Comments

  1. Jay says

    And thus it’s pretty much clear cut now, isn’t it? It isn’t a simple “for or against us” thing, it’s that someone like Rev. Lowery can adopt a civil tone and have his words match the tone and Mr. Warren will speak in hushed toneds but spew venom.

    All of which makes Warren the perfect choice for Obama – whether they agree on issues or not, they share the trait of talking out of both sides of their mouth. I’m not surprised, but yet still slightly disappointed.

  2. John in CA says

    While we’re being distracted by this pastor nonsense, there’s news from Capitol Hill that the congressional leadership has quietly told HRC that they won’t tackle DADT until after 2010 midterm elections.

    So, those lemmings who mocked critics of the new regime for saying it’ll take two long years to repeal DADT are technically “correct.” It is going to take more than two years.

    Merry Christmas from the Democratic Party, suckers!

  3. nic says

    and so it goes, same as it ever was. obama is not bringing change. he is bringing the same old same old. he is reportedly taking his oath on the same bible that lincoln did. no other president elect has done so.

    talk about gall, talk about hubris. this man has no shame. i fear that we are on the ride of our lives. first over-board — gays, then leftists, then what? hillary would not have approved of such nonsense if she were president, i think. but that ship has sailed. i hope that i will not have to grit my teeth through his short-lived presidency. i am sick of speechifying, i am sick of high-flown phrases. this man is full of it. governance belongs to the wonkish liberals. hillary 2012!

  4. yeahisaidit says

    c’mon now, there are also many gays who don’t support gay marriage…straights are not the only ones…the march for marriage equality, (equality being one of the greatest urban myths ever BTW), should continue on for those so inclined but it’s not something that all people will ever agree with…deal with that and move on…

  5. John in CA says

    Matthew,

    Obamabots have been saying DADT would be repealed “very soon” after the Dear Leader takes office. Presumably, they meant some time in 2009. But since Queen Pelosi has ruled out bringing such legislation to the floor next year, Obamabots are now claiming it’ll definitely happen in 2010.

    Unfortunately for them, Barney Frank has reportedly told HRC it won’t happen until “after the war” (which is also after the election). So, as usual, the Obamabots are full of prophetic nonsense. At this point, I’d say they have the predictive acumen of Pat Robertson. You’re better off with the Magic 8-Ball…

  6. Michael says

    “hillary would not have approved of such nonsense if she were president.”

    Hillary does not support gay marriage either! What is it with some of you gays, projecting your diva/mommy fantasies on Hillary Clinton when she an Obama have the exact same political positions on gay marraige.

  7. Ed says

    Question: Why not bring back Jesse Jackson’s rainbow coalition, albeit with a slight twist, to the inauguration? It could be incredibly inclusive and representative of all Americans differing point of views. We could have MTV produce it in a celebrity death match style. Kind of like during the heydays of the gladiators.

    I nominate Andrew Sullivan, Mike Savage, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Louis Farrakhan, Jerry Fallwell, Laura Schlessinger, (insert others here)…

    After all, isn’t this what America should stand for. Intolerance & Diversity!

  8. PM says

    So Obama will be bringing together a whole spectrum of views by inviting a minister who considers homosexuality a crime against nature and another whose stance is “deep in my heart, deeply rooted in my heart and mind, marriage is associated with man and woman” ?

    I suppose it would have been ‘too polarizing’ to choose an actually gay minister or one supportive of full equality, then ?

    Pah ; shouldn’t be so bitter all the way in the UK – it would really help though if the Obama camp could just start gagging their compatriots, if they have nothing whole-heartedly heartening to say.

    N.B. Joseph Lowery doesn’t seem a bad sort at all though, just disappointed that after acknowledging gay marriage opposition as “a little cultural shock” he seems to shrug his shoulders – culture shock leading to cultural change is fine, while culture shock leading to institutionalizing inequality is not.

  9. Michael says

    And what is the deal with gays and lesbians pretending to feel betrayed that Obama does not support gay marriage? He said so himself, repeatedly. So did Hillary, and every major plausible candidate for the Presidency in the past several elections. It’s NOT going to happen soon. Now we have these screaming mimis comparing the gay marriage ban to segregation and the Holocaust, who claim to speak for all of us, and threatening to throw any progress we can make by pushing for domestic partnership legislation away like the proverbial baby in the bathwater.

  10. nic says

    hey, stupid, er, MICHAEL,

    i hope that i will not have to explain it to you again. even if hillary and obama do not have a difference with gay policy, hillary would not have selected a pointedly controversial figure to invoke a bigoted god into politics. this selection was nothing more than an insensitive ploy to strip young wavering evangelicals from the mother ship of bigotry. and for this bare-faced gamble to win new voters obama was willing to offer up gay bodies to the altar of self-glorification? excuse me, i will surrender much in the fight for equality, but my dignity is inviolate. one would have to drag me kicking and screaming to the political abyss (which barack has termed “compromise” or “agreeing to disagree w/o being disagreeable”). fuck that! i am agreeing to be very disagreeable when it pertains to my second-class standing in this country that i helped build. this country owes me and others like me big time. once in awhile there is a rosa parks moment. and this is it. pity that our president elect doesn’t see it.

