I think having any prayers at all just shows how delusional Obama really is and evil and bad and all that stuff. The next 4 to 8 years will only prove me right. 
with all due respect, I don’t think it is any kind of endorsement of Warren’s stand on any issues unless he’s invited to pray about and for those specific issues. I think it’s symbolic of the need to keep lines of communication open while we disagree passionately on certain issues.
So, I guess this means that the lesbian, wiccan high priestess didn’t make the cut, right?
I think the entire thing is kind of stupid.
I’m not gay but I know people that are. I haven’t asked them how theyv feel about it, but seriously, this guy giving the invocation is not a big dael. Obama said he’s trying to build some bridges…we were not always going to all agree. The whiners I see on TV seem to be saying “The bad man hurt our feelings! How can you be nice to him!?”
Yes thats over simplified, but its the way it seems. Again, if they all shut up no one will even care come March.
“Both sides”? Both sides of what? Would “both sides” include someone from Aryan Nation? How about someone from NAMBLA? The reason is that these people are, appropriately, marginalized in our society. Homophobes should be as well, not glorified.
Again, the man is not someone who simply disagrees with Democrats or “hurt our feelings.” He is someone who flat-out lied in order to take away rights from gay people. If the Democrats want to try to build bridges with him, I suppose it’s worth a shot, but it’s a little irksome to see people trivializing his past behavior.
If it makes some of you feel better, Warren’s taking a lot of crap from the wacky Righties, though no prominent voices so far.
And the Phelpses don’t count! L
I voted for Obama expecting him to govern from the center, knowing sometimes I would have to hold my nose. This is one of those times. We can be thankful that it does not involve any actual policy decision or legislation… merely making some symbolic promises to an imaginary wish-granting sky fairy.
Amen.
I agree that Obama is right in reaching out to members of the extreme right, of which (the extreme right, that is) Warren is on the left end.
That being said, I think he could have expended a tad of his political capital in choosing someone to give the invocation who, while not being offensive to the right wing, would also not be offensive to the left wing. Although I’m straight, I find Warren’s push for Prop 8 and his dismissal of abortion as comparable to the Holocaust to be deeply offensive. But perhaps even more important, is it really sending the right message to the world that a man who has called for a policy of assassinating a hostile foreign leader (Ahmadinejad) is being given such a prominent spot in the first event of Obama’s presidency?
It’s not a particularly politically savvy move, IMO. The people who like Warren are highly unlikely to support Obama no matter who says the invocation at his inauguration; they typically vote as an anti-Democratic bloc, guided by their pastors and FOX News. I have no problem with Obama meeting with Warren either socially or wrt policy, but I do have a problem with his giving such a prominent spot to a man who has actively campaigned to amend a state constitution to deny rights to others. So Obama ends up gaining little to nothing, while alienating a portion of his base.
It’s early days for Obama, and I certainly haven’t given up hope on him, but I find this choice to be deeply disappointing. There are many deeply Christian leaders he could have chosen who would have been inoffensive to all sides, as is the case with Lowry. Reaching out doesn’t need to imply embracing. And frankly, I’m a bit tired with the long definition of compromise in the political sense as the extreme right refusing to budge while the left gives and gives and gives. This looks already to be happening with the Congress; now we have a slight indication that it might also be the case with Obama. I’m not pleased. I expected Obama to be centrist, but I didn’t expect him to slap the left in the face. This strikes me as a slap, albeit less of one than he could have chosen (it could have been Jerry Falwell, if he didn’t happen to be dead).
I’m already starting to think that Obama talked a good talk on LGBT issues, but is going to do very little. After all, who else are we going to vote for? Throw us crumbs and you get our vote… I am absolutely disgusted…
I was at a semi-mega church when I heard the pastor speak very pointedly about CA Prop 8. Is this not crossing the line of political endorsement that ruins the non-profit status? I guess not, now that I remember that much of the Catholic church, not to mention all the black Protestant church was squarely against Jim Crow laws, and was willing to boycott, sit in, and march against it.
