Skip to main content

I'm going to tell this story again.  I've told it before.  I did so when Obama picked Donnie McClurkin to represent him at a campaign event.  There were people participating in the discussion of it on this site that didn't feel the hurt it caused personally, so to them it wasn't a big deal.  I have seen the same lack of understanding of the hurt caused again in the discussions of Obama's selection of Rick Warren.

I've seen people here say that Warren isn't a bigot and that he isn't homophobic.  But then, Warren himself said that he wasn't homophobic because he has gay friends.  Do not be deluded, it is bigotry and it is homophobic to believe that two men getting married is on the same level as a man sexually abusing a child, which Warren believes.

I know very well the impact of that hatred.

Growing up, while it wasn't until many years into my life that we finally started attending church, I was raised under the teachings of the World Wide Church of God.  Their teachings have changed some since my days as a member, so I can't say with any certainty what they teach now, but I know what they taught then.  Homosexuality was an abomination, as it says in Leviticus, and gay people were evil.

So imagine the fear I felt when I started to realize that I was attracted to men.  I believed it was wrong; that's what the church had taught, and they knew better about what God wanted than I did, I thought.  I did the best I could to repress my attraction to men, even to the point that I would physically harm myself when I experienced a direct attraction to someone.  I was taught that God would send gay people to Hell for their sin of being gay.  So I thoroughly feared that I was going to go to Hell.

Then I thought I had a glimmer of hope when I grasped onto the concept of praying to God to be straight.  I did so over and over and over.  It never happened; I remained attracted to men.  I was left trying to figure out what it meant.  I came to the conclusion that God hated me for being gay so much that he wouldn't even help me be not gay.  I believed I was evil.  I believed I deserved to burn in Hell.  And so, I decided that in order to prevent something evil like myself from living, I was going to kill myself and quicken my journey to Hell.

I never actually put into action a plan to kill myself; I couldn't think of a way that wouldn't leave a mess behind for my family to find and have to clean up.  But I totally fantasized about driving my car head-on into a tree or electric pole.  I thought of cutting my wrists.  I thought of drinking anti-freeze; I had always heard that it supposedly tastes sweet.  I did take like 12 or 20, I can't remember exactly how many, Tylenol once though.  I walked barefoot on hot asphalt once and blistered most of the bottoms of my feet.  I bashed my shoulder into a big, wooden farm fence post for an hour, bruising my chest and shoulder.  I would scratch huge welts into my forearms with my car keys.  I'd bash myself in the head.  After all, God hated me.

Suicide statistics are significantly higher among gay youth than they are among straight youth.  I was lucky; I survived; many gay youth do not. I eventually began to confront what I had been taught to believe about God.  The initial spark came when my best friend, and then girlfriend, told me that she didn't believe God hated me.  That she believed that if I was gay that God made me that way.  Before her, I had never heard anyone who was Christian say they believed that.  I didn't know that any Christians existed that didn't believe homosexuality was evil.  And though it was a painful process, from that moment on, I began to come to accept my being gay.

But it was hateful teachings from people who preached just like Warren does that planted in me the seeds of fear and hatred that led to me nearly killing myself.  That's why Obama's using Warren to pray to God on his behalf for the inauguration ceremony hurts so much.  You might not think so because you yourself have never experienced that level of religiously born self-hatred.  But I tell you, as one who has directly experienced it, Obama is giving legitimacy to homophobia.

UPDATE: I want to recommend everyone read pico's excellent diary presenting cases of homophobic violence.  They are stories of pain and death inflicted upon people all because the attackers hate anything other than heterosexuality and traditional gender roles.  These stories are heartbreaking, and they don't get anywhere near as much time in major news broadcasts/publications as they should.

Originally posted to vacantlook on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:27 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Try to understand why it hurts... (297+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chris Bowers, Manhattan Dan, Mirele, myriad, Grendel, usagi, itsbenj, hester, ogre, deben, DelRPCV, chowder, tiponeill, mem from somerville, mattman, janinsanfran, tnichlsn, bread and roses, LynChi, Pescadero Bill, HadIt, bramish, bellatrys, KateG, Elmo Buzz, John Campanelli, movie buff, Norwegian Chef, mataliandy, Thelesis, Vitarai, RubDMC, opinionated, mediamaverick, PaintyKat, gladkov, mentaldebris, whenwego, maxschell, ehavenot, Ian S, DaleA, fishhead, shanikka, gilgaiiowa, chechecule, lorikay4, Larry Bailey, FeastOr, sngmama, MadEye, KathleenM1, wader, bigmama, NMRed, steve04, crkrjx, ranger995, Timoteo, TiaRachel, yet another liberal, churchylafemme, Nemagaiq, homo neurotic, noveocanes, johnnygunn, Steveningen, defluxion10, snakelass, Maria in Pgh, The Pretzel, Timbuk3, PerfectStormer, DMiller, pdxRita, mainefem, homogenius, boran2, Josiah Bartlett, vansterdam, davidkc, Big Tex, CPT Doom, chumley, DianeNYS, bellevie, JanetT in MD, Roadbed Guy, Chinton, Halcyon, PBen, Philoguy, electricgrendel, Simplify, craigkg, barbwire, Clem Yeobright, devadatta, FutureNow, Viceroy, Penman, flo58, perky mcjuggs, Burned, cassidy3, Wufacta, QuickSilver, blue jersey mom, antiapollon, kaliope, Island Expat, FunkyEntropy, wandering i, wiscmass, tc59, The Fat Lady Sings, ZinZen, sgary, Arsenic, Matt in AA, terjeanderson, noweasels, lgmcp, rserven, esquimaux, sierrartist, Pinko Elephant, katynka, jkusters, andydoubtless, HoundDog, lokiloki, fiddler crabby, Alexandra Lynch, MJ via Chicago, bubbanomics, gooderservice, justalittlebitcrazy, FireCrow, NearlyNormal, AndyS In Colorado, Dinclusin, quantumspin, droogie6655321, dirkster42, sarayakat, means are the ends, crystal eyes, Slatefish, Picot verde, louavul, duha, Temmoku, andrewj54, OHdog, AntKat, BentLiberal, bigchin, anotherdemocrat, John Clavis, MediaHype, Castine, LV Pol Girl, gloriana, EdSF, psychodrew, linkage, andrew330, LillithMc, buzzermaster, NCDem Amy, terabytes, sfbob, newpioneer, gatorbot, dconrad, jayden, st minutia, Aunt Martha, akdude6016, chicago jeff, cyncynical, Newzie, jnhobbs, millwood, Curufinwe, Rumarhazzit, i like bbq, rf7777, keikekaze, cloudbustingkid, TomP, Casey in TN, gizmo59, jgilhousen, Light Emitting Pickle, rogerdaddy, kipzoo, Shane Hensinger, craigbear, sunshineonthebay, The Movac, rontun, robbbbb, limpidglass, beach babe in fl, Greasy Grant, Dante Zappala, Jeff Y, jarhead5536, luckylizard, BYw, dont think, DavidW, ZhenRen, Johnny Venom, Fiddlegirl, Dems 2008, Bule Betawi, smellybeast, Sportin Life, rejoice, An Affirming Flame, Boudicia Dark, banjolele, be the change you seek, Stranded Wind, dark daze, Blue Revolution, h bridges, Buster CT1K, javan, remingtonsteele, Yalin, JesseCW, Fixed Point Theorem, DefendOurConstitution, Daily Activist, unspeakable, langstonhughesfan, marknspokane, Angry Mouse, borndem, mksutherland, RyanR, allep10, dalfireplug, audiored, Agent Scully, AkaEnragedGoddess, Avarus, NThenUDie, teemel, haensgen, climateguy84, raf, CajunBoyLgb, Erica Jan, pyegar, schala, LaughingPlanet, gramofsam1, MarkMarvin, Jasont3h, fidellio, chrome327, KentuckyKat, Lost and Found, legalchic, MelKnee, AJ in Camden, Surly Cracker, Pay It Forward, alethea, acooldayinaugust, roystah, kissmygrits, keonhp, science nerd, Quote Me, TichMarie, mookyee, Colorado is the Shiznit, SoJerGuy, Lost Left Coaster, Hopeful Skeptic, Olon, Wolf Of Aquarius, judybrown, DawnoftheRedSun, two moms in Az, godlessheathen, buddingactivist, hikerbiker, elworth, texcubsf, arcticshadow
    ...instead of just dismissing it since it's Obama doing it.
      •  Perspective of why this matters (77+ / 0-)

        This is from a prologue in a previous diary of mine that really hits at the heart of why these kinds of people are so dangerous for GLBT children, their mental well-being and their very lives. It is a paraphrase of something said several years ago by either Ellen or Betty Degeneres:

        Growing up, when a black child is confronted with racial bigotry and discrimination and needs a sympathetic shoulder to cry on or sympathetic voice to give them support and comfort, the child generally has a parent they can turn to. Most black children have atleast one black parent, a parent that likely suffered from the same bigotry and discrimination, if not worse. Likewise, a Jewish child confronted with religious bigotry and discrimination generally has a Jewish parent to whom they can turn to. For the gay child however, this generally is not the case. A gay child generally does not have a gay parent that has has similar experiences facing the same type of bigotry and discrimination. Indeed, the gay child may well face bigotry and discrimination from their own parents if their sexuality is revealed.

        There are 10 kind of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.

        by craigkg on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:31:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow.. I had never considered that (20+ / 0-)

          No wonder gay youth often feel so alone and depressed.

          Thank you for the perspective.

           How many suicides before the fundies realize that they are doing more harm than good? Now that I think about it... I suppose all the gays could kill themselves, and the fundies would be just fine with it...

          To take it one step further...if there was a prenatal test for homosexuality, I bet they'd be singing a different tune about abortion.

          Culture of life... my ass... what a load of horseshit.

          "My greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I'm a little too awesome." -Barack Obama 10/16/08

          by Hopeful Skeptic on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They are fine with it (17+ / 0-)

            How many suicides before the fundies realize that they are doing more harm than good? Now that I think about it... I suppose all the gays could kill themselves, and the fundies would be just fine with it...

            The Republicans have actually gone so far as to try to cut or even end funding all together for a suicide hotline that is very gay positive. Additionally, some suicide hotlines for GLBTs are nothing more than fronts for churches and their reparative therapy programs, programs opposed by every major medical peer organization.

            There are 10 kind of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.

            by craigkg on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:38:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Fundie reaction: G/S alliances cause suicides (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mainefem, vacantlook, godlessheathen

            I don't have the link where I can find it & my connection is too slow to google, but one of the reasons given for wanting to prevent a Gay/Straight Alliance in a school, the parent quoted statistics from some anti-gay group that "suicide rates are lower the older a gay person comes 'out'" -- so they contended that Gay/Straight Alliances are dangerous for gay teens because they encouage gays to come out of the closet, and make them more likely to suicide.

            Even if I believed the "research", how many teens suicide to prevent people from finding out they are gay?

            What poisoned "logic".

            It's only half a victory when Change & Civil Rights don't include all humans

            by julifolo on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:46:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Most black children have one black parent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brizzlefoshizzle

          Obama didnt.

          The civil rights of gay people are absolutely important and should be protected without question, but your struggle for civil rights is not the same as that of people of color, and this incessant need to compare them is a huge reason why things like proposition 8 happen.  There are black people of color, so what happens when they come of age in a racist and homophobic land.

          The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

          by Adept2u on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:01:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you miss the point (16+ / 0-)

            the two 'situations' do not have to be identical for them to be instructive.  I would like to think that anyone (such as Obama) who has suffered through discrimination or bigotry would abhor it in its many forms.  This should apply to people of color as well.

            I am not Jewish and in fact I cannot even think of ever actually witnessing anti-semitism, but I can understand the damage it causes and the suffereng that results.  It's part of what makes me a progressive.

            In short, I had higher expectations for Obama.

            •  the wrong lesson in your attempts at equivalency (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Gustogirl, speet

              First, Obama has said and done more for the cause of gay rights than any other national politician i have ever seen, and has declared himself to be a staunch advocate for gay rights.  It is simply never going to work if people completely try to alienate those who hold the prejuidices and bigotry.

              On the Randi Rhodes show today I heard them try with the equivalency thing again today, she said how would a black have felt if people fought the Loving case of interracial marriage, and I have to laugh.  There were Senators, Congressmen, the News both print and broadcast that said absolutely that black people shouldnt have enjoyed any rights up to and including marrying white women.  

              You say you expect more from Obama and you will get it.  He will push the ball of all human rights forward because he belives it.  He has gone into the most uncomfortable of places and proclaimed the need for gay rights he will continue to do so.

              The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

              by Adept2u on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:35:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  no (7+ / 0-)

                I am not making any "attempts at equivalency".  I am in fact describing why they do not have to be equivalent in order to be similarly damaging to their victims.

                Your comment on Randi Rhodes only shows that you refuse to even try to understand this from a glbt person's persepctive.  That is (apparently) what Randi was trying to do, but you scoff.  Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...

                •  Of course I understand how glbt's perspective is (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  speet

                  What I'm trying to impress is that saying the experience of glbt's is like that of the battle for racial civil rights just is wrong, not that the experience of the glbt community is any less legitimate.

                  Instead of drawing comparisons where they are false put forth real examples where they are true.  There is no need to say the rights of a gay or lesbian person to marry is like the right for opposite sex couples of different races to marry.  During the battle for civil rights a gay black person would have been double whammied right?

                  The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

                  by Adept2u on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:58:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry, (7+ / 0-)

                    But I am sick of the premise of this argument. Anyone who has faced prejudice and bigotry should understand it shouldn't be accepted on any level, toward any other person. Period.

                    •  Additionally; (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DavidW

                      A person such as myself (average, straight white guy), should be fighting even harder for the rights and equality and acceptance of those who face prejudice and bigotry.  It doesn't matter what type of discrimination it is, or whether the several types can be legitimately compared or not.

                      Equivalency is absolutely irrelevant and discussion of it or comparisons between GLBT issues and black issues need to end here and now.  The fact is, we have much work to do, and anything less than full equality is unacceptable.

                      It is my hope that there is some comfort to the oppressed in the fact that I and others like me educate our children, accept unconditionally, and are actually willing to fight and die to protect ALL of humanity from oppression and hate.

                      "The revolution will be no rerun, brother. The revolution will be live" Gil Scott-Heron

                      by marknspokane on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:31:59 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  How are they different? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JesseCW, watershed

                    The rights of a gay or lesbian person to marry and the right for opposite sex couples of different races to marry?

                    Just to clarify the argument, I mean.

                    •  The rights that were excluded from black people (0+ / 0-)

                      Went far beyond just who and when they could marry.  How about whether you would be treated in the ER, or whether you would be hung at the Sunday church picnic for being in the wrong place at the wrong time regardless of your sexuality.  How about being a grown man called boy by children who have no idea of your sexuality.  How about getting clocked on the head by policemen who were applauded because you wore a sign that said I am a man.

                      The real kicker, gay black people get the double whammy and it doesnt appear anyone gives a damn about them.

                      The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

                      by Adept2u on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:35:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Coretta Scott King disagreed with you (0+ / 0-)

                    vehemently and vocally.

                    PaintyKat

                    WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

                    by PaintyKat on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:47:11 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  You would feel differently about this if Obama (0+ / 0-)

                had selected a blatant racist for the job. His reconciliatory posture extends only to the enemies of the group he's decided to throw under the bus. Basically he's building bridges on our backs, but these bridges go right over us. All I can say is I'm glad I didn't vote for him, but I feel bad for everyone who did and is in for a very rude awakening over the next four years. I suspect we're only the first sacrifice. Expect to see other expendable groups betrayed to maintain the status quo and to keep capitalism afloat. But hey! Let's wait and see, right?

          •  Leaders in the civil rights struggle (8+ / 0-)

            who worked with Martin Luther King Jr. disagree with you.  

            Those Who Lived the Struggle to End Segregation Now Speak Out for Same-Gender Marriage Equality

            Just offering a different point of view.

            Economic Left/Right: -6.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

            by DMiller on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:42:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Read your link how do they disagree with me. (0+ / 0-)

              I speak out for same gender marriage equality too.  I only state that the battle for racial and same gender equal rights are different, and the GLBT community makes a mistake when they try and equate it.  I say they would be far better served concentrating on the justice of their position.

              The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

              by Adept2u on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:02:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mainefem, gramofsam1, texcubsf

                Please explain to this queer why equal rights under the law for me differs from the civil rights of AA's.

                •  The battle for civil rights for AA's (0+ / 0-)

                  included queer AA's for one.

                  The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

                  by Adept2u on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:41:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You obviously didn't read the (5+ / 0-)

                    cited material very carefully:

                    "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."4

                    4 Coretta Scott King, 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, quoted in the Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998

                    Economic Left/Right: -6.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

                    by DMiller on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:54:02 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Obviously... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    texcubsf

                    ...the battle for civil rights for LGBT also includes queer AAs.

                    Anything else?

                  •  included queer AA's for one. (0+ / 0-)

                    That in no way answered my question as to the difference (mistake) between Queer and AA civil rights. And no- it did not include queer AA's for one.

                    •  battle for queer civil rights is more universal (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      irackobama

                      and yet more limited in that queers were not denied their basic civil rights for their being that being of color but their sexuality, for example you cant cite many examples of queers not being treated in ER rooms, or queers who stayed in the closet experiencing discrimination.  There is no black closet.  Now it is more universal in that the sexuality cuts across all race lines which is why it is a mistake to try and equate the two.  Yours is more universal as there are black queers.

                      The injustices the gay society experience need not be compared to be just.  In fact you do your cause a huge disservice and participate in a form of racism when you do.

                      The best example people use is the Loving case where interracial marriage was questioned, but I posit that was an improvement to white as well as black society as white people benefit from being able to marry who they love, however gay rights are different, not just limited to race but again universal which is why I still have my no on 8 sign in my yard, and i'm not taking it down until my queer as brothers can marry if they want.

                      The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

                      by Adept2u on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:16:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  the battle for queer civil rights include AAs nt (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    texcubsf
              •  You decried any attempts at (10+ / 0-)

                equivalency.  Coretta Scott King said:

                "We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

                [emphasis added.]

                In a separate quote she said:

                "We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle,' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

                Julian Bond said:

                "No parallels between movements for rights is exact. African-Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more than two centuries, and people of color carry the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination -- sadly, so do many others. They deserve the law's protection and they deserve civil rights too. Sexual disposition parallels race -- I was born black and I had no choice. I couldn't and wouldn't change if I could. Like race, our sexuality isn't a preference -- it is immutable, unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us against prejudices based on immutable differences."

                Thus, while you seem to believe that any attempts at equating the struggles between african americans and gays is "wrong", these two pioneers of the african american civil rights movement seem to disagree.

                Economic Left/Right: -6.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

                by DMiller on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:51:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didnt see where these people made equivalencies (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  irackobama

                  As in saying they were the same.  They are saying that they are equally just and in that I agree.

                  "No parallels between movements for rights is exact. African-Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more than two centuries, and people of color carry the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination

                  This is a more eloquent statement of my belief, but it is my belief, the parallels are not exact, they are in fact not parallel because every aspect of black society was discriminated against and not just the expresion of sexuality.

                  When I say it is wrong, I say it is, because it does not give full voice to the struggle of all gay people which is extra racial, and there lies your error.

                  The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

                  by Adept2u on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  You would be better off if you had read it before (0+ / 0-)

                making such an ass of yourself.

                At least the Coretta Scott Kings and those like her make up for your homophobic idiocy.

                PaintyKat

                WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

                by PaintyKat on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:55:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If you are referring to me (0+ / 0-)

                  You may kiss my entire ass as there is nothing homophopic about me or my views, and in fact I have stated and without qualification that gay people deserve absolutely equal rights, and its reactions like yours that makes your ass get kicked everytime someone goes to ban gay rights.  You fucking attack your friends.

                  The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

                  by Adept2u on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:26:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  The thing is... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mainefem, JesseCW

          these people are unfit to raise even their own children. The gay kids battle suicide and depression and the straight kids turn into future homophobes that grow up to abuse their own kids. I don't understand why some religious teachings aren't openly treated for what they are, a form of child abuse. Certainly  subjecting children to fear and hatred, biblically prescribed corporal-punishment and tales of eternal damnation and torture should qualify as child abuse and endangerment.
          I've noticed that many of the child-murders reported in newspaper stories are committed by crazed fundie parents; like 9 out of 10, check for yourself if you think I'm mistaken.

          •  I don't need to check (6+ / 0-)

            I know. In fact a couple of years ago I had an argument with someone over the fitness of gay parents. The other person claimed that some gays sexually abuse their children, so to prevent child sexual abuse, all gays should be barred from parenting. Not only could he not name a single instance of a single openly gay parent or same sex couple abusing their child sexually, I pointed out that here in Texas over the course of just a few years we had religious fundamentalist Texas women drown their children, stone their children, and cut off their child's arms. I asked if he thought that religious Texas women should be barred from parenting because they are liable to be homicidal maniacs. He took offense to that suggestion, but I pointed out his extrapolation that all gays must be bad parents was no better. That actually got him to atleast think about it. I don't know if he's changed his mind about is as he's never dared to breach the subject with me since.

            Half of GLBT youth that come out to their parents experience a negative reaction. One quarter get kicked out. I think that the quarter of parents that kick out their child when that child tells them they are gay are per se unfit parents and the child would be justified in never allowing their parents back into their lives. The other quarter that experience a negative reaction, but aren't kicked out, I think its less clear because I do see degrees of differentiation of the negativeness. Literally some parents have to go through the same five stages of grief one goes through when someone dies. In a sense to those parents, their child has died, atleast the image they had of their child. This is why parents need to be better educated and consider the possibility that they may have a gay child and accept that possibility long before the child hit puberty, much less before the child is ready to come out.

            I've seen that at work. I used to have two roommates (and wasn't out to either at the time) and we talked politics all the time, and the discussion frequently went to religion and sexuality or both. One of them is Catholic and wasn't very open to gay rights issues, but we had friendly, rational arguments about it on numerous occasions. Now nearly 8 years later, he has a young son reaching school age and has noticed qualities in his son that he considers to be "gay"-like. When he talked about it with me he had reached the point that he said whatever his son's sexuality turns out to be, it didn't matter to him, he just wants his son to be happy, honest and comfortable with himself and thanked me for being such a hardass on him in positively discussing gay rights issues years earlier. I know that his son won't have to worry about experience a negative reaction if the day ever comes he tells his mom and dad "I'm gay."

            There are 10 kind of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.

            by craigkg on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:12:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  People just don't (108+ / 0-)

      realize how horribly hurtful it is growing up gay in a fundamentalist religion.

      They don't realize how hurtful this pick is.  If they did, they wouldn't mock.

      Economic Left/Right: -6.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

      by DMiller on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:35:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I understand buddy, I'm an Atheist....... (52+ / 0-)

      we deal with much of the same BS the Gay community does...albeit not in the form of legislation to strip us of civil rights. However, that is only because we have no identifying civil rights to take. Thankfully as of yet there is no religious test for being an American. However the Warren invitation is as much of a fucked up thing that I can imagine. It is insulting to all progressives....this is one of the biggest "fuck you" gestures we will ever get.

      Savez-vous quelque bien qui console du regret d'un monde?

      by DawnoftheRedSun on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:36:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know your heart is in the right place (5+ / 0-)

        but I find the comparison a little insulting.
        You choose to be an atheist (hey I chose it myself). But gay people only choose whether to live openly or in the closet.
        Institutionalized homophobia, discrimination and violence against LGBT people is a tad bit more heated then against Atheists in our country.
        But, again, I do think your heart is in the right place but I think the comparison isn't really appropriate.

        "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." Pericles

        by noveocanes on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't choose to be an athiest (12+ / 0-)

          you try and try to believe what you're told you're 'supposed' to believe and you just can't do it.

          I can't fall in love with a guy and I can't believe in magical fairytales.  I didn't choose either, it's just who I am.

          And, the fundies discriminate against me for both.

