On careful reading, I don’t see how he has said such a thing. I fear you are very close to the time-honored lefty tactic of turning on your allies when angered. It is a tactic which offers enormous comfort to our shared enemies. Their chitinous forelimbs rub in glee, orgasm shivers their cloaca.
I’m not offering instruction (when I lead, no one follows) but that you be mindful of this.
Equipoise, you are right to be angry at comparisons made by Rick Warren and others of homosexuality to mental illnesses and crimes against children. It is good and proper that you rail against injustices and unfairnesses against any group of people.
We are not at odds about what is right and wrong, merely about what to do about it. I could be wrong about the efficacy of what Obama’s doing. But I am not wrong to present my interpretation of what he’s doing, or to observe how a political wedge works to perpetuate established prejudices.
I hope you and everyone arguing here has a great holiday.
With all due respect, luci, I disagree.
If our straight allies do not recognize that Warren being invited to open the inauguration ceremonies with a prayer is equivalent to, say, FDR inviting Father Coughlin to do the same at his inauguration, or for JFK to invite Bull Conner to the White House for a private conference, then I have to believe that they simply do not consider gay rights to be on par with the rights of Jewish and African-American citizens. There is no other thing to think, here. It is exactly equivalent.
And the more those straight allies protest that no! No! We don’t think that! while simultaneously telling us that we really need to shut up and sit down because we’re getting all hysterical and having hissy-fits, the more disappointed I am.
He called such comparisons “hysterical rhetoric” and it’s not, it’s the truth. If people need touchstones to other cultural references regarding civil rights, those are good ones to use, even if some want to dismiss them. But I will concede that maybe he doesn’t feel that way personally. (on preview, thank you for your post xenophon41)
But really, there are two different issues here and it’s very easy to get them mixed up together. 1) the civil rights of homosexuals, which is a broad, deep and diverse topic that brings in things like those comparisons, and 2) Obama’s choosing a known bigot for the Invocation. That act was hurtful because Warren is an active participant in trying to prevent 1. Obama isn’t trying to prevent civil rights, but he’s honoring someone who is, and at the expense of people who were already hurting because of the results on election day in California, Arizona, Arkansas and Florida. Obama, quite innocently, I believe, casually added insult to injury to millions of people. It’s made me look at him in a whole new way. Kind of a wake up call that he’s not a Sensitive New Age Guy. I probably would have known that had I been paying attention (I didn’t start following the election until after Palin was chosen), so the fault is mine. Again, I think he’s going to be a great president, and do great things. I also believe that gay rights will continue to move forward (oh yeah, and thanks Bush) because civil rights can be slowed down, maybe even stopped for a while, but they’ll win, in the end. Like you said.
That still doesn’t mean I have to “accept” the slap, but I realize that nothing can be done about it. Gay voices will be ignored. Warren’s a smug asshole who knows a good thing when he sees it and he’s not going to pull out. He’s going to milk this for everything he can. He already has. Obama can’t replace him, and I don’t believe he’d want to anyway, since they’re friends. It’s going to happen. Life will go on. But some of us will never forget.
[to jayjay:] It’s equivalent to Lincoln inviting slaveholders to Washington, or to FDR making deals with American fascist sympathizers prior to the war.
American social reality does not resemble the blogosphere or even the SDMB. Most of our fellow citizens are afflicted with ignorant beliefs, among them fear and distrust of homosexuals.
I also think some of it comes from the hallowed place that religion (and Christianity in particular) holds in our society. A lot of people feel squicky about this, but they dismiss it because “his religion says he has to believe that, so it’s okay”, or at least “his religion says he has to believe that, so we can’t really say anything against it”. Bullshit.
Yes, because I have no empathy for gay rights.
Why do you characterize those who view this move differently from you as “blowing it off”? And the idea that we aren’t seeing this from the same viewpoint as you “just because he’s Obama” is not only absurd, it’s insulting.
We have a very conservative poster here who is widely respected; Bricker. He is also a very devout Catholic, so his religious views sometimes color his political views, which is understandable. There was a time, several years ago, when Bricker was outspokenly opposed to gay marriage.
At or before that time (September, 2004), would you have ostracized Bricker from participating in SD events, be they Dopefests or even just MPSIMS or Great Debates threads because including him was tantamount to blowing off gays? Was engaging him in our community and continuing to try to have an open dialog a “slap in the face” to our gay posters? If we had excluded Bricker based on his beliefs on this one particular issue, and shunned him as a bigot, this would never have happened. . .
This is an example of what those of us who are trusting Barack Obama in this decision are hoping the end result will be. We do not believe he is condoning Rick Warren’s position on gay rights. We do not believe he is slapping gays in the face by befriending him and including him in his swearing-in ceremony. We actually believe this could be the best first step to building the kind of rapport with those on Rick Warren’s side that will ultimately open them up to being more tolerant of our fight for equal rights for gays.
I hope that makes our motivations clearer to you now, and you’ll stop mischaracterizing us as unempathetic face-slappers.
Merry Christmas.
Exactly. I’m baffled that people are surprised by Obama’s invitation to Rick Warren. Obama is not the progressive that most of the far-left think he is. He’s a complete blank and everyone just projected their wishes on him without really looking at his positions. He did invite a gay-bashing minister in his stump speech didn’t he? He did say that he will repeal DOMA, didn’t he? (This should have clued everyone in that he’s just pandering - he knows that he would have to backtrack on this promise because he won’t get the support) Why are we surprised with Rick Warren?
Nice signs Shayna.
