This Will Be My Last Post On This, So Help Me Flying Spaghetti Monster

I just heard Harry Knox from the Human Rights Campaign on CNN state that Barack Obama has just told gays and lesbians that they are not welcome. This is not only obnoxious and silly, but factually it is not the case:

Barack Obama and Gay Rights in Illinois:

Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Barack Obama in the United States Senate:

Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard. Here’s how HRC rated Barack Obama:

Barack Obama on Hate Crimes:

Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Employment Non-Discrimination:

Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – Gays in the Military:

Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, “The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve.”

Gay & Lesbian Adoption:

Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

“Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn’t cause discrimination,” Obama said. “I think it is the right balance to strike in this society.”

Please note- those ratings are from the HRC, Knox’s own organization. Additionally, Obama’s statement today at the press conference is identical to his rhetoric during the campaign:

Blade: You have called for the full repeal of DOMA. If elected president, will you introduce legislation calling for its repeal during your first year in office?

Obama: I have long been on record opposing DOMA, and an Obama-Biden administration will work hard to ensure that we can pass a repeal of that law as soon as possible.

Blade: Do you think repeal of all of DOMA would, in fact, prompt Congress to strongly consider and possibly pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage?

Obama: Again, I think this issue ties in to who controls Congress. And a Democratic Congress that enacts a repeal of DOMA would not be likely to pass a Constitutional ban on gay marriage — partly because our party rejects enshrining discrimination and divisive distinctions among citizens into our founding documents.

Blade: If DOMA is repealed fully or in part, the federal government most likely still could not recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships performed by states. Would you ask Congress to pass federal enabling legislation that would require the federal government to recognize civil unions and/or domestic partnerships performed by states so that same-sex couples joined in civil unions or domestic partnerships could obtain the same federal rights and benefits of marriage that you have called for?

Obama: I support the notion that all people — gay or straight — deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to heterosexual married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

If elected, I would call on Congress to enact legislation that would repeal DOMA and ensure that the over 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.

With all due respect to Kos, the outrage the past two days has not woken up Obama- he has not wavered at all, and his record on these issues has been steady and true for over a decade. Additionally, the bigger story to me would also be this:

An Atlanta civil rights icon will play a very visible role in the historic and star-studded inauguration of Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president.

A congressional committee announced late Wednesday that the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a stalwart of the civil rights movement and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, will deliver the benediction.

Someone who is not supportive of gay marriage or wholly receptive to gay rights is not something new- Billy Graham was no champion of gay rights, and I seriously doubt there has ever been anyone giving the invocation that openly supported gay marriage or gay rights. On the other hand, an open advocate for gay marriage is giving the Benediction, and that has never happened before.

This is not a slap in the face to gays, and despite what that buffoon at the HRC says, this is not Obama telling homosexuals they are unwelcome. This is what progress looks like- the last Democratic President signed DOMA and passed DADT. Again, I completely understand why some may be upset at the selection of Warren to give a one minute speech, but it just looks like this is not a big deal to me. What Obama has done in elected office in the past and what he does after the inauguration are the things we should focus on, not a small nod to the evangelical right in the spirit of inclusiveness.

To close on a humorous note, this made me laugh out loud:

I’m hoping that the Revererend Wright parachutes on stage just as Rick “Pus-Driven Life” Warren is about to give the invocation, and then he says “THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE MINE, BITCHES” and starts spraying machine gun fire. Then he and Hopey make up over Warrens bullet-riddled corpse and they start handing out guns to the crowd from big ass crates marked USSR and “Fidel Forever.” The end.

Heh.

*** Update ***

All it took was two glasses of wine, and I am ready to have hot gay man on man sex with Joe Klein:

I have no problem with Barack Obama asking Reverend Rick to deliver a prayer at the Inauguration. It will have zero–repeat, zero–impact on the policies of the Obama Administration. And it may do some good, especially if it gives pause to all those people who think that I–and the crypto-Muslim Barack Obama–are going to hell…If it causes those folks to give the new President just the slightest credit for appreciating their worldview, if it causes them to give him the benefit of the doubt on controversial stuff like talking to the Iranians or universal health insurance, then it’s worth it. If it causes evangelicals to say, “Well, he’s not demonizing us, maybe we shouldn’t demonize him,” it’s worth it. If it makes Rush Limbaugh’s toxic blather about our next President seem even the slightest bit ridiculous and over-the-top to his idiot legion of ditto heads, it’s worth it.

The thing is, Obama is trying to change the nature of public discourse from the raw blast it has been for the past 20 years to something more civil and tolerable. You sense that every time he opens his mouth. He’s all for opening doors. I don’t know how many of ultra-conservative evangelicals will walk through the door he is opening by having one of their most popular leaders join the inaugural celebration, but I appreciate his inclusive intent. Even if I think there is an insurmountable roadblock to heaven–I’d guess it’s about like the relationship between a camel and the eye of a needle–for those who make blanket judgments about which of us is going to hell.

After Edwards went down, progressives flocked to Obama for many reasons, one of which was his rejection of the 50+1 strategy of the Clinton campaign and failed previous Democratic endeavors. Now, Obama is reaching out, giving a symbolic nod to the right, and people are freaking the fuck out.

More here. Pay attention to the last paragraph.






534 replies
  1. 1
    Laura W says:

    I never took you for a masochist.
    I’m a rube.

  2. 2
    MikeJ says:

    Letting Lowery speak is a slap in the face to bigots.

  3. 3
    Mike E says:

    Oww! Your facts, they burn! Must watch CNN!11^!

  4. 4

    deleted – linky not work

  5. 5
    Jeff says:

    When is the HRC going to answer Sully’s questions about the way they are run. Considering how far behind the ball the HRC has been on gay marriage and how badly they helped screw up the No On 8 campaign they should STFU. Didn’t they still support Clinton after DADT and DOMA?

  6. 6
    Grendel72 says:

    Yeah, why don’t those silly faggots just get over it, right? How dare they be offended by the leader of the country having a proud, outspoken bigot who just successfully campaigned to have civil rights stripped from gays (with lukewarm, at best, response from Obama) speak at the inauguration.
    This is supposed to be a moment to bring the country together, and the only way to do that is to embrace divisive bigots.

  7. 7
    Fencedude says:

    Again, I completely understand why some may be upset at the selection of Warren to give a one minute speech, but it just looks like this is not a big deal to me. What Obama has done in elected office in the past and what he does after the inauguration are the things we should focus on, not a small nod to the evangelical right in the spirit of inclusiveness.

    There you go, using that Earth Logic again.

  8. 8
    Mnemosyne says:

    Don’t forget, Lowery is the guy who used his sermon at Coretta Scott King’s funeral to publicly spank Bush, who was forced to sit there and take it.

    The longer this goes on, the more the Warren pick looks like a decoy. Get a huge kerfuffle started about that from both left and right, and no one has any energy to go after Lowery for "disrespecting" Bush. Plus by making Warren controversial, Lowery looks a whole lot less controversial.

    I’m starting to think that maybe this Obama guy knows what he’s doing when it comes to this triangulation stuff.

  9. 9

    Oh Grendel , give it a rest. Your outrage is noted. Your rationality is not.

  10. 10

    I think there is an essential hypocrisy involved with getting in an uproar about a preacher’s interpretation of god’s thinking and not about that being involved in the official act of Inauguration. Seems to be a lot of god confusion about gay marriage considering all the differing preachers’ views.

  11. 11
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    With all due respect to Kos

    This post is a slap in the face to Kos, John – and right on the heels of Kos posting about how much he likes you. Good thing Obama didn’t need the nutroots to get elected. He hasn’t been sworn in yet and I’m already over their shrill demands.

  12. 12
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Jeff:

    Didn’t they still support Clinton after DADT and DOMA?

    They had some "tough questions" for her. But then they predictably fell in line.

  13. 13
  14. 14
    John Cole says:

    @Comrade Stuck: Actually, THIS is how it is done.

    I would put that in the post but then someone would accuse me of condoning violence against women.

  15. 15

    @John Cole:

    LOL, I forgot about that scene. You are right.

  16. 16
    Grendel72 says:

    The "spirit of inclusiveness" is one of the most incredibly stupid statements I’ve ever heard. Embracing divisive bigots is "the spirit of inclusiveness" now?
    I’ll try to remember that spirit of inclusiveness while my friends’ marriages are dissolved.

  17. 17
    Incertus says:

    I think the outcry over Warren has caused Obama to be a bit more up front with how he feels on this–the bit at the beginning of his presser today, that you quoted in another post, was probably a result of that.

    Obama’s been as good or better than any other center-left, pragmatic politician on LGBT rights, though he’s been a bit clumsy at times on the symbols he advances, which is unusual for him, since he’s so good at it otherwise. Maybe we’ve set our expectations too high for him on this issue, but I can certainly understand the frustration that LGBT people my age and older have to be feeling right now. Legal equality is so close they can taste it, and it seems to be yanked away from them at the last minute every time. Yes, the incremental change is good, but there comes a point where you want the final step to be taken already.

  18. 18
    Laura W says:

    @Comrade Stuck: I posted my last comment to you in the wrong thread, clearly.

  19. 19
    John Cole says:

    Grendel- I am not going to deal with you until you quit pretending that I and others just think of you as “silly faggots.”

    Take your bullshit somewhere else.

  20. 20
    Dreggas says:

    The only way to be inclusive is to be exclusive, thus sayeth many in the netroots. They’re all for being inclusive so long as they approve those that get included. You don’t change people’s opinions by shunning them.

  21. 21
    Incertus says:

    @Dreggas: Give me a break, Dreggas. Everyone’s got a dealbreaker, a point at which they’ll be upset. For a pretty sizable set of people, inviting Warren is that point. For others, no doubt, it’ll be a Cabinet appointment, like Captain Ethanol as Secretary of Agriculture or LaHood at Transportation or keeping Gates on at Defense. We all have groups we want excluded–don’t act like this one group is acting unreasonably because of this decision.

  22. 22
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    John, you must truly be a glutton for punishment to post this…lol!

    I hear a rumbling in the distance… hmmmm. Oh, it’s teh ghey furiously pounding away at teh keyboardz, ready to unleash a tidal wave of…

    Fainting couches and pearls?

    Kill me now.