          I live in a Blue State now!

          by Newzie on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:17:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry I disagree (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            liberaldemdave, texcubsf, CKendall

            I did choose to not believe in a religion. Not accepting what one is supposed to belief is not some kind of immutable aspect of one's being. I wasn't born an athiest.
            My sexuality is as much a part of me as my eye color. It is not a belief or lack of belief that I choose to have. It just is.

            "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." Pericles

            by noveocanes on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:11:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I completely disagree......... (8+ / 0-)

          I do not choose to be an Atheist. It is what I am. I can no more force myself to believe in a diety that homosexuals can force themselves to be attracted to the opposite sex. Furthermore...your suggestion that Gays suffer more because of the particular brand of intolerance leveled at them is insulting to me. Let's not get into one of these "who is more persecuted" fights. I agree there is more violence against the LGBT community....much more, but institutionalized discrimination? Please, the entire US government is set up to dis-allow both Gays and Atheists from participation. Don't forget Atheists also only choose to live openly or in the closet. They too risk being fired by the intolerant boss, shunned by the conservative family, ridiculed by religious friends....ect, ect. That being said, I, at some level, understand how you could view my above comment as insulting. But please don't alienate your allies. Both of us have intolerance as our adversary.

          Savez-vous quelque bien qui console du regret d'un monde?

          by DawnoftheRedSun on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:28:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I did say that I thought your heart was in (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            texcubsf

            right place. And I do believe that. But, yes, it is insulting to me.
            I have experienced both homophobia and anti-Semitism in my life. Both are very different kinds of bigotry and I think drawing a comparison between them is useful only to a point.
            I have never been discriminated for my ethnicity legally. Anti-Semitism has been largely culturally de-legitimized.
            This is the opposite of my experience with homophobia, where the discrimination I have faced is legal and still culturally accepted in many areas. I have faced very moderate verbal discrimination for my ethnicity; the same cannot be said regarding my sexuality where the verbal abuse has been intense and with the very real threat of physical violence.
            Neither the homophobia nor anti-Semitism I have faced compares even in the slightest to how I have been treated legally or personally because of my Atheism. And I did choose to be an Atheist in that I choose not to believe in any of the religious traditions presented to me. I wasn’t born an atheist and it is not a physical/genetic characteristic of my identity. Being gay is more akin to my hair color then adopting a religious or non-religious belief.
            Sorry but I disagree with you here, even though I know we are on the same side.
            I guess what I am saying is that while we must all fight any and all bigotry together, it's important to be culturally sensitive about the differences between them and be careful about drawing comparisons. At least I know I feel that way.

            "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." Pericles

            by noveocanes on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:01:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I see your hurt and stand with you. (66+ / 0-)

      I am not gay, but find this so offensive myself.

      If he had invited a lesbian who advocated for taking away the rights of those in Rick Warren's Church, it would clearly be called an endorsement of the GLBT agenda, so how is this not endorsing Warren's agenda? (BTW inviting such a divisive person would be wrong, even if we all agree with their agenda)

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  excellent point (24+ / 0-)

        If he had invited a lesbian who advocated for taking away the rights of those in Rick Warren's Church, it would clearly be called an endorsement of the GLBT agenda, so how is this not endorsing Warren's agenda? (BTW inviting such a divisive person would be wrong, even if we all agree with their agenda)

        couldn't possibly agree more

        We have done the impossible and that makes us mighty - Firefly

        by anotherdemocrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:15:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree - (31+ / 0-)

        I'm not gay either, but as a woman who's rights are being undermined by Warren (among others), I also find this choice offensive.  

        I get the whole inclusion thing, and the whole dialogue thing, and the whole unity thing. I voted for Obama. I made calls for him, walked neighborhoods for him, gave his campaign money repeatedly, put a bumper sticker on my car and signs in the windows in my house - all firsts for me for any candidate ever (and I'm 46). I believe in him, I trust his judgment, I respect his intelligence.

        But like Muzikal203 pointed out in her excellent  diary today, I don't see the Grand Teton of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan being invited to particpate, and they are as offensive to me as Rick Warren is, and probably to most other people as well.

        It's not apples and oranges to compare the two either. Inclusion means everyone.  Dialogue is with all segments of society. Unity is with every American.  To say "oh, well, the KKK, that's not the same thing" is bullshit - it's EXACTLY the same thing.  

        Hate is hate, spoken by a man wearing a collar or a man wearing a robe ... it's still hate, and it still means the same thing and has the same effect.

        Everything is possible.

        by legalchic on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:18:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He is not the same (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snackdoodle

          Rick Warren did not start is church as an avenue to prevent gay rights or to take away women's rights.  The KKK is there to keep black people down.  These are not his sole issues.  He has, in fact, advocated for churches doing less in politics, which I think we would all appreciate.

          The GLBT community may not believe this, but churches, even fundie ones, are about a whole lot more than being anti-gay and anti-choice.  We can agree on alot of things.

          To those who suffered from a fundie church's backward judgments - it really isn't the church's fault.  They have a right to their beliefs.  The people to blame are your parents for taking you to such a hateful place.

          •  If homophobes are just "reasonable (15+ / 0-)

            people who disagree with us," as Obama implied today, and if he wants to defend this choice because "this campaign has always been about inclusion," well, I am going to leave this sig line up for a while:

            If the campaign was all about "inclusion," where is the KKK representative at your inauguration?

            by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:08:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've been making this point over and (17+ / 0-)

              over again...

              So thanks..

              If homophobes are just "reasonable people who disagree with us," as Obama implied today, and if he wants to defend this choice because "this campaign has always been about inclusion,"

              It is such a despicable attitude and dripping with contempt.

              Some how it is still acceptable to 'include' bigots that seek to deny LGBT families and individuals full human and constitutional rights.

              If this was an issue on which 'good people can disagree' than I'm all for inclusion.  

              Denying human and constitutional rights is not something 'good people' disagree on.  

              It isn't something to be indifferent about.  It is a clear distinction and all relevant evidence is already available.  There is no waiting for a further study.  Either you believe all humans are deserving of equal protection and basic rights or you don't.  

              •  So let's keep it "us vs. them" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                brizzlefoshizzle

                So how does excluding the opposition from participation in government further the cause of reconciliation? I don't see how keeping it an issue of "us vs. them" facilitates any sort of change.

                Take, for an example, a country in which two sides are in constant opposition. History shows us the conflict will either end in 1) reconciliation of differences or 2) one side being all but driven out of the country.

                I hate Warren too, but to say Obama has thus "legitimized" homophobia seems a bit much, particularly if neither you, me, nor anyone else in this forum 1) has any idea how or whether Obama will use this moment to foster a better dialogue in the future or 2) knows what policies Obama plans to advocate.

                Is it a disappointing moment? Of course it is. But reconciliation inherently involves dealing with people you don't like. If Obama spends the next four years pandering to these same folks with no great forward movement for our side, I will gladly eat my own shoe as penalty.

                •  wtf.. (11+ / 0-)

                  this isn't reconciliation.  This is saying filthy fucks like Warren have a legitimate point of view and it is a big pat on the back and reward for waging  war against the LGBT community.  

                  Reconciliation only comes when power relations has been radically reworked an the oppressors no longer have the power to wage their oppression.  

                  This is promoting the oppressor.  Giving this particular oppressor more prestige and honor and degrading those he oppresses.  

                  If Obama spends the next four years pandering to these same folks with no great forward movement for our side, I will gladly eat my own shoe as penalty.

                  Fuck if I'm going to wait 4 year sitting on my hands and biting my lip, I already know how Obama treats the LGBT community after the last year.  I know enough to make a decision.  

                •  ... (9+ / 0-)

                  No one is advocating taking away Rick Warren's participation in government. Rick Warren can talk to more congresscritters than either you or I could, just by picking up the phone.

                  Putting this guy up on the same stage with Obama and asking him to bless the administration in front of a million cameras is legitimizing him. It doesn't matter what he says or what Obama does afterwards. The act, in itself, is saying that people like Rick Warren, who consider gays equivalent to pedophiles, deserve the high honor of speaking at the inauguration. Maybe Obama will go on to repeal DOMA, pass UAFA and give me a pony. If so I will be pleased. That doesn't mean I can't be angry about this.

                  There are a lot of people I don't like that I could stand seeing up there. I can deal with people I disagree with who are intellectually honest - my parents are in this category, so I have a lot of practice. What I cannot deal with is someone who has repeatedly and viciously lied about me in furtherance of his own agenda, and who plans to keep on doing so. Equating gay with pedophile is not just disagreeing with me and not just opposing gay marriage. It is outside the bounds of reasonable discussion and anyone who says it should be a pariah. Not invited to the damn inauguration.

                  If Obama wanted to call up Mr. Warren and get his opinion on something, I could construe that as "reaching out" to evangelicals and listening to what they have to say. That's not what this is. This is the equivalent of pinning a medal on him.

                  koee bolai raam raam koee khudhaae/koee saevai guseeaa koee alaahi/kaaran karan kareem/kirapaa dhhaar reheem

                  by m3 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:26:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Right on and extremely well said. ITA. n/t (4+ / 0-)

                    Everything is possible.

                    by legalchic on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:32:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I thik the difference in views is this. (0+ / 0-)

                    Some of us (or at least I) believe that the fact that the majority of the country (a solid, likely over 60% majority) holding a view means that it has to be treated as legitimate.  Otherwise you are calling a huge portion of this country a bunch of homophobic haters and that just isn;t going to get you anywhere.

                    •  60% of this country (0+ / 0-)

                      does not equate pedophile with gay. It is impossible to consider the comparison legitimate because it has no basis in fact. If you consider it a legitimate and responsible thing to say about gay people I'd really like to hear why.

                      I am not calling Warren a homophobic hater because he doesn't support gay marriage, or even because he thinks homosexuality is immoral. I'm calling him a homophobic hater because he has repeatedly, publicly equated me to a pedophile and encouraged others to do the same. That is the behavior that means he shouldn't get the honor of delivering the invocation. There is no justification for it, there is absolutely no reason to think that honoring him will cause him to stop doing it, and there is every reason to think that putting him up there on the stage in a position of honor in front of hundreds of millions of people will legitimize it.

                      I'm all for having a dialogue on gay rights with the large and eminently persuadable middle, but there is no productive dialogue to be had with Rick Warren because his position consists of throwing grenades at me. The only productive action with regards to Warren and his ilk is to marginalize them until they stop saying crazy shit, and engage in dialogue where dialogue is actually possible.

                      koee bolai raam raam koee khudhaae/koee saevai guseeaa koee alaahi/kaaran karan kareem/kirapaa dhhaar reheem

                      by m3 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:36:17 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That is absolutely deeply wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                        Tho I have to say that I don't think he is really comparing you to a pedophile in the sense of one who likes very young children.  I think he is comparing you to the people who marry 14 and 15 year old girls off to old farts.  You are also not that and that is not fair because girls those age (and boys) really can't give meaningful consent.  But that isbn't what most people think of when they hear the word "pedophile."

                        He does argue that legal gay marriage might eventually lead to trouble for people who preach against homosexuality, and that might be true.  Certainly preaching against interracial marriage is quite controversial.

                        We may be able to change his mind on what he can compare it to, tho.  It is certainly more comparable to interracial marriage than to any of those others.  Tho I think it is probably also legally comparable to polygamy practiced by adults (as is heterosexual marriage).  If you take religion out and consent is all that remains, then any arrangements among consenting adults could be marriage.

                        •  what? (0+ / 0-)

                          I welcome you to take a survey. Pedophile means child molester, as in "people it is okay to hate because they are deviant". Apparently you are not familiar with the long history of people thinking that all gays liked to molest little boys, that that was part of being gay. That is what Warren is invoking when he mentions pedophiles, not some watered-down and more palatable practice. The comparison is exactly as hateful as it sounds and there is no excuse for it. None.

                          As for "trouble" when people preach against gay marriage, well, having a controversial opinion is having a controversial opinion. Lots of people have them, lots of people deal with the criticism that comes with announcing them. There's no reason he should get kid gloves. If you mean legal trouble, as in new hate-speech laws, those are not an obvious consequence of gay marriage and that is thus a separate argument. fwiw I am personally against them.

                          We're not going to change Warren's mind on anything related to gay people with appeals to reason, because he has decided to form his opinion based on hate. He may change his mind someday, but it's not going to be because someone sat down and discussed the concept of consenting adults with him. He will only come to see gay people as real human beings when he encounters a gay person that he can identify with for one reason or another. Otherwise he will only stop spreading hate when it is no longer to his benefit to do so. That means we have to stop rewarding him for doing it and push him to the edges of society until he stops.

                          koee bolai raam raam koee khudhaae/koee saevai guseeaa koee alaahi/kaaran karan kareem/kirapaa dhhaar reheem

                          by m3 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:40:29 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I have only heard him say that it is like an old (0+ / 0-)

                            man marrying an underage girl.  I never heard him say it was like "pedophilia."  Has he?

                          •  you are correct (0+ / 0-)

                            that he has not used the word pedophilia - which I incorrectly thought he had. So if you like you can say that he is not equating us to pedophiles in the sense of molesters of young children, because he isn't doing so explicitly and unambiguously.

                            Here is what he says:

                            I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage.

                            This is a "Macaca" statement. It is an oblique reference to an image that everyone already knows (black men as monkeys, gay men as child molesters). It allows the speaker to invoke the image without actually saying something that is broadly offensive.

                            If you want to defend Mr. Warren he has left you room to do so. I can't deny that. To me, given his other statements about gays and - again - the long history of this particular frame, there is no question of what he is really saying.

                            koee bolai raam raam koee khudhaae/koee saevai guseeaa koee alaahi/kaaran karan kareem/kirapaa dhhaar reheem

                            by m3 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:27:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't want to defend him. (0+ / 0-)

                            I want to defend mydself and other kossacks like me who have said we should give Obama some space on this.  If Warren had directly compared gays to pedophiles, using that word, I might feel differently.  I think he is more guilty of ignorance than hatred.  Had he called you pedophiles, the scales would move further toward hate in my mind.

                •  This isn't about "excluding the opposition from (3+ / 0-)

                  government". The opposition is very well represented in government. It's about handing a very prestigious honor to a VERY bigoted person, even though there are thousands of less controversial figures who could play the role. To really make a statement, a black lesbian preacher would have been a great choice.
                  And the only reason I say that is b/c we're not even discussing the fact that the whole thing is a gross violation of the separation of church and state.
                  I fear you may have to eat that shoe.

            •  I don't know what world you live in (0+ / 0-)

              But I live in the one where gays and lesbians only came out of the closet about 20 years ago.  In comparison to other sttruggles for equality, the GLBT struggle has been quick.  It hasn't involved nearly as much death.  Should you have to fight and die and wait for freedoms?  No.  It would be nice if you didn't have to.

              But you do have to bring the people along to get things done.  Tha majority of the country is still not with you, and that means that politicians will not be with you b/c they don't want to lose their jobs for you.  And if they do, there will be a backlash and a bunch of fundies will get elected and will pass laws to set you back decades.

              One way to bring people along is to engage them, so they see that you are not the crazy, ranting, pedophilia-loving baby killers that they think you are.  Talking to people and letting them see how you live is the way you change minds.  It takes time.  I know that fundamental human rights shouldn't have to be delayed to wait for a bunch of backward-ass fundies to decide to bestow them on you.  But that's life.  If you push too hard too fast, you will see a backlash and it will not benefit you.

              Rick Warren is also taking heat from the right.  The both of them are going to come together despite thweir differences for the things they agree on - liking helping poor prople.  And I'm sorry if I think that making sure that poor people stay alive is more important than the GLBT community being able to get married.  People under 40 are with you.  It won't be that long before it happens.

          •  Really. I'm glad you're so intimately familiar (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Philoguy, Yalin, Hopeful Skeptic

            with Rev. Warren's intentions.

            And how, might I ask, is it okay for fundies to have their beliefs, but not for parents to share those beliefs and inflict them upon their children?

            A bit of cognitive dissonance in your reply.

            "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." JFK - January 20, 1961

            by rontun on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:20:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I am not sure I understand your (9+ / 0-)

            distinction here.  Fundamentalist churches might be about many other things, but the fact remains that they are organizations working intentionally to deny rights to certain segments of the population.  

          •  With due respect, whether he started the... (5+ / 0-)

            church as an avenue to deny rights or not, the fact is that he is seeking to keep GLBT down, just as the KKK seeks to keep minorities (it's not just Black people, it's Jews, and Asians, and gays, and anyone they don't see as pure white) down.  It is the same thing because boiled down to its essence, however you get to that platform, you still spout the same message - I want to deny you equality because I don't like who you love, how you love, the color of your skin, the God you worship, etc., etc., etc. ...

            It simply does not matter what Warren's intentions were.  His intentions are clearly evident now.  

            Everything is possible.

            by legalchic on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:06:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I get it, too. (6+ / 0-)

          I get the whole inclusion thing, and the whole dialogue thing, and the whole unity thing. I voted for Obama.

          What I get is that it is more important to appease the religious right at the expense of the GLBT community, and I'm a Christian that also happens to be gay.

          Since the tent isn't big enough (at this point) to include both the vast majority of the religious right and the GLBT community, Obama has made a conscious decision about a.) who he prefers and b.) who he is more comfortable with in the tent. I truly feel that a strong message is being sent that if it comes down to expedience, Obama will pander to the religious right.

          We had our warning in the primaries with the McClurkin fiasco. We in the GLBT community were told we were over reacting then, just as we're being told the same thing by the same people now.

          I still support Obama but I have to say that I'm also more than a little disappointed.

          "A time comes when silence is betrayal." ~ MLK, Jr.

          by liberaldemdave on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:51:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Bless you (41+ / 0-)

      Just like the McClurkin fiasco, this legitimization of these 'phobes has a very human price, especially to GLBTQ youth. Half of gay teens experience a negative reaction from their parents when they come out and over a quarter are actually kicked out. That's why an estimated 20-240% of all homeless youth in this country are GLBT and GLBT youth account for up to 30% of all suicides among 15-to-24 year olds. Elevating POS KKKhristians like Rick Warren and Donnie McClurkin only makes matters worse for such children.

      There are 10 kind of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.

      by craigkg on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:50:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Having been homeless as a teen (25+ / 0-)

        I suspect that it may be higher than that.

        The majority of guys my age I knew on the street were gay, although not that many of the girls.  Maybe women tend not to come out as early, or that's just because the sample base is "my experience".

        Most of the girls I knew on the street where either kicked out of the house for talking about being sexually abused, for getting pregnant, or for being caught having sex.

      •  Another comment (3+ / 4-)

        That can only point to McClurkin rather than bills or votes or anything real Obama has done.

        This lazy meme is actually starting to amuse me now. Who needs research when you have ill-defined talking points?

        Obama: "Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom."

        by BrighidG on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:06:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

          •  Still not about his votes or bills (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FutureNow

            Obama: "Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom."

            by BrighidG on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:04:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You want votes and bills? (14+ / 0-)

              Obama said he supports repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As a Senator he neither authored or sponsored a bill to that effect.

              Obama said he supports a full repeal of the D[enial] of Marriage Act.  As a Senator he neither authored or sponsored a bill to that effect.

              Obama said he supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  As a Senator he neither authored or sponsored a Senate version of that bill or worked to bring the House version to the floor.

              Obama said he supports extending hate crime protections to crimes based on sexual orientation. As a Senator, Obama did co-sponsor Sen Kennedy's Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 along with 43 other Senators but the bill failed to be brought to the floor. It was attached to a defense reauthorization bill later in the session, but after Dear Leader threatened to veto it because the hate crimes bill was included, Obama didn't object to the unanimous consent request that it be removed.

              Obama said that he supports extending non-discrimination protection based on sexual orientation to housing and public accommodations. As a Senator he neither authored or sponsored a bill to that effect.

              Obama said he supports expanding adoption rights to insure that all couples can adopt regardless of sexual orientation. As a Senator he neither authored or sponsored a bill to that effect.

              Obama's actual record on the actual GLBT issues is very thin. His vote against FMA and his nominal support for the Matthew Shepard Act is the entire depth of his support for the GLBT community in the U.S. Senate.

              There are 10 kind of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.

              by craigkg on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:40:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  what a ridiculous point to make (18+ / 0-)

          as if someone can't by their non-legislative actions or statements be damaging and hurtful or divisive.

          only the holy bill matters.

        •  if I said I wanted to kill you, (15+ / 0-)

          or said you were a child rapist, would you wait until I actively pursued legislation stating such before you chose to condemn me?

          •  I'd call you an idiot and move on (0+ / 0-)

            So which of Obama's votes on GLBT issues do you disagree with, which do you agree with and why is McClurkin more important than any of that?

            Oh, wait, I know. Because it's easier to bring up McClurkin than do research.

            Obama: "Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom."

            by BrighidG on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:07:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are not very intelligent are you? (9+ / 0-)

              Votes are not the only thing.  If you read the diary you would understnad, but your need to defend Obama no matter what blinds you to reason and evidence.

              Please think about how you hurt others.  

              "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

              by TomP on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:08:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  sure, sure (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lost and Found, texcubsf

              I'm an idiot.  I'm already only a damned to hell half person with second class rights, why not?

              here's my research, if you care to read it, since you seem to think words don't matter.

              here's what words have got us before

              •  I didn't say you were an idiot (0+ / 0-)

                I was answering your hypothetical.

                I am wondering why you're so defensive that you let it affect your reading comprehension skills and even your memory since you apparently your forgot your own argument. But whatever!

                Obama: "Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom."

                by BrighidG on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:17:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  defensive? (5+ / 0-)

                  when people whose comments inspire the less stable and more degenerate members of society to committ acts of violence against myself and my community are given a platform and a place of honor by my president, how else am I to feel?

                  please, educate me.

                  •  I meant defensive against me (0+ / 0-)

                    That you thought I was calling you an idiot for answering your hypothetical that you asked me.

                    Although really, I'd take a breath and stop looking for arguments where there are none. Wow.

                    Obama: "Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom."

                    by BrighidG on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:23:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  and to re-answer your hypothetical, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lost and Found

                  what if I had a loyal three million member following willing to take my abstract comments about your filth and unholiness to their logical and violent conclusion?

                  then, I'm still just an idiot, right?

                  •  Dude, it was YOUR hypothetical (0+ / 0-)

                    And while Warren is a homophobe he's not quite Hitler yet and I don't think he commands an army yet.

                    Though yes, anyone who randomly calls for anyone's death will always be scorned as an idiot by me.

                    Obama: "Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom."

                    by BrighidG on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:25:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not referring to Hitler (3+ / 0-)

                      I'm talking about the leaders of mega churches, collectively.

                      so I guess murder is the threshhold, then?  simply dehumanizing statements aren't enough?

                      oh, and thanks for the stfu response to my other comment, though I'm sure you'll be relieved to know that I haven't stopped breathing once since this discussion began.

                      easy enough to be uncaring, when your relationship isn't threatened, when you can adopt, have children, when people can't reasonably take a pulpit and claim that you're a moral cancer more dangerous than terrorism.

                      must be nice to have such a luxury.

                      •  I didn't tell you to STFU either (0+ / 0-)

                        Thanks for repeatedly twisting my words, attacking me and generally being incomprehensible.

                        I like how rather than bothering with logical arguments you attack me and while claiming I'm attacking you by twisting your words and you've done this REPEATEDLY all while ignoring anything to do with Obama's votes on GLBT issues which was the actual point I was making at the very beginning.

                        Wait, did I say I liked that? Actually, I meant it's giant fucking bore and makes me think less of you and this place. But, don't worry, even though I'm leaving you, I'm sure there will be someone else you can attack again and again while claiming they're attacking you.

                        Until you find that special Kossack, I hope you have a good night.

                        Obama: "Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom."

                        by BrighidG on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:39:08 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  well here it's midafternoon - (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          TiaRachel, mainefem, vacantlook, jabney

                          and honestly - I do appreciate Obama's votes on LGBT issues.  my counterpoint here is not that it's not important, but that it doesn't excuse the damage giving a platform to someone like Warren does.