  11. Eric says

    To everyone who says that we should just rollover because none of the presidential candidates were for gay marriage, you have got to be kidding me.

    We will never achieve our rights if we don’t demand them. They will never just give them to us for “behaving.” If we don’t make noise, they’ll take us for granted and do whatever they want.

  12. seanndc says

    So I’m guess you all think that John McCain and the Republican Party would have been stronger allies and proponents of Gay Rights? If so, think again.

    This all or nothing approach that some or taking is self destructive to advancing the cause of Gay Rights at all. Whatever happen to incremental progress?

  13. Clint says

    Well, I stand corrected. I had heard Rev. Lowery had a progressive record on GLBT rights but I guess not all that progressive. Hmmm. The emotional “yuk” that is “culture shock” is not a high enough standard to deny a whole class of people the legal means for the pursuit of their own happiness. Ridiculous. I’m over it. I’m very satisfied with most of Obama’s work so far, but I’m not sure I want to watch the Inauguration. *Sigh*

  14. yeahisaidit says

    ..don’t waste time stating what hillary would or would not have done since there is no way of knowing how things would have happened, I don’t see her turning down the cabinet position she’s been offered over this, do you? …but one thing is more than likely to have been certain, she too would not made a pick that some group would have been pissed about for one thing or another…disappointment? yes…anger? you betcha! perspective? come on, please…

  15. SFshawn says

    Liberty and Justice for ALL.
    Why is this such a difficult concept?
    It is sad and frustrating that Obama has such obvious disregard and disrespect for gays(as fellow humans)that he would use his power to allow someone who equates us(and our love) with animals and children to take center stage at this historic event. I guess the billions of dollars the religious demographic could contribute to his 2012 campaign outweighed his “fierce” commitment to GLBT rights and all the hard work/$$$ GLBT folks put into getting him elected. I hope him and his family are enjoying their sunny vacation in Hawaii while OUT OF THE CLOSET Lesbians are gang raped in Oakland and OPENLY gay men are being killed,harrassed and verbally abused DAILY and even those perceived as gay(Brothers in NYC)are beaten with a baseball bat until he was dead. Years ago I went to the Holocaust museum in Los Angeles and saw how Germans made cartoons of Jews with big noses and animal bodies attempting to dehumanize them so that while they murdered millions they wouldn’t feel any accountability for killing innocent people.
    Thank you Obama and your transition team for making the United States a much more unsafe place to be OPENLY GAY and just keep pretending that by supporting and encouraging hate language,unjust laws,separate but equal(civil unions)that you are not literally killing your fellow Americans-if not our bodies,certainly our souls and our hope for a better world.

    “It takes no compromising to give people their rights. It takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people their freedom.” -Harvey Milk

  16. Foochy says

    Are people really questioning Reverend Joseph Lowery’s documented commitment to GLBT equality, even though he has articulately outlined his internal conflict about it? Perhaps it would be a good time to revisit the words of another pastor: “I may not get to the promised land with you, but I want you to know… that we as a people will.”

    We all struggle over our own narrow viewpoints of the world versus what is right, from which no person is immune. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of a physical limitation to his seeing a truly equitable society, but it can also be understood as a psychological/societal limitation as well. I’d rather have Reverend Lowery speak upon these issues as a person who is struggling with what he was brought up with, knowing that faith compels him to be a witness to the oppressed — irrespective of the nature of their second-class status — than a cleric who perceives himself as the static vessel for humanity’s worst theological abuses of power.

    Quite frankly, he has said more about his thinking on the matter from the heart than Obama has done, without resorting to the even more offensive after thought, “but I have gay friends” — and for that he should be congratulated and warmly engaged in conversation in my book.

    Be pissed at Obama’s choice of Rick Warren, fine — but don’t denigrate the fact that this man has traveled far from what he was taught or what he knew was safe. Reverend Lowery is not a politician; he is simply a man who has dedicated himself to serving his God in a society that has historically chosen to pick and choose what Biblical edicts to follow, and has asked his nation to pay attention to the most important lessons Christianity has to offer, even if he can only advise on certain topics imperfectly as humans are apt.

  17. Adrian says

    Am I the only person sick to death of people saying they don’t believe in gay marriage, but they believe “gay partners ought to have all the rights that any other citizens have in this country”. Do they not realise that denying someone the right to marriage means that this cannot be possible. Ugh, makes me furious!!