  23. 23
    Jennifer says:

    I’m hoping that the Revererend Wright parachutes on stage just as Rick “Pus-Driven Life” Warren is about to give the invocation, and then he says “THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE MINE, BITCHES” and starts spraying machine gun fire. Then he and Hopey make up over Warrens bullet-riddled corpse and they start handing out guns to the crowd from big ass crates marked USSR and “Fidel Forever.” The end.

    No, I think actually it’s going to be more like this, from a never-aired McCain attack ad.

  24. 24
    smiley says:

    Via Benen:

    * This is the wrong fight: The real problem isn’t with who will give the invocation, but rather, the fact that there’s going to be an invocation in the first place. We had 144 years of presidential inaugurations, dating back to George Washington, in which there was no invocation and no benediction. This shouldn’t be a fight over which pastor delivers the prayer; this should be a fight over the official prayer itself.

    I admit, I had overlooked this angle. This train has probably left the station, but it’s a fair point.

    I was shocked once when I worked for a private secular university and there was a prayer said before the first graduation that I attended. This shit happens. It means little.

  25. 25
    wingnuts to iraq says:

    @Incertus: well, except those other people you mention are part of the Obama Cabinet, while Warren is talking for 1 minute and will be forgotten on Jan 21.

  26. 26

    Progressives are making too big a thing out of the Rick Warren introduction.

    Obama can no sooner abandon his previous constituencies, than he could his very own spiritual advisor.

  27. 27

    Grendel- I am not going to deal with you until you quit pretending that I and others just think of you as “silly faggots.”

    Yeah because no one else in this country knows what it is like to be treated badly and of course all those uppity niggers got their civil rights overnight, just by saying they wanted them.

    /continues banging head into wall

  28. 28
    BH-Buck says:

    I wonder if an Obama administration will overturn this.

    I think that’s why there’s so much agitation going on over the Warren pick. Before this story broke, I would have believed Obama would see to it this would get changed. Now I’m having my doubts.

    Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.

  29. 29
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @wingnuts to iraq: That doesn’t change Incertus’ point. It just means some people have ridiculous breakpoints and others are serious.

  30. 30
    Dreggas says:

    @Incertus:

    Quite Honestly until I see an actual policy passed that I disagree with I don’t have a lot to bitch about. I am paying attention and being vigilant just like we all should.

    However I have yet to see a single policy that Obama has passed that warrants the level of outrage being levelled at him by the warren pick to…give a short prayer.

    When actual policy that will affect people comes up that I disagree with, then I’ll go ape. However one thing I have seen from Obama over the past two years is he knows what he is doing. This was a disarming maneuver and it seems to be working in many ways.

  31. 31
    John Cole says:

    I think that’s why there’s so much agitation going on over the Warren pick. Before this story broke, I would have believed Obama would see to it this would get changed. Now I’m having my doubts.

    You have to be shitting me. Despite his long record of support for gay rights, you now have doubts that Obama would support a UN Resolution calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality worldwide? because Warren is speaking for a minute at his invocation?

    For christ’s sake, he supports gay adoption and a litany of gay rights, yet you doubt he would support decriminalization og gay rights?

    I need a drink.

  32. 32
    JC says:

    People here REALLY have got to start figuring out, #1, what is most important to make the majority of people’s lives better, and #2, realize that social change comes from the bottom up, not the top down.

    Basically – the country is at where the country is at, regarding gay marriage. Give it time, and advocate for it. Be ‘conservative’, in the sense that social change takes time to inculcate – years, not decades – and respect that process.

    Warren is, at best, more of a symptom of that process – especially if you consider he is not the only pastor on inauguration day. If people are where they are, why exclude them, when they can help you achieve some of the really important things that need to be done?

    Bottom line – what is more important?

    1. Getting health car for all
    2. Getting us out of Iraq
    3. Fixing the global warming situation/changing the infrastructure to operate on a different basis.
    4. Gay marriage?

    I submit that, 4 is less of a priority than 1 to 3. It simply is.

    And to get 1 through 3, you NEED a sympathetic ear from the majority of the country – include factions that disagree with you,, not alienate them.

  33. 33
    ronin122 says:

    @Grendel72:

    You know, everything you said there had one thing in common: these are all things YOU said (and anyone else sharing your reactions), but not anyone else here. That should tell you something, but naturally it won’t, so I’ll say it: You have the right to be pissed off and while I’m not (frankly the idea of anyone giving a prayer for any govt-related things is stupid, and I expect most religious folk have views antithetical to my own) I have full understanding why one may be rightfully upset, but this over-reaction thing is backfiring badly. Obama isn’t listening to this whiny shit and it does nothing except turn off potential allies who had enough of this shit during the Bush years. All the online left has done since we won the election was cry foul at every god-damn thing the man’s done and it’s gotten to the point where it’s comical yet you cannot laugh because you realize it’s real life. I mean I’m surprised no one has said that it’d be better had McCain won yet, but I expect to hear it some time before the inauguration. So feel free to be outraged but it’s past the point of maximal utility and it only goes downhill from there so better rethink your strategy.

    (Can someone tell me how I can separate this damn thing into paragraphs? I can’t figure it out….)

  34. 34
    JC says:

    Also, as Cole has just said, in the very comments of Obama’s HE REITERATED HIS STRONG SUPPORT OF GAY RIGHTS.

    We don’t want to make the mistake on the left, of mistaking symbolism for actual policy.

  35. 35
    gil mann says:

    Yeah because no one else in this country knows what it is like to be treated badly and of course all those uppity niggers got their civil rights overnight, just by saying they wanted them.

    If there’s one thing that we can all agree on—black or white, gay or straight, Marvel or DC—it’s that misrepresenting your opponent’s position, and then being sarcastically dismissive of that which you have unfairly attributed to them, constitutes an argument.

    I’m kidding, of course. Nobody prefers DC.

  36. 36
    BH-Buck says:

    Uh-oh… Olbermann is upset over the warren pick.

    Damn wanker.

  37. 37
    akonuche says:

    @Dreggas: Please, stop making sense. You’re hurting my head.

  38. 38
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @JC: JC, I’m going to go out on a limb and assert that who Obama chooses to give a one minute invocation at his inaugural doesn’t actually affect the priority in which serious issues are addressed after his inaugural.

  39. 39
    evie says:

    All true, but you must also agree (as John from Americablog points out in a different way) that he would not put up a pastor who had equated interracial marriages with incest or who had said that blacks were going to hell. It’s also annoying to hear Obama compare the invocation at his inauguration to Warren’s invitation to Obama to speak at his church. Warren didn’t ask him to speak at the Benediction of the church — just on a random Sunday.

    This issue is not about "disagreeing without being disagreeable." The outrage over the choice is not about policy. It’s about the fact that he has said gays are the equivalent of a brother having sex with a sister or a grown man having sex with a child. That is ugly bigotry, plain and simple.

  40. 40
    CaliMatt says:

    Sorry, John, love your blog but Aravosis is absolutely right about this. If you can book David Duke AND John Lewis for your event, then why should anyone be pissed off that you have a white supremacist? What’s the problem?

    The problem is that gays are the only ones who have to deal with this shit. The douches who hate on women, people of color, religious minorities (big exception: Atheists) all get shouted down. Hate on the gays and you get to pray in front of 100M people. Great. Guess I’ll take my gay-atheist ass somewhere else.

  41. 41
    ronin122 says:

    @ronin122:

    Never mind, figured it out before I sent this but forgot to delete the last line. I know I fail…

    Reedit: I fail again, it showed I figured it out in the preview but it didn’t translate in the post.

  42. 42
    Fencedude says:

    @BH-Buck:

    Dude, of course Olbermann is upset, thats his entire schtick. No one would watch a not-upset Olbermann. There’d be no entertainment value in that!

  43. 43
    JC says:

    Calimatt,

    It DOES suck that gay people are the ones that have to deal with this shit. It does.

    But change is coming. And it will come in time. Obama is the soon to be leader of a nation that, flat out, agrees more with Warren on this issue, which is (clearly and I understand why) more important to you.

    Obama needs the nation who do not agree with you, to go along with the changes he is making to the country. Which means, UNDERSTANDING where people are at, and working on the priorities that matter to the people who ELECTED him. He is a politician, after all.

    And still, he categorically came straight out and said strongly how much he support gay rights himself.

  44. 44

    @gil mann: Hey, I love me some Batman.

    You’ll have to excuse, me but this is several threads of the same shit from various people. Essentially, because we won’t jump on the bandwagon, all of us BJ people are opposed to gay rights and think they should be second class citizens. Considering how long I’ve been reading this blog and all the various posters, that position is only to be mocked.

  45. 45
    tpc says:

    This post is the perfect example of why I now rely on Balloon-Juice for my addiction rather than other blogs.

    Thank you for the constant doses of common sense.

  46. 46
    Phoebe says:

    Jesus Lard of Heaven.
    I’m one of the people not happy with this Warren thing, but I’m not insane enough to think this means Obama’s a homo-hater who was lying about DOMA and the rest. What the hell? Some people just like being indignant; that’s all I can conclude from this. It is nuts.

    That said, I’m going to get indignant here over Conservatively Liberal’s comment that assumes all people who oppose that Warren Asswipe getting this plum gig must be a] gay, because only gay people get offended by that shit, and b] stupid ninnies who faint on couches [cuz they’re gay!].

  47. 47
    Dreggas says:

    While everyone screams about Warren there may be an openly gay man as secretary of the navy. But of course it will never happen because Obama has warren speaking for a minute which means he hates teh gays.

  48. 48
    4tehlulz says:

    I’m glad people are discussing this, as this is generally the most important speech in any administration. It has generally set forth policy and laid forth a president’s world view. I remember one time that…uh…this guy…um…said that thing…

    Why do we give a shit again?

  49. 49
    BH-Buck says:

    I’m seeing two things:

    Most, if not all, gays are upset over this.
    Mostly "non-gays" are saying all the hoopla is over nothing important.

    My question: If gays are the group that are being targeted by this, why can’t they (we) be upset over it? Why is blind loyalty and faith a requirement for the gay community, when that’s never been the case for any other minority?

    I guess mine is not to reason why… I should shut up and go wank off somewhere.

    Just great.

  50. 50
    akonuche says:

    @Fencedude: We have a winner! Olbermann goes wherever the lefty blogs wind blows.

    And I frankly don’t appreciate this equating of Rick Warren to David Duke. Those two men aren’t even on the same level. To say that Warren’s anti-gay stance is equal to a man who advocates the killing of non-whites is atrocious and pro-gay activists need to quit making that comparison immediately.