                          that is not the end all, do all point of being a leader.  the selection of Warren is a lot more public than most votes in the Senate end up (believe it or not; how many people in daily conversation can you discuss the result of procedural motions or the outcomes of bills vs. the number of people who know Obama is getting inaugurated?) and the point is decisions like this matter as well.

                          so, sorry if I'm abrasive and "incomprehensible," but the argument you're making is the same as someone voting for a woman's right to choose and making public statements that such actions are murder.

                          talk about incomprehensible (the preznit elect, not you).  

                          moreover, how do you wade into this type of diary or discussion and not realize that things of this nature, and McClurkin, are deeply personal to a lot of people and are sure to evoke visceral, emotional responses.  either you've never been in one before, or you should come prepared.  the selection and elevation of idiots and bigots whose mission is to drum up hate and misunderstanding regarding gay issues is not something that most members of the gay community are willing to quietly overlook.

                          is that a more complete, comprehensible, satisfactory response?

            •  it might be helpful to scroll up once in a while (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The Fat Lady Sings, JesseCW, texcubsf

              ...instead of continuing to make your singular counter argument. as indicated upthread:

              Obama said he supports repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As a Senator he neither authored or sponsored a bill to that effect.

              Obama said he supports a full repeal of the D[enial] of Marriage Act.  As a Senator he neither authored or sponsored a bill to that effect.

              Obama said he supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  As a Senator he neither authored or sponsored a Senate version of that bill or worked to bring the House version to the floor.

              Obama said he supports extending hate crime protections to crimes based on sexual orientation. As a Senator, Obama did co-sponsor Sen Kennedy's Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 along with 43 other Senators but the bill failed to be brought to the floor. It was attached to a defense reauthorization bill later in the session, but after Dear Leader threatened to veto it because the hate crimes bill was included, Obama didn't object to the unanimous consent request that it be removed.

              Obama said that he supports extending non-discrimination protection based on sexual orientation to housing and public accommodations. As a Senator he neither authored or sponsored a bill to that effect.

              Obama said he supports expanding adoption rights to insure that all couples can adopt regardless of sexual orientation. As a Senator he neither authored or sponsored a bill to that effect.

              Obama's actual record on the actual GLBT issues is very thin. His vote against FMA and his nominal support for the Matthew Shepard Act is the entire depth of his support for the GLBT community in the U.S. Senate.

              There are 10 kind of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.

              by craigkg on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:40:58 PM CST

              Now we have more than one instance of actions not meeting Obama's rhetoric, compounded by his tepid record, brought out by craigkg above.

              I still support him, but I'm putting my rose colored shades back into the eyeglass case.

              "A time comes when silence is betrayal." ~ MLK, Jr.

              by liberaldemdave on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:08:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  uprated for ratings abuse (0+ / 0-)

          Not a great comment (whatever else one thinks about it, the McClurkin decision was "real"), but not hideworthy.

    •  I wanna know how Warren being there or not will (5+ / 0-)

      Affect the rest of your existence, do you get any more rights for him not being there, does gay marriage get approved if he doesnt show up, what is there to gain other than "We got rid of him for the inauguration".

      Sorry but to me thats just stupid, show me some meat on that bone cause I cant find it.  Are gays worried about winning a beauty contest or having the policies that will affect the rest of their life passed during the Obama Administration.

      So the trick here is lets embarrass Obama so he drops Warren, gets pissed and then ignore us and our issues for 4 years, is that the LGBT leaders master plan? , I mean in doing this they are telling Obama "WE DONT BELIEVE IN YOU" so why Obama would then go out of his way to please them on anything ever again I ask?

      McCain/(Hagee+Parsley) '08 "We Hunt Jews and Muslims So You Dont Have To. Straight Talk"

      by DFutureIsNow on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, there's no remedy (16+ / 0-)

        to this particular situation that would prove constructive. But it was a boneheaded decision that is essentially a slap in the face to the LGBT community and liberals more generally.

        We need to make it clear that Rick Warren is a controversial religious figure who should be on the margins of American political life, not at its center.

        Rick Warren will be the speaker. But Obama needs to know that this was a screwup, and an insult, and an act with some level of political ramifications. He needs to know that so it doesn't happen again.

      •  Excuse me, but exactly HOW . . . (26+ / 0-)

        . . . does having a bigot deliver the invocation at the inauguration get progressive LGBT legislation, or any other progressive legislation, passed?  I want the step-by-step of this process, please.

        Putting bigots on your team only reinforces bigotry and endorses gay-bashing in all its forms.  Gay men and women in this country are murdered every year because bigots like Warren are respected and tolerated--much less invited to give prayers at inaugurals.  Blood is on his hands--and on the hands of his apologizers.

        "If elections really changed anything, they would be outlawed."--Emma Goldman

        by keikekaze on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:27:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So your solution is to erase them and their views (0+ / 0-)

          from the face of the earth, sounds exactly like what you are accusing them of, not being inclusive, not being tolerant of your situation.

          Again dude, dont get me wrong I am not about to defend Warren, all I am saying is this is a vicious circle and it won't stop unless someone steps in the middle and draws a line in the sand, have you given tought that maybe that is what Obama is trying to do, actually solve the damn problems that affect this country year after year once and for all. Everybody talks about "the problems" but do they ever "get solved", just think about that. To me thats change.

          McCain/(Hagee+Parsley) '08 "We Hunt Jews and Muslims So You Dont Have To. Straight Talk"

          by DFutureIsNow on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:10:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't put words into my mouth because you can't . (6+ / 0-)

            . . . overcome my actual argument.  I didn't say one word about "erasing them from the face of the earth," and you know it.  Erasing their views, yes--although I hadn't actually said that, either--but that's something quite different, and a completely legitimate goal in the general improvement of the world that progressives are supposed to stand for.  

            "If elections really changed anything, they would be outlawed."--Emma Goldman

            by keikekaze on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:57:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  here is the limit (5+ / 0-)

            I can respect people I disagree with. I am ready to build coalitions with people who oppose gay marriage, even though they hold a position that has no legitimate argument to back it up, because if I really listen to them and they really listen to me I firmly believe I will win the argument.

            I am not in favor of giving a high honor like speaking at a presidential inauguration to someone who believes that I am morally equivalent to a pedophile or a dogfucker, and who tells other people to think the same. There's tolerance and inclusiveness and then there's not standing up for yourself as a real human being. What he thinks and says about gay people is the definition of unacceptable.

            koee bolai raam raam koee khudhaae/koee saevai guseeaa koee alaahi/kaaran karan kareem/kirapaa dhhaar reheem

            by m3 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:40:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  OK, let's take another Warren position... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            ...and see just how damaging it can/could be for Obama:

            Rick Warren has publicly stated that it would be ok if we were to assassinate Ahmadinejad.

            Rick warren is a fundamentalist preacher (the middle-eastern equvialent of a "radical cleric").

            Hypothetically speaking, wouldn't there be a collective uproar denouncing a prominent middle-eastern theologian that called for the assassination of an American President?

            The choice of Warren isn't bad just for us in the LGBT community, it's bad for our country's floundering international reputation.

            "A time comes when silence is betrayal." ~ MLK, Jr.

            by liberaldemdave on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:25:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I was being sarcastic, I guess you didnt get it (0+ / 0-)

          So I cant give you a step by step, that is the point, that it means nothing since you are not getting anything from Warren being there or somewhere else.

          McCain/(Hagee+Parsley) '08 "We Hunt Jews and Muslims So You Dont Have To. Straight Talk"

          by DFutureIsNow on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:20:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't believe in Obama. (23+ / 0-)

        I don't believe he will actually fight for me to have equal rights.  I fully anticipate a trotting out of "we have other more important things to deal with".  And I anticipate that because I haven't ever seen anything from politicians other than lip service about equality.  And the selection of Warren is just another sign post upon the road in that direction.

        And yet, I voted for Obama because who else am I going to vote for?  And the problem is every Democrat knows that.  They can string us along over and over, but when it's their turn to fight for us, they don't.

        •  Next time, don't. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          keikekaze, JesseCW, roystah

          Don't vote for Obama in 2012 unless he actually comes through for us -- and repealing DADT, which three-quarters of the country supports, won't cut it.

          I won't.

        •  So you believe in change that works for you but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Timbuk3

          if it does not work for someone else then thats ok, so long as it works for you.

          All I heard from Obama was stuff like bringing people together, working across party lines, sitting everyone at the table including those we disagree with, seems to me that is exactly what he is doing, so you must have been hiding under a rock for the past 2 years if you felt he was going to do otherwise.

          McCain/(Hagee+Parsley) '08 "We Hunt Jews and Muslims So You Dont Have To. Straight Talk"

          by DFutureIsNow on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:24:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Having someone pray to God on your behalf... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mainefem, texcubsf, CKendall

            ...is not sitting at a table engaged in dialogue.  This is not an act of bringing people together, it's an act of alienation of a loyal constituency.  But then, that constituency can and has always been talked up to when it comes election times and then ignored at best, betrayed at worst, during the actual governing.  And we have to go along with it because the alternative is always worse.

            Even in voting for Obama, I never believed change would come on the issue of my equality in this country.

          •  Your defense of Obama on this pick... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW, texcubsf

            ...is really amazing considering your signature line. The difference between "Hagee+Parsley" and Rick Warren are virtually indistinguishable.

            "A time comes when silence is betrayal." ~ MLK, Jr.

            by liberaldemdave on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:30:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  To answer your question . . . (16+ / 0-)

        You write:

        so why Obama would then go out of his way to please them on anything ever again I ask?

        Maybe because 70% of the LGBT community gave Obama their vote in the presidential election.  Maybe because millions of gay Americans (including me) contributed money to Obama's campaign.  Maybe because loads of us worked for his campaign.  And maybe because Obama may need our money, votes, and support again at some point.

        And by the way, if this is the way Obama is starting out, do you really think it's a sign that he's going to be extremely interested in "our issues for 4 years"?  

      •  Reread the diary (13+ / 0-)

        This isn't about rights or legislation.  This is about symbols of acceptance and the alienation of gay youth leading to suicide.

        What's unfortunate is since it's already announced, it's hard to backtrack.  That was the same situation we found ourselves in when Obama had Donnie McClurkin, an "ex-gay" who goes around telling gays to pray to god to take the gay away, speak at one of his campaign events.

        The Donnie McClurkins and Rick Warrens of this world contribute to the alienation that causes gay youth to kill themselves in disproportionate numbers.  By putting them on a stage with him, Obama spreads their message and indirectly kills gay youth.

        No on Prop 8::Sometimes I get to hitch a ride on the Democratic Bus--they let me stand on the back bumper.

        by steve04 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:39:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You just proved my point after McLurkin why you (0+ / 0-)

          would vote for him, because u trust he will do what he said he will do right? Does having Warren changes any of that, of course not. I am just sayin accusing Obama of betraying some sacred rule is ridiculous.

          McCain/(Hagee+Parsley) '08 "We Hunt Jews and Muslims So You Dont Have To. Straight Talk"

          by DFutureIsNow on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:30:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Warren makes me trust him less. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            julifolo, FutureNow, texcubsf

            McClurkin was a problem, but I happily gave him a pass.  I was angry when McClurkin went and used the open mic to spread hate after Obama said he wouldn't.

            This time around, I think Obama should know better.  I have very little room left for understanding and trust on this issue.  This is strike 2.

            I hope there isn't a strike 3.

            I'm having trouble understanding where you stand on this issue from your comments, so sorry if we agree and I just don't get it.

            No on Prop 8::Sometimes I get to hitch a ride on the Democratic Bus--they let me stand on the back bumper.

            by steve04 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:05:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  As someone else who was upset over McClurkin... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            steve04, texcubsf, CKendall

            ...yet still voted for Obama, let me repeat what others condemning criticism of Obama on this site have said multiple times: who else would we vote for, McCain?  It's not like we actually have much of a choice.

      •  just keep us in the closet? (8+ / 0-)

        Yes, us LGBT should just shut up with our "secret plans" for equality and respect huh? Disgusting piece of work you are.

      •  At this point, frankly (4+ / 0-)

        I'd like to see major LGBT organizations accept this Warren character and in the same press release/statement say they look forward to President Obama quickly advancing the repeal of DOMA/DADT in addition to strongly supporting pro-lgbt legislation across the board.  And then not let up.

        Cheers.

        Formerly of Ann Arbor (AA). Now in Baltimore!

        by Matt in AA on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:44:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obama is sending a message (10+ / 0-)

        The message should be homophobia is wrong and is not to be tolerated, but that's not the message he's sending.

        To Rick Warren, we are a threat.  We threaten the nation's families, values, and principles.  Of course that's hogwash.  But this choice by Obama is at least tacit approval of Warren's ideas.  

        I don't know.  Maybe Obama has a grand scheme going on.  Kill them with niceness and inclusion.  Thing is, they've enjoyed niceness and inclusion all along.  Us?  Not so much.

        Warren's message is one of hate that promotes hate.  Promotion of hate among the non-GLBT leads to much worse like beatings and murders.  On the part of the GLBT community, that hate leads to shame, exclusion and worst of all, suicide.

      •  You are missing the point completely. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, mainefem, rontun, texcubsf, CKendall

        We're not complaining about having our rights or not because of Warren's presence at the inauguration.  We're complaining because Warren as a bigoted religious leader should never be given a spotlight, to take center stage at the inauguration of a President who's promised to bring changes to the government and end divisive politics.  You apparently don't understand the pain and you refuse to listen even as so many others are explaining at length why it's a problem.  Mind you it's not just gay people who are complaining about it.

        And you know what, it is pretty sad that you said what you said:

        So the trick here is lets embarrass Obama so he drops Warren, gets pissed and then ignore us and our issues for 4 years, is that the LGBT leaders master plan? , I mean in doing this they are telling Obama "WE DONT BELIEVE IN YOU" so why Obama would then go out of his way to please them on anything ever again I ask?

        No one is trying to pull any "trick".  No one is trying to embarrass anybody.  We are only speaking out against a bad choice and expressing our disagreement.  If Obama will be the kind of President who would retaliate against disagreement then he is not the kind of President I want. If he ever feels he's going out of his way when it comes to promoting equality and civil rights, then I'll have no problem saying goodbye in 2012.

        •  Sorry but betrayal and treason are harsh words (0+ / 0-)

          and thats what some people are saying, again I am not defending Warren or his beliefs all I'm saying is why try to win a battle just to eventually loose the war.  

          Only time will tell how this will affect LGBT issues all I am saying is you dont go about things like this in this way but again, only time will tell.

          McCain/(Hagee+Parsley) '08 "We Hunt Jews and Muslims So You Dont Have To. Straight Talk"

          by DFutureIsNow on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:39:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  In response to your last question (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, mainefem, texcubsf

        Obama claims to be a supporter of equal rights for gays & lesbians- although he is selective in them (see marriage).

        to talk about him 'pleasing' or not GLBTI is the kind of language that completely belittles what's this about, and unfortunately is the icing on the cake for the tone in your post.

        This is about people's fundamental human rights. GLBTI aren't some lobby group seeking money for their self-interest. It's about fundamental human rights.

        Your last sentence suggests that Obama should flippantly toy with whether to use his enormous power to help bring about those rights on the basis of whether GLBTI make his life easy or not.

        That's just utterly wrong.

        As for the rest of your post, no there's probably nothing that can be done now about Warren, but you, and Obama, could listen hard and with an open heart and mind to the hurt this decision has caused GLTBI people, and determine not to cause that hurt so needlessly again.

        "This just can't get more disturbing!" - Willow

        by myriad on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:19:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Let's see. We should accept being trashed and (8+ / 0-)

        never lose our faith or belief in Obama because to do so would give him pause to reject "going out of his way to please us".

        I'm sorry, but if Obama is truly the incredible leader and moralist you're upholding him to be, it should make no difference whether or not I believe in him. He should do what's right on the basis of its morality.

        And as for embarrassing Obama, I'm sorry. I'm not embarrassing him. His selection of Warren is embarrassing him.

        "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." JFK - January 20, 1961

        by rontun on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:29:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Trying to Understand (5+ / 0-)

      Some of us understand that it hurts, and we aren't "dismissing it since Obama's doing it," but rather, we believe that reaching out in a limited symbolic way to those who oppose us will help us in substantive ways when we stand against them in the political process later.

      •  Hatred of gay people... (9+ / 0-)

        ...runs too deep for something like letting Warren pray to God for Obama to stop the homophobes from pushing to have gay people marginalized as much as possible.

      •  Reaching out to the far right? (9+ / 0-)

        There's a legitimate reason to reach out to moderate religious people.  They might actually work with us.  The far evangelical right is never going to work with us.  There are plenty of other religious leaders who are not a sharp stick in the eye for pro-choice or pro-gay-rights people.

        No on Prop 8::Sometimes I get to hitch a ride on the Democratic Bus--they let me stand on the back bumper.

        by steve04 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  do you really believe that? (0+ / 0-)

        and if so, explain to me how it works in this instance.

        really, it seems to me that the political expediency gained here is that Obama does not tow the left wing line, doesn't need to, and the gay agenda is part of the same liberal outrage as cabinet picks - something that has been both overblown and marginalized.

        well, whatever.  we'll see.

      •  Nonsense (8+ / 0-)

        I keep seeing and hearing this stuff to the effect that:

        we believe that reaching out in a limited symbolic way to those who oppose us will help us in substantive ways when we stand against them in the political process later.

        but nobody is reaching out to the racists.  Why not?  Simple. You wish to reach out to and include and not insult and anger racial minorities.  Big time.

        But it is ok to reach out to the homophobes.  Why?  Is it becasue you don't wish to reach out to and include the GLBT community because you dislike them, or mereely because you figure that they have no other choice?

        "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

        by enhydra lutris on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:52:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Howard Dean Did (0+ / 0-)

          ...nobody is reaching out to the racists...

          And despite the kerfuffle, he was probably right to do so.

        •  actually, that's not it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          texcubsf

          Obama isn't reaching out to the KKK, and he isn't reaching out to Fred Phelps.

          But he courted the votes of people whom most of us would count as racists. And he courted the votes of people whom most of us would count as homophobes. And he got some of those votes, plus some grudging respect from some others.

          Of course that's not the only thing worth saying about this decision. I've just read several comments (not yours) comparing Rick Warren to a Grand Wizard, and it isn't working for me.

    •  I identify with this diary so much. (21+ / 0-)

      I also went through the period of self-loathing.  I eventually became an atheist because my existence did not square with the teachings of the Bible.  Eventually, I learned to realize that God didn't hate me.  His follower distorted the Bible as they had for centuries.

      God Bless You!

      Thank you for this diary.  It really is helping me understand my anger.

      "Rather than being an ancient phenomenon, it appears that homophobia is relatively modern but that traditional values are exploited to justify it."

      by psychodrew on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:13:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  From another one of the tribe ... (23+ / 0-)

      Reading your diary made me feel good about the posts I made on the other diaries that argue against those who would refer to our deep-seated anger with such disparaging, demeaning terms like "hissy fit".

      This man is promoting an ideology which gave you two choices, to reform yourself, or be destroyed.  And since the former was impossible, you were leaning towards the latter.   Although I don't know you, I am so glad you decided not to go through with the suicide.

      Your story is why I fight.  For people like you, like me, who simply want an acknowledgement of our existence as something natural (to us, at least) and therefore not something to be ashamed of.

      The power to affirm one's own existence in the face of a society for whom your existence does not fit in its age-old, threadbare pattern, that is what I celebrate about being gay.  

      When our President says "yea" to someone who spends most of his time trying to get rid of any civil rights I may have, then yes we have the right to get angry.  

    •  i understand why it hurts. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, mainefem, craigkg, TomP, h bridges, JesseCW

      i grew up in white, christian suburbia.  i hated myself for not being white or christian.  my views on religion and especially christianity would be shunned here.  these people ruined my fucking life for a good 12 years.  i will never forgive them.

      unfortunately, we live in a country where the majority are religious, and a large portion are so tied up in christianity that they can't understand anything that isn't couched in christian language.  these people have been lied to by their church, they have been told the same lies that you were.  i don't know how to deal with these people, but i feel like the inauguration is going to be the start of a long, and painful, struggle against intolerance of all varieties.

      i don't want no peace, gimme equal rights and justice.

      by keonhp on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:23:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you so much . . . (10+ / 0-)

      . . . for this very much needed diary.  Unfortunately, it looks like diaries like this one are going to remain very much needed for some time to come.  Too many people still don't get it, as if "bigotry that doesn't directly hurt me is okay."

      "If elections really changed anything, they would be outlawed."--Emma Goldman

      by keikekaze on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:39:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I truly believe (10+ / 0-)

      that God put my nephew and I together so I could be there for him when he came out...he lives in KY and has evangelical parents... but all the while he was growing up, I knew he would need me one day and I planted seed after seed getting ready for that moment... he is a little better adjusted than many of my gay friends were at his age... and I am grateful that God chose me to be there for him... because we are never going to get rid of all the bigots... just because the law allows interacial marriages now, the hate didn't just get up and walk away...

      O - It's not just for Oprah anymore!

      by crkrjx on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:43:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You almost told my story (8+ / 0-)

      but I came closer to killing myself a couple of times. I look back with surprise that I survived.

      I was thinking of writing the same kind of diary, but it would not have been as hopeful. I've been at this to long and I'm tired of talking and fighting.

    •  What I don't understand... (13+ / 0-)

      ...is why so many people seem to think that just because they aren't personally insulted or hurt doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong with including bigots and their defenders in the inauguration. On what ought to be an historic occasion marking a tremendous amount of progress we've made as a nation against bigotry, we ought not to be giving a voice to anyone who promotes discrimination.

    •  Vacantlook, thank you for sharing your (15+ / 0-)

      profound insight and for providing somewhat of a refuge for those of us truly offended by the insensitivity being displayed by so many Kossacks on this issue.

      When I came out to my mother her response was "I'd rather you be dead."

      It was on the occasion of the funeral of one of my best friends who had committed suicide as a consequence of his being unable to reconcile his homosexuality with his Catholicism, his abuse at the hands of a priest, and his family's condemnation of him for being culpable in that abuse.

      I was devastated by the loss, and sat sobbing at the kitchen table in my parents' home immediately prior to leaving for the funeral home. My mother said, in a convoluted attempt to comfort me, "Well, it was probably for the best. He would have been miserable his entire life."

      In disbelief, I responded "I can't believe you said that. I'm gay. Is that how you feel about me?"

      That's when she retorted, "I'd rather you be dead," before slapping my face and storming out of the room. My father subsequently told me not to come home after the funeral. It took nearly twenty years to even partially bridge the divide.

      These are not incidents that I talk about openly or freely, and in discussing them today it's not out of a plea for sympathy, but with the hope that people will come to understand why Obama's decision is so hurtful, and why I feel so terribly betrayed by those Kossacks who dismiss the pain as being trivial in the overall scheme of their lives.

      "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." JFK - January 20, 1961

      by rontun on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:16:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's heartbreaking. (6+ / 0-)

        I was deathly afraid that my mom would have a similar reaction if she ever found out about me.  It took her a while to be ok with it once she found out, but she didn't reject me when I told her, and I'm really thankful for that.  She told me that my brother and sister were trying to blame my somewhat absent father for making me gay, but that she countered replying that neither of the two of them were there for me any more than my father was.  It made me proud that she would still defend me even while she herself wasn't (yet) ok with me being gay.

        Thank you for posting your story and adding it to the discussion.  They're horrible, painful memories, but I do think that us telling our stories over and over again are the only way that straight people who've never had to live through the pain we have can even remotely come to understand the impact of homophobia.

      •  your story nearly brought me to tears (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mainefem, rontun, texcubsf, CKendall

        I am stunned, and frankly have a hard time believing someone could be so heartless to another human being... let alone their own child!  

        To think that the indoctrination that occurs in churches could lead to that behavior... boggles the mind.  

        If anyone ever disagrees with me that religion is brainwashing... I will cite your story as evidence to the contrary (unless you mind, of course).

