First law of politics, people- the law of inverse relevance.
The less you plan to do about something, the more you need to talk about it. I suspect that this amounts to no more than Obama’s nod and wink to the conservative right before he starts signing bills that piss them off.
The difference is that Warren is a bigot and not one that works for a network or big company. There is no shortage of bigots and I am sure that some have given the invocation before. The KKK is still a group of uber-bigots that still have violence as part of their message. I don’t think it is a subtle difference.
Now I also see your point, Gays and Lesbian do have a lot further to go for true tolerance and equality. I only came around on the Gay marriage issue myself about 4 or 5 years ago and only because my wife argued me into a corner where I sounded stupid. I was a minor homophobe until I was about 21 but came around when I saw how stupid and Nazi like some people were with wanting to quarantine all the gays to stop the spread of Aids*.
I don’t think G&Ls have made enough progress yet where you can meet hate with hate and try to ostracize those that do still discriminate. So I do still think Obama is doing the right thing in a fairly meaningless gesture.
**Liberal **is correct and the sad state of the world is the oppressed are the ones that need to work harder for change and remain the more civil in the debate at the same time. Until you find a way to reach enough people with your correct debate, you remain in the minority opinion. I don’t think my wife is going to make too many more converts. 
Jim
In terms of pure cynical politics, holding the administration’s feet to the fire for some substantive action as a fence-mending gesture could result in getting more actual progress than would have happened otherwise.
Well, there’s talk that Obama’s considering appointing an openly gay Secretatry of the Navy. In my opinion, that’s exactly the kind of substance that would trump the essentially meaningless gesture to Warren.
He might even be smart enough to have chosen Warren specifically as a strategy to soften up the right for this appointment.
Anyone catch the TODAY SHOWinterview on how gays should die virgins evidently? Warren talks about his many gay friends asking him why they shouldn’t have multiple sexual partners… I’m wondering which gays exactly both befriend Rick Warren and debate their sex life with him. I’d love to see them interviewed, though I’m guessing they currently are in a menage a trois with a 6’3 pooka and Captain Tuttle.
Yep, smarmy asshole, but I think he’s politically astute enough not to go off on a tangent when he gives the invocation and if he does it only hurts him. I still see the issue as a descendant of Lincoln playing Dixie after Lee surrendered.
First, my guess is that Warren was chosen because of this:
Second, he’s not being offered a cabinet seat, he’s reading at a ceremony, everybody just calm the fuck down.
Third, lick my hairy nutsack you crazy ass bitch.
Fourth, never forget that we’re a predominantly Christian country, anyone who wants to get elected to anything has to play to the Christians because they are (wait for it) the MAJORITY.
This is going to get at least as annoying as what it replaced, and will cause infinitely more unnecessary friction due to misunderstandings.
I made the Lincoln-playing-Dixie analogy above without thinking about the fact that Obama is a major Lincoln-phile who has said in interviews he’s been reading and rereading biographies of the man for the past several months. Warren could be more than analagous to Dixie and a direct copying of the Dixie incident.
Some historical trivia: many of the gay rumors about Lincoln actually started when he ordered the band to play Dixie, “as fine a tune as I ever heard and one that I can now enjoy again”. It wasn’t the song itself so much as the fact Lincoln specifically ordered the USMC Band (or “Professor Flamingo’s Active Duty Boys in the Band” as he called them) to play the techno remix (specifically the one with Stephen Foster samplers), this followed by the president holding glowing sticks used to mix phosphorous in munitions factories while singing “I say ‘Army of Northern Virginia’ you say ‘Surrender’!” to an increasingly jubilant crowd, then getting a bit more barbed with such things as “I say 'Stonewall, you say ‘Password?’” followed by “Can’t hear ya gen’ral, bang bang!”. Deciding a more somber tone was in order Lincoln was convinced by Seward and others to engage in a self congratulatory reading of THE TRAGEDY OF JULIUS CAESAR, though it got out of hand, culminating in several freedmen playing spearcarrier roles serenaded him during Mark Anthony’s oration with “Who let the dogs of war slip? Who? Abe Abe did! Who! Abe did!” Then there are stories about foam from the White House bath overflowing the lawn and some bitchy comments to a pregnant Kate Chase Sprague about “breeders spoil another one”. But who hasn’t been to a party that got a little out of hand, especially for such a momentous occasion?