  51. 51
    demimondian says:

    @JC: You haven’t really thought about what you’re saying, I think. Gay men and lesbians aren’t just advocating for the right to fuck who they want — although that’s certainly a side effect of their work — but for the right to enjoy the same *economic and occupational* privileges that my wife and I enjoy.

    In most states, for instance, money you spend on your same-sex partner’s health insurance is subject to federal income tax. You aren’t eligible to the widow’s portion of your life partner’s pension after their death. You can be called to testify against them in a court of law.

    These are all procedural and economic benefits apportioned to the married, and gay men and lesbians are denied them.

  52. 52
    Comrade Jake says:

    @Incertus:

    Everyone’s got a dealbreaker, a point at which they’ll be upset. For a pretty sizable set of people, inviting Warren is that point. For others, no doubt, it’ll be a Cabinet appointment, like Captain Ethanol as Secretary of Agriculture or LaHood at Transportation or keeping Gates on at Defense.

    I suppose I’m just not impressed by people whose support for Obama was so thin to begin with. I’m not convinced such folks represent significant numbers, or that they won’t come back into the fold if Obama advances significant legislation in their favor.

    Otherwise they can suck it if you ask me.

  53. 53
    Andre says:

    What’s a nubian?

  54. 54

    This thread is why BJ is still the best blog in the world.

    Time to reflect once again on how hard John works to provide this excellent resource for us to hang around all day when we should be working.

    A toast, to our host!

    (raises glass)

  55. 55
    John Cole is a Pig says:

    So if Obama’s so pro-gay, then it should be really easy for him to pick someone who’s not a homophobe to do the invocation, right?

    … crickets …

  56. 56
    ronin122 says:

    @Fencedude:
    As someone who watches his show fairly often, I have to admit you are kinda right: if he didn’t get that way half of the show’s…idk the word but basically it’s what defines the show rightfully or not.

  57. 57
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @BH-Buck: Wrong Buck. Pragmatists are accomodating, idealists are distraught. It’s really not any more complicated than that.

  58. 58
    GG says:

    Know what I would like to see? Michael D’s opinion on this.

  59. 59
    gil mann says:

    Dude, of course Olbermann is upset, thats his entire schtick. No one would watch a not-upset Olbermann. There’d be no entertainment value in that!

    Actually, no, remember when Olbermann got Greenwalded for his reaction ("what a deft political maneuver!" or some such) to Obama’s FISA vote? Keith’s a fanboy. It’s kind of a big deal that he’s not giving the benefit of the doubt.

    Cassidy—yeah, I know. And I agree with you that Grendel’s being a twit, actually, even though I’m a hell of a lot closer to his position on this than yours. And blockquoting you was just so I’d have a jumping-off point; I was making fun of you, me, everyone here, and as far as I can tell, ever single human being with an interest in politics and an internet connection.

  60. 60
    Fencedude says:

    @John Cole is a Pig:

    You mean like the guy doing the Benediction?

    (also, I should know this, having gone to an Episcopalean High School and having Invocations and Benedictions at all sorts of events…but what the hell is the difference anyway?)

  61. 61
    John O says:

    I support you 100% on this, John.

    Welcome to the Democrats. Herding cats. Not as dumb, spiteful, hateful, or greedy as the GOP, but with similar doctrinaire problems.

    Rick Warren is a douche, and I would’ve chosen someone else.

    But in the end, it don’t mean squat. And I got off the "What is Obama DOING?" train when it came to political acumen a long, long time ago. Way early on the early adopter scale.

    Here’s the deal: We DO need to argue about this stuff, because in the end, the best argument will win. Equal rights for gay people is the best argument.

    I’m single, so the tax code and "love laws," for lack of a better term, screw me, too. I have several non-blood family members and if anyone, including my own employer, tries to deny me rights to these people in times of need I will scream bloody murder.

    As in, if my best friend or his wife need me to take some time off to do what is morally right and humanely decent, I will do what I need to do.

    I understand why gay folks would be hot about this. But I don’t think they’re (you’re) looking at the forest. The forest changes slowly.

    I will fight for you, ya homos. I will march for you, I will donate to you. Try not to make any of it harder for me by creating impractical noise.

    Time, and justice, is on your side.

  62. 62
    evie says:

    akonuche — how is David Duke calling for the death of blacks all that different in unforgivable rhetoric as saying that same-sex relationships are equivalent to child rape?

  63. 63
    p.a. says:

    As a tactical decision I think having Warren speak is wrong. If O is trying to reach some of the flock and have them moderate their views, I don’t think legitimizing their bigoted leader is the way to go. (I know, a 1 minute invocation isn’t much ligitimizing). Shouldn’t an apparently excellent political tactician see a better way?

    Strategically/ideologically, I think it’s all wrong. Aravosis expressed my feelings better than I could myself. And don’t forget a point Digby and Kos have made numerous times; for the Warren types compromise and tolerance are one way streets. They just keep framing the issues to keep their ‘opponents’ on the defensive.

    Not the most important issue facing us at this time, but maybe a bit of a canary in a coal mine as far as who will be compromising with whom.

  64. 64
  65. 65
    Dreggas says:

    @BH-Buck:

    My question: If gays are the group that are being targeted by this, why can’t they (we) be upset over it? Why is blind loyalty and faith a requirement for the gay community, when that’s never been the case for any other minority?

    Everyone has a right to be upset, equally everyone has the right to not be upset. However the amount of OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING that has come out of this is just a bit much and that is the point those not upset have been trying to make.

    Personally, I hate Rick Warren for his stance on social issues such as marriage rights and abortion. However he has better positions on other issues like the environment, HIV/AIDS and taking care of the poor and the sick.

    We bitched about Bush not talking to our enemies (IE Iran) without pre-conditions. Yet when faced with a similar situation, albeit with far less consequences (ie nuclear weapons are a bigger deal than a prayer) we bitch because our guy, who we helped elect because he reflected our supposed tolerance, is in a sense negotiating with an enemy.

    Again, you can’t win hearts and minds by shunning and ignoring opposition. No civil rights movement ever won by doing so.

  66. 66
    Ack, Sysadmin of Evil says:

    Jebus, I sure hope us atheists aren’t ever as whiny about the fact they even have invocations/benedictions at secular events as the gay folks are about who is giving them.

    Get a grip. It’s just another god-botherer wasting our time; it’s not like it means anything. Change the f-ing channel while the moron speaks; I will for both Warren and Lowery (and any other fairy-chasers).

    /pz myers acolyte

  67. 67

    @gil mann: If you can’t laugh, then what’s the frickin’ point. I’m in sharp, pointy stick mode to be honest. I was aggravated earlier, but got over it. Here’s what bugged me, though. Most of the people here are progressives, with a smattering of liberal mixed in. I’m probably one of the more conservative Dems here, as i don’t self-identify as progressive, but more blue-collar Democrat. But I have yet to see anyone here, not be supportive of gay rights, except for our spoofs.

  68. 68
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @evie: Uh.. one is death and the other is ridiculous hyperbole?

  69. 69
    Grendel72 says:

    Grendel- I am not going to deal with you until you quit pretending that I and others just think of you as “silly faggots.”

    Take your bullshit somewhere else.

    Right, because comments like this haven’t been a constant theme of this discussion from the very fucking beginning.
    People are offended with good cause, people who have supported Obama, people who still support Obama. People who expected better from him. And what response do we get? Assholes blathering on about how silly we are to expect equality, assholes blathering on about how the "spirit of inclusiveness" demands embracing people who are by definition the exact motherfucking opposite of inclusive.

    Do you really want the Democratic party to embrace the same religious nutbags who destroyed the Republican party from the inside out?

  70. 70
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Teez.. can you email: jsfckhd@yahoo.com

  71. 71
    JC says:

    demimondian,

    I agree with all of that.

    So first off – And in what way does letting Warren give the invocation, mean that any of those rights will not be received?

    None at all.

    Now – regarding the issue that "the country is not there yet", as a more general issue, what we do as citizens is build the constituency for this, from the ground up, in various ways. Build that support, but also recognize there are other issues, that, again, I believe are more [edit: More important that can be done NOW.}

  72. 72
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Conservatively Liberal:

    Oh, it’s teh ghey furiously pounding away at teh keyboardz, ready to unleash a tidal wave of…

    Fainting couches and pearls?

    Oi! This particular incarnation of teh Ghey saves his fainting couch and his clutchable pearls (TM) for important things, like whether Daniel Craig takes his shirt off enough in "Quantum of Solace"…

    I’m staggered at the amount of time and internet space that is being taken up by arguing about whether some fat bigot should have been asked to give a three minute prayer.

    Who gives the prayer at Obama’s inaguration is going to affect exactly nothing, and will be forgotten two days later. Maya Angelou’s poem at Clinton’s inauguration mentioned the gay, but that made no difference at all in the long run.

    Yes it would be nice if Obama’s inaguration consisted of a thirty five minute naked liturgical dance by the San Francisco Gay Men’s Choir, followed five minutes later by Obama signing into law the Compulsory Gayness Act 2009, but it’s not going to happen.

    Actual substantive change for gay equality will take time, but I have every confidence that with a President who actually believes in equality, it will happen.

  73. 73
    libarbarian says:

    Considering how long I’ve been reading this blog and all the various posters, that position is only to be mocked.

    What? This place is so ideologically uniform and dogmatic.

    Personally, I consider BJ more of a Online-Cult than a blog I read.

    ;)

  74. 74
    JC says:

    Dreggas,

    #63 is a perfect summation of my view as well.

  75. 75
    John O says:

    Dreggas, I really appreciate your take on the matter.

    We have just a whole bunch of homophobes in this country, and they can vote (presuming they can figure out how to do it), so they need to be dealt with outside of screaming at them, even though I do my share of screaming at them when the situation arises.

    The more I think about it, the more I think Obama is playing us again. I suspect he WANTS this screaming from the left, because nothing makes the right more happy than leftie screaming.

    I figure Obama will turn it into a net gain for gay rights. I’m not convinced he wouldn’t be able to sway Warren, given enough time, and he’s just given Warren the pulpit, as it were, to make some concessions on the matter.

    Warren, like most fake-God people, needs him some cred.