        I'm really very sorry you had to go through that.

        "My greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I'm a little too awesome." -Barack Obama 10/16/08

        by Hopeful Skeptic on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:46:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Never thought of it that way... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mainefem, texcubsf

      thanks for the insight

      "The revolution will be no rerun, brother. The revolution will be live" Gil Scott-Heron

      by marknspokane on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:15:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama has legitimized hate against the gay (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PaintyKat, mainefem, CKendall

      community.

      He is setting the stage for institutional hate directed at the community, as well as just embracing the right wing religious zealots.

      Obama has punked those who voted for him, stood in the rain for him, worked the hustings for him.

      Obama has no class.

      Warren has no class.

      We're back to the sleaze of the Bush/Republican years.  

      There is no intelligence or sense of morality that would truly embrace Rick Warren.

  •  This is incredible. Just really incredible. (15+ / 0-)

    Too frequent rewards signify that the enemy is at the end of his resources; too many punishments betray a condition of dire distress.

    by publicv on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:33:31 PM PST

    •  I just read Obama's talking points where he (46+ / 0-)

      congratulates himself for being for equality for all Americans, NOT!

      He is for civil unions only, which is not full equality, it is a seperate but equal position, that he off all people should understand.  Both as a constitutional scholar and as an AA.

      If he did support full marraige equality, I might be able to back him up in such a "grand gesture."   But since his own position is deficient, he is in no position to be sending grand gestures with other peoples lack of full rights.

      It's clear to me now, that he just doesn't get it.  He an his staff, apparently are clueless.

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:40:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  great comment, very minor quibble (10+ / 0-)

        i'd suggest that when rubber meets road, right granted via civil unions (when / where they currently exist) are separate and UNequal.

        that said, tipped.

        I'll give you this here wedding ring when you take it from my cold, dead hand.

        by homo neurotic on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:48:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that's done on purpose. (7+ / 0-)

          Pass separate but equal, then let the Courts knock it down citing Plessy.  He's not for gay marriage, per se, so he doesn't take the political hit; the "activist" Court does.

          The Republican Party: the party of greed, hate, anger, fear, waste, death and destruction!

          by ultrageek on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:57:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's an interesting theory... (7+ / 0-)

            unfortunately, I have trouble believing the Obama team is trying to be so clever.

            •  actually... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HoundDog, Potus2020, JesseCW

              ...as much as I have been out front and out loud on this issue, I think this is pretty likely, what with him being a Constitutional scholar and a law professor.  It's worth noting that, if it goes this way, even Scalia thinks that this is a safe bet and that's why he was advocating a Constitutional amendment.

              The Republican Party: the party of greed, hate, anger, fear, waste, death and destruction!

              by ultrageek on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:35:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  c'mon now (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                homogenius, Potus2020, CKendall

                Forget about being a constitutional law professor at U. Chicago.  You can just be an office secretary there to know you don't want to give a constitutional case to this Bush/Reagan/Bush Supreme Court.

                •  Pondering separate but equal (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mainefem, JesseCW

                  Brown v. Board of Ed is a really curious case in the history of American jurisprudence.  It is probably the closest thing to a fixed point of law as there is and I actually think that the strength of stare decisis on the separate but equal question might be enough to win the point on this case.  (Justice Kennedy, I'm looking at you.)

                  BUT...if you actually read Brown, it's not really based on any real Constitutional principles.  Even the most liberal legal scholars (David Strauss, I'm looking at you) admit that there's a certain degree of lawlessness in the actual decision.

                  Of course, that doesn't mean the decision was wrong.  It was clearly right in terms of justice and equality and morality.  And that is why the case has really stood the test of time as far as being seen as one of the few inarguable principles we have in this system of law.  Which is also why marriage equality will eventually happen - there is absolutely NO WAY to maintain legal and intellectual integrity while denying equal marriage rights for same sex couples.  Sadly, that won't stop lots of people from trying.

          •  I had really thought Obama (4+ / 0-)

            had enough courage not to have to hind behind the Robed Ones.  Sadly, that appears to not be true.

            And I do not buy this business about traditional marriage or the sanctity of marriage at all.  Texas for years has had a system of informal marriage which bypasses any religious interference.  A man and a woman can simply wander down to the Travis County Courthouse, procure a form from the appropriate clerk, and declare themselves married with the full protection of the law.

            Two men cannot.

            Two women cannot.

            It is the pure civil marriage many discuss, but was foreclosed to gay people deliberately when the anti-marriage amendment passed our legislature.  Shacking up?  I can sue and find you married if you hold yourselves out to be, and enforce community property laws to reach your spouse's property in some cases to satisfy a debt.  But not if you are gay.  Oops - sorry that actually discriminates against heterosexals in favor of homosexuals. I have actually filed such a suit (a divorce by the wife in an informal marriage).  There is albeit a bit of humor in that the church element in Texas had to endorse shacking up to discriminate against gays - but they needed a couple of critical votes in the House, and took the plunge.

            § 2.401.  PROOF OF INFORMAL MARRIAGE.  (a)  In a
            judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a
            man and woman may be proved by evidence that:
            (1)  a declaration of their marriage has been signed as
            provided by this subchapter;  or
            (2)  the man and woman agreed to be married and after
            the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife
            and there represented to others that they were married.

            Texas Informal Marriage

            God and ego are not equivalent expressions of reality.

            by Othniel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't buy it either but from the other side (0+ / 0-)

              My religion (Judaism, not some nouveau goddess birkenstock unshaved armpit lesbo invention, despite the name) recognizes same sex marriages just fine.  Not unions.  Not commitment ceremonies.  Marriages.  So, I'm married.  Stood under the chupah.  Broke the glass.  Have the Chatubah, the whole shootin match.  Married.  Except that Illinois doesn't recognize it because both my sexual orientation and my religion are delegated second class because some church wants to preserve its right to hate.  Well, fine, hate away.  But stop saying you're representing the guy who got crucified because he said to love people.

              The Republican Party: the party of greed, hate, anger, fear, waste, death and destruction!

              by ultrageek on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:31:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I've thought that too at time ultrageek. But (6+ / 0-)

            this latest press release where Obama congratulates himself for supporting full equality makes me think he really may be clueless and doesn't get it.

            He's seems honestly think he's blazing the trail and we must regard him with hero status.

            Rather, than the actuality, is that his position provide cover for all of those who think it's okay to deny 10% of the population full rights.

            Like "Well, if the President says its equality and equal then what are those gay folks whining about?  Oh, you know how they are?  Ho, ho, ho."  

            Sheesh.  This is starting to get annoying.  

            The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by HoundDog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:44:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with you that civil unions are not equal (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          homo neurotic, homogenius, craigkg

          and so does the NJ study.  I only used the "seperate but equal phrase" to refere back to the SCOTUS fining, that ultrageek tell us may be called "Plessy."

          Sorry, I'm not a scholar.  I like your "seperate but unequal" phrase, but my experience is that when I start trying to be too clever rhetorically, folks sometimes don't get my points.

          I might leave the fancy rhetorical tricks to silver tonqued devils like yourself -- and Obama.  :-)

          The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

          by HoundDog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:41:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ya know, (14+ / 0-)

        if he were really offering Federal recognistion of civil unions, I'd take that.  But I don't think he is in favbor of that.  I think we are the first ones thrown under... and it makes me think if there is more to come.

        "I'm just sayin... don't bring that horse in here!" -- Cassandra

        by tc59 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe we should read what he's in favor of, (5+ / 0-)

          instead of conjecturing.

          I've posted this link numerous times today:

          http://change.gov/...

          Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

          Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

          I believe his team has also related that using "civil unions" terminology could help to defuse the claims religions make on their version of "marriage" vows, etc.

          "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

          by wader on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:12:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm glad he says he fully supports us. (8+ / 0-)

            I wonder if he will ever show it.  Here was his first chance, and he didn't care.

            "I'm just sayin... don't bring that horse in here!" -- Cassandra

            by tc59 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:16:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here was his first chance - not. (4+ / 0-)

              See the post above for a 2006 chance, where Obama did the right thing. Also, Obama is not just the President of the LGBT. He is also the President of a huge amount of evangelicals (whose abundant existence is much to my chagrin) and he seems to have shopped for an evangelical, who has at least a love and not a hate message.

              •  Not a hate message? (19+ / 0-)

                Boy, if you think Warren's message isn't one of hate, then you REALLY haven't been paying attention.

              •  You're so wrong (16+ / 0-)

                Warren's message is a hate message.  There are lots of religious leaders who have a message of love, and the reason plenty of us are fighting mad about this is he could have picked one of the lovers, and instead he picked a hater as some sort of sop to the far right evangelicals who didn't vote for him anyway and aren't about to start cooperating with democrats.

                No on Prop 8::Sometimes I get to hitch a ride on the Democratic Bus--they let me stand on the back bumper.

                by steve04 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:44:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well, it's generally a love message, hiding (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TiaRachel, chrome327

                the hate with a smile and look of sincerity.

                Sort of like Billy Graham, just different in demeanour.

                "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                by wader on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  well, I don't know if that's really fair wader. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wader

                  I'm not a Christian so this isn't really my fight.  But Billy Graham did not seem to be a hateful person to me.  His theological outlook wasn't modern in this sense.  

                  But, did he every go out of his way to denounce the GLBT, or oppose marraige equality?   Maybe, but I never heard it.

                  He was my Mom's favorite television minister.

                  Perhaps, I'm being weak logically, in which case I apologize.  But, I don't think everyone who fails to support full equality is filled with hate.  

                  Some are.  And they exploit division to bolster their own popularity.

                  But, don't you think their are other folks, who just haven't completely understood yet?  Based on the way they were brought up maybe?   Like I don't really sense that Obama is a hateful person.

                  I appears to me to be quite compassionate and wise in a general non-specific way.

                  I disagree with him on this one issue and believe he needs to upgrade his position.  And  I beliegve he will once he understands the hurt it is causing so many.

                  Am I wrong about Billy Graham?   (I wouldn't have Graham necessarily give the invocation either, but he doesn't seem as bad as Warren, who according to what others say, actively has used anti-GLBT messages to build his flock.)  

                  The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

                  by HoundDog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:01:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's why I mentioned a different "demeanour", (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JesseCW, CKendall

                    really, and did not intend to be unfair.  There's all sorts of gradiations to hateful messages, whether we know that we harbor them or not.  It's how others react that perhaps most defines what is hateful.

                    In this case, Billy Graham (and, his son) spoke clearly on the Bible telling them what the morality of homosexuality happened to be, which was certainly on the "conservative" side.  It was only in his later years that the senior Graham softened in this area, IMHO - he would defer from making proclomations, interpretations of what God said on homosexuals/homosexuality from scripture, etc. and instead offered that he didn't want to get involved with charged issues such as gay marriage, anymore.

                    Billy Graham may not have intended hate at all, but for years he promoted a religious perspective which happened to include hateful elements toward gays - even though he did so with great earnestness of purpose and belief.

                    No, I don't think that invalidates all the positive inspiration he offered.  Only on this point did I see an item to compare the messages coming across from the pulpits, though the styles (overt and almost political vs. well-meaning but unfortunately unempathetic) have certainly come across differently, in terms of style.

                    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                    by wader on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:13:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  And, by the wayy (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JesseCW

                    I should have mentioned something intended in the prior post, but stupidly left out.

                    I apologize for being unfair and insulting your - and/or your mother's - perspective on Billy Graham.

                    Sometimes I just digest my thoughts for a quick post, at least to keep conversation moving when I'm shorter on time than desired.  But, even then, I recognize that my views above may be inconsiderate in the fuller context you offered.

                    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                    by wader on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:01:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Billy Graham was once asked (0+ / 0-)

                      If "God hates homosexuals"

                      After about thirty seconds of stunned silence he said "God doesn't hate.  God is Love".

                      Then his turd of a Son claimed that wasn't what his dad meant to say...

                      I'm just saying the Grahams can't be considered as a unit, really.

              •  Two men together is on the same level... (5+ / 0-)

                ...as a man sexually abusing a child.  That is something Warren has preached.  Feel that loving message.  [sigh]

            •  I think he said pretty clearly that he cares, (4+ / 0-)

              but that he also has to reach out to those bigots on different areas of commonality, as well.

              This is a tough road and I'm sure he anticipated this level of reaction.  Even though I think this choice is a potentially useful political play towards a longer term goal of slowly weening hardcore haters away from the subjects that they love to hate, I am torn because of the short-term pain it legitimately causes in others at this time.

              I wouldn't want his entire Administration's efforts (linked to above) in the LGBT realm to be undersupported when his Administration gets into gear due to this event, is my worry.

              Yet, he still needs to reach out to the crazy evangelicals at some time, anyway.

              Maybe this isn't the best way to do that, but I'd imagine the other side (i.e., committed followers) is wondering the same thing.

              As an atheist, I've had reasonable scorn heaped upon me and been called soulless, etc., but that's nothing to what being gay causes people to endure - I only got some of that when walking with a friend who was President of our college LGBT alliance group on the grounds, being jeered, insulted and threatened just for existing in the same airspace.  Opened my eyes up at the time right quick.

              "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

              by wader on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:32:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I guess I don't understand why (13+ / 0-)

                you think he needs to reach out to evangelicals.  He does not need their votes.  He did not get them in 2008 and will not get them in 2012.  Their beliefs are religious and don't belong in public policy or in governing.  He needs them, to steal my favorite feminist line, "like a fish needs a bicycle."

                "I'm just sayin... don't bring that horse in here!" -- Cassandra

                by tc59 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:38:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because they are USA citizens (0+ / 0-)

                  and they are almost a pure Republican stronghold, since the 70s.  When Republicans specifically went out looking to deal with equally power-hungry church leaders on wedge issues that could benefit them both.

                  Breaking that lockstep means it won't stand, anymore.  And, that this kind of accepted bigotry and hate will not stand with it.

                  It's not just votes.

                  "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                  by wader on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:27:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  yeah. and (5+ / 0-)

                Warren claims he's not a homophobe.

              •  You seem to be a good and thoughtful person wader (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wader

                Your position doesn't upset me.  And, I must confess that I too have fallen from the grace of logical "purity" as I not only supported Dukakis, the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, and Obama in their civil unions stance, just to win elections, but I also argued with and convinced my many GLBT friends to do the same, with the promise that once we gained power, we would do the right thing.

                Now I have to do payback.  As I mentioned above, if it were just up to me, I would be just as Machievellian about taken the Obama Federal Civil Unions for all states legislation if he would work like heck to pass it, and then less it to the SCOTUS to strike down the wording under what I think Ultrageek may be saying is the "Plessy" "seperate but equal" is not acceptable standard.

                But, many in the GLBT clearly do not find this to be acceptable.  In penence for my past, somewhat self-serving and admittedly hypocritical tolerance  for civil unions only, to win elections, (which I still think may  have been correct politically, if not morally) I think I have to follow the lead of theh GLBT in terms of what "they" want.  

                Sorry, I recognize there is not one voice here.  But, the dominent position seem to be full marriage equality now, which seem most correct to me, also.

                The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

                by HoundDog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:12:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I also feel that the civil union terminology is (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JesseCW

                  misleading, unfortunately.

                  Obama/Biden intend it to mean the federal-level equivalent of marriage, just with a more bureaucratic name.

                  However, it's known that civil unions today are generally state-bound and fall far short of bestowing the same rights and recognition across the union.

                  I've been quoting the change.gov site all day, because I feel it's important to consider what Obama/Biden are actually proposing in this area, rather than clinging to misconceptions due to the poor reuse of terminology, in this case.

                  As seen above, a little information can make people see things somewhat differently, then make the next, logical (and emotional) step in the right direction: push Obama's Administration and Congress to follow through on their policy promises for LGBT.

                  I am taking a practical position here in order to see what might actually work, hoping that these awful and valid emotions being brought out in rightful reaction to the Warren choice might eventually find some minor solace in the fact that this choice may be showing a deaf ear to gays in some respects, but it doesn't seem to have any affect on the larger goals Obama has for LGBT rights and respect.

                  Which is very, very tough to say when he attempts to soften Warren's message by inviting him into the larger picture with the rest of us.  Obama may be willing to take this severe and deserved criticism for the larger, long-term good, perhaps.  I hope so, because that's what I logically see here.

                  And, I fully support this backlash with accompanying feedback to the Obama/Biden transition team.  Only good can come of Obama and folks seeing this happen without filters.

                  "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                  by wader on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:27:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wader

            I believe his team has also related that using "civil unions" terminology could help to defuse the claims religions make on their version of "marriage" vows, etc.

            And I, agreeing by 100 % on this issue with Obama, find that consideration an extremely smart one.

            Enlightenment and Responsibility

            by anaxiamander on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  While this might be a clever political strategy (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TiaRachel, mainefem, homogenius

              what do you think about those in the GLBT communites who see this as dening them equality.

              It does not seem right to play political football with other peoples constitutional rights.  

              If we had been back in the 60s would you have horsetraded full equality for AA with George Wallace?

              Like if he would agree to stay in the party and help deliver the Southern States you would agree to compromise with his "separate but equal" should be good enough for African Americans.

              I believe the Democratic Party did the right and courageous thing to drive Wallace and the racist from the party and support the Voting Rights Act, even thought it cost us the southern states  we still have not won back.

              But we also won the lifelong loyalties of the AA.

              Would it not be a wiser, and more morally acceptable goal to be trying to win the lifelong loyalties of the GLBT now, rather than trying vaque pandering to right wing folks fighting against full equality for an equally large fraction of the population?

              The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

              by HoundDog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:19:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Success does matter (0+ / 0-)

                I will give you some ideas of mine on this.

                (1) I think it is most important to give LGBT people a legal framework as soon as possible the sustainability of which they can trust ("marrying" people and nullifying that marriage in a ballot or act of a legislature two years later is outright cruel). A concept called "gay marriage" would be subject to revocation efforts for decades at least, a concept called "same-sex civil union" could provide for a secure settlement.

                (2) I see no sense in diverting for decades a gigantic amount of progressive political energy and goodwill from moderates into a battle about nothing more than a word in a statute book. You might call this "political opportunity cost".

                (3) "Separate but equal" refers to separation in real life. We talk about nothing more than a different word in the statute books, with everything in real life being the same (and everybody in real life can call it a "marriage" if he/she chooses so).

                (4) There is no scientific basis to divert people into different "races". There is a scientific basis to divert people into two different sexes, so a different terminology for heterosexual unions and homosexual unions is intellectually justified.

                (5) All of the above are reasons why all Europeans, including all countries and political parties considering themselves progressive, went the "civil union" way.

                (6) Once the institute of same-sex civil unions is securely established, you can still go for renaming it "marriage", if you want to. But first and foremost go for the substance. (Personally, I would anyway prefer to have the state offer "civil unions" for both heterosexual and homosexual couples and leave the term "marriage" to the private and religious sphere).

                (7) I am very confident that the LGBT community would credit democrats with attributing to same-sex unions each and any substantial right of heterosexual marriages. These people are not stupid (even if some of their activists appear to try hard to give that impression).

                Enlightenment and Responsibility

                by anaxiamander on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:55:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  wader, If the government wanted to get out of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            the marriage business entirely and offer only civil unions to everyone, it this would be okay.

            Personally, as a divorced heterosexual who thinks marriage is a highly problematic institution after losing my business in a 10 year probate battle with my ex-wife, I would think if Obama really pushed for a Federal Civil Unions Act in all states and got it passed in the next year it would be quite a step forward.

            However, when I suggested this here about three or four years ago, in a series of about 12 diaries, I heard from a lot of my angry GLBT friends who said this was symbollically unacceptable.

            And, that it was essentially support for the "seperate but equal" positions folks encouraged Rev King to accept for AAs.  Ironiclly, I believe the original meaning of the "fierce urgency of now" came from his rejection of this "compromise."

            The seperate turns out to be "unequal."

            And why shoudl the GLBT accept this second class citizenship?   Because Obama, Warren, and people like him have religious, or other exclusionary sentimential attachments reserving the word "marriage?"

            This is not right morally, and it seems to me, who admittedly is not a consitutional scholar, to violate the 14th amendment.  And maybe the 1st too.

            The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by HoundDog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:54:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I am afraid you are the one not getting it. (2+ / 0-)

        You let the perfect (marriage) be the enemy of the good (civil union), you do not see the difference between Warren and real awful preachers, and you do not see the possibility that Warrens flock gets exposed to some Obama thinking on gay rights - which for them will be a very huge step forward.

      •  Who DOES Get It? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        clearcreekborn

        Who among the national candidates supported gay marriage? Kucinich? If he did, he could afford to. He knew he wasn't going to be nominated.

        Before the Massachusetts SJC ruling in 2004, "gay marriage"--in the Massachusetts sense of it, with town clerks issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples--wasn't even on the gay rights radar screen. Vermont, the only state with full civil union rights for gays, was a magnet for gay couples from all over the US, and held up as a model for other states by gay rights leaders. The lawsuit in Massachusetts was an attempt to establish Vermont-like rights in Massachusetts. The SJC took the argument a step further.

        The Vermont model is what Obama supports. He's not opposed in any functional way to gay marriage. He's not going to jawbone for an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to negate their gay marriage ruling.

        Personally, I support gay marriage. But right now, when progressives should be trying to pass civil union legislation on a state-by-state basis, many states are busy outlawing gay marriage instead. How many state Supreme Courts are ready to sign on to the Mass SJC's legal theory? Maybe a few. But if they do, you'll see anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments and Prop 8 type referenda instantly.

        Unfortunately, the choice right now confronting gay people is: do you want the same civil rights as married couples or do you want a piece of paper from the town clerk that says you are "married?" Most Americans agree that you should have the former, but most don't want you to have the latter. If you insist on the piece of paper, you may not get either. Fight battles you can win.

        •  Pushing a meme doesn't make it true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel, mainefem

          This is about a hell of a lot more than equal access to marriage.

          Try reading the diary you're commenting on, for starters.

        •  funny.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          I remember back in 2003-4 having this exactly same argument about civil unions: Vermont was a fluke, why not fight a battle you can win instead, like against employment discrimination?

          Prison rape is not funny.

          by social democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sounds similar also, to the argument the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            Democratic Party had with George Wallace in the 60s.  But that time the Party was taking the more courageous side of the debate.  How sad.

            The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by HoundDog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:30:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  And they were right. After all, (0+ / 0-)

            gay marriage STARTED as a result of a lawsuit against a hospital that denied spousal visitation rights to a gay couple. The plaintiffs weren't demanding the right to be married. They were demanding equal rights with married couples, rights they would have had if Massachusetts had a civil union law like Vermont's. "Marriage" per se, was never their goal.

            And if it had been, if they had sued the town clerk's office demanding a marriage license, they likely wouldn't be married today.

        •  Shouldnt we respect the rights of the GLBT to (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel, mainefem, homogenius

          choose which battles they wish to fight?

          LongTom, you should read Rev King Letter from the Birmingham Jail where he refutes the very similar argument moderate whites and even some AA were telling him and other AA.

          King rejected you line of thinking and it's my impression his use of the "fierce urgency of now" was part of that refutation.

          How poignant, that Obama seems to be reversing it's meaning after exploiting the phrase as an election slogun to accomplish his own advancement.

          I'll agree with you if you say such a choice my imply a longer more intense battle.  But it is a choice the GLBT have a right to make.

          And the rest of us, who benefited from their help to win our rights, should stand in solidarity with them in the struggle regardless of which choice they make.

          I believe they will find this position more helpful than giving them lectures on how happy they should be with your compromise.  

          The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

          by HoundDog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't recall Dr. King marching for the rights (0+ / 0-)

            of African Americans to marry whites. I don't recall him marching into southern town halls demanding marriage licenses for mixed-race couples.
            Gosh, I wonder why he didn't do that? Surely he believed that laws against mixed-race marriages were unconstitutional?

            The criticism that you mention was mostly about the tactics of freedom marches and civil disobedience, not Dr. King's goal of ending segregation.