  18. Eric says

    We’ve tried this “incremental” bullshit for years. How much has that gotten us other than 30 states passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage? Other than a new administration that now says it is gonna push back repealing DADT? Other than the nonpassage of hate crime legislation?

    That approach hasn’t gotten us anywhere.

    No one should ever be asked to wait for their rights. I will never be quiet until my full rights have been recognized and protected.

    My being shrill may turn off some people, but your silence gets no one’s attention, and as a result, no action.

  19. ohplease says

    “We all struggle over our own narrow viewpoints of the world”? And you know this how, exactly? Speak for yourself, thanks.

    My “narrow viewpont” is that all people are equal. That’s the “viewpoint” of the Constitution. It is a “viewpoint” that anyone who claims to represent the views of any benevolent fictional god should hold.

    My “narrow viewpoint” is, in fact, widely encompassing. Just as Christianity is theoretically supposed to be. Just as you’d expect from anyone else who has known a civil rights struggle.

    Lowery is a product of his time, but that doesn’t make it okay for him to believe something that is wrong and, frankly, evil. He should know better than to discriminate against others. And it’s never too late to get it right.

  20. nic says

    OHPLEASE,

    your viewpoint is not narrow at all. i am paraphrasing here: we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. among these rights is the pur-fuckin-suit of happiness.

    what is it that those jerk-offs don’t get? let’s all memorize this: separation of church and state, separation of church and state … ad infinitum.

    the church deals in faith, the govt should deal in laws. give unto ceaser … as jebus reportedly said.

  21. Foochy says

    The writers of the Constitution themselves did not truly practice what they enshrined in our founding documents, but they did it anyway (even saw it in their hearts to count blacks as 3/5 of a person for the southern state representation). However, you seem to avoid that little problem in your response to my posting, perhaps because it reinforces my point.

    Presidents Roosevelt (both), Lincoln, and Johnson did not come into office believing in true racial or gender equality, but they were able to advance the cause of both largely through activists who knew they would never be the paragons of equality in their hearts, but opened a dialogue with each and through their efforts connected their sense of fairness for all to these issues. It has been a long fight for both — and true racial and gender equality are still not fully realized yet, although we are closer to the goal — but the most fruitful progression has always occurred through working as a collective, even if some of those actors had ulterior feelings.

    But thanks, ohplease, for letting me know that you believe in the rule of law and are free of prejudice or personal struggle of any kind whatsoever. I, as a person of color, need to live in reality — which means the rule of law is as strong as the people who abide by and enforce it, and having to stand strong against despising a society still steeped in its parochialism of race, sex, and gender.

  22. Bertha Vanation says

    It is only because we are accustomed to hearing the most vile lies and accusations against gays on a regular basis from members of the clergy that we can be persuaded that Obama choice of arch-homophobe Warren is simply Obama’s attempt to bring both sides together in a dialogue on gay rights. We would never find it acceptable if Obama had chosen an outspoken racist or antisemite. Nor would Obama ever choose such a bigot. But because we are so desensitized to gay bashing by preachers we don’t find it as shocking when Obama offers such a person the honor of giving the invocation at his inauguration. Nor do we see Lowery’s embrace of separate but equal civil unions for gays as objectionable as separate but equal water fountains for blacks. Sorry, but there is no reason anyone should be denied their basic rights simply because people like Rev. Lowery are not accustomed to the idea of gay marriage.

  23. Mel Smith says

    I think this is my first time making a comment on this site. But, as a gay person who also happens to be African American, please allow me to add my perspective.

    I think we are using a weak strategy towards achieving full equality. First, I think we must educate heterosexuals about the legal benefits that come with marriage. We have to educate them about how marriage protects the children we adopt. We also have to educate them about sexual orientation. See, when heterosexuals see us on television laughing and kissing our partners in front of a marriage official, they think we are making a mockery of the institution of marriage. Some of us need to take a more serious approach to the issue of marriage.

    Finally, the public most understand why we want to marry, and heterosexuals must understand who we are: we want the legal protections of marriage, marriage protects our adopted children, and our sexual orientation is just like heterosexual feelings except we are only attractive to the opposite sex. ‘personal prejudices should not become law,’ and ‘would you discriminate against me because of my sexual orientation’ are some of the slogans we should use.

  24. nic says

    @TONY THE TIGER’

    i suppose if you truly want to marry your pet goat larry, or marry within your species, say a bengal or african tiger, i don’t have too much of a problem with it. but goats have a bitch of a problem signing contracts and agreements and shit — what with the hooves and all. believe me, i know. i tried that with a bull once. he had a sweet face and he was hung like, well, a bull, but no one would let him sign for a mortgage. but go for it, dude. more power to you. just don’t come slinking back when arkansas will not let you and larry adopt a kid (get it?). gawd! what a moron you are.

Leave A Reply