  76. 76
    Tattoosydney says:

    @ronin122:

    All the online left has done since we won the election was cry foul at every god-damn thing the man’s done and it’s gotten to the point where it’s comical yet you cannot laugh because you realize it’s real life. I mean I’m surprised no one has said that it’d be better had McCain won yet, but I expect to hear it some time before the inauguration. So feel free to be outraged but it’s past the point of maximal utility and it only goes downhill from there so better rethink your strategy.

    Yes.

  77. 77
    libarbarian says:

    Speaking of which,

    Illustrious High Terran Cole, when will the spaceship be completed? I am looking forward to living forever on the planet Balungeuse.

  78. 78
    gil mann says:

    If you can’t laugh, then what’s the frickin’ point.

    A PR job with a NOW chapter?

    Jesus, my instinctive response was a "humorless feminist" joke. I knew I was a hack, but I didn’t realize I was still in 1993.

    Welcome to the Democrats. Herding cats.

    Oh for the love of Pete. Herding cats is NOT HARD.

    Actually, y’know what? Let’s try withholding food from Reid and Pelosi for 12 hours, see if that makes them more responsive to our concerns. Anything’s worth a shot at this point.

  79. 79
    Laura W says:

    @Tattoosydney:

    the Compulsory Gayness Act 2009,

    Now that’s change we can believe in!

  80. 80
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    That said, I’m going to get indignant here over Conservatively Liberal’s comment that assumes all people who oppose that Warren Asswipe getting this plum gig must be a] gay, because only gay people get offended by that shit, and b] stupid ninnies who faint on couches [cuz they’re gay!].

    I have noted in the other donnybrook threads here that gays and their supporters are upset about this, I just forgot to mention that here. My bad.

    Nonetheless, we are once again awash in fainting couches and pearls and nothing has changed. Obama pulled a fast one here by having ministers from opposing ends of the spectrum at the inauguration. The two combatant groups in this war can lob grenades at each other while the people in the middle can see that Obama is steering down the middle.

    Once again, Obama is ahead of the curve by throwing a curve ball.

  81. 81
    John O says:

    Well, I had 3 cats, very well behaved and dog-like, and I tried to get them into a Christmas card picture once, and an hour later gave up. Got 2 out of 3, and just made 2 pictures.

    3.

    It’s a good thing that the Democratic party is herding catish. Speaks well for independent thought and dissent.

    But it DOES make it harder to legislate than the boot-strapped, lock-stepped GOP has it.

  82. 82
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Laura W:

    Just wait till everyone receives their "Welcome to being gay" kits in the mail on 21 January…

    Amyl nitrate, a Kylie Minogue CD, tight jeans and anal beads for everyone!!

  83. 83
    libarbarian says:

    We bitched about Bush not talking to our enemies (IE Iran) without pre-conditions. Yet when faced with a similar situation, albeit with far less consequences (ie nuclear weapons are a bigger deal than a prayer) we bitch because our guy, who we helped elect because he reflected our supposed tolerance, is in a sense negotiating with an enemy.

    It blows my mind how any progressive can seriously think "We can get away acting just like the GOP because, unlike them, we’re good guys who want whats best for the country and have the right ideas".

  84. 84
  85. 85
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    ya know, if yer between poker hands or something.

  86. 86
    Darkrose says:

    @akonuche:

    To say that Warren’s anti-gay stance is equal to a man who advocates the killing of non-whites is atrocious and pro-gay activists need to quit making that comparison immediately.

    Yeah, because comparing abortion to the Holocaust isn’t inflammatory or anything. Certainly, it doesn’t imply that any action is justified to prevent said Holocaust. And if a doctor or receptionist at Planned Parenthood gets killed, well…it prevented a greater evil.

    And no, I’m not saying Warren’s advocating murdering clinic workers. But his rhetoric helps create a climate where people like John Scalzi think that it’s okay to walk into a medical facility and start firing.

  87. 87
    gil mann says:

    I tried to get them into a Christmas card picture once, and an hour later gave up.

    I just meant they’re trainable, not that they’re willing to let some giant shaved monkey rob them of their dignity.

  88. 88
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    damned filter

  89. 89
    Ack, Sysadmin of Evil says:

    @conservatively liberal:

    Obama pulled a fast one here by having ministers from opposing ends of the spectrum at the inauguration

    um, no. Actually, us atheists are waaaay over here on the other side, watching the rest of you argue about who says grace. Even when the gay wars are over, everyone will still be hating us.

  90. 90
    Grendel72 says:

    Hey knucklehead, that was quoting him. The board software fucked it up.

    Not that I expect people who pretend this entire discussion hasn’t been flavored with bigotry from the start to acknowledge the actual arguments I’ve made.

  91. 91
    Keith says:

    Apparently, Obama may name an openly gay man as Navy Secretary. If that doesn’t make the savviness of the Warren decision obvious, I don’t know what will.
    Let the Village People jokes commence.

  92. 92
    John O says:

    LOL, gilman.

    They’re trained! (Well, I lost one this year due to sudden, massive kidney failure at the ripe old age of 6.) But really, they come when called, and are very smart "trained" (trained? for cats?) as cats go.

    Nobody can rob anyone of their dignity, my friend. That is the beauty of the argument. Your dignity is yours entirely and completely.

  93. 93
    Laura W says:

    @Tattoosydney: Are nipple clamps so last decade?

  94. 94
    Mnemosyne says:

    Another thing Obama might be using Warren as a cover for: the Lesbian and Gay Band Association will be marching in an inaugural parade for the first time. At Bill Clinton’s inauguration, gay groups were allowed to play on the sidewalk, but they could not march in the parade.

  95. 95
    John O says:

    Arghh.

    gil mann. Please accept my apology.

    Grendel72, we’re on your side! I hope you have the capacity to step outside yourself and take a look.

    We all have our issues. And yours are not taken lightly out here, I’m sure of it.

    I think this is a matter of tactics vs. strategy.

  96. 96
    Pugnant says:

    As I said in the beginning, I basically agree with John’s first post that I would have preferred someone else but this isn’t that big of a deal – if there are real actions once Obama is president that go against equal rights, then I will raise hell. But I fear no douche named Warren and his twisted mythology. However, there is no denying that this has elicited a lot of strong emotions.

    I am willing to bet that the ones most upset by this are the same ones that, while going to bed Nov 4th elated with the election of Obama, awoke the next morning to find out Prop 8 passed…and were really, truly hurt. Not just "that sucks" but felt real pain. I am one of those Californians that lost their rights that day – and it really did hurt. My partner and I were demoralized for days. So forever tied to this historic election is the pain of that day. And now the next historic day is again tainted by this slimeball – and the pain returns. So while all of the kewl kids around here have decided that feeling slapped in the face is teh lame, it really isn’t that far off for many of us. Look, we will get over this – no one is advocating hindering other important issues because if this. But the reactions to (and the mocking of) our pain doesn’t help either.

  97. 97
    4tehlulz says:

    @Mnemosyne: That doesn’t count, as that cannot be used against Obama.

  98. 98

    @evie:

    Can you point me to the reference in which Warren equates gayitude with child rape?

    I’m not being rhetorical, I would like to see the reference.

  99. 99
    Mnemosyne says:

    But his rhetoric helps create a climate where people like John Scalzi think that it’s okay to walk into a medical facility and start firing.

    Is there more than one John Scalzi? Because I don’t think this one would think that’s okay. If he did say something like that, please provide the link.

  100. 100
    Andrew says:

    Having a gay man as Secretary of the Navy would be great, but wouldn’t it be a mite better if we could find one that had been in the Navy or knew the first thing about it?

  101. 101
    Darkrose says:

    I know this might be out there…but it’s actually possible that some of us don’t think that Warren speaking is the end of the world, but are still disappointed that Obama seems to be failing to get it in the same way that he failed to get why having not-so-ex-gay Donnie McClurkin open a concert was perhaps not the best idea. You really can be queer and to be unhappy with the symbolism of giving a platform to someone who’s compared your relationship to pedophilia and incest without being convinced that the sky is falling.

    What irks me most at the moment is the idea that I shouldn’t be upset at all by this, because Obama has a plan, and I should just shut up and not worry my pretty lesbian head about it, because all will be clear in the end. It’s important to be inclusive of people who think we’re less than human and don’t deserve the rights of full citizens.

    Fuck that. Warren speaking isn’t the worst thing evah by any means, but it’s yet another reminder to me, at least, that GLBT people shouldn’t count on anyone else to advance our agenda–we’re going to have to do the heavy lifting ourselves.

  102. 102
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    but they could not march in the parade.

    Prolly a wise decision, based on the gay pride parades I’ve seen.

  103. 103
    Darkrose says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Is there more than one John Scalzi? Because I don’t think this one would think that’s okay. If he did say something like that, please provide the link.

    ACK! No, I didn’t mean him. I meant John Salvi. I adore John Scalzi, because dude, BaconCat! and I apologize profusely for not Googling first.

  104. 104
    Michael D. says:

    @Grendel72:

    I’ll try to remember that spirit of inclusiveness while my friends’ marriages are dissolved.

    Unlike John, and others, I know exactly how you feel. They’ve never had the experience of being discriminated against like we have.

    We’re right. They’re wrong.

  105. 105
    Reverend Dennis says:

    The more I think about it, the more I think Obama is playing us again. I suspect he WANTS this screaming from the left, because nothing makes the right more happy than leftie screaming.

    Bingo!

  106. 106

    @Mnemosyne: It’s a trap to herd them into the Warren ovens.

  107. 107
    Mnemosyne says:

    I am willing to bet that the ones most upset by this are the same ones that, while going to bed Nov 4th elated with the election of Obama, awoke the next morning to find out Prop 8 passed…and were really, truly hurt. Not just "that sucks" but felt real pain.

    I felt real pain that day, and I’m one of the people whose marriage was supposedly "protected" by stripping away other people’s civil rights. Yesterday, I was LIVID about this Warren story. Spitting nails.

    It’s only now, after some time to cool down, that I’m able to step back and take a look at some of the other things going on at the same time that the Warren thing is giving cover to. But I can do that because I wasn’t one of the ones who was directly hurt on Nov. 4th. I suspect it’s going to take people who were directly hurt quite a bit longer to get over it, which is perfectly natural.

  108. 108
    John O says:

    Pugnant, I assure you, the passing of Prop 8 ruined my post-election buzz as much as it is possible for a straight person to feel, I’m sure of it.