            Of course GLBTs have the right to make their own mistakes. And I, personally, DO stand in solidarity with their goal of social equality. But I also have the right to an opinion about their strategy.

    •  Whatever (5+ / 0-)

      You can't really claim that I don't get it, since I'm both queer and have been subject to the flames of religiousity at multiple times throughout my life.

      Not to mention a commentator below, but you can just keep telling yourself that we're all just friends of homophobes and we're not criticizing bad tactics.

      Does Harry Reid have a "plan" or is he just in some permanent live-in-the-moment state gone frighteningly wrong?

      by Nulwee on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:51:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  bother (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mediamaverick, TiaRachel, JesseCW

        Bill Cosby, anyone?  Michael Steele?  Ken Blackwell? just because you're unsympathetic doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the pain of others.  moreover, what about this move is tactical?  explain to me what Obama has gained by this other than outrage from pretty much every corner of the blogosphere.  the religious right will still hate him, the first time he's forced to affirm a woman's right to choose.  or defend free speech in a way the right doesn't like.  or any of a thousand things that will rake their ire just as surely as this.

        buy a moment of temporary respite when he's already at 75% approval just says to me how much he'll "lead" when the honeymoon is over.

    •  I don't get it. I really don't. (3+ / 0-)

      I'm not a Warren supporter. I would never go to his church but he is very popular and Obama has to appeal to all Americans. There are a lot of Americans - a whole lot of Americans - who do not agree with the idea of gay marriage. There's another big group who do not agree with abortion. Add to them the even bigger group who prefer "traditional" values (whatever we make think of them.) Are these people not allowed to have their voice in our democracy - not be represented? I think this "controversy" over a simple invocation to be goddamn stupid and petty. Why can't we all get a grip and aim our fire at the really important issues? For heaven's sake!

      •  you don't want to get it (16+ / 0-)

        Rick Warren is a national symbol of hate and intolerance, gussied up as a moderate version of Falwell, Robertson, and the like. obviously, it is important to some people that national symbols of hatred not be held up as exemplars, and rewarded with national honors. what the fuck is difficult to understand about that?

        It was only a couple of flipper babies!

        by itsbenj on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:34:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is an important issue. (10+ / 0-)

        Civil rights are always an important issue.

        •  No one is arguing about civil rights. (0+ / 0-)

          What's actually under discussion is, what person should deliver a 2 or 3 minute prayer of undetermined content. This level of outrage is out of all proportion to it's importance.

          Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

          by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:41:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Same reaction if it were blacks/Jews he had said (12+ / 0-)

            were equivalent to pedophiles?

            •  Not that I understand your comment, (0+ / 0-)

              but I think I get the tone.

              I've already been asked in another thread, another diary if I would accept a statement by the Grand Wizard of the KKK if it were balanced by a NAACP representative.

              My answer was, "certainly", because it would be a blatant exposure of the divides our nation must bridge. Now, do you think Obama isn't smart enough to figure that out?

              A Suggestion: the wonton tossing around of the terms "pedophile" and "homophobe" as part of dramatic thrashings is not making any friends amongst the very people most willing to help.

              Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

              by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:54:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Would you understand if (9+ / 0-)

                African Americans were upset that the KKK was being given a place of honor at the inauguration?

                Or would you call them "melodramatic," as well?

                •  I give up. Enjoy your drama. (0+ / 0-)

                  Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

                  by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:22:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So now a simple, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mattman, homogenius, chrome327

                    straightforward question is "drama."

                    •  Wow, I think you got it right! (0+ / 0-)

                      When does the F'ing drama over a 2-3 minute speech/prayer stop? It will be counteracted by another minister of diametrically opposed views, and, who knows, maybe neither of them has ANY effect on Obama's principles? And Oh! BTW, we don't even know what the hell these people intend to say!

                      FREAK OUT NOW!

                      Gee, what a concept.

                      Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

                      by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:10:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I take it you won't be answering my question. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        homogenius
                        •  None of them will answer the question. (5+ / 0-)

                          And it's not difficult:

                          "Would you be OK with a white supremicist minister giving the invocation?

                          Would you be OK with a minister who denied the holocaust and actively tried to convert Jews?

                          Would you be OK with any minister who used the bible to deny civil rights to any group of Americans?"

                          None of Obama's defenders here will answer.

                          "Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."

                          by homogenius on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:42:54 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I can't defend Obama on this pick but there (0+ / 0-)

                            is a whole host of things I can defend him on. It's that simple. If you want to completely abandon him because of his pick, so be it. But if that's the direction of this blog, abandonment of Obama, I'll at least have to take a vacation from it. This whole blog was crazy nuts about his election and suddenly he's a pariah worse than Bush? I worked too hard for him and worried too much about him to turn my back on him now.

                        •  Actually, I've answered that same question (0+ / 0-)

                          a number of times already.

                          If the Grand Wizard of the KKK was allowed to speak at the inauguration and, as in this case, was followed by someone of the opposing view, say the head of the NAACP, then I can imagine that serving Obama's purpose very well. It could easily be used by Obama as a demonstration of the divides we must bridge. In fact, that is exactly what I think he is doing with this issue.

                          Yeah, yeah, yeah, you think that's crazy and I "don't understand your pain" and "there are larger questions at issue".

                          If Obama isn't the right person to deal with these issues, why didn't you see that someone else was elected?

                          I answered your question, now you answer mine.

                          Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

                          by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:21:19 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  First of all, I am African American (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FeloniousMonk

                  and I absolutely cannot equate my history with the situation of the gay community and it is, frankly, downright offensive that gays keep trying to do that. In addition, this comment is silly because Pastor Warren is a far cry from the KKK unless you have seen him running around in a sheet, planting on-fire crosses on people's lawns, dragging innocent people out of their homes in the dead of night, stringing them up on a rope, cutting off their private parts and blinding them with a fire poker and then setting them on fire (and let's add if the innocent person happened to be a pregnant woman - cutting the foetus out of her belly in the process.) Now, if you see Warren engaged in any of these activites (or perhaps ALL of these activities) then I will grant you that Warren is the equivalent of the KKK. If not, you really are whining over nothing. You have NO idea what it's like to really be oppressed in this country. Please stop trying to pretend that you do. It's dishonest and annoying.

                  •  Who are you replying to? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    homogenius, newpioneer

                    I said no such thing.

                    •  I'm trying to reply to you, Fiddler Crabby (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mainefem, FeloniousMonk

                      Didn't you just post the question asking me if I thought African Americans would be upset over a speaker being from the KKK.

                      •  Someone else set up that hypothetical. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TiaRachel

                        The only comparison I was making is that it's reasonable to assume that a group who's the target of a speaker would be upset at his being chosen for such an honor.

                        WI resent the implication that gay people all think alike. I've never compared the historical oppression of African Americans to LGBT oppression. Ever. They're profoundly different.

                        But that doesn't mean that our oppression doesn't exist.

                  •  And while I'm at it, (6+ / 0-)

                    it's dishonest to claim that gays are not oppressed.

                    I'm not going to get into some kind of oppression competition, but just because our oppression isn't the same as yours doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

                  •  Oh yeah... (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TiaRachel, mainefem, homogenius, Pender

                    ...gay people have no clue what it's like to be oppressed in this country.  It's not like straight people don't to this day kill us because we're gay.  Oh wait, they do.

                  •  You seriously need to get a clue. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TiaRachel, mainefem, Pender, palinisajoke

                    Oppression is oppression. There's no sliding scale. Being denied a job is being denied a job. It doesn't matter the reason. Being murdered is being murdered.

                    So you believe that the leaders of the black civil rights movement are wrong? The national NAACP, Coretta Scott King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and John Lewis? Because they all support LGBT civil rights.

                    You are the one who is dishonest and annoying. And I'm tired of your bullshit.

                    "Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."

                    by homogenius on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:47:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •   First of all, I am African American (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mainefem, Pender, JesseCW

                    Listen you selfish fuck. Did you know that queer kids were routinely committed to mental institutions, given shock treatments and lobotomized as a matter of course into the 1950's in the U.S., were hung for buggery, tortured with the red hot poker, mutilated throughout Christendom and still are throughout the Muslim world.
                    Suicide % for queer teens in the U.S. surpasses any other group.
                    Pardon e moi, I am so sorry that I might see a similarity for the fight of equality under the law with your own.
                    How offensive, this dirty queer would actually compare his struggle for the right to live unmolested, to your Hetero-jesus sanctified by divine right to be free.
                    Forgive me....douche

              •  Rick Warren SAID we are equivalent to pedophiles. (12+ / 0-)

                Now you're blaming me for it.

                Unbelievable.

                Here's a link to the goddamn video: http://www.youtube.com/...

                I'm really looking forward to your explanation of how he wasn't really equating us to pedophiles even though that's what he said in plain language on national television.

                •  I give up. Enjoy your drama. (0+ / 0-)

                  Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

                  by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:22:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  um, where? (0+ / 0-)

                  You mean, when he said this?

                  ...The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

                  Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

                  Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion – this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews – historically, marriage is a man and a woman....

                  In my reading, that doesn't say that gays are equivalent to pedophiles. I disagree with what it does say, and I disagree with what you said -- unless there's support for it somewhere else in the video, which certainly is possible.

                  •  Hello? What are you sniffing? (5+ / 0-)

                    You paste the quote and then ignore it? I just watched it on Rachel.

                    I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage.

                    ...

                    Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

                    Oh , I do.

                    In what way is that unclear?

                    How is "an older guy marrying a child" NOT pedophilia?

                    "Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."

                    by homogenius on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:08:53 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  this actually is not hard to understand (0+ / 0-)

                      Warren is saying that as he understands the definition of marriage, a same-sex couple can no more get married (because marriage is between one man and one woman) than an older guy can marry a child (presumably because there is no possibility of consent).

                      This doesn't equate gays with pedophilia, any more than going on to say that a flower can't marry a tree would equate gays with plant life.

                      I have no problem with people criticizing what Warren said, as long as they are criticizing what he said -- and making some effort to distinguish between that and what they believe it implies.

              •  Your rights matter very much to me (3+ / 0-)

                And those of many similarly situated.

                Should we, as a society, consign all felons to lives with no job? Before you answer, think what options are left those people.

                Please, this seems to be the perfect example of how our system has gone wrong as it relates to felons rights. All advice and discussion are welcome. I know this is a touchy subject, so, please, try to be a bit sensitive. I'd like the people involved to be able to read your comments without trauma.

                From Your Diary

                Please make more of an effort to understand our position and our hurt, as many of us have made to understand yours.

                We all belong.  Those who would exclude us from the New America must accept that we are real people with real hurt and real pain.  We hoped and we won - then we got tossed aside.  

                Please try to understand and accept.

                Thanks.

                God and ego are not equivalent expressions of reality.

                by Othniel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:18:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Strangely, I do. (0+ / 0-)

                  I see no discrepancy between my diary and your plight.

                  My diary points out a societal problem. That is a problem I have, and will continue following up with action with our legislators. I am not blitzing this site with invective, but only stated a problem in the system, citing a particular case.

                  It is not the same thing as daily/hourly declaiming the background (all of which is not evil) of one who is about to do a 2-3 minute presentation, followed, at some point, by another who holds diametrically opposed views. In addition, neither person has told us what they intend to say, or if their intended comments/prayers even relate to the subject of all this hand-wringing. In addition to that, there cannot be a conclusion drawn as to the influence either of those viewpoints has on Barack Obama.

                  I am passionate about my cause for felon's rights. I have not and will not call people names if they differ. That would be self-defeating to my cause.

                  The level of acrimony exhibited by those who are hurt by the Warren prayer is beneath the dignity of the cause being espoused, and demeans that cause. Worse, this KosBlitz may well be alienating some who might otherwise offer more enthusiastic support. And all, over who has been chose to deliver a 2-3 minutes speech/prayer with unknown content. If it were my political show to run, this is surely not how I'd run it. Of course, you people will do what you will do.

                  Personally, I still support your rights. You want the help of people like me? Stop acting like I am a despicable enemy ... then I'll begin to actively support civil rights for gays ... once again. If you don't want my help, well fuck ya'.

                  Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

                  by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:50:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  A personal note to Othniel. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Othniel

                  I regret my last FU comment, but only as it relates to you. You have taken a reasonable approach which I respect. My FU comment is directed to many others who refuse to recognize that "life ain't fair".

                  All our lives are, regretfully, reduced to balancing "how it should be" against "how it is". That sucks, but that's the way it has always been and, so far, nothing has ever transformed things to the way they "should be".

                  Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

                  by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:43:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks for saying this (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mainefem, FeloniousMonk

                    As a gay Criminal Defense attorney I often advocate, especially for young people, to be able to stay out of the conviction system.

                    Really, we all matter.

                    And the gay community is angry, and rightfully so.  It helps when those with whom we advocate for the rights of others take time to help us through our hurt and pain.

                    And there is a hope expressed in our Constitution that We the People can progress and make matters as they should be.  After all, there is a Progress Clause, but no regress one.

                    And the living document does impel all of us forward.  

                    Pax.

                    God and ego are not equivalent expressions of reality.

                    by Othniel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:53:22 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I appreciate your willingness to discuss (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Othniel

                      this issue without rancor.

                      Some of your colleagues are less ... reasonable.

                      My burgeoning Felon's Rights push is not that different than the Gay Rights issue. Some of your colleagues(?), OTOH, make that a politically  unacceptable comparison to draw as part of a campaign.

                      On the other side of the coin, you sir (or madam), are worthy of serious attention. I do, honestly, see the parallels, but the base of the two groups is quite different :)

                      Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

                      by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:35:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There is actually more overlap (0+ / 0-)

                        than most know.

                        All civil rights are important.  Some GLBT folk may react to the genetic/immutable issues more than others.

                        My law career happens to give me insight in this area some may lack - and I see it as a very serious aspect of American society.  Too many are excluded and stigmatized by our seeming need to incarcerate everybody forever for anything.  I am especially concerned about job issues, voting rights and simple healing.  I remember reading the diary from which I quoted when you wrote it, although I lacked the time to comment then.

                        One humorous note - for a brief moment in time Gay people in California prisons had conjugal rights with their gay spouses while heterosexual folk did not.  This haphazard approach to civil rights yields odd results.

                        Have a good evening, and know you do not struggle alone.  My e-mail is in my profile, feel free to write.

                        God and ego are not equivalent expressions of reality.

                        by Othniel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:24:43 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  There is actually a pretty big difference: (0+ / 0-)

                        it's not gay people's fault that we're gay.

              •  You need to understand. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TiaRachel, mainefem, Pender

                No one is "wanton[ly] tossing around [...] the terms 'pedophile'".  Rick Warren has very pointedly said that two men together is the same level of abhorrence as a man sexually abusing a child.  Rick Warren, the man that Barack Obama has chosen to pray to God on his behalf during the inauguration ceremony, thinks I'm as horrible as a pedophile.

                •  vacantlook, you and I have had our exchanges. (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not going to replay them. You have something new to say? Say it (btw, this ain't new).

                  Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

                  by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:45:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Um, you are commenting in my diary. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mainefem

                    How can you actually think I'm not going to confront your stupidity here.  If you don't want to be called on it, you don't have to comment here.

                    •  "Your" diary doesn't allow you to decide who (0+ / 0-)

                      comments or what they say. Live with it.

                      I haven't cast aspersions on your intelligence as you just did with your "stupidity" remark.

                      I DO confess to implying that you may have missed your medications ... just not in this diary ... yet. Try to deal with the world we live in, not the one you WISH we live in, okay?

                      Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

                      by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:42:24 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  (R)AMEN! (0+ / 0-)

        Thank you. I needed that note of sanity with melodrama excluded.

        Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

        by FeloniousMonk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:37:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  are they not represented? (5+ / 0-)

        Yes, there are a great many people with the kinds of views you describe. But I can't see that they aren't being "allowed to have a voice in our democracy" or are "not represented." They are very well represented in politics and in the media - far better represented than marriage equality advocates are, in fact.

        I don't see this as petty. This is a very powerful political figure who works very hard to deny another group of people their basic human rights. That is a very serious matter. If I were a member of that group, I wouldn't want him giving the invocation, and I wouldn't be quiet about it.

        Prison rape is not funny.

        by social democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:10:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  They can have their voice (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, mainefem, homogenius, two roads

        They can call their congressman, write letters to the editor, or turn over a tub and stand on it on the street corner preaching to all who pass by.

        They don't have some right to have their guy give the inaugural invocation. If they do, then why not the Klan?

        We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

        by dconrad on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:10:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Would you be willing to... (5+ / 0-)

        ..."get a grip" if you were the one that Warren says is the same as a pedophile?

  •  Thank you for sharing (35+ / 0-)

    your pain.  I wish Obama could read this.  It would help him understand.  He's a good person who just needs to understand more.

    "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

    by TomP on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:36:56 PM PST

  •  As someone who has been gay-bashed (10+ / 0-)

    complete with cracked ribs and a broken nose, I really have to ask if you think that hating them back will make things better?

    I feel that engaging in the culture war is losing the culture war.  They aren't going to be the ones to stop it, but we can be.  And by taking the higher ground, by forcing them out of their "we're poor hated rightwing religious folks" defensive crouches and forcing them out into the public at large is how we engage them.  And win, without ever fighting.

    I'm a Kos Noob. Please don't hit me. Not the face!

    by EthanPeretz on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:37:13 PM PST

  •  Right there with you, vacantlook (17+ / 0-)

    I grew up in the Pentecostal Assemblies of God church. I know exactly what you're talking about. My pastor harbored the same beliefs about gays as Warren does.

  •  At age 44, (44+ / 0-)

    I have come to understand that there are people in the world that cannot see the harm they do.  There are people in the Democratic Party, and on this very site, that are awestruck at how angry the GLBT community is, and honestly wonder why.  All my shouting, all my pleas, all the tears spilled on my keyboard elicit from them nothing but puzzlement.  Why, they ask, are you so upset?  I tell them in the plainest possible language, using every analogy and example that comes to mind, and still blank confusion.  I tell them to imagine themselves in a similar situation, but you know what?  THEY CAN'T.

    I have come to understand that being gay is so different, so alien, so innately foreign to the average person's experience that it is therefore impossible for a straight person to feel what we are feeling at this moment, which is this - a deeply personal, hurtful diss by the President that we helped elect.

    No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

    by jarhead5536 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:39:17 PM PST

  •  I can understand why it hurts (3+ / 0-)

    I also can understand how Obama is systematically cutting the repubs off at the knees. Killing them with kindness kindof.

    In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

    by yet another liberal on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM PST

  •  Nicely said (24+ / 0-)

    Obama's legitimization, indeed his rewarding, of homophobia and virulent anti-gay rhetoric is not just hurtful to me in a personal sense, but causes me to fear for people who will be harmed, both physically and in other ways, but such legitimization.  People around here can try to dismiss my perspective by telling me to stop my "bleating" or "outrage" about a "non-issue," but I will not shut up about it.

  •  People like Warren cause such misery (29+ / 0-)

    It was hell enough for me to hate my sexuality and try futilly, mentally to change it for several years as a teen.  I can't imagine what people go through who try longer than that, who repress having any experiences or love, who think there is an actual hell and they might go there.

    And I'm so sick of "I tolerate gays when they're around me so I'm not homophobic even though I oppose gay rights and compare gayness to horrible acts."  Just because you're not torturing someone on a fencepost like Matthew Shepherd's killers doesn't make you some noble, open-minded non-homophobe.  

    The only place where Republicans are anywhere close to responsible is in the dictionary.

    by DemDachshund on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:43:15 PM PST

  •  Thanks for sharing this (10+ / 0-)

    I know it must be difficult to retell.

    Semper avarus eget.

    by Avarus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:44:11 PM PST

  •  What I fail to understand (30+ / 0-)

    is why do many people here, alleged "progressives", consider gay rights "far-left issues."  Last time I checked, we were a mainstream issue, backed by half of the country.

    Obama's words today made it worse -- I understand why he chose to speak at Warren's church or even take him on campaign stops.  But front & center, to lead off the Inauguration?

    My feeling is that if you are not with us, you are against us.  There is no "indifference" here.  Part of our struggle is against "indifference" itself.

    "I'm just sayin... don't bring that horse in here!" -- Cassandra

    by tc59 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:47:40 PM PST

  •  I'm So Tired Of This Discussion (19+ / 0-)

    Mostly because I'm gay and I'm fatigued at being a political football my entire life.

    I wish people in power would stop playing games with people's lives.

    Been wiretapped lately?

    by m00nchild on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:47:44 PM PST

  •  My best friend in college (23+ / 0-)

    told me his coming out story:

    He grew up in the Baptist church and believed. But he never felt that zing with girls and he formed attachments to male friends. But he was a believer, so he placed his faith in the church and ignored his own feelings. He trained for the ministry and got married, but nothing seemed right in his life. After several years of misery in his marriage, he found himself sitting under a tree, with a shotgun in his mouth. He saw no future, no release from misery, so he pulled the trigger. And the shotgun jerked away from his face leaving him unharmed.

    Being a believer still, he saw that as a sign from a loving deity that he was not to give in to misery. He began to accept his own nature, and went home and came out to his wife. He said that was the hardest thing he ever did.

    I know it's unusual, most gays aren't Baptists, but he truly believed from his own experience that he was loved by God as he was created. Seems to me his experience is at least as valid and noteworthy as the blathering of a homophobe.

    I am withholding judgement on Obama until I see where his policies lead. But Warren is a bigot who should look at himself and his own intolerance before preaching to others. It is possible to believe in a just and loving God without hurting other people.

    820 Illinois-427 Senate Sponsored-152 Senate authored. Obama record on Bills. Palin record 0-0-0. Palin Lies-1 big one and counting.

    by marketgeek on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:49:56 PM PST

  •  Almost unforgiveable, what he's doing. n/t (7+ / 0-)

    39 Years Of Yellow-Dogging And Then 1 Year Of WTF

    by Larry Bailey on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:51:16 PM PST

  •  My computer crashed 7 times (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidkc, i like bbq

    trying to comment in one of the other diaries on this topic today... never did get a word in...

    "I'm just sayin... don't bring that horse in here!" -- Cassandra

    by tc59 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM PST

  •  I hear you (26+ / 0-)

    I prayed every week, from the ages of 13 - 19, for God to either "fix" me and make me straight or to kill me. At that point, as a Catholic who was still a virgin, I believed I would go to heaven as long as I had not "given in." Even with relatively liberal parents, who figured out I was gay when I was 5, I had gotten the very clear message that there was something wrong with me that needed fixing - so I went through years of "Father/Son" activities to butch me up.

    When I realized I could not fix myself, I began to plan my suicide. I planned it out many different ways and if it weren't for an invitation to a movie the night I had it all planned, I might have gone through with it. Even as it was I hated myself so long I vowed I would not "give in," although of course there were a few "slips" over the years. I ended up trying the ex-gay lie and staying in the closet until I was 33. At that time I had never had a real date, never held hands in a movie theater - I still have never been in love, and that was 8 years ago. I know that I am permanently damaged by those years in the closet, those years when I was convinced I was unloveable.

    I have been gay bashed twice - once in Junior High (the Vice Principle told me to learn how to fight back - no investigation, no arrests for assault and battery, just a demand I become more like a "man"), and once 4 years ago here in DC. I will live for the rest of my life with a plate in my face and a constant pain in my jaw because of the brick smashed into my face in the second attack.

    Seeing the reactions both to Prop 8, and the other anti-gay hate amendments approved last November 4, and the reactions to the Warren selection, I really now understand that there are very few straight people who can comprehend the nightmare of being gay in this society, even in relatively safe cities like DC (which has seen a very troubling rise in anti-gay attacks recently). Straight people cannot understand what it is like to grow up believing you are a monster, a disgusting, sub-human pervert who is worth nothing.

    I'm supposed to be okay with the Warren pick because Warren has managed to eat off the plates of dirty faggots without throwing up.

    Please.

