want to kill the gays. He'll even give them hospital visitation rights. He just doesn't want them to get married. No such luck for the Iranians. He told Sean Hannity he's ready to wipe them off the face of the earth.
Remember the song "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran?" McCain even sang it during his campaign. Maybe that gay and lesbian marching band could play it at the inauguration parade. And Rick Warren could sing along.
And we would all get along on Saddleback Mountain.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
for the first time since jimmy carter, i was thrilled about the prospects of this inauguration. oh well, who cares? i'll watch the history channel or somthin.
Meanwhile, the Rev. Lowery, a prominent gay rights supporter who will deliver the benediction, gets thrown under the bus... not a word about him.
Who threw him under the bus? Where do you get your information from? Geez.
No comment on the Slate article JimR about Warren and his trip to Syria (a Terrorist Nation) and his comments towards Jews?
Interesting. Interesting in deed.
The following article was posted on a different Huffington blog regarding Rick Warren it's from The Slate. I wasn't familiar with Slate, but a regular blogger assures me they are very reputable.
This is a must read for everyone, EVERYONE and then you just might see Rick Warren as a good majority of us in the Gay Community see him as. I hope you'll take the time to read it.
http://www
I do agree with your op-ed, but in your second FULL paragraph, you imply that Warren is giving the benediction, he is not, he is giving the invocation.
See Sandip Roy's Profile
you are right, Dave. thanks for catching that - benediction vs invocation
It isn't just the gays who have to "suck it up" this time. The people on the far right are equally upset that Rick Warren is going to be on a stage with Obama. Both sides are sucking it up because both men are determined to model civility even though they don't agree on everything. Gays are over doing it on this. It's a mistake if the goal is to get more of the other people to join up. People seem to have forgotten what the goal is. All the yelling in the world won't force people to vote the way you want them to.
There is an old fairy tale of the North Wind and the Sun. The North Wind bet the Sun that he could make the man walking beneath them take his coat off faster than the sun could. The North Wind blew hard, but the man only huddled in his coat. So the North Wind got angry and blew harder and harder and colder and colder, but the man only clung to his coat more tightly. Then the sun smiled down and the man became warm and took his coat off without even thinking about it. There's a lesson there for all of us and about a lot of issues and subjects. Anger won't get the job done. Wisdom is called for. We have a very wise leader who has modeled the path throughout the rigors of this long election season. Why don't we learn?
Has it ever occurred to you that gays are TIRED of having to "suck it up" (absolutely ZERO pun intended). Every election they are promised this and that from their elected "leaders", they work hard to get these people elected to be tossed to the side and told to "suck it up" or "sit down and shut up". Well, the gay community is tired (generally speaking of course) of being treated like human ATM's by politicians. This issue will NOT be going away, whether you or anyone else wants it to.
AMEN!
as long as the fight for the right to marry goes on, this issue will not go away. I thought that it was already decided in California and that the issue was dead as decided by the people of California. But no, we now have to listen to a small, vocal minority within a minority screech for the lack of "civil rights". And people actually compare this lack of a right to marry to other minority groups' lack of civil rights for hundreds of years. Absolutely ridiculous. Fight for strong civil unions. I will back that but I will never equate gay partnership with heterosexual marriage. And before you even start, yeah, there are really crappy hetero marriages out there but at least Tab A goes into Slot B and produces something (like just about every other living thing on the planet). And most people agree with me and at the same time aren't bigots. Imagine that!
well , it could be worse , think of how bad gay atheists must feel.
Right on!
I am a gay atheist, married in California (they haven't taken that away from me yet).
I don't believe in organized religions due to their opinion of me. And I don't believe in Obama due to his stance against gay marriage and Rick Warren.
These people make me sick, but I'm hanging in there because if no one gets angry nothing will get better or change.
Gays are expected to sit quietly as Obama honors a bigot who equates gays with pedophiles. So much for Change We Can Believe in. This is the same story they've been force feeding gay people since the Fall of Rome.
Do you know why the Warren story has no effect on 'litmus paper'?. As much as we do not like Warren, the attacks on Obama by the gay community has been disturbing. You guys have called him every name in the book. Then I ask, what's the difference between what you are doing and what Warren did?. We all get it. Gays will vote republican in 2012 coz of Warren. Good luck with that, and please.. enough with this Warren thing.
Has it really been that disturbing for you? Wow, you need to get out more. All this crap about hate coming from gays towards Obama is made-up media fodder. We are disappointed, that's all. Interesting, you've heard that gays will vote Republican in 2012? I haven't heard one gay person say that. And please....
I'm afraid that you're doomed to failure for a long time because you don't get it. You still seem to believe, in the face of all evidence, that anger will win this for you. It won't win you the votes of 51% of Americans on any issue. Hearts and minds must be won and that can't be done with anger. If you just want to blow steam and you don't care about succeeding with your issues, then feel free. This is America. But if you were hoping to someday get enough people to join with you to make the things you hope for into reality, then you're going about it in the wrong way. Obama modeled a great example of how to deal with people who lie about you and say hateful things----and he won. He not only won, but 85% of the country think he's doing a good job so far and he's the most popular person in the whole world. He didn't do that by getting mad. Mad won't win any votes. So make up your mind. Do you want the satisfaction of public anger--------or do you want to win?
I'm not gay, but I've supported and voted for gay rights for a long time. If even I am being turned off, do you think you're winning anyone new to your cause?
Umm . . . someone not keeping up with current events, ignorant or just don't care?
LGBT American Citizens are "attacking" (we like to call it criticizing) Obama for making the decision to give a place of honor at his inauguration, which is an international event of historic proportions in our nations history, to a man who both speaks about them in demonizing terms (equating them to pedophiles and rapists - something that apologists are labeling a "disagreement over social issues" and something we liken to similar dehumanizing language employed by tyrants throughout history in attacking their enemies) and who has taken action (via financial support and urging his congregants to vote in favor of Proposition 8 in California) to strip them of their Civil Rights.
We condemn Warren for his actions AND his views.
We condemn the action of Obama for choosing to honor Warren in the manner he has with that position of honor.
So please enough with your dismissive attitude which seems to say that our Civil Rights are only important as long as we are supporting Obama (didn't know they relied upon our support for anyone).
If you don't see the difference between criticism of Obama and what Warren has done, I retract my opening question and just end with the statement that you are a . . .
Well said, thanks!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