    I mean, it was REALLY depressing to me. A true step backwards. Vocalized rather passionately among not only my friends and family, but among my colleagues. And I can’t wait for the next LDS person to show up at my door. Hell, I had fun engaging them on their bullshit BEFORE 11/08.

    You, and me, are going to win this debate. Obama is on the right side of this issue personally, and that needs to count until he demonstrates it doesn’t.

    Keep fighting the good fight, and don’t forget that Warren is being abused from the right, too.

    We’ll get there. And this Administration will help that happen.

  109. 109
    Mnemosyne says:

    ACK! No, I didn’t mean him. I meant John Salvi. I adore John Scalzi, because dude, BaconCat! and I apologize profusely for not Googling first.

    Phew! I got worried that Scalzi had gotten a serious head injury or something, because that’s the only way I could see him making a 180 like that.

    Which reminds me, I still need to make my Schadenfreude Pie. I was hoping to make it for Christmas, but my parents aren’t coming out here after all.

  110. 110

    They’ve never had the experience of being discriminated against like we have.

    We’re right. They’re wrong.

    Tell that shit to the blacks, Jews, Irish, Italians, Native Americans, Mexicans, Latinos, women, the poor…no, none of us know what it’s like to be treated like a second class citizen.

  111. 111
    Darkrose says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Can you point me to the reference in which Warren equates gayitude with child rape?

    I’m not being rhetorical, I would like to see the reference.

    Warren dodged Waldman’s question about whether he supported civil unions or domestic partnerships, answering instead, "I support full equal rights for everyone in America," adding that he only opposes a "redefinition" of marriage. He went on to say he’s opposed to gay marriage the same way he is opposed to a brother and sister marrying (that would be incest), a man marrying a child (that would be statutory rape), or someone having multiple spouses (that would be polygamy). Pressed by Waldman, Warren said he considered those crimes equivalent to gay marriage.

    Full story here

  112. 112

    @Grendel72:

    yes, I know. that’s why I edited it out to "damned blockquote"

    Not that I expect people who pretend this entire discussion hasn’t been flavored with bigotry from the start

    Nah, we’re used to falsely being called bigots. Here at Obamabot Central.

  113. 113

    We’re right. They’re wrong.

    No, I’m sorry, but you are wrong, and I’ll tell you why I think so.

    Most — virtually all — on the left are your friends. We vote in your interests, we lobby for your interests, we talk privately in support of your interests.

    But if we fail to kneel to every ideological test of loyalty, we get called names and told to go fuck ourselves and treated like shit. You can look at the list John prepared, above, and then at the way your pals are talking about Barack Obama today, and …. I rest my case.

    If this is the way you treat your friends, why would you expect people who haven’t decided to be your friends to treat you well? Or vote in your interests? Or anything else?

  114. 114
    John O says:

    *hissing sound from ears*

    No wonder this issue got a little heated.

    Michael, and Grendel72, you ARE right! And history will prove it so.

    Just don’t expect one man to turn the cultural page instantly. Never has happened, and never will.

    If I remember correctly, it is, ironically, the Koran that says, "A great gulf fixed."

    (I’m more or less a skeptical atheist, so don’t quote me on that one.)

  115. 115
    Darkrose says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    It’s only now, after some time to cool down, that I’m able to step back and take a look at some of the other things going on at the same time that the Warren thing is giving cover to. But I can do that because I wasn’t one of the ones who was directly hurt on Nov. 4th. I suspect it’s going to take people who were directly hurt quite a bit longer to get over it, which is perfectly natural.

    Pretty much, yeah. Warren campaigned actively for Prop 8 and lied about it–let’s not forget that he claimed without Prop 8 pastors who opposed same-sex marriage would be jailed–and the idea of holding him up as some sort of moderate evangelical is boggling. The only difference between him and Dobson is that he’ll smile in your face when he bashes you.

  116. 116
    JC says:

    Quick Question – of gay men – which visit Balloon Juice much more often than gay women – what do people think is the percentageof people who WOULD marry, if they had a choice?

    In the six months that it was legal in California, I think it was 10,000 people who got married.

    I live in San Francisco, and have lots of (men) gay friends.

    I only know one older couple, who got married. Meaning, these two guys were in late 40’s, having "sown their wild oats", when they were young, so now they were "ready" for marriage.

    Every other decent looking 20 and 30 something gay guy I talked to – and I talked to at least around 30 – had absolutely no intention of getting married.

    The "social scene" was just too good for them to give up. Meaning, variety is the spice of life.

    At any rate, while I’m sure different for gay females (like the old joke says, what do homosexuals do on a 2nd date – "what 2nd date", what do lesbians do on a 2nd date "bring the moving van" – obviously not accurate, but catches the flavor), there simply isn’t a lot of marriage demand, it seems to me, in the pre-40 gay male set.

    Anyone else have opinions on this?

  117. 117
    Darkrose says:

    @JC:

    Every other decent looking 20 and 30 something gay guy I talked to – and I talked to at least around 30 – had absolutely no intention of getting married.

    Put that in context though. Most 20-30 year old men aren’t interested in getting married.

  118. 118
    Grendel72 says:

    @Pugnant

    Look, we will get over this – no one is advocating hindering other important issues because if this. But the reactions to (and the mocking of) our pain doesn’t help either.

    Thank you for expressing that so much better than I could.
    I don’t want to oppose Obama here, and I still hope for the best from him. This is a disappointment, and the reaction from a lot of our supposed allies has been really disheartening as well. Seriously, all the defense of Warren is not only obnoxious, but dishonest as well.
    It just doesn’t help matters when the immediate reaction is dismissal and lame jokes.

  119. 119
    John O says:

    JC, I get your post, but it’s irrelevant.

    There IS a principle involved here. It only takes one gay couple to want to get married to matter. Regardless of age or gender.

  120. 120
    The Other Steve says:

    I only know one older couple, who got married. Meaning, these two guys were in late 40’s, having "sown their wild oats", when they were young, so now they were "ready" for marriage.

    Every other decent looking 20 and 30 something gay guy I talked to – and I talked to at least around 30 – had absolutely no intention of getting married.

    Apparently you are not aware of all internet traditions.

    The trend is now to get married later in life. It’s been all the talk of the pop sociologist circle. Single people out numbered married people and all that.

    Ain’t got nothing to do with the gay.

  121. 121
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Warren campaigned actively for Prop 8 and lied about it

    Wasn’t Warren’s larger point that he’d be publicly muzzled? And isn’t that essentially what we’re trying to do here, in the name of preventing some kinda, uh, validation. And so aren’t his fears, in fact, confirmed? Yeah, that’s what I thought..

  122. 122
    John O says:

    You’ll hear no jokes from me, Grendel72.

    I am extremely empathic about this. I’m not a Democrat. :-)

    It is core to my being that decisions that have no tangible impact, not perceived, not religious, not imaginary in any way, on society at large be left to the individual.

    I think I get it a little better than I can write it.

  123. 123

    Maybe I’m eating shark flavored popcorn while I wait for Obama to throw me under the bus [ducks], but we’ve seen this movie before:

    Obama does [X]. Everyone shouts "HOLEE SHIT, I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT DUMB BASTARD DID THAT! THAT’S IT, IT’S OVER, HE’S FINISHED!"

    Then he pulls a size 12 rabbit out of a size 6 hat. And everyone’s like "HOLEE SHIT! DID YOU SEE THAT? DID YOU SEE WHAT THAT CRAZY MOTHERFUCKER JUST DID?? I LOVE THAT CRAZY MOTHERFUCKER!"

    I’m know there’s a rabbit.

    At the least, I’m hoping Sarah Palin will leap up, attack Warren for palling around with an un-American who pals around with terrorists and the GOP/TalEvan will spend the next four years locked in mortal combat.

    At the very most I’m hoping Warren will be caught, on film, staggering out of Be Bar at 3 a.m. The last we’ll hear of him is a sad man screaming "I thought it was a gentleman’s club!"

    On with the show.

    p.s. And the other movie we’ve all seen is John saying "This is the last time I’ll post on [X]." I think we’re up to Part V.

  124. 124

    JC, I get your post, but it’s irrelevant.

    I think that sums up your plight in a nutshell.

    Surrounded by friends in principle, and sitting in front of a mountain of evidence that you might … just might … be taking a rather narrow and possibly even silly view of this issue today …. you just dismiss it.

    And then demand total rhetorical fealty from anyone who dares question your view.

    I do this kind of thing deliberately, as theater, and get bashed for it regularly, all in good sport. You however are doing it in all seriousness.

  125. 125
    JC says:

    Darkrose, The Other Steve,

    Yes, people are getting married later. But I’m talking a HUGE difference here. In reality, it’s a difference not made up simply by heterosexual couples getting married later.

    And John O is correct, it doesn’t matter if it is one person – people should be able to marry. It’s actually much better for social cohesion, when people make that commitment to another person, their family, their foibles, etc. I have never understood, for those who lament the trending towards less marriage of our culture, why cultural conservatives don’t get that, yes, GAY PEOPLE TOO can love and want "traditional" social arrangements.

  126. 126
    The Other Steve says:

    Seriously, all the defense of Warren is not only obnoxious, but dishonest as well.
    It just doesn’t help matters when the immediate reaction is dismissal and lame jokes.

    Might this not have something to do with this response to Warren being the typical liberal pandering whinefest?

    Most of us on board the Obama train aren’t 60’s hippies. We’re assholes who grew up under Reagan/Bush. So we tend to not take the pandering whinefest very seriously.

    In fact it’s rather pathetic. As such we mock it.

    I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings.

  127. 127
    Jane_in_Colorado says:

    But his rhetoric helps create a climate where people like John Scalzi think that it’s okay to walk into a medical facility and start firing.

    I believe you are thinking of John Salvi. John Scalzi is a talented writer and blogger.

  128. 128
    bago says:

    Finding a gay man in the navy… Not touching that one with a ten foot pole.

  129. 129
    The Other Steve says:

    Yes, people are getting married later. But I’m talking a HUGE difference here. In reality, it’s a difference not made up simply by heterosexual couples getting married later.

    Maybe some people just really don’t care much about marriage?

    That might also explain why there has not been much of an organized movement to support gay marriage.