    "I'm sleeping with Don. It's really working out" - Elizabeth Moss as Peggy Olson, Mad Men

    by CPT Doom on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:55:37 PM PST

    •  Singer Chris Martin... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, mainefem, EdSF, gatorbot, two roads

      ...of the band Coldplay has said that he had a big fear when he was young that he was gay.  He was afraid not because he was attracted to men but because his church -- and I think it was Catholic, but I can't remember for sure -- had taught how horrible it was to be gay.  Reading your mention of being Catholic just now made me suddenly remember reading that about Chris.

      I've never been physically assaulted by others who perceived me as gay, but I have been afraid far more than once that I was on the edge of being physically attacked.  The other kids I went to school with seemed to take a great amount of pleasure in harassing me.  Even though I said up one side and down another that I was straight, which I truly believed at the time that I was, they still targeted me out of homophobia.

      Thank you so much for including your story in this discussion.  It's important for us to keep telling our stories; it's the only way that straight people who haven't gone through the hate that we have can learn what our experiences are like.  And if they have compassion, they will feel for us and support us.

    •  I too was raised Catholic (5+ / 0-)

      and while never being victimized by bashing because I played sports and appeared straight, I struggled through my teen years, confident that I would eventually be straight. Only in my early twenties did I realize that was not going to happen and I would always be a freak. This I could not accept, why wasn't I straight?  I tried (unsuccessfully) overdosing to escape my self-hating internalized homophobia. My stomach was pumped and I left the hospital alone. I needed to see a therapist. After a few years of therapy, I came to accept myself. If others on this site cannot understand how hurtful the McClurkin and Warren episodes are, then fine. No amount of hearing our stories will convince them, as sure as their pragmatic politics and their idol worship will deafen them to those stories. To those gay and straight who do hear us, thank you and to the diarist a huge thank you!

  •  It's not always self-directed... (17+ / 0-)

    I had my nose broken.  Another time, a "friend" knocked out my front teeth.  Another "friend" pushed me down the stairs.  Well, that was for being Jewish, and having the temerity to point out that Jesus was, too.  Then there was the time that someone threatened to bury an axe in my forehead.  And the time I faced down that woman with a revolver.  

    He doesn't have to hate gays personally himself.  His words, and those of people like him, can do plenty of damage on their own.

    The Republican Party: the party of greed, hate, anger, fear, waste, death and destruction!

    by ultrageek on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:55:47 PM PST

  •  Bottom line, he needs to woo (6+ / 0-)

    the more accessible wing of the evangelicals, alot more than he needs to woo us queers and our allies.  Because, realistically, where else are we gonna go?  Whereas fundamentalist Christians have a very distinct alternative on where they can take THEIR votes, money, and energy.

    So, it hurts twice.  Once because they're insulting us, and twice because we have to hang around and take it.  While at the same time clearly seeing the cold, relentless logic that make our concerns subordinate.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM PST

    •  We don't have to take it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Big Tex

      We can stop donating money and stop volunteering. If he spends so much time pandering how will our agenda ever get passed anyways? The only way to get something done...is to Demand that it gets done. andthat is what the Gay community needs to do.

      •  Mmmm hmmm (0+ / 0-)

        because Ralph Nader's distaste for "gonadal politics" is going to do so much more for us?  

        Sure, you can withdraw from supporting the Democratic party.  But where ya gonna go?  And how are they going to be MORE motivated to listen to you after you've taken your toys and gone home?

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:12:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mainefem

      Because, realistically, where else are we gonna go?

      Home, rather than the voting booth, would be my guess.  Or a third party.

      •  I don't see a third party (0+ / 0-)

        as offering much hope for us queers any time soon.  Even if one became otherwise viable. which as we know is currently quite the long shot, it would probably be libertarian in emphasis and no more consistently supportive to GLBT issues than the Dems currently are.

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:36:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  More than a few gays and lesbians (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mainefem

          are libertarian - socially liberal, economically conservative.  Many vote Democratic because of the issue of gay rights, but might not feel like there's any reason to continue doing so if they don't see any return on their electoral investment.

          •  Agreed, but still maintain (0+ / 0-)

            that a resurgent Libertarian party would overall be cool to prioritizing gay rights.

            "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

            by lgmcp on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:49:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Prioritizing, maybe. (0+ / 0-)

              But I think they would be receptive to supporting them, at least as much so as the Democrats have been.  And even if they're no better than Democrats on gay rights, if gays and lesbians begin to feel that they have little or nothing to gain by voting Democratic, many may decide that they might just as well vote in accordance with their economic beliefs and support the Libertarians.

  •  You'd enjoy the story of Rev. Pearson (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i like bbq, TomP, gizmo59, two roads, JesseCW

    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/...

    Carlton Pearson's church, Higher Dimensions, was once one of the biggest in the city, drawing crowds of 5,000 people every Sunday. But several years ago, scandal engulfed the reverend. He didn't have an affair. He didn't embezzle lots of money. His sin was something that to a lot of people is far worse: He stopped believing in Hell.

  •  today I wrote a diary (8+ / 0-)

    denouncing Cheney for his torture policy and Bush for his anti-choice order.  I also made the point that these were worse things than giving Rick Warren the speaking slot at the invocation.

    However, I very much enjoyed your diary and I understand why the Warren pick made you so angry.  I was upset by it too, but perhaps not in the profound, traumatic way in which it affected you.  I encourage you to continue to share your experiences with the community.  No one, gay or straight, should ever have to go through that kind of pain.

  •  donnie mcclurkin (14+ / 0-)

    Then I thought I had a glimmer of hope when I grasped onto the concept of praying to God to be straight.  I did so over and over and over.  It never happened; I remained attracted to men.  I was left trying to figure out what it meant.  I came to the conclusion that God hated me for being gay so much that he wouldn't even help me be not gay.  I believed I was evil.  I believed I deserved to burn in Hell.  And so, I decided that in order to prevent something evil like myself from living, I was going to kill myself and quicken my journey to Hell.

    This is why the donnie mcclurkin thing was so devastating.  He represents the most vile and disgusting traits of Christian sects.  By promoting the ex-gay movement.  When I think of the countless young lives that have been destroyed by these people.  

    And then to think that there was no one on Obama's staff that raised strenuous objection or if they did they were over ruled.  

    It shows the level of callous disregard and contempt Obama and his staff hold toward LGBT families and communities.  

  •  srsly. (23+ / 0-)

    i have had it.

    i've had with being a political football.
    i've had it with people making fun of the indignation of warren's selection.
    i've had it with people telling those of us who are shocked and hurt to calm down and to remember that there are so many more important issues to be worried about than this preacher giving a short prayer.

    it's one thing to engage "the other side" and it's another to give a platform to a hatemonger and someone who would rather that people like myself just disappear off the face of the planet.

    and then to read obama's condescending reasoning, and have other trumpet it on here.

    there is no "common ground" for these people on the issue of queer americans. we would like to be treated and respected as human beings and full-citizens of this country and they do not want that. there is no convincing them of this issue.

  •  Maybe the reason Obama said during the (6+ / 0-)

    campaign that he is opposed to gay marriage is because he really is opposed to gay marriage.

    •  um... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sandbox

      was someone denying he was against it?

    •  Bingo, I had hoped it was just a Machievellian (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sberel

      ploy to win the election and then he would have an epiphany and do the rights thing.

      But, they just realeased Obama's talking point on the inaugeration where we congratulates himself for support full equality!

      He's totally clueluess!  He doesn't seem to get that he does not support full equality but a seperate but equal civil unions.

      Which is why he does not have the credibility, legitimacy, or moral authority to be making such grand gestures with other peoples rigthts.  Which he does not support or understand.

      But this gives some hope.

      I suspect once he understands this he will upgrade his position and support full equality for all Americans.

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:14:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Part of me is thinking... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, two roads

    Obama is catering to the right....cause he knows he's losing the left...is that possible?

    I love the smell of napalm in the morning

    by Jazzenterprises on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:06:22 PM PST

  •  The choice of Rick Warren as a speaker was (13+ / 0-)

    simply wrong. Jesus has nothing to say about homosexuality and gay marriage, and he had nothing to say about abortion either. Jesus had a lot to say about loving your neighbor and about feeding the hungry and healing the sick. I wish that Obama had chosen a liberal pastor instead. I am sick and tired to the gay-bashing, and I say this as a straight woman. It is time to end the hate. And I am sick and tired of intolerant people like Rick Warren trying to speak for all Christians.

  •  God told me to hate redheads. So I do. (9+ / 0-)

    I mean, that makes it okay, right?

    If you tell me I'm wrong to hate redheads, I'll get offended and demand you apologize for offending my faith! Maybe I'll boycott you!

    (Actually, I don't hate redheads. I think they're teh hawtness.)

  •  If Obama is giving legitimacy to homophobia by (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, Wolf Of Aquarius

    inviting Warren to give a prayer, than Warren presumably legitimizes Obamas views on LGBT among Warrens flock, yes? This cuts both ways, you know. And in the end, Obamas views may win in the competition of ideas. But you cannot win, if you do not talk to the homophobes and listen to the homophobes. Do not let your previous suffering (which I fully accept as such) stand in the way of future improvements.

    •  All I have to say is (17+ / 0-)

      Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

      This man is giving the invocation. And you think it's A-Ok.

      •  You do not succeed in getting acceptance for (0+ / 0-)

        your views if you insist on an approach to the world which consists of giving people grades for their positions. That way you make sure nothing changes.

        The majority of Americans is against gay marriage. Amongst them, Warren has lots of influence. If he gives the invocation, quite a few of them will start thinking that maybe they should look into Obamas positions, including those on LGBTQ. Some of these, especially the younger ones, will become more open-minded as a result. The inverse, that previously tolerant people become homophobes by listening to Warren giving the invocation (in which he will not touch upon homosexuality, I am sure) is a vanshing risk. So overall, a net gain.

        Pl look at actions in terms of what they might achieve, and not in terms of 'does this pass my litmus test?'

    •  ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, Timbuk3, two roads

      [...] Warren presumably legitimizes Obamas views on LGBT among Warrens flock, yes? This cuts both ways, you know.

      No, really, it doesn't.  Especially when Obama isn't making any kind of effort whatsoever to change the views of people in Warren's flock.

  •  Thanks for this, vacantlook (8+ / 0-)

    Everyone who is defending this selection:

    Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

    Interestingly enough, the last thing he's opposed to is what the Bible, you know, actually endorses.

  •  Oh yes Gays and Lesbians would do so much (0+ / 0-)

    better with President McCain and President Palin till the year 2020 than they'll ever do with President Obama cause he picked Warren to talk for a few forgotten minutes,just look at all the other Inaugurations of President and how every school class must recite the Grand Words of the Speeches made by the wildly Famous people who gave the Invocation at those Inaugurations,why right off the top of my head I can mention OK I'll have to Google that.Now I will say one thing the way that Gays and Lesbian are acting over this is going to set back much of what you have gained in the public eye over the last few years,don't forget that compared to other Rights Movements the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement is a Youngling and the fact is that your Movement will be lucky if it gets all of those Rights in 40 years and that is still quick compared to the Civil Rights(including a Civil War)Movement and The Women's Rights(that is still going on for Pay,Reproduction and Sexual Equality)Movement.

  •  Thank you for this. (17+ / 0-)

    I remember, when I was 18, standing on the roof of a 6-story building, looking at the concrete below and wondering if it would kill me. I sometimes think the only reason I didn't jump was the fear that I might actually survive.

    My parents weren't homophobes; I grew up in the SF Bay Area and, while not the "hippie" type, were generally accepting of all people. It just took one throwaway homophobic slur by my stepfather, relatively innocent really and hardly indicative of any significant homophobia, that made me realize that I was not normal. Seriously. ONE WORD in my entire teen years that made me seriously consider suicide.

    This is why Warren should not be given a podium, the "people's podium", to speak a single word. Because that single word can kill.

  •  I'm gay. And I don't feel dissed by the Warren (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Its any one guess, Ally McRepuke

    invocation choice.  As another diary pointed out here, there is also a pastor who is a great friend of the gay community, a progressive, who has been picked to stand on the same stage at the same time.  Obama and the inauguration committee are putting many faces and voices on that stage.  

    I have been gay bashed too.  When walking in a park with my girlfriend, had a fire hose sprayed at me from a pickup truck full of screaming guys cruising around looking for gay people to attack.  It hurts.  But I prefer to see this pick as about flattering one's enemies so as to disarm them.  I really prefer to let Obama get into office and to see what he does during the first 365 days, before freaking out or claiming to have been dissed and abandoned.

    You want dissed and abandoned?  Try what Clinton did with the don't ask don't tell legislation.  That really, really hurt, and that is policy.  So I feel like I can wait to see what Obama does with policy when in office--- then decide whether or not to feel like he's slapping me in the face.

    •  And when Rick Warren mobilizes... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mainefem


      ...his brigades to defeat the repeal of DADT, will your only reaction be 'oh well, at least Obama tried' (assuming he does, an event for which I'm not holding my breath).

      p.s. DADT is congressionally-passed law, not 'policy'.

      The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

      by two roads on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:19:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you think Warren wouldn't mobilize his (0+ / 0-)

        brigades no matter what happens up there on that stage?  If Obama didn't have him up there onstage, he would mobilize them.  And even though he will now be up there, he still will mobilize them.  Remember, they are bigger than he is.  And the fact is, we-- the great diverse mass of progressives-- are bigger than Obama.  Obama, community organizer extraordinaire, was absolutely right when he made his slogan "yes we can."  That "we" is a brigade of people who want to push for certain changes.  Such pushing can take years, decades.  Unlike church-affiliated and religious fundamentalist groups, who since the John Birch Society days of the 1960s have been at work establishing and expanding the equivalent of an anti-progressive, reactionary, lushly funded internet for political action, "we" don't have long-established networks and funding sources for mobilizing in the millions to influence legislation and influence public opinion.  But we are working on them, and Obama's victory is huge evidence for their growth and viability.  And Warren standing onstage at the inauguration, giving an invocation, will not change that viability.  

    •  I am glad that you feel more calm over it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      concernedamerican, mainefem

      I really wish I did.  Maybe I would feel more calm if this was by itself.  But juxtaposing the pick of Warren with Obama's picking McClurkin last year, it looks a lot like a pattern to me.  I wouldn't mind being wrong though.

  •  Delurking to say thank you. (14+ / 0-)

    A lot of the diaries and comments re: this issue matter.  But this matters most: gay and lesbian kids sit in his congregation and accept and internalize his hate.  However "well-meaning", Rick Warren and his compadres are destroying lives.

    I was really looking forward to watching the inauguration on TV.  History!  Change!  Hope!

    Sure.  I'll be he whitens your teeth, freshens your breath, prevents body odor and gives you that clean fresh feeling like a warm summer rain, too.  Whatever.  I'm not buying it anymore.

  •  Irresponsible (7+ / 0-)

    For me, this is the crux of intolerance esp. in today's modern circumstances -- Christians can't be responsible for their faith. All the high-minded concepts of love and justice can't stop them from giving in to basic revulsion.  

    Personally, I love Jesus; I really can't stand Christians.

    This is awful. Somewhere there's a more evil Bender than me. I do my best, dammit!

    by Mike E on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:19:34 PM PST

  •  it does hurt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yet another liberal, cyncynical

    but these same people also say that teenage sex is a sin

    and they say that anything that isn't about god is a sin

    if you listen to music that isn't about god it's a sin

    if you watch movies with sex it's a sin

    if you swear it's a sin

    if you smoke it's a sin

    if you drink it's a sin

    if you notice the ass on the person you walk by in the mall it's a sin

    they say that everything is evil and a sin

    it's not just being gay

    if you don't pray enough it's a sin

    if you don't go to church enough it's a sin

    if you don't give money to church it's a sin

    everything is a sin in church

    i had a friend who went thru what you did

    i was a good friend to him

    i never judged him

    i just wanted him to be happy

    and i quit being a minister over how bigoted church is

    and how sexist

    speaking of sexist

    you think gay people have it bad with church

    what about women?

    they are still property.

    the church has some really fucked up traditions that they hold on to

    but if you want to change those things... you don't do it by ignoring the 1 out of 4 people in this country who believe them

    you have to engage them

    it's the only way

    you can't just demonize 1 out of 4 people and expect to win

    you just can't

    and that's why Obama chose Warren

    Warren represents those people

    and we need those people to stop standing in the way of change

    and we can only make that happen by getting them to be a part of the change

    change like... gay rights, women's rights, children's right

    Why so serious? Let's put a smile on that face.

    by AntonBursch on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:24:05 PM PST

  •  I just unsubscribed (16+ / 0-)

    from Obama's relentless e-mail fundraising messages and explained that the Warren pick was why.

    Screw them. If they don't understand that allowing Warren a podium at the Inauguration is no different than allowing a KKK grand wizard to speak, then their lack of moral discernment is breathtaking.

    •  It was a definitely unnecessary choice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mainefem

      He didn't need to do it.

      Is the KKK reference made only because Obama is black?

      At the end of the day I think discrimination is discrimination but I'm fascinated with the gay community using the AA civil rights movement and just black people in general for their points.

      •  KKK defend their racism with Christian beliefs (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Timbuk3, mainefem, dconrad, i like bbq

        Slavery too.  Just like homosexuality.

      •  I think the analogy (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mainefem, dconrad, i like bbq, two roads

        to the civil rights movement is a natural one.  It's the most recent civil rights movement and is the one that a good portion of the strategy used in the gay rights movement is based upon.

        Economic Left/Right: -6.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

        by DMiller on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:52:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My viewpoint comes from this place... (0+ / 0-)

          In that when speaking between the two or about the two, like you said, it would seem only natural to tie the two together, but there obviously has been resistance, and a black woman taking in words from family members who strongly object to the tie, I wonder if the ease at which the movement and more to the fact such analogies tying in the KKK don't bridge gaps because it's a word being thrown around, while you're dealing with people who don't actually understand the true experiences and grievances outside of the word discrimination? I know I'm not explaining myself properly and the way I want but I think that's an important aspect between blacks and gays and actually getting to a common point in this fight.

          •  I think the struggles that AA have faced and (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TiaRachel, vacantlook, dedmonds

            currently face, and those that gays face are similar in that they are all discriminatory in nature and are completely different in other ways.

            AAs, for example, have the history of slavery which gays do not.  Gays, OTOH, have to deal with a complete lack of a support network from parents, family, neighborhood and religion, which AAs most often do have.  Some AAs can pass as white.  Some gays cannot pass as straight.

            Both groups have a shared history, to one degree or another, of being discriminated against, harassed, physically abused, tortured and sometimes killed by bigots.

            I think the two groups have more in common that not.  It serves no purpose to spend time fighting one another.  Instead, we should be helping one another fight against the prejudice we both face.

            Economic Left/Right: -6.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

            by DMiller on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:55:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps Coretta Scott King can explain it... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ehavenot, TiaRachel, mainefem


        We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination...

        For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people. Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own...


        So you see, for many of us there is a connection between the struggle for racial civil rights (as symbolized by the KKK) and the struggle for gay civil rights (as symbolized by Rick Warren).

        Because for many of us, it was all part of the same fight.

        I know, because I was there.

        The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

        by two roads on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:13:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Unsub from Obama's e-list (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      acooldayinaugust

      here.

      His list won't be as "powerful" as it may be currently perceived.

      There's a space to indicate your "reason" for unsubbing, too.

      No money or freebie labor from the progressives.

      Once they notice a few millions unsubs, things might sink in.

      It's especially imperative for heteros to unsub (as a sign of solidarity).

      {{{raises hands}}}

      Ten seconds; and you're done.

      Pfffffft.

  •  Where's the White Supremacist on the dias? (10+ / 0-)

    I think it's directly analagous.  As a gay 48-year old I am so tired of living in the dark ages.  We have a black president but gays are still likened to child molesters?  Or worse?  This is an acceptable voice/advocate at a Democratic presidential inauguration?  This hurts me to no end.  I am so fed up.  I don't know what else to say...

  •  I understand, but its not legitimizing (0+ / 0-)

    anything by Obama.  Warren is giving a prayer, but that doesn't legitimize all of his views.  

    The gay community is running the risk of getting in Sista Souljah territory with this one.  Obama will only get more popular by being seen as standing up to part of his base that's acting unreasonably.

    On November 5, 2008, history was made.

    by Prince Georges for Obama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:29:39 PM PST

  •  I just posted a link to this on change.gov (12+ / 0-)

    I posted this under the civil rights agenda page, where we are asked to submit ideas.

    Thanks for sharing. You said it well.

    For those who are not hurt and can see beyond this, that's great. Really, I think that is ultimately the point, and I hope we can all, every little human, move towards respect for all living beings, as soon as possible.

    But for those who are hurt, that pain is valid. Any minority can understand.

    Humanity has eaten more than 80,000 plant species through its evolution...We now rely on just 8 crops to provide 75 percent of the world's food. -Vandana Shiva

    by Pay It Forward on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:30:26 PM PST

  •  Thank you for sharing your story. (13+ / 0-)

    My best friend from high school is a gay man who came out to his friends eight years ago and has suffered from extremely severe depression ever since.

    He was raised in a non-religious family, and yet he still is filled with self-loathing.

    I continue to struggle with him every day to try to help him make peace with who he is.  

    I can't help but think the past eight years could have been much easier there were not so many people in the world telling him he should hate himself.

    I am straight, and I am married, and I enjoy all the privileges of an "acceptable" relationship.  

    But I long for the day when the gay people in my life, whom I dearly love, can enjoy those same privileges.

    Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. Now shut the fuck up and stay there. Also.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:31:27 PM PST

  •  New WaPo op-ed from Joe Solmonese (20+ / 0-)

    Looks like it will be published in Friday's paper edition.  It's good.  Some tidbits:

    It is difficult to comprehend how our president-elect, who has been so spot on in nearly every political move and gesture, could fail to grasp the symbolism of inviting an anti-gay theologian to deliver his inaugural invocation. And the Obama campaign's response to the anger about this decision? Hey, we're also bringing a gay marching band. You know how the gays love a parade.

    And this:

    inviting Warren to set the tone at the dawn of this new presidency sends a chilling message to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. It makes us uncertain about this exciting, young president-elect who has said repeatedly that we are part of his America, too.

    And:

    We understand that the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights icon and a dear friend of LGBT Americans, will close the inauguration ceremony. But would any inaugural committee say to Jewish Americans, "We're opening with an anti-Semite but closing the program with a rabbi, so don't worry"?

  •  For this, the personal hurts more than the policy (14+ / 0-)

    As a gay man and activist who was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Obama, I can say that my reaction to the Rick Warren issue isn't focused on where Warren or Obama stand on marriage equality or other GLBT issues. I understand the need to reach out and hear from people we disagree with. Working in HIV/AIDS I have actually had quite a bit of contact with some of the folks associated with Warren and other Christian organizations. Many of those were positive interactions and involved meaningful and thoughtful discussions on sometimes difficult issues (including marriage equality, along with a host of other issues around human sexuality). So I can cope with having folks around who have a dramatically different view of gay issues than I do, and think it is important to engage them.

    Legislative and administrative battles around equality will continue to be heated - I am hopeful that we will finally see ENDA enacted (although sadly it is likely to leave out transgender people), and hope for further achievements on issues such as immigration rights for same sex couples, overturing DADT, returning science to public health policy affecting GLBT health, and numerous other areas. But those policy battles will be fought in the days, months and years following Inaugural day.

    But what disappoints and hurts me is way this gesture has changed how millions of Americans, especially GLBT Americans, will feel at the Inauguration, at at time of great hope in the country.

    I was looking forward to January 20th as a day that would help heal so many of the wounds that have divided America, a chance to acknowledge the historical significance of breaking a huge barrier in American public life, a day that would embrace so many Americans who have long felt excluded from so much of the American story.

    But I don't think I'll be able to completely feel that when I watch this inauguration. The Invocation is traditionally used to set the stage for the ceremony that will follow, to pull in all of the listeners as part of the ceremony itself.  The idea that the Invocation will be delivered by a man who has a history of hate speech against me and my community , representing a religious community that systematically persecutes GLBT people, will only serve to send a message that, at least for us, that inclusiveness and hope may note include us.