Oh, I’m all for “engaging in dialogue” if someone wants to do that. There are lots of ways, means and opportunities to do that once Obama gets into office.
Choosing someone other than Warren, choosing a spirtual leader who espouses love and kindness, all that stuff Jesus went on about, is not “ostracizing” the fundies. No one would have thought anything of it. Fundies wouldn’t have been surprised. It never would have occurred to them that one of their own would be chosen anyway. They wouldn’t have railed about “exclusion” or being ostracized. Gays and lesbians could have enjoyed the day in the spirit of hope and a new beginning just like everyone else. It certainly would have been healing after the pain of election day.
But no, Obama has to go and choose Warren even though he had to have known the things that Warren said about homosexuals (and women, and Jews). And how this would look and feel to millions of his supporters never entered his mind. That’s what’s depressing.
And, yay, good for Bricker and those who engaged him, but I wouldn’t want Bricker speaking at the Inauguration either.
Yeah, I know. I gathered that. It’s very clear.
Good luck with that. Hopefully gays and lesbians won’t have to wait until those folks come around before they get their rights.
Odd. I would have thought that if this were such a crushing blow to gay rights and dignity, the homphobic fundies would have been lighting bonfires across the nation, celebrating their triumph. Haven’t noticed any such, but then again, I don’t get their newsletter…
If this is a calculated insult by a bigot, why then is he at such pains to establish his support of equal rights and dignity? He stated his purpose clearly, and I think his tactics were tone-deaf and flat of foot, but there is nothing wrong with his intention, save for those who can perceive devious plots squirming in his mind.
The reaction to this far exceeds its significance, which is an addenda to a footrnote. No one will cite this from the bench in denying rights. (“We hold that Obama’s inclusion of Warren as a speaker nullifies all precedent to date, and furthermore…”) As noted above, our enemies don’t seem to be gleefully celebrating their crushing triumph. Perhaps they don’t know that our new President is a monstrous homophobe, cackling evilly as he plots. Might be best not to tell them, they can be pretty obnoxious.
But civil unions aren’t identical to marriage, or equal. That’s the point; that’s why they were created. Just as always, separate but equal is never equal. That’s the point of “separate”.
And you are sure that he is not because of what? He did backtrack on a number of his campaign promises, didn’t he? He will backtrack on his promise to the GLBT that he will repeal DOMA, won’t he? He did ask a gay-bashing minister to stump for him, didn’t he?
Is that sarcasm, or are you seriously condemning him for actions he has yet to take? Have you a Certificate of Clairvoyance you’d like to show us, it would certainly bolster your, ah, argument.
Nope. I am merely saying that you can’t categorically say anything about his position. Seeing that the GLBT had just lost an important ballot and that Obama has turned his back on a number of campaign promises after securing his office, it is only natural that the the GLBT are closely looking at the actions of Obama to verify if indeed he is the progressive that they were all waiting for or were they just blinded by the halo of the historic character of his candidacy.
They’re pretty happy that gays are upset. It warms the cockles of their hearts. But a lot of them are hating on Warren too, appalled that he would share the stage with a homicidal Muslim illegal alien.
Wait, who called him a bigot? I certainly don’t think that, and I got the idea that Anduril just thinks we ought to keep an eye on his actions after obtaining office.
To you and others, yes. To me and others, no.
:rolleyes:
Thank you.
No, they wouldn’t, you’re right. On the other hand, they would have gone on believing that Democrats really aren’t the party of inclusion we claim to be, either. They might’ve walked away with a shrug of their shoulders, but their hearts would’ve been just as hardened on January 22nd as they are on January 19th.
It still can be, if they choose to look through a different lens this time. You think as a Jew that I’m happy about Rick Warren’s moronic views? Hardly. But I agree with Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on this.
I can’t find the article I was reading earlier, but I believe you are incorrect in assuming that how some people would feel about this never entered Obama’s mind.
That’s too bad, because much as I vehemently disagree with him on most things, he might have something of value to share at such an event.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Bush didn’t have a liberal speaker at his Inauguration, and it didn’t make me think “He said he was a uniter, not a divider. Lying fucker.” Well, I thought that about him, but it had nothing to do with his Inauguration.
Frankly, I don’t give a shit what fundies and right-wingers think. They’re a pox on our country. But, I also don’t mind Obama reaching out to them, if only because it’s gotta perplex the hell out of them. But why not some meetings and town halls and things like that? The day after Inauguration, even, invite a bunch of 'em to breakfast at the White House. Fine with me.
Why should they/we? No other perspective negates the hurt.
Thanks, but I’m not going to read more rationalizations. I’ve read far too many already. At least you didn’t tell me to read Melissa Etheridge’s gushy cooings, and I thank you for that.
“Rationaliztions”? That you “won’t read”? So, you haven’t, then?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that you, like I, have heaped scorn on people in these very pages for judging things they haven’t examined. Have I confused you with someone else?
I think Barney Frank came closest in terms of accurate criticisms. To paraphrase, he doesn’t doubt Obama’s good intentions. But he thinks Obama is trying to “charm” the Trog Right into accepting change.
(I sure like Barney the Homely Bulldog. Wish he’d move to MN so’s I could vote for him…)
And I think the GLBT is rightfully concerned that they will be put under the bus in the name of this divine movement “Change”. After all, Obama has thrown under the bus a number of his campaign promises even before his inauguration. After all, he has asked a gay-bashing minister to stump for him. Given that Obama’s positions have demonstrably shifted without much pressure from the right and that his past actions have been opaque to any form of analysis, GLBT will be right to be concerned. All they have are his words during the campaign - and he’s turned his back on a number of them already.