  130. 130
    Genine says:

    We bitched about Bush not talking to our enemies (IE Iran) without pre-conditions. Yet when faced with a similar situation, albeit with far less consequences (ie nuclear weapons are a bigger deal than a prayer) we bitch because our guy, who we helped elect because he reflected our supposed tolerance, is in a sense negotiating with an enemy.

    Again, you can’t win hearts and minds by shunning and ignoring opposition. No civil rights movement ever won by doing so.

    Exactly. I used to be very exclusive and strident when arguing with right-wingers. Then came the day I realized I was acting just like them. I was no different. That was a huge blow to the ego.

    In my mind, it was not good for me to ask for something I refused to give. It wasn’t good for me to judge the judgmental or not tolerate the intolerant. I was just a huge hypocrite and it was not helping my cause of social justice and equality. To my way of thinking, I was just adding to the problem.

    As I changed my perspective and worked to find common ground with people, I made a lot of headway in changing hearts and minds. Even those minds I did not change, they weren’t as stridently anti-gay as they were before.

    Just recently I spoke to a friend about gay marriage. She is/was anti gay marriage and she brought up religious reasons why. I said "But that’s your religion. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. We have laws to govern everyone, no matter what religion they are. You cannot use your religion to deny people equal protection under the law." She told me she never thought about it that way before. She didn’t say she would change her mind, but I gave her a lot to think about.

    There’s an open door. I don’t know if she’ll walk through it or not. But calling her a stupid, evil bigot about whom I shouldn’t acknowledge any good and stop being her friend probably wouldn’t have done any good.

    I guess since I take that approach with people; I’m not truly a progressive. I’m a fauxgressive!

    It blows my mind how any progressive can seriously think "We can get away acting just like the GOP because, unlike them, we’re good guys who want whats best for the country and have the right ideas".

    You and me both.

  131. 131
    Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist says:

    Welp, if this is the last post on this subject, may I recommend for the next one:

    "Paul Weyrich died. Please do not speak ill of the dead."

  132. 132
    evie says:

    thehatonmycat — it’s all over the news. He said he no more supports gays marrying than he supports adults marrying children. It was during an interview during the run-up to Prop 8.

  133. 133

    it’s all over the news. He said he no more supports gays marrying than he supports adults marrying children.

    Well, two things. "All over the news" is not a factual reference, it’s a common conceit. I need a quote, a cite.

    And, saying what you paraphrase, above, is not the same thing as equating gayness with child rape, at all, and I resent being manipulated with such a grotesque misrepresentation.

    That’s just bullshit. And I still need to see the actual quote.

  134. 134
    demimondian says:

    @Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist: May I speak ill of the undead, then? I reckon that there wasn’t enough human left of him to actually die.

  135. 135
    The Other Steve says:

    "Paul Weyrich died. Please do not speak ill of the dead."

    I really have nothing to say.

  136. 136
    John O says:

    Uh, The Hat?

    Where have I questioned anyone’s questioning my view?

    See, this is where I wish I could write better. I’ve tried my best to be sympathetic to the opposing view of the all-important choice of 2 minutes of Warren doing a speech in the face of economic and potentially social, as a direct result of the economic catastrophe, and I fail. Epically.

    I’m sorry. And I’m not kidding. I’m militant about the right’s of gay people to be…treated like everyone else, in all matters substantive and subjective. And I’m incredibly sad we still have to discuss it.

    I’m just trying to accept that neither me nor Obama has a magic fucking wand to wave the bigotry away, and believe it is only through engagement that the war will be won.

  137. 137

    I’m not truly a progressive. I’m a fauxgressive!

    I’m an Islamohomophobomarxoterrolovist just like Obama.

  138. 138
    The Other Steve says:

    Well, two things. "All over the news" is not a factual reference, it’s a common conceit. I need a quote, a cite.

    Found it

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce1ILmS5yMo

  139. 139

    our guy, who we helped elect because he reflected our supposed tolerance

    Did you not read the summary in John’s top post?

    Did you not hear Barack express opposition to gay marriage from the get-go?

    Do you honestly think that the LGBT posture on this today is what should be called "tolerance?"

  140. 140
    The Populist says:

    One point, who’s to say Obama doesn’t reiterate his support of GLBT while Warren stands up there pretending to smile?

    Wouldn’t THAT be worth something? Watching him stand there while Obama talks about Gay rights, health care for all and other issues hardcore righties hate on?

    Seems to me we are all getting overly worked up about something that is not worth it when compared to the bigger picture.

    Again, for those mocking my opinion, I support gay rights, the right to marry and voted no on prop h8. I have been a reader here for a long time. Most posters tend to be pro gay rights. Let’s not assume because some of us see the Warren thing as no biggie that we are anti-gay rights.

    Thanks!

  141. 141
    The Other Steve says:

    I’m just trying to accept that neither me nor Obama has a magic fucking wand to wave the bigotry away, and believe it is only through engagement that the war will be won.

    That seems to be Obama’s message. He’s saying if you start yelling and calling someone names they’ll never listen to you about anything.

    The leader of the NAE resigned because he said he wasn’t afraid of the ghey. Things are changing, but it takes time.

  142. 142
    demimondian says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat: OK, TZ — the Googley is my friend. First query, second item is this.

    Money quote:

    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.

    So gay marriage is equivalent to child marriage — which is child rape, if consummated.

    Next question?

  143. 143
    The Populist says:

    Engagement is the only way. You will not win over bigots and the sheeple of this nation by not engaging them.

    Case in point – the war on terror. We’ve seen what a lack of engagement does to people. Most poster have it right, Gay rights will come…as long as the idiots on the far right feel like they are being attacked they will take their nonsense to courts that are stacked with Bush appointees.

    Let’s let Obama keep his promises. If he fails, wail away.

  144. 144
    Cassidy the Racist White Man says:

    @ the other steve

    Your Jedi mocking is strong.

  145. 145
    Comrade Kevin says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Not quite that, but in this interview, he compares gay marriage to incest.

  146. 146
    John O says:

    Let me make this as clear as I can:

    I think all humans famous for their religious arrogance are lousy, self-important, arrogant, delusional, and likely selfish and greedy human beings.

    Anti-Christ’s, in short.

    But the same could be said of most professional politicians.

    Generalizations are the only way to describe the wad. In no way do those generalizations apply to individuals, and that counts for both Warren and Obama.

    Judge not lest ye be judged. And, actions speak louder than words.

  147. 147
    The Moar You Know says:

    That’s it. That the last slap in the face. Obama has thrown every liberal in the entire United States under the bus. I will be voting for Hillary in the primary.

  148. 148
    Duke of Earl says:

    @Darkrose:

    The only difference between him and Dobson is that he’ll smile in your face when he bashes you.

    He even admits that the only difference between himself and Dobson is "tone".

    How many of you would be a touch more understanding if Dobson were to be on the podium Jan 20 ?

    Seriously, Dobson?

  149. 149
    Genine says:

    The thing that’s really strange about this whole thing is that most of us have the same goals in this: equal rights for gay people. We just have different approaches to it.

    One may not think being inclusive and trying to build bridges is an effective strategy. But just because you don’t agree on a strategy doesn’t make people anti-gay or think gay rights is less than other social justice issues.

  150. 150
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Duke of Earl: Dobson ain’t a minister, fucknutz.

  151. 151
    Fencedude says:

    @demimondian:

    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

    …he has read the Bible, right?

  152. 152
    The Other Steve says:

    Your Jedi mocking is strong.

    Maybe it’s just my perception, but for years it’s seemed to me that gays have supported the Republican party, largely because of tax issues. Only just recently did they jump on board the Democrat train, because they finally realized that the Republicans really didn’t like them, much less tolerate them. Case in point that asshole Sullivan, but he’s just the top of a long list.

    So yeah, I’m mocking. My attitude is welcome to the party, but get in line.

    The self-absorption and selfishness of the gay interest group has long bugged me. At least the evangelicals know how to work with the other assholes in the republican party and don’t go around yelling "Me Me Me!" all the time.

  153. 153
    cleek says:

    the left is fucking stupid.

    fuck it.

  154. 154
    The Other Steve says:

    One may not think being inclusive and trying to build bridges is an effective strategy. But just because you don’t agree on a strategy doesn’t make people anti-gay or think gay rights is less than other social justice issues.

    This is the Democratic party you are talking to.

    We invented this way of argument. It’s hard to give it up.

  155. 155
    John O says:

    If Dobson is as right as he thinks he is, he’ll rot and burn in hell while being sodomized by Kim Jung Il.

    One can only hope.

    There are nights where I put myself to sleep trying to figure out a way to ruin Dobson without getting arrested.

    If there is really a God, Dobson will be photographed with someone’s dick in his mouth. And we all know his excuse: Why do these gay guys keep sucking my dick?

    I think we can all agree to keep Dobson out of this.

  156. 156

    Found it

    It’s clipped. Where’s the rest of it? Where’s the context?

    A reasonable read is, he’s opposed to taking relationships that are not now acceptable under the banner of "marriage" and expanding the definition of marriage to include them.

    That’s a very narrow point. In fact, it’s the basis for the advertising campaign that just got a DOMA measure passed here in AZ. The commercial basically just showed people being asked a simple question: Do you think that the correct definition of a marriage is one man and one woman? The respondents, rather ordinary looking folks, just said, sure, that sounds like what I was taught. That was the whole thing.

    They weren’t asked, do you think gays should be able to establish a legal family? They were asked, essentially, what do you think the word "marriage" means? Their answer, as expressed in the voting booth, can’t be taken to be based on gay bashing. Warren’s view can be taken the same way.

    Did you see the stats I posted on marriage today? The institution has a collossal failure rate. Why anyone would want to associate with the idea is beyond me, straight or gay. It’s a trainwreck. And the idea of it, which is obviously dysfunctional even if the bare stats were the only evidence you had, isn’t essential to the rights and protections that people who just want to establish a family actually need.

    There’s a lot of room in this topic for different ways to look at these things. But one side insists that there is only one way that allows no compromise, no wiggle room, no tolerance. You either have to accept that "marriage" can mean two guys getting married, or else you are a tool of Satan.

    Well, here we are. What utter nonsense.

  157. 157
    Laura W says:

    876 comments on this subject since yesterday, and counting.

    10 minutes until Wapner.

  158. 158
    Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist says:

    @demimondian: May I speak ill of the undead, then?

    Actually, I don’t much mind what people have to say about Weyrich, in whatever state of life he finds himself. It’s just been awhile since there’s been a post like that here.