    I know that Obama will be the most pro-gay President in our history, I hope that other gestures will be made at the Inaugural itself to address the pain and damage caused by the Warren invitation -- but despite that, I'm going to feel more than a little less welcome when Warren steps to podium -- not based on what he says then, but because of what he has said and done in the past and the pain and damage that has caused.

    In a very personal and emotional way, this will feel like the millions of indignities (both petty and large) that have assaulted most GLBT people every day of our lives, on a day when we had hoped feel somewhat different. I wish those issuing the invitation (including Obama) had a greater understanding of why it hurts so much.

    Once social change begins,it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read...You cannot oppress people who are not afraid anymore.

    by terjeanderson on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:37:26 PM PST

    •  Based on what? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mainefem, terjeanderson


      I know that Obama will be the most pro-gay President in our history...

      Tipped your thoughtful comment, but on which of Obama's words/actions do you form your belief? Please include McClurkin, Obama's rejection of gay marriage, and his passive acceptance of the use of his statements in ads for Prop 8 (including by Rick Warren) if you choose to answer.

      The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

      by two roads on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:59:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Based on his record and positions (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        two roads, Wolf Of Aquarius

        Being more pro-gay than any previous president is admittedly a pretty low bar -- the only previous President even vaguely pro-gay was Bill Clinton. And Clinton is the President who signed DOMA, gave us DADT, and failed to expend political capital to push on any significant LGBT issues. Obama will exceed that admittedly low standard.

        Although he opposes marriage equality, he also has spoken publicly about the need to completely repeal DOMA (during the Logo forum and at other times during the primary), and he endorsed a "No" vote on Prop 8. (His campaign did object to using him in pro- Prop 8 ads, but it was admittedly a very weak objection.) He has also stated his support for efforts to provide partner benefits for federal employees and immigration rights for same-sex couples.

        He is emphatically on record in favour of ENDA  - and we are probably now at a point where there are the votes to pass it in both Houses (although a Senate filibuster might be able to block it).

        He has repeatedly stated that he will overturn DADT - and the military environment and leadership is far more open to such a change than they were in 93 - so allowing gays to serve openly in the military should finally be doable.

        He is strongly in favour of expanding federal hate crime law to include sexual orientation (and disability).

        He has indicated his support for scientifically based sexuality education (as opposed to the often homophobic abstinence only policy) - an extremely important issue in protecting the health of LGBT youth.

        His has opposed efforts to allow faith-based organizations that receive federal funding to violate existing anti-discrimination laws.

        He has spoken loudly against homophobia not just in front of gay and gay-friendly audiences  (especially African-American audiences, specifically including speeches at Howard University and Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he talked about the need to support LGBT people in the African-American community ).

        So yes, his words (and his record in the Illinois state Senate and the US Senate) indicate that, outside of his lack of support for marriage equality, he will support and pursue pro-gay policies.

        As for McClurkin, I put it in the same category as the Warren issue -- stupid and personally hurtful to some of us, but not indicative of Obama's policy positions.

        I'm not defending the Warren invocation -- I am hurt and angered by it -- but Obama's positions on gay issues are overwhelmingly progressive. Hopefully this incident will mean that Obama will feel a stronger need to prove his support by acting positively on LGBT issues.

        Once social change begins,it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read...You cannot oppress people who are not afraid anymore.

        by terjeanderson on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Very well stated. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mainefem


          And I hope you're prescient.

          That said, I'd point out that DADT is not his to overturn -- it is a law passed by congress. In this way it is safe to oppose it, and equally safe to lament the lack of a repeal in congress. If he actually takes leadership on the issue, then I'll change my tune.

          The whole faith-based thing is a weasel. 'Existing' anti-discrimination laws allows for full-bore hiring discrimination by churches. That they save expense by 'segregating' the charitable activities so that taxpayers foot the bill while paying at least part of their staff is not a significant gain for gay rights, IMO, and Obama's wish to expand 'faith-based' programs gives me the shudders.

          And as I recall, his 'speaking out' occurred after McClurkin. And it was pretty much over as soon as the controversy died.

          And the 'though he opposes marriage equality' doesn't really need any follow up. It stands as it is, and he goes even further in saying as a christian it's 'sacred union, so god's in the mix'.

          Note how he goes on to say marriage should be defined by the states, saying 'I'm not somebody who promotes same sex marriage' then casts civil rights for gays as an issue of hospital visits.

          Today he labelled himself a 'fierce advocate' for gay rights. I'm not buying it.

          But I do appreciate the thoughtful response.

          The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

          by two roads on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:15:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yep. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timbuk3, CKendall

      The 'message' of the inaugural events has gone from see how much we've changed, how strong we are, what a successful future we can now have to something more like Yay! Black straight christian men have the same possibilities as white straight christian men! The rest of you, well, we'll get around to that someday. But hey, at least we're not crooks.

      •  I don't know if you will (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel

        be distressed to know that your message made me laugh since there's nothing humorous about the subject.  But the way you put it struck me as funny and really broke the tension I've been feeling.

        You are SO, SO RIGHT.  I'm trying to figure out how to fit that new inaugural message onto a bumper sticker.

        "Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." John Wooden

        by CKendall on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:55:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  hey, us jews (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mainefem, CKendall

          mastered (probably didn't create, though) the use of dark humor.

          It's cultural memory -cynicism is a survival technique.

          (Now there's a graphic design challenge to keep me occupied during the snowstorm tomorrow. How best to fit the Obama O into "we'll get around to you." Or maybe "Hope: so much better than equality"... hmm. )

          •  Laughing again. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TiaRachel, mainefem

            I was also thinking of a hope slogan, a variation of yours.  "Hope: the next best thing to equality."

            I'm always thinking up bumper sticker slogans (order them at Makestickers.com), but some of what I think of I don't dare put on my car.  Somewhere I have one that says, "No special rights for heterosexuals."  I may put that one on the car again.  It's been out of rotation since there hasn't been an anti-gay ballot measure here for awhile.

            Big snowstorm here in northwestern Oregon tonight, with more to come.

            "Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." John Wooden

            by CKendall on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:15:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Don't mince words (0+ / 0-)

    Obama is giving legitimacy to homophobia.

    ...by this logic, and with many of the posts that I have read today, then Obama is a homophobe.

    Why can't people just say it?

    ...there's a rose in the fisted glove and the eagle flies with the dove - Stephen Stills

    by NuttyProf on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:47:52 PM PST

    •  because de facto descrimination is not the same (5+ / 0-)

      as acting on it yourself. This is a question of sophstication of understanding of how the world works. Even conservatives would agree with what you I am about to say: Not all discrimination is a matter of direct action. It can be a product of intertia and pushing it forward. that's why de facto racial descriimination was so powerful even after de jure (law based) discrimination ended. The intertia here is not that Obama needs to be a homophobe. It's that by legitimizing a homophobe, he effectviely pushes their agenda. That's the reality . If you do not believe me, look to the the Yes on 8 campaign. They used Obama's parsing against him to say that he actually supported 8 because he parsed his position on marrrige. Here is a bit worse. He's bringing out someone on the public stage that is clearly not just anti gay marriage, because he equates us to pedophiles. Do I think Obama beleives that? No. Do I think that by bringing out this guy the next time this guy appears in public that will give Warren's argument's greater validity having been endorsed as a person by the President of the US? Yes. THat's the de facto effect. Endorsing a bigot means you can't parse what they believe from what you believe easily. That's simply not reality of how humans think.

      •  This is not political rhetoric it is religion (0+ / 0-)

        The intertia here is not that Obama needs to be a homophobe.

        If one is a certain kind of Christian, one MUST be against homosexuality, and hence (according to what logic I have seen here), one must be a homophobe. There has got to be a bottom line.

        ...there's a rose in the fisted glove and the eagle flies with the dove - Stephen Stills

        by NuttyProf on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:56:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  No (9+ / 0-)

      It doesn't follow that he's a homophobe.

      What it does show is that he can't grasp the real harm people like Rick Warren cause.

      "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by jrooth on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:57:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  let's put it this way: he's not an ally (6+ / 0-)

      My religion has materials about welcoming LGBT's into our religious community.  One of the best visuals they have shows a continuum of attitudes about LBGT people.  ranging from intolerance to advocacy (ally).

      Based on his actions, I would view Obama as on the tolerant side, which is about the middle of the scale.  This is because he's clearly ignorant about significant issues for substantial numbers of LBGT people.  Such as: reparative therapy is widespread and emotionally and in some cases physically damaging.(McClurkin)
      Or: Gay people are routinely compared to pedophiles (Warren).

      Does he at least put up a qualifier, a simple press release or statement acknowledging the harmful things that these people he has chosen advocates and disassociating him from that kind of speech?  That would be a simple matter and would at least provide a signal that he is aware that these people are promoting homophobic rhetoric.  (But that, I guess, would be unseemly)

      In putting these put out there without even mentioning the rhetoric, he is indeed legitimizing homophobia.  He may not even be aware of it.

      Support the troops (for real)! write to any soldier

      by sberel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:21:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I love it another Rec'd diary criticizing... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mainefem, craigkg

    Obama from the LBGT community...keep it up...you are doing great!!!!

    Obama/Biden'08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:57:12 PM PST

  •  Warren is a bigot (11+ / 0-)

    Who the hell would say otherwise? Call it for what it is.

  •  Excellent diary... (8+ / 0-)

    While the inaugural invocation, in and of itself, is a very minor thing, I am very disappointed in President-elect Obama sending this horrible signal about tolerance of blatant homophobia and bigotry at the very first ceremony he will ever attend as President.  It frightens me that he will not follow through with the repeal of DADT, DOMA and the enactment of ENDA.  The very agent that led the fight on Prop 8 - right after he effectively stripped equal protection away from thousands and thousands of gays and lesbians who merely want the benefits of marriage - is the same person who will speak the very first words at the inaugural ceremony.

    It legitimizes Warren's hate-filled bigoted views, which he has loudly and vociferously expressed all year long.  Warren makes a mockery of Christianity with his infantile theology and his condemnatory rants against gays and lesbians.  He is despicable and should be nowhere near the inauguration, in my view.  

    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

    by Viceroy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:58:55 PM PST

  •  Very eloquent diary. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Big Tex, TomP, two roads, CKendall

    Obama's choice of Warren increases self-hatred.  So true.

  •  Obama has invited a bigot to pary over (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mainefem, craigkg, Dems 2008, schala

    his presidency.

    I hope someone challenges him in 2012.

    The honoymoon is over.  That was quick.

    It would be the first principle of sane kindness that all forms of sacrifice would be avoided, if at all possible."--Adam Phillips

    by andrewj54 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:15:54 PM PST

    •  Uh.. no. (0+ / 0-)

      The one thing Obama has going for him is that HE'S intelligent and smart, and best of all, adaptable. I tend to agree that he didn't realize just how this would affect people when the choice was made. Will Warren be disinvited. No. But I'm willing to give him a few months to deal with some of the more hateful actions taken by the GOP in the last 8 years. (And DADT by Bill Clinton).

      To have faith in the power of a human being is no crime. The crime is to have no faith in your fellow human being.

      by RElland on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:25:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Warren is homophobic (0+ / 0-)

    so is about 95% of the Democratic party.  He supports gay civil unions and legal benefits for partners.  So does Obama, Howard Dean, Joe Biden, and just about every other Dem in congress, except for the ones who reperesent the really blue parts of the map.  No one is saying homophobia is acceptable, but I think your anger is misplaced.  

    •  bullshit (15+ / 0-)

      the majority of the democratic party does not compare gays marrying to children marrying their parents, or brothers marrying their sisters.

      bullshit bullshit bullshit.

    •  95% of the Democrats - (7+ / 0-)

      its leadership, much less the voters - believe like Warren that homosexuals are no better than pedophiles???

    •  NO, he doesn't. (0+ / 0-)


      He supports gay civil unions and legal benefits for partners.

      Um...

      No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It's just not there.


      p.s.

      Much of this debate is not really about civil rights, but a desire for approval. The fact that 70% of blacks supported Prop 8 shows they don't believe it is a civil rights issue. Gays in California already have their rights. What they desire is approval and validation from those who disagree with them, and they are willing to force it by law if necessary. Any disapproval is quickly labeled "hate speech. Imagine if we held that standard in every other disagreement Americans have? There would be no free speech. That's why, on the traditional marriage side, many saw Prop 8 as a free speech issue: Don't force me to validate a lifestyle I disagree with. It is not the same as marriage.


      The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

      by two roads on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:40:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  SYFPH (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    I actually did attempt suicide because of my sexuality as a teenager and ended up in the hospital.

    And you know what? This Warren thing doesn't offend me. Like at all.

    I don't care if people hate me. I just want the law to change. I want action. Who Obama prays with is of no consequence to me, as long as he signs our legislation. That's it. I don't care about symbolism. I don't care about ceremony.

    I care about action.

    My dignity is NOT effected by what others say about me. It shouldn't be for you either. Fuck them.

    I am SO OVER THIS. I can't stand DailyKos or my gay brothers and sisters right now. I think you've all gone mad.

  •  excellent diary (8+ / 0-)

    A lot of people really, really don't get it, and they won't get it until they read diaries like this one. It's not easy to show your scars like this, I applaud you.

  •  Let's Ask For Our Money Back (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TiaRachel, mainefem, two roads

    Every GLTB person who donated to the Obama campaign should write to the campaign now and demand that they give us our money back. Immediately. Period.

    It's the only thing I can think of that will get Obama's attention. It won't work, but they should be forced to return the money we all gave, since he's clearly abandoned us. He was never a "friend," anyway. Reminds me of the Clinton's, who wanted us for our money, but didn't give a shit about us.

    Anyway, if someone wants to start a campaign to demand our money back, I'll participate.

    •  Obama can keep this fag's money (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mike E, Wolf Of Aquarius

      I didn't give it to him so he would wage symbolic warfare for my right to marry. Some gays and lesbians might need health care, improved education, the right to unionize, and a planet in the near future.

      •  That is why I held my nose and (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, mainefem, palinisajoke

        voted for Obama.  I knew he was a homophobe from the beginning.  

        The fact that I voted for Obama is not going to stop me from speaking out and making noise when he and his staff show their callous disrespect for the LGBT community.

        Warren is a sick fat filthy fuck.  His pimple like head and bloviations make me nauseous.  And for Obama to give him a platform is beyond intolerable.

        I hope progress will be made on health care, workers rights, economic reform, civil liberties and environmental protection.  And I will vocally push for, encourage and support Obama if he actually does move on those issues.

        But, I'm going to be just as vocal when I disagree.  I don't believe in trading human rights for political advantage or to pass some other bill or gain some support.  Human rights are not up for negotiation or for political horse trading.  

        Showing utter contempt for a community by giving someone who is waging open warfare against LGBT families and communities is not something I'm going to be quiet about.  

        •  Easy on the epithets : ) (0+ / 0-)

          I empathize but disagree. I see how Warren talking with his imaginary friend might offer a political advantage (though I think Obama's inclusion of Warren does respond to an ethical principle as well), but I fail to see how Obama is trading in human rights by having Warren speak. The Warren shit-storm has just lead Obama to publicly reiterate his support for human rights. Our gay brothers and sisters (especially the upwardly mobile, middle class, urban white ones) need to stop painting their own suffering as the issue that matters most. It's divisive; it's unethical; it's suicidal.

          •  And who has done this? (0+ / 0-)

            Our gay brothers and sisters (especially the upwardly mobile, middle class, urban white ones) need to stop painting their own suffering as the issue that matters most.

            WTF?  Explain yourself.

            •  the Castro, West Hollywood, Boystown, Chelsea... (0+ / 0-)

              ....just about everyone at an anti-prop 8 rally, and especially the host of people on this site that repeatedly disarticulate "gay" and "black", as if these terms encompassed conditions of suffering that could be separated, compared, and contrasted. I am disgusted with the perpetuation of a classist, racist trend in our society that repeats and repeats and repeats: 1) gay people are white, 2) gay people have money, 3) the interests of gay white people with money are representative of the interests of all gay people.

              I think that Obama's policies - while not directed at the identity politics that white, rich, urban gays prefer - will address the immediate needs of these others members of the queer community - poor people of all colors, including those who are transgender - better than the struggle for gay marriage ever will. I am more than willing to suffer through a zealot from Orange County communing with the spirits if it means that the most disenfranchised members of our community receive the political attention that they deserve.

  •  I am sorry (0+ / 0-)

    no one should have to experience that believe it or not I can sympathize because of simlair and yet very different experience.

    That said this can't be about emotion and that's what you're appealing to and no matter how satisfying it might be to say 'well he's just a bigot' and never talk to him again it's not that simple.

    First Warren as far as I know is pretty reasonable for an evangilical; yeah that's not saying much but it's something.

    Second Warren to my knowledge has never preached that gays go to hell just by being gay or anything like that.

    Third, if we're going to be inclusive then that should mean everyone that wants to come and frankly I'm happy Obama is backing up his words.

    Fourth, this is a prayer, not a speech or anything unscripted.

    •  And David Duke was reasonable for a neo-Nazi. (7+ / 0-)

      So fucking what?

      Obama is very conscious of the fact that his election was a major step in moving this nation past the sort of racism that still occasionally gets people murdered (like that poor guy in Texas who was dragged to death behind a truck not so many years ago because of who he was.)

      And so now he's lending his support to a bigot of another stripe in a nation where homosexuals are still regularly beaten and discriminated against (and where not too many years ago a gay kid was nailed to a fence and left to die because of who he was.)

      Being inclusive does NOT mean supporting bigotry. And Barack Obama should be at least as aware of this fact as anyone.

  •  Good diary... useless effort to change (7+ / 0-)

    the homophobes' minds. Including Obama's.

    You get idiots here saying Warren is a homophobe, but at least he doesn't condemn fags to hell.

    WOW, now that is a ringing endorsement!

    It is useless. The straight white and black MAJORITIES in this community don't care. A lot of them think allowing us to breathe and tolerating us is a favor we can never repay.

    How dare we compare our struggle to the mythical segregation era? How dare we criticize Obama for inviting a homophobe to bless him? How dare we speak up?

    Gays are good for entertainment, cutting hair, doing makeup. That's it.

  •  it looks like Obama has mastered "triangulation" (9+ / 0-)

    by calling it "post-partisan" and that's how he intends to generally run things.

    I like Michelle more than Barack.

    by duha on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:18:36 PM PST

  •  Obama is supposed to be (5+ / 0-)

    our progressive knight in shining armor. But this is too far. Imagine if Warren believed that interracial marriage where tantamount to condoning incest. That would not fly.

    This is a true slap in the face to the millions of LGBT workers who tirelessly reached out to the gay & lesbian community during the primaries. It was not easy to sway LGBT people from Hillary. I don't expect Obama to be at the beck and call of every LGBT issue; I don't expect the land of milk and honey for gays and lesbians. I do expect common decency.

    Never in a million years would Obama ask a racist preacher to spotlight this event for the sake of "disagreeing without being disagreeable". Never! This act is pure triangulation masquerading as "post-partisanism", directed at a group of people so small (the part of which that's political is even smaller) so as to not matter much to Obama's image. Period!

    •  You know there are two sides to every story, (0+ / 0-)

      Any idea how many times I've hear that Reverend Wright is a "racist" pastor?

      Obama isn't goint to get Warren, and millions of others on board about gay marriage, and he isn't going to try. But he might be able to get them on board for equal treatment under the law with civil unions, visitation, health benefits, etc...

      That would represent progress.

      And he might get their support on other initiatives as well.

      Obama isn't throwing anyone under the bus, he's trying to be a president for 300 million Americans.

  •  When and where I was raised (0+ / 0-)

    (Which was Southern California in the 60's), we didn't have any blacks or asians, and very few hispanics (it was a nice, white suburb made up of military families and defense industry families), so the derision of coice was "Fag."  Anyone who was different or unliked or unpopular became a Fag by default, and that meant regular beatings by mobs in school, and ostracism when not being attacked.  Of course, nobody even thought about homosexual women, so there were plenty of 'tomboys' in town, and they were popular, but if you read too much, or weren't interested in football or sports cars, you were by default a fag, regardless how muc of your time you spent chasing girls (who, of course, avoided you because you were unpopular).

    Fortunately, some people were reasonable (the microscopic proportion of hippies in town), and my folks didn't go to a neolithic church, but I can appreciate how you feel.

    Warren and his ilk are not my cup of tea. I personally avoid them.  But they exist, and I have to do what I can (generally by talking to people and being a good role model) to minimize their effects.

    Just hang in there.

    •  I resemble that remark (0+ / 0-)

      I "read too much", wasn't interested in "football or sports cars", was one of the smartest kids, was an atheist, grew up in more than one country (third culture kid/global nomad), didn't concern myself with appearance, didn't suppress any aspects that might be considered feminine since I was not insecure about my masculinity, resisted peer pressure, didn't make the slightest attempt to be popular, and when I returned to the US and started attending middle school, not only did I not know anyone, my wardrobe included lederhosen.   If someone called me a fag, I might ask if it was a failed attempt at an insult.  If someone suggested that if I did X people would think I was gay, my response was "so what?".    If someone wanted to avoid me because they thought I was gay, then I would be fortunate enough not to have their company.   I didn't really worry about the violence.   The violence wasn't that bad at my school and a substantial percentage was already directed at me.   I was hit, punched, stoned, etc.  Because of my pacifist leanings, I didn't hit back but I always stood my ground.   My attackers would eventually back down because I deprived them of satisfaction and made them look like assholes.

      Because of the way gay slurs were used as insults, I didn't know if anyone thought I was actually gay or was just throwing out random insults.   We didn't have any openly gay kids, back then, though their were posthumous (suicide) rumors about one.   So I might as well have been the token gay guy and maybe some actually thought I was.  But either way, I was very different.  I didn't particularly want to be thought of as gay, simply because it wasn't accurate and thus a misunderstanding, but other than confusing girls I was interested in it really didn't matter.    A lot of people have mistaken me for a musician.   Being a musician isn't a bad thing so I am not insulted by that so why would I be insulted if someone thinks I am gay?

      And in spite of my conspicuous unpopularity with many people , I was actually somewhat popular.   I was the center or a prominent member of a number of social groups.   I saw myself as a touchstone - if someone took an active dislike to me, that said more about them that it did me.

      --
      -6.25, -6.36 Worst. President. Dictator. Ever.

      by whitis on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:54:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I just read an article about something that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolf Of Aquarius

    is nowhere near as important as this Warren Controversy it was about a little thing Obama might be able to work on(Republican supported)"Global Warming",now I'm going to go read about another trivial(in comparison to The Warren Controversy) thing Obama might want to work on,it's about the Republican-made Economic Meltdown.

  •  LGBT (4+ / 0-)

    IMO this will be a defining issue in history, but not for Obama's presidency per se. The LGBT community have their work laid out in front of them -- to wage economic war on this country to sieze these civil rights, much like what happened in the '50s.  Look at all the action that economic issues are getting -- you hit people in their pocketbooks and all of a sudden they'll no longer have the luxury of pointless hatred.  I'm just sayin'...

    LGBT members of MY/OUR community are irreplaceable, and need to illustrate this loud and clear.  Hypocrits and zealots be damned

    This is awful. Somewhere there's a more evil Bender than me. I do my best, dammit!

    by Mike E on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:49:22 PM PST

  •  I wish somebody would ask Obama to (8+ / 0-)

    elaborate on what he understands it's like to be a member of the LGBT community and live in America today.

    I bet he couldn't do it.  Because if he truly understood, he wouldn't have requested Warren be there.

    Maybe it's not Obama that has to reach out to Warren... maybe it's Obama that has to reach out to the LGBT community and their millions of supporters simply to learn what it's like to live in America with the hatred and bigotry bestowed on those that are not heterosexual.

  •  I wonder if Obama had a child (5+ / 0-)

    that turned out to be not heterosexual, whether then he would still invite Warren.