News of the revelries of course overshadowed any of the conciliatory gestures of playing Dixie. The joke about Jackson’s death led to a renewed insurrection in his hometown of Lexington, Virginia known as the infamous “Stonewall Riots of '65”. But the important thing: peace was made to the bloodiest war in history, and glowsticks were invented.
Hopefully Obama will not let this get as out of hand though.
I’m still not sure why we haven’t voted you a stipend for Samuel Clemens Chair of Humorous Prose yet.
No, I don’t. 50 years ago he probably WOULD have been; now, he’s going after gays.
Reconciling with bigoted scum is disgusting, and highly unethical. You can’t do it without BECOMING them, because they will accept nothing less. And you can’t ’ get past the “You’re a monster!” “No, YOU’RE a monster!” stage ', when the other side ARE monsters - which is what bigots are - and when regarding YOU as a monster is the center of their worldview.
Obama is slapping gay Americans in the face, making it clear that deep down he supports the bigots, and that at best “the ride” will be to another version of segregation. And we all know how wonderful that was.
Yeah, I’ve never been one to do the other thing either, that just tickled my fancy today.
Better Rick than Wright. Frankly, I’d prefer no one give an invocation. Let’s start letting the concept of separation of church and state have some meaning.
I just can’t get too worked up about this. As others have said, he’s not being given any actual power, just the forum in which to make a speech that ought ot be utterly devoid of political content.
I’m not thrilled about the choice, I’m sure he could have picked someone I’d be happier with. But let’s face it - Obama cannot allow gay marriage nationwide by fiat. And maybe it won’t happen in the next four years. I can accept that. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think gay rights is a big issue. On the contrary, I think the best and fastest way to get equal rights is to protest and educate publlic consciousness as quickly as possible, and let laws and politics trail just a little behind. I truly hope that Obama’s quiet and understated, but unwavering, support for gay rights will be just what the country needs.
Of course not.
What’s that supposed to mean?
On the one hand, we have a reputed appointment of the first openly gay Presidential Cabinet member. On the other hand we have a homophobic preacher (albeit, a homophobic preacher who tends to be more subdued in his rhetoric than a lot of them are) giving a non-political invocation at the inauguration ceremony. Which of these two choices is really more significant? Which one really has the greater impact on gay rights and public perception?
Most Republican Presidents would have done this the other way around. They would have chosen a moderate preacher to give the invocation and then appointed a raging homophobe (or several of them) to the Cabinet. And that’s if they were feeling generous. Which way would you rather have it? This prayer affects nothing, and like it or not, Obama can’t just ignore the religious right for 4 years. He’s going to have to engage with some right wingers.
It really is meaningless.
It means that to you and others here homosexuals are still considered 2nd (or 3rd) class citizens. If “gay” were replaced by “black” and “Warren” were replaced by “David Duke” would all the same people pooh-pooh or even scorn anyone who complains?
Oh, that’s fucking priceless.
I’m not even sure how to start responding to that. Let me take a few deep breaths and I’ll get back to you. Meanwhile, maybe look up the posts I’ve made recently about Prop 8.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and some of what you say may be correct, but please don’t tell me how I ought to feel.
This is only an invocation, true. It is also true that everything about this inauguration is highly charged with meaning, more so probably than most inaugurations in recent memory. So it does mean something. What it means is debatable.
See, I don’t really expect much from Obama on gay rights issues, because it’s still a pretty potent third rail in American politics, because he has more important things to worry about (more important even to most gays, if they would be honest about it), but mostly because he doesn’t need to do anything at all (except be a Democrat) to keep the support of the LGBT mainstream community. On the principle of “it takes a Nixon to go to China” I think it’s going to take a genuinely conservative President to be in a position to make any genuine positive steps.
Roddy