  159. 159
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Dobson also suggested you should take showers with your male children to teach them manliness which sounds exactly like the sort of madness Warren is trying to prevent, ya know, if I can be allowed to believe everyone’s mischaracterizations.

  160. 160
    Grendel72 says:

    @The Other Asshole

    So yeah, I’m mocking. My attitude is welcome to the party, but get in line.

    The self-absorption and selfishness of the gay interest group has long bugged me. At least the evangelicals know how to work with the other assholes in the republican party and don’t go around yelling "Me Me Me!" all the time.

    Yeah, I can’t imagine where people get the idea there’s bigotry here from. Us silly fags are just so uptight.

  161. 161
    Cassidy the Racist White Man says:

    Hell, this is just pre-meeting cookies and juice. This party has more dysfunction than AA conference in Tiajuana.

  162. 162
    John O says:

    Well, shit, let’s have some fun: I’m pro-polygamy.

    If I can talk both Jennifer Anniston and Angelina Jolie into marrying me, well, c’mon.

    Similarly, kudos to any woman who can get Brad Pitt and George Clooney to enter into a contractual, legally binding, love-fest of a relationship with her.

    Who cares? What difference does it make, substantively?

    Perhaps my upbringing in a multi-generational large family with a father I never knew was gone since I had so much love and support has something to do with it.

  163. 163

    I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage.

    There you have it. That is a reasonable view, even if you disagree with it, which I do.

    That’s your problem. It’s not an unreasonable position, and it’s not gay bashing to hold it.

    We’ve foolishly let some people use the government to enforce their view of what marriage is, and until you get a majority to disagree, you are stuck right here. We’ve foolishly let that official marriage definition limit what can be legally established as a family, and …. you are stuck right here.

    All I can say is, I didn’t stick you here. Somebody else did. Talk to them.

  164. 164
    The Moar You Know says:

    @The Other Steve:

    At least the evangelicals know how to work with the other assholes in the republican party and don’t go around yelling "Me Me Me!" all the time.

    They used to. I think with the coming of Palin they have forgotten how – and there’s an object lesson here, because they’re going to end up marginalized, totally out of power in the GOP, if they don’t figure this out. The same fate could conceivably await the gay community if they push the issue too hard.

    The self-absorption and selfishness of the gay interest group has long bugged me.

    I prefer the phrase "gay community" as opposed to "gay interest group", since there doesn’t seem to be one singular interest group for gays – they run the political gamut and rarely agree on much of anything. However, I’ll concede you kind of have a point, at least regarding selfishness; I lived in SF for five years, and the most anti-tax, anti-regulatory, and blatantly racist folks I ever met were gay.

  165. 165
    Duke of Earl says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    The only difference between him and Dobson is that he’ll smile in your face when he bashes you.

    You’re cute when you try to insult people.

    Love ya’ sweetums.

    Say Dobson was invited to speak, would it bother you a touch?

    Probably not.

  166. 166
    Czarcastic says:

    Well, here we are. What utter nonsense.

    Well, here’s a little "utter nonsense" for you to chaw on for a while. The word "marriage" has over 1,000 SPECIAL rights attached to it. I suggest if you want all this shit to go away, then those rights have to be removed from what is strictly a religious ceremony.

    Oh, and fuck you, you droning bigot.

  167. 167
    demimondian says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat: Fine. But I notice you deliberately delete the rest of the comment, since it shows that you are ill-informed.

  168. 168
    Michael D. says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    But if we fail to kneel to every ideological test of loyalty, we get called names and told to go fuck ourselves and treated like shit.

    No, we don’t want you to kneel. We just want you to act.

  169. 169
    demimondian says:

    @Fencedude:

    [Warren] has read the Bible, right?

    You know, I often wonder about that myself.

  170. 170
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Duke of Earl: *giggle*

    Sorry about that, love. As I indicated earlier, Dobson isn’t a minister. Also, this isn’t a speaking engagement.

  171. 171

    But I notice you deliberately delete the rest of the comment

    Give it up, man. I quoted the part I wanted to comment on, don’t play this beginner Usenet crap with me.

    I don’t have to write an essay about every word you wrote, I am making a particular point, and I styled it as it suited me to do so. I’ve already addressed those other points in other posts. Either read every word I write and take notes as necessary to keep up, or get the fuck out of my face.

    Are you really going to waste your time trying to turn this topic into a referendum on my posts? You are more of a fucking waste of human protoplasm than even I thought.

    News flash, dumbshit: This subject isn’t about me, or even you.

  172. 172
    John O says:

    Please don’t get started on the "definition of marriage" shit, either.

    In Old Testament terms, my pro-polygamy stance was widely accepted. I believe it wasn’t until the 12th Century that it was "sanctified."

    FSM, until just 300 years ago, marriage was a master-slave property arrangement, and no one with a brain would deny it.

    We’ve been "redefining marriage" since the beginning of time. What a crock of turd pretending we haven’t is.

  173. 173
    Montysano 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. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage

    What if…. what if, in the near future, Rick Warren were to disavow that statement, to admit that he’d been unfair and wrong? What if he moved, shifted his position? At that point, you’d have to admit that the invocation was the first step. It’s not impossible, and it’s Obama’s style.

    Except for maybe a hardcore 5%-10%, most people don’t obsess about homosexuality; the issue has been elevated by demagoguery. It’s one of those hot-button issues that the GOP worked so well. But they’re not in charge anymore, and the new guy is the anti-demagogue. Give him a chance to work.

  174. 174
    Czarcastic says:

    I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage.

    There you have it. That is a reasonable view,

    =======================

    Prove it’s a reasonable view and not a pack of right wing induced lies you smirking baboon. Prove right now that for the last 5,000 years marriage has been defined as one man and one woman (which it hasn’t) or shut the F up.

    It’s amusing when bigots try to be play at being ‘reasonable’.

  175. 175
    Duke of Earl says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Dobson also suggested you should take showers with your male children to teach them manliness which sounds exactly like the sort of madness Warren is trying to prevent, ya know, if I can be allowed to believe everyone’s mischaracterizations.

    Read the news lately?

    Conservative Christianist ministers are the last people I’d trust with young male children, I’d leave them with a Catholic priest first.

  176. 176
    gil mann says:

    Unlike John, and others, I know exactly how you feel. They’ve never had the experience of being discriminated against like we have. We’re right. They’re wrong.

    Okay, I think maybe I just transformed into some kind of giant mecha-concern troll, but dude, you just singlehandedly switched my sympathies from your side to theirs. It’ll only take me a minute or so to come back around to my original position, which is that fuck Warren and fuck Obama and fuck that Marginalizing Homosexuals for Dollars show that comes on every four years plus a special midterm episode, but man, that alienating your allies shit ain’t a myth, I guess.

    There’s a handful of gay people who agree with Cole, so that’s sort of that. Like you, I think they’re wrong, but it’s clearly not for lack of empathy, so maybe don’t just toss that out there about your straight friends all willy-nilly.

    Oh, and whenever you’re in a room with a bunch of people, chances are good someone’s had it worse than you. Don’t get all teen vampire about it.

    Well, anyway, thanks for giving me a brief vacation from the ranks of the slap-in-the-face coalition. It’s so serious on this side.

  177. 177
    Cassidy the Racist White Man says:

    @ Micheal D

    So my vote against the FL amendment means nothing? My consistent vote for pro equality candidates means nothing. Seriously? Screw you guys. When you’ve marginalized yourself, I’ll be here waiting for you to beg for our vote.

  178. 178
    The Other Steve says:

    You know, I often wonder about that myself.

    Unlike many other evangelical scam artists, Warren did actually go to theology school. He’s got a doctorate in divinity.

  179. 179

    Unless someone takes issue with what I’m about to say, this is my last comment on this topic for at least 48 hours.

    Fact– In all the referendums on state ballots concerning gay marriage, I believe the average against runs around 70 percent, give or take. Only AZ has rejected such an amendment to ban GM( I think). It should be clear that America is not ready to accept calling gay unions marriage. In many states the legal rights associated with Marriage for gay unions, or the equivalent Civil Union fairs quite a bit better. These are the equal rights guaranteed in the Constititution. The marriage thing is not and is solely in the realm of Culture (ie religion).

    Now the 30 percent who approve of full gay marriage on legal AND social par with hetero marriage are well represented here at BJ. Basically at 100 percent, including moi. Now I can take a large amount of real but misplaced anger for those who have suffered the stigma of being gay, even to the point of being called bigot. That’s OK, up to a point. But claiming that Obama has sold out by letting a guy who represents those 70 percenters who oppose marriage rights for gays right now, speak for a few at his inauguration is what I object to. And the fact that some of you are hammering at those 30 % with talk like bigots and "like repugs" is , might I say, a wee bit counterproductive, not to mention unfair.

  180. 180

    We just want you to act.

    1) What action are you asking for?

    2) What’s the rational basis for the request? That opposition to gay marriage is evil? Or non rational? Because that dog won’t hunt. That opposition is not evil or irrational. I don’t agree with the opposition, but it isn’t pathological.

    You are in a political battle. You need to convince more voters to agree with you. I’m already voting your way. I’m not your problem.

  181. 181
    demimondian says:

    @The Other Steve: Yeah, I know. That makes me wonder what divinity school was willing to grant the degree.

  182. 182
    John O says:

    I’m a SWM! I’ve been discriminated against since the 80’s!

    LOL.

    I once stormed out of work when an incompetent black woman got promoted to my position.

    It wasn’t because she was black.

  183. 183
    Mrs. Peel says:

    I’ll be here waiting for you to beg for our vote.

    It’s impossible to think of you as anything but a frothing bigot just from your handle. So don’t go giving yourself any god damned airs that you’re taken seriously.

  184. 184
    demimondian says:

    @John O: Let me guess. It was because she was female.

    Sexist.

  185. 185
    Fencedude says:

    @The Other Steve:

    He’s got a doctorate in divinity.

    There’s a really good joke there, but I’m too tired to find it.

  186. 186
    Duke of Earl says:

    If Obama is doing this deliberately to make the far lefties and the gay squeal so he can play them to the right then what does that say about Obama?

    Consummate politician I suppose, but unprincipled scoundrel comes to mind also.

    I have to say, Obama is a consummate politician so I assume it’s all planned that way.

    Didn’t FDR say something to the effect that anything that happens in politics is planned that way?

  187. 187

    We’ve been "redefining marriage" since the beginning of time. What a crock of turd pretending we haven’t is.

    It’s a political question. You have to convince a majority of voters that man + man marriage is included in the definition.

    You have to get other people to redefine it in the way you prefer. 800 posts on this topic here … have we seen a coherent argument for that redefinition, or a rational appeal to all those Yes on Prop 8 voters to change their minds?

    Nope. Nothing but "Who invited that asshole Warren to the inauguration?" Very convincing. You are sure to win over a lot of converts with that approach.

  188. 188
    Mrs. Peel says:

    what if, in the near future, Rick Warren were to disavow that statement, to admit that he’d been unfair and wrong?

    Dream on. If he did that his sheeple would turn on him and rip the skin from his bones. The only reason he has a job is that he feeds the bigots the sewer water they want to hear.

  189. 189
    John O says:

    LOL, demimondian.

    No, not that either. She was a moron, at least when it came to the job to which she was promoted. She was, and probably is, beautiful and talented in many professional respects. The highly technical job we shared just wasn’t one of ’em.

    Confession time: I’m terribly and viciously anti-moron.

    Anti-moron bigot: Guilty as charged.

  190. 190
    The Moar You Know says:

    You are in a political battle. You need to convince more voters to agree with you. I’m already voting your way. I’m not your problem.

    I think Obama should replace the Presidential Seal on the podium with this for the next four years, since nobody seems to understand that this is, in fact, the reality of the situation.

  191. 191
    Cain says:

    @John Cole:

    I need a drink.

    White Russian.
    Let’s go.

    cain

  192. 192

    So gay marriage is equivalent to child marriage—which is child rape, if consummated.

    No. That absolutely is not what he said. He said that they were both objectionable, not that they were equivalent.

    In other threads, people brought up Loving v Virginia, and saying that, since there were a lot of people opposed to it, that it demonstrates that Obama should just plow ahead. Wrong. Take careful note that that was a judicial opinion. Obama has very different risks, and very different tools at his disposal, than a Supreme Court justice does.

  193. 193
    Mrs. Peel says:

    There’s a really good joke there, but I’m too tired to find it.

    I’d say something along the lines that the "divinity" was obviously fudge, going by the layers of lard hanging over his belt buckle.

  194. 194
    Cassidy the Racist White Man says:

    @ Mrs Peel

    Yeah…and you are? Other than completely oblivious, of course.

    I changed my handle when us white guys were being called bigots a few weks ago. Bigot is the fall back term for when we don’t toe the line.

  195. 195
    John O says:

    I respectfully disagree, TheHat.

    To me it IS a fundamental question of morality and justice. Not a political matter.

    Waiting for the votes would’ve set interracial marriage and slavery back decades. And there are many other examples; school desegregation, sodomy (to keep it OT), etc.

  196. 196
    Laura W says:

    800 posts on this topic here

    Definitely over 900 now.
    Definitely over 900.
    I’m a very good counter.

  197. 197
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Duke of Earl: If you think that’s what he’s doing, what does it say about you?

  198. 198
    Mrs. Peel says:

    You have to convince a majority of voters that man + man marriage is included in the definition.

    Wrong. All they have to do is convince the courts that special marriage rights are illegal. Let them go to church to get "married", but if they want tax breaks for it, everybody gets them.

  199. 199

    To me it IS a fundamental question of morality and justice. Not a political matter.

    Well, then why are we talking about Prop 8?

    Until you get more votes, your opponents are going to successfully keep it a political matter. Right now, you are not going to get change any other way. Lincoln didn’t wake up one morning and decide to free the slaves. There was a civil war. There isnt going to be any civil war over gay marriage.

  200. 200
    Xenos says:

    @Mrs. Peel:

    If he did that his sheeple would turn on him and rip the skin from his bones. The only reason he has a job is that he feeds the bigots the sewer water they want to hear.

    Word. His followers are not authoritarian bigots because they are Baptist Megachurchers, they are Baptist Megachurchers because they are authoritarian bigots.

    Ever see the souvenir postcards from lynchings? You know, with scores of smiling kids and families so proud of their trophy? Warren’s congregants are the descendants of those people.

  201. 201

    Wrong. All they have to do is convince the courts that special marriage rights are illegal.

    Sure. Well then, simple, you guys win, and why are we wasting our time talking about it?

    Next topic!

    Any good wines lately? How’s your cat?

    How about those Steelers!

  202. 202
    Montysano says:

    @Mrs. Peel:

    Dream on. If he did that his sheeple would turn on him and rip the skin from his bones. The only reason he has a job is that he feeds the bigots the sewer water they want to hear.

    Ah…. so you voted for Change, but basically you believe change isn’t possible.

    When my sister came out 30 years ago, it was awful. My parents were aghast, they were horrified. They were ashamed of her, didn’t want her around. Now…. they go spend weekends with her and her partner of many years. To their great credit, they got past it, worked it out. It happens.

  203. 203
    Mrs. Peel says:

    You have to convince a majority of voters that man + man marriage is included in the definition.

    And NOW we have it, right there for everyone to see. A classic case of a self-hating closet queen. It’s only "man + man" that’s involved? Seems to me that there’s been more woman + woman couplings, but your mind automatically goes to 2 guys.

    Go out and get a little. You’ll feel better, trust me. And we may even be able to stand your imperious bloviations.

  204. 204

    Obviously, since Obama picked Rick Warren, that means that Rick Warren will be speaking exclusively about homosexuals, with an abortion reference thrown in for good measure. Subjects like poor people, the environment, and HIV/AIDS will not be expressed by Warren at all. Rick Warren, also being a well known figure to the public-at-large, will also be a powerful symbol of Obama’s administration, especially since the inauguration list contains nobody else of importance. Except for one other…

    The other lasting symbol of Obama’s administration, as we can gather by his inauguration, is Yo-Yo Ma, who will be playing cello at his inauguration (and will probably be on stage longer than Rick Warren). Yo-Yo Ma once left a $2.5 million cello in the back seat of a car, but later recovered it. Therefore, I can gather from this that Obama actively endorses personal irresponsibility.

  205. 205
    John O says:

    Let’s see how the CA court rules, TheHat.

    I prefer the votes to be the decider. But, as a wonderful college professor of mine once said, "The masses are asses."

    Shit, most of the country thinks we should let the American auto industry fail, damn the consequences, and who cares about the financial industry bailout?

  206. 206
    Mrs. Peel says:

    When my sister came out 30 years ago, it was awful. My parents were aghast, they were horrified. They were ashamed of her, didn’t want her around. Now…. they go spend weekends with her and her partner of many years. To their great credit, they got past it, worked it out. It happens.

    How charming. But I’ll bet your parents living didn’t depend on them hating your sister.

    Fatboy’s does.

  207. 207
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @Comrade Stuck:

    Fact—In all the referendums on state ballots concerning gay marriage, I believe the average against runs around 70 percent, give or take. Only AZ has rejected such an amendment to ban GM( I think).

    Actually, AZ did just amend its constitution to adopt the "one man, one woman" defintion of marriage.

    Time

    The AZ measure got 56% of the vote. The California measure got 52%. The highest percentage voting against gay marriage this time was in Florida, at 62%.

    In many states the legal rights associated with Marriage for gay unions, or the equivalent Civil Union fairs quite a bit better. These are the equal rights guaranteed in the Constititution.

    Plenty of people, including the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California, disagree with that assessment. For some excerpts on this very topic from the California decision, see my earlier comment here.

  208. 208

    I am 1,000 percent behind Señor Cole. And furthermore, if there has to be an invocation at all and they don’t have a shaman do it, then fuck it.

  209. 209

    Let’s see how the CA court rules, TheHat.

    That’s a fail strategy. Seriously. The whole Marriage Amendment’s appeal is based on leveraging resentment of the courts’ approach here. The LGBT tin political ear is really astounding. They act like votes don’t matter, and then get all pissed off when votes don’t go their way.

    They do matter, and the way to get them on your side is to make an appeal that works. I haven’t seen that appeal. All I see is self pitying theatrics and hyperbole. Manipulation.

    AZ went from being the only state that has defeated a DOMA amendment at the polls to being the newest state with a man-woman definition of marriage approved at the polls just 4 years later because the opposition to that measure couldn’t make a case.

  210. 210

    most of the country thinks we should let the American auto industry fail

    Yes, but the states won’t be holding referendums on it.

  211. 211
    John O says:

    Thanks, Mrs. Peel.

    To me you’ve illustrated how change comes.

    Put the issue in people’s faces and lives, and we’ll generally do the right thing.

  212. 212
    Montysano says:

    @Xenos:

    Word. His followers are not authoritarian bigots because they are Baptist Megachurchers, they are Baptist Megachurchers because they are authoritarian bigots. Ever see the souvenir postcards from lynchings? You know, with scores of smiling kids and families so proud of their trophy? Warren’s congregants are the descendants of those people.

    To paint with such a broad brush, you must spend a lot of time around evangelicals. Oh, you don’t? Yeah, I thought so.

    My work takes me to quite a few churches in the Deep South. I think you’re a bit off with your redneck, queer-bashin’, love-me-a-good-lynchin’ stereotype. It’s not quite the monolith that you imagine. But everyone needs their Emmanuel Goldstein, I guess.

  213. 213
    Blue Raven says:

    Oh, for fuck’s sake!

    I forgot. White gay men speak for all queers. I don’t exist. I need to shut my pussy-licking whore mouth and go back to cleaning an AIDS patient’s ass. Right along with every other queer I know who’d stick out at a circuit party like a sore thumb.

    Why do I say that? Look who’s yelling the loudest about this. Look whose subculture is the assumed norm, including by the hets. This is why I took a second look at the use of Warren. Yep, once again, the hivemind is trying to tell me what to think.

    Spare me. I’m sick of the lockstep two-step.

  214. 214
    John O says:

    Repeating now: Votes are the best option.

    But stupid votes are why our Founders gave the Judiciary equal power.

    The power to overrule stupidity and ignorance, on the principle our judges would, more often than not, vote on the grounds of reason.

    Easy, TheHat. You’re conflating apples and oranges here. I don’t think Obama would, in a perfect world, leave this up to the states. But it would be a good start (unlike abortion, which is clearly an economic more than social issue in practice), not the least because no one in MA, VT, or any other place that has liberalized gay rights has shown any