  •  So it's time to decide (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    Do gay people want equal rights or do they not?  If you do then understand who is in your camp and who is not, and then attempt to pull those into your camp who currently are not.  To equate everyone who has ever uttered a negative word about gay people to untouchables is not the answer.  

    Rick Warren represents the views of millions of Americans and Obama is bringing him in, and when he does it will be on the side of protected rights for all.

    Perhaps you are not aware of who will be giving the benediction in the Rev. Lawry.  It is his views on the matter of gay rights that is that of Obama.  I also understand that an openly gay man is in line for a position in defense.  Things are moving forward, but they wont get to where we need to be if we reject with such prejuidice those who may come around.

    The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

    by Adept2u on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:58:19 PM PST

    •  listen, (9+ / 0-)

      if we don't complain about our rights, then who's going to?  i understand the big tent argument, but can you understand that those dynamics are always tricky?  who's to say what parts of obama's agenda warren is endorsing and what parts of warren's agenda obama is endorsing.  people will take different things from it, and hear what they want to hear.  

      however, due to the outpouring of despair from the LGBT community about the announcement, we've gotten a clear and unequivocal statement from obama that he does not agree with warren on LGBT rights.   now, do you think that would have happened if we had all played nice and kept our mouths shut?????

      •  Same thing he said about McClurkin. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, Timbuk3, mainefem, texcubsf


        Fool me once...

        The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

        by two roads on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:46:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Is Rev. Warren giving the invocation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wolf Of Aquarius

        An attack on your rights?  And oh no anytime someone steps on my tail I'm gonna yowl and Rick Warren has stepped on my personal tail.  I happen to be a very big supporter of the Rev. Wright, and Rick Warren talked about him as if he didn't even follow Jesus.  Also, yes you would have gotten that statement anytime you asked for it because Obama is not all that shy about sharing his views.  He went into the Ebeneezer Baptist Church and said much the same.

        I don't fault the choice of Warren for the very reason Obama gave.  Warren opened his world to Obama with the full knowledge that they didn't agree on several tough issues, gay rights included.  However, full inclusive gay rights are going to come, and we will have to exist with these people in a manner that is constructive.

        The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

        by Adept2u on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:51:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Where was your outrage (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    when Islomophobia was all the rage?

    I wish I was smarter, or slightly dumber. - nowheredesign

    by Krum on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:09:13 PM PST

  •  I. am. PISSED about Warren. (3+ / 0-)

    Fuck anti-gay bigots. They do NOT deserve a place at the podium.

    Joe Lieberman is a Chode.

    by dnamj on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:09:16 PM PST

  •  Legitimizing H8red (7+ / 0-)

    This isn't only about Rick the Prick's open hostility toward gays and women. It's about his unwillingness to negotiate or compromise. It's about 8 years of the religious rite demanding more, and every time "we" move further toward them they call it a "compromise".

    Here’s Rick’s FOX commentary:

    Hannity: Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons...I think we need to take him out.

    WARREN: Yes.

    HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil, or something righteous?

    WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe...

    HANNITY: By force?

    WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers...

    Support this man, legitimize him, and give him an even louder voice if you want to.

    I can't.

    "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

    by Timbuk3 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:20:28 PM PST

  •  i am mad about Warren (6+ / 0-)

    but not so mad that i'm giving up on obama.  i think this was a bad decision, but i think he's doing a good job of making the best of it by balancing out warren with a pro-gay pastor and clearly stating that he disagrees with warren on gay rights and that he's a strong supporter of equality.  

    with that said, i think it's important that the LGBT community has made their voices of disappointment and hurt heard on this issue.  we have had to submit to being pushed to the back of the line too many times.  we are losing our patience.

    and, to the point of this diary, i grew up in the bible belt.  the boy next door to me killed himself in high school b/c he was gay.  (meanwhile, i was playing "Doctor" with his little brother who later grew up to play football for ole miss)  Around the time i was 15 or 16, all of a sudden a bunch of my friends were homeless or staying with friends b/c they'd been thrown out of their house when their parents found out they were gay.  this isn't something that's easy to get over.  those kids had to drop out of school.  they had to support themselves in any way they could.  a lot of them ended up with serious addictions and some of them are dead today (i'm only 25).  i thank god that while my parents weren't supportive when i came out, they didn't throw me into the street either.

    the reason all this shit happens is people like warren.  the soft bigotry is just as damaging as the sharp-edged stuff.  if someone is "sinful" it makes it ok to treat them like shit.  if something is "not right" it makes it ok to demonize the person who does it.  this affects every LGBT person in this country and it needs to fucking stop.  Until our leaders grow the balls to finally say NO MORE, the trickle down of bigotry, hate, and violence will continue.  until there is zero tolerance of anti-gay demonizing, life will continue to be very hard for a lot of gay kids, many of whom will go to sleep on the street tonight.

  •  I have to say...I'm bummed by this pick. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PaintyKat, two roads

    Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed...

    by langstonhughesfan on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:40:32 PM PST

  •  i hate to say told you so but this is a repost of (7+ / 0-)

    my experience talking to Barack in dec of 2007 about throwing us under the bus.

    Barack mentioned the problem with the word itself "marriage" in a rally I went to in Lebanon, NH in Dec of 2007.

    I was ticked off at him at the time on the heels of the Donny McClurkin thing. A guy in the crowd asked him about SSM and he stumbled badly in the response. BO rambled on and on saying he supported the rights to visitation and a couple of other lame rights, not the whole 1200+ and then went off on the tangent of "people in Indiana are not ready for the word marriage."
    It was weird and a not ready for prime time moment for the early campaigner. Both sides should be grateful it was never a viral video because it made me feel like a second class citizen, separate and unequal and it would not have appealed at all to the anti SSM crowd.

    Thankfully, he deftly improved his blurb on SSM on the trail and avoided making it a hot issue for the campaign.

    It has bothered me about him since that day, the feeling that he did not get it. A black man standing there telling us other people are not ready for the "word" marriage. It was not change I could believe in at the time and I leaned toward Hillary.

    Obviously, he won me over with his other fantastic and extraordinary capabilities and I am thrilled he is Prez elect.

    But, I feel he needs to come along quite a bit further on our issues, his heart still needs some changing.

    After the rally ended I had the chance to tell him that "the gays were pissed" because this blog was afire over Donny McClurkin and friends who had given him money were ticked off and looking elsewhere.

    His response was less than reassuring and defensive, he kept saying "it was just one concert" over and over. I said one appearance was enough to give us the message. He pointed out his record of pro LGBT stances. I mentioned he should vet people and not repeat the mistake of alienating us, his base. He repeated "it was just one concert".
    After he walked away and finished the rope line (they were tiny then) he shot a hand back and said "thanks for that" I think that happened many times on the trail, people telling him about LGBT and all kinds of other issues and that is what made him a great candidate, humbled him and helped him build the mass support for the triumph he/we had.

    My concern remains that he needs to be moved along towards understanding our issues on a heart level and that if he had prop 8 would not have passed or at least he would have come down harder on California officials to work harder against it. But, I could be dead wrong on that.

  •  "World Wide Church of God" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PaintyKat, mainefem, vacantlook

    Many years ago, like about 20 years, I went to the Island of Kuwaii for a friend's wedding, and stayed with another friend, who worked at a hotel on the Island.

    That hotel was hosting a convention for the "World Wide Church of God", and was choc full of attendees.

    This hotel also had in-room porno films to rent, like payperview, with the charge added to the room bill.

    She told me they set a record for porno movie sales during that convention.

     

    •  this is hilarious (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PaintyKat, mainefem

      and typical (in my experience) of really extreme conservatives

    •  Was that convention... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PaintyKat, mainefem

      ...during the end of September/beginning of October?  If so, it was probably the Feast of Tabernacles, which is an approximately week-long religious celebration commanded to be observed by God in Leviticus.  (How many people who love to cite Leviticus to condemn homosexuality actually even know what the Feast of Tabernacles is, let alone keep it themselves, I've often wondered.)

      Once I started attending church services, we would go to the Virginia Beach/Norfolk location for the services.  And while I never actually bought any porn, when late at night my mom was in the other room, I would mute the tv and watch the few minutes of preview that the tv system would let me.  And I always was more interested in the men than I was in the women.  I did that, but yet didn't understand why.

  •  incidentally, (4+ / 0-)

    as a gay new yorker, i'm feeling really fucked over since the election.  first we have the state dems selling us down the river because they can't hold the senate together and now this shit.  although, i guess this can't match the CA gays for post-E day grievances :(

    i guess i just need to remember that even if we're experiencing a few setbacks, at least we're now moving in the right direction, as opposed to the last 8 years...

  •  I feel for you, but (0+ / 0-)

    I disagree that "Obama is giving legitimacy to homophobia." He is reaching out to a religious leader that has put more important things on the front burner - poverty and AIDS.
    Gays in our country have lived through horrific times. However - I served 24 years in the AF and we always had gays in our squadrons. Most people knew who they were and no one cared. We accepted them completely. I understand that that's not the norm, but it happens.
    And the next generation coming up doesn't see why the homosexual issue is an issue. There will be many changes in the next 10-20 years.

    "I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones." -John Cage

    by Grokster on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:52:46 PM PST

  •  I just posted a comment on the diary (5+ / 0-)

    by LarsThorvald also now up on the rec list. His is a "nice" diary, but here's my comment:

    Brilliant? Maybe. Horribly painful? Absolutely. (0+ / 0-)

    My heart goes out to all those wounded by the willfully uneducated positions taken by religiously-connected individuals such as Rick Warren. I don't think it's right for Obama to play politics with such an emotionally inflammatory issue. We're not talking about a mere difference of opinion here.

    I appreciate this diarist's story because it illustrates evenhandedly that evangelicals who respond to this invocation story are not in any true sense being injured by gays or the notion of homosexuality, as this diary demonstrates that the true, profound, excruciating pain is experienced by LGBT persons deeply and continuously, and not just for themselves, but also for unborn LGBT persons who will have the very same mean, vicious misinterpretations of biblical mistranslations and failed logic visited upon their poor souls into the foreseeable future.

  •  For those of us who don't get it... (7+ / 0-)

    I think Art is the best way to unite people who lead seemingly disparate lives. I have always been an open-armed loving progressive, but I did not understand, at all, the misery and sorrow LGBTs go through until I read and watched Tony Kushner's play Angels in America. Kushner's play pushed me beyond just tolerating and placating LGBTs towards accepting and loving LGBTs as my sisters and brothers.

    Perhaps one the most moving moments in the Kushner's play is when the main character, Joe Pitt (a married, closeted gay Mormon) reveals to his mother, over a Central Park payphone no less, that he is gay. I can not watch that scene or read the lines "Mama, I'm gay" without my whole body seizing up with emotion (sadness, empathy, joy). There is something about this moment that breaks through all the bullshit posturing by centrists, fundamentalists, and "Average" Americans about the LGBT "issue". LGBTs are not an issue, they are people.

    For those of you who do not think Warren presiding over the Invocation is a big deal, I would implore to watch the HBO miniseries version of Angels in America. Or go see the new film Milk. Or read The Laramie Project. If you are not LGBT, then you can not "get it" completely. Just like if you are not an African American, you can not totally understand what it is like to be black in America. Art allows us to bridge the unfathomable divisions between us, if only for a moment. I know that my feelings for LGBT people have been completely altered by reading Kushner's work, and I hope that others can be illuminated by Kushner and other LGBT artists.

  •  Obama's Don't Ask, Don't Tell Moment..........n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mainefem

    Fly the Flag on 1/20/09.

    by exMnLiberal on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:07:02 PM PST

  •  How Old Are We? (0+ / 0-)

    I am incensed by the childish and counterproductive behavior which has been exhibited both in this community and in the general LGBT Community over the past twenty-four hours.

    Particularly, Rachel Maddow's opening jeremiad against Obama was infuriating, not because it vocalized some legitimate frustrations and expressed some germane concerns, but because it manifested itself in one of the purest political tantrums I have ever witnessed in a "serious" person.

    Did anyone of sound mind in the LGBT Community really delude himself into thinking that Barack Obama would begin his tenure with a proclamation of the year of the Jubilee?  It has taken years for Gays to achieve the rights they now enjoy, and it will take a few more before they are at parity with their heterosexual brethren.

    But it will happen.

    In the interim, Obama is being inaugurated as President of ALL the people, including those Evangelicals represented by Warren.  It is better to have a common interest and an open mediator between these two communities than it is to perpetuate the status quo by maintaining the cultural guerrilla war which has obtained for the past twenty-five years.

    After all, Warren is only going to offer a prayer.  One would think that his prayer will invoke God's blessing on Barack Obama and his vision for the nation:  WHICH CERTAINLY INCLUDES CIVIL RIGHTS AND EQUALITY FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS.

    Therefore, I must ask myself whether this manufactured umbrage, with its threats of confrontation and schism, isn't more about power and attention than it is a legitimate protest for redress of grievances.  Either some of us in the Progressive community are simply afraid of success, or else we collectively have become incapable of the kind of self-sacrifice which is the foundation of great social movements.

    I'd like to think that believe in things bigger than ourselves, and trust in the concept that a rising tide lifts all ships.

    And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

    by terry2wa on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:44:13 PM PST

    •  Ah, yet another lecture (6+ / 0-)

      to the unruly children who need to be told to behave nicely and wait quietly and those who know best will decide when the time has come for their protest to be considered legitimate and their equal rights be granted.

      "Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." John Wooden

      by CKendall on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:46:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If That's What You Read In My Post, Then We (0+ / 0-)

        Don't speak the same language.  And, I might add, if that's the way you speak to your allies, then you're in for a long, hard fight indeed with your enemies.

        The inaugural invocation isn't the goddamn Stonewall riot. This is a manufactured confrontation, ill-timed, and strategically unsound.  That's what you're being counseled by your friends...while you still have them.

        What if you get Warren disinvited?  What have you accomplished?  Well, for one, you've given Rick Warren carte blanche to declare open warfare on the Gay community.  And you've helped to castrate the nascent Obama administration at the very moment when he's going to need to roll over Washington like a juggernaut simply in order to save us all from economic collapse.

        Man.  That's quite a feather in your cap, and you still won't be able to get married in California.  Jolly good show!  Nice work!

        And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

        by terry2wa on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:40:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you called people childish who are trying (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PaintyKat, craigkg, texcubsf, CKendall

          to not be second class citizens.  Who ae doing what every other group , if you knew history, did to win their rights. After that no one cares what else you write. It's that simple.

          •  It Occurs To Me That Your Rhetoric Belies Bigotry (0+ / 0-)

            Against anyone who offers a slightly differing perspective from your own.  I am not ignorant of history, my friend; but I think you might just be contemptuous of it.

            As a matter of fact, you sound like George Bush when you state that those who aren't with us are against us.

            There will be full enfranchisement for Gays in this country. It will happen.  It just might not happen on your schedule or unfold in precisely in the way you envision. And you'd be well-advised to keep people like Rick Warren inside the same tent, so that at least he isn't outside pelting you with stones.

            It's that simple.

            And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

            by terry2wa on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:37:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He will NEVER be in our tent (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mainefem, craigkg, texcubsf, CKendall

              If we tolerate him, are you that deluded to think that he, and his followers, will ever respond in kind?

              If I didn't know better, I'd think they [conservatives] cared more about their discredited ideology than they do about the country.-Morlock

              by demoKatz on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:41:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  We Have Some Common Ground And A Few Common (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wolf Of Aquarius

                Interests, especially as regards the Green movement.

                I don't think that Warren will ever back down from his opposition to Gay marriage, but he will eventually have to come to terms with its inevitability.  In the interim, we can either work together on our compelling common interests, or else we can squander everyone's future sniping at each other with sanctimonious, emotional epithets.

                And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

                by terry2wa on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:19:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  You are confusing me who gives a shit (0+ / 0-)

              about your manipulations. I am not one of these idiot posters here who will read your posts. You started off wrong by calling me a bigot for calling your classification of people  fighting for their rights as childish. Pretty much  you were done at childish, and with this post at bigot. In both instances, it indicates you have no clue what you are talking about other than spouting off bullshit.

              •  Good Collegial Attitude. (0+ / 0-)

                Well, I shall grief at the loss of such comity.

                And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

                by terry2wa on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:15:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  again full of it (0+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:
                  terry2wa

                  man you are full of it, and I am not interested in playing into this game of pretending you aren't. Calling people names like "childish" and 'Bigot" who are again defending their rights, and then expecting them to bend over to play along is manipulation, plain and simple. You use language as a weapon here. Not conversation. I treat you accordingly.

        •  You're right. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mainefem

          We do not speak the same language.  I do not lecture condescendingly to friends and allies on their "childish and unproductive behavior" or call their legitimate outrage "political tantrums" or a "manufactured confrontation."    

          But you are also wrong.  I will be able to get married in California or anywhere else I want because I am not gay.

          "Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." John Wooden

          by CKendall on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:43:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  wow very moving (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    texcubsf
  •  I campaigned for change.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    texcubsf, CKendall

    and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.

    Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke.

    by Guinho on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:10:58 PM PST

  •  Hello. (6+ / 0-)

    Everytime I read an article like this, about a gay man or a lesbian hating themselves and praying to God to make them straight when they were younger and vulnerable, I wish I could reach back through time and space to that person you were and hug you and tell you how sorry I am that you had to go through that.  And the same arms that would reach back to hug you would SLAP THE SHIT out of the pastors and people who fucked with your brain.  My next door neighbors and best friends are two gay men.  One of them's story could simply be yours.  But he still suffers under such pain and hurt.  He is my very, very close friend, and he has written almost your same experience.  He attempted suicide many times, though. Now he is in a great relationship, is a fabulous and talented gardener and his wonderful personality is loved by so many here.

    I want so much to lock his parents and former pastor in a closet till they can see the light. (I know that is a pretty mixed metaphor, but I mean it that way.)

    Longing for a return to decency and civility.

    by Percheronwoman on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:12:25 PM PST

  •  McClurkin was fair warning (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    texcubsf
    Hate to say it, but none of this is surprising to me.

    Still I'm not terribly upset by it if for no other reason than it doesn't surprise me and I think people are way overreacting. The man is just giving a prayer. It's not like he's been nominated for a cabinet position.

    Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do during the primaries and the general election. He is bringing in people who do not necessarily agree with him or his supporters. We got what we voted for folks and we only have ourselves to blame and we're now stuck with "well he's better than McCain."

    Don't blame me. I voted for Kucinich in the primaries.

    So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

    by Cali Techie on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:24:42 PM PST

Chris Bowers, chase, Jeff in PA, elishastephens, C S McCrum, myriad, Ed in Montana, Susan S, carlton858, Grendel, raboof, TealVeal, deben, aimlessmind, Hudson, mg3ca, DelRPCV, TKinVT, alisonk, chowder, AdmiralNaismith, tiponeill, mem from somerville, mattman, janinsanfran, tnichlsn, bread and roses, Shockwave, LynChi, bramish, KateG, willyr, chicagochristianleft, DemDachshund, Schtu, caliberal, sobermom, Norwegian Chef, Pd, mataliandy, vrexford, Thelesis, benNYC78, dnamj, Vitarai, RubDMC, opinionated, dadanation, David Beard, PaintyKat, m00nchild, mentaldebris, guyute16, whenwego, maxschell, ehavenot, DaleA, fishhead, roses, chechecule, LeftofArizona, JuliaAnn, sberel, juslikagrzly, CodeTalker, FeastOr, sngmama, internationaljock, MadEye, Nate Roberts, KathleenM1, Pachacutec, ChristieKeith, bigmama, steve04, danthrax, Quentin, crkrjx, StuartZ, gmb, grannyhelen, Timoteo, TiaRachel, churchylafemme, Nemagaiq, homo neurotic, noveocanes, johnnygunn, defluxion10, snakelass, Maria in Pgh, John Driscoll, The Pretzel, Timbuk3, kismet, DMiller, outragedinSF, mainefem, SanDiegoDem, sfluke, homogenius, vansterdam, cohe, Gowrie Gal, davidkc, Big Tex, julifolo, CPT Doom, Fabian, chumley, ExStr8, jabney, Tarindel, TheGeneral, jrooth, DianeNYS, enough, Othniel, baccaruda, Technowitch, PBen, Philoguy, electricgrendel, DoGooderLawyer, craigkg, SoCalLiberal, dogemperor, barbwire, Clem Yeobright, YucatanMan, devadatta, FutureNow, boofdah, Viceroy, Penman, jcitybone, Burned, cassidy3, Wufacta, ddock, lotlizard, QuickSilver, gerardbellavita, Eric K, blue jersey mom, Jawis, antiapollon, sunbro, jeff in nyc, bluescrubs, kaliope, wandering i, Savvy813, wbr, mph2005, wiscmass, kerplunk, LithiumCola, The Fat Lady Sings, proudprogressiveCA, ZinZen, sgary, Arsenic, rerutled, Matt in AA, noweasels, lgmcp, SoulCatcher, rserven, LeftOverAmerica, esquimaux, gwilson, irishwitch, jkusters, andydoubtless, HoundDog, liberalconservative, Samwoman, aggieric, lokiloki, MJ via Chicago, bubbanomics, gooderservice, dedmonds, justalittlebitcrazy, NearlyNormal, Potus2020, AndyS In Colorado, Dinclusin, quantumspin, Mindtrain, means are the ends, crystal eyes, Slatefish, duha, Temmoku, andrewj54, Nulwee, liberaldemdave, Aaa T Tudeattack, AntKat, DrMicro, BentLiberal, bigchin, sephius1, BoyBlue, MediaHype, DUKETYPE, LV Pol Girl, gloriana, EdSF, moosely2006, psychodrew, andrew330, voix de raison, david mizner, NCDem Amy, terabytes, anagram, sfbob, bnasley, gatorbot, dconrad, jayden, steamkettle, akdude6016, mauro7inf, jamesia, cyncynical, thursdays child, jnhobbs, millwood, Curufinwe, Rumarhazzit, JML9999, rf7777, keikekaze, cloudbustingkid, TomP, gizmo59, jgilhousen, Rusty5329, rogerdaddy, martydd, Shane Hensinger, craigbear, AlexanderChee, The Movac, rontun, robbbbb, Cordwainer, Felix Culpa, VL Baker, Dante Zappala, exMnLiberal, Missys Brother, Jeff Y, Punditcrat, petulans, jarhead5536, luckylizard, BYw, Ally McRepuke, priceman, dont think, marketgeek, me imperturbe, ZhenRen, Johnny Venom, smellybeast, Sportin Life, two roads, rejoice, Pender, An Affirming Flame, banjolele, be the change you seek, Stranded Wind, dark daze, Blue Revolution, Tara the Antisocial Social Worker, h bridges, Buster CT1K, a girl in MI, remingtonsteele, Yalin, JesseCW, erin r, DefendOurConstitution, Daily Activist, unspeakable, langstonhughesfan, dRefractor, such sweet thunder, Kaili Joy Gray, mksutherland, RyanR, allep10, kevinpdx, seatrey, audiored, FlipperWaves, xylem, Avarus, sneakers563, climateguy84, raf, CajunBoyLgb, pyegar, hippiechick13, Commoditize This, robertacker13, gramofsam1, fidellio, Spaceboy, chrome327, KentuckyKat, Lost and Found, lostmypassword, legalchic, BludevlsAdvocate, MelKnee, PinkNinja, ctlrick, Marja E, Mariken, Jaimas, itswhatson, Pay It Forward, alethea, acooldayinaugust, roystah, MsGrin, kissmygrits, Freddy Bear, BasiX, stevenaxelrod, Quote Me, TichMarie, 3rdshifter, mookyee, watershed, ladyducatnip, Colorado is the Shiznit, SuperBowlXX, SoJerGuy, Lost Left Coaster, Rebecca74, Olon, sixthestate, judybrown, BillyElliott, BlueHead, FightingRegistrar, samalex, DawnoftheRedSun, two moms in Az, buddingactivist, elworth, Joey Madison, texcubsf, Prinny Squad, snow crash, not humble enough