I also heard that a prominent So Cal church org said that it wouldn’t perform marriages if Prop 8 passed because it would mean that it would have to perform them for anyone who asked. I thought that very unlikely. Is there any part of that that is true? I think they were doing their “little thought put in, big volume put out” thing.
I realize that I will be skewered, roasted, filleted, and quartered for this, but:
You honestly think that everyone who disagrees with you is actually scared of you?
I don’t even understand what that means… Huh?
I can’t speak to what happened at a specific church without knowing all the facts. But generally, in order to maintain the religious exemption, a church cannot endorse or campaign for a specific candidate, but it can advocate for specific issues. However, once a church starts spending its funds on political issues, there are all sorts of rules that kick in, and it’s not quite my area of legal expertise, so I’ll defer to someone else.
No, it’s highly unlikely, as forcing a church to perform a gay marriage would likely violate that church’s Federal 1st Amendment rights. I think it would violate its freedom of religion rights under CA law as well, but the Federal argument is clearer, IMO. However, let’s say that you had a wedding chappel business (like in Vegas) that basically married anyone who came through the doors and which was not affiliated with a religious institution, I think the court would probably have treated that as a public business and required them to perform gay weddings.
However, if this was the concern, then that could have been addressed by amending the CA constitution to explicitly state that no religious institution could be compelled to perform a marriage which violated its religious beliefs. That would have allowed gay marriages to stay intact while still allowing churches their freedom of religion. Since the Prop 8 backers never proposed this, I find this concern to be suspect.
Oh jeez, here we go again. You’ve been around here long enough to know that “homophobia” does not simply mean fear of gay people. You should know better than to pull that.
I agree that we should take out Ahmadinejad. I was thinking we’d catch the latest Judd Apatow movie. maybe get dinner at Olive Garden beforehand. We could win him over, you know - I mean, would the “Great Satan” have breadsticks that good?
As for Warren, I wonder how much his willingness to associate with Obama will effectively “defang” him - one would think that his supporters would have expected him to turn down the offer. Obama might be neutralising an enemy at the same time as appearing bipartisan and inclusive. Just a thought.
The simple truth that must be clearly understood before you can appreciate what Obama’s done here is that, no matter whether homophobic beliefs and policies “should be” on the margins of society, in America they are not. In fact, mild homophobia is a mainstream condition in the US. Millions of Americans are afflicted, and as seen recently, this may include the majority of the electorate in most states.
It’s a condition, however, caused & spread by ignorance, and by fear. So it’s amenable to change if the people who have it can be coaxed into dialogue.
This is part and parcel of Obama’s whole approach to shifting the political center. Really, he’s just working to redefine the center in a way that the “social conservatives” can accept. He can’t do that if he doesn’t invite them on the bus. I’m happy to ride along with my ideological opponents as long as I can see the bus is heading in the direction I want to go.
Obama’s not giving homophobes any legitimacy that they don’t already have, but he is denying them any extra righteousness they might gain through exclusion and the victimization they would then claim. And by putting Warren, who is well known and respected by millions of Americans who, though otherwise decent and fair are afflicted with ignorance, on the same stage with folks like Lowery, Obama is clearly setting the stage for at least a broadening of how the “center” is perceived in this country.
If, at the end of Obama’s eight years many of our “progressive” concepts have been coopted by “conservatives” and are considered establishment beliefs, that won’t hurt my feelings a bit.
this is well worth reading on the topic
I suspect that he is going to do exactly as he said he would do - which will leave many gay activists very upset. He was very clear that he was not a proponent of gay marriage and is a proponent of strong civil union legislation at a Federal level. That is not enough for many on this board or for many gay activists. Getting strong Federal civil union protections will be on his list but he also did not list that among his top three things that must get done. I suspect it is in the top ten but it will not be a first hundred days item.
But none of that is other than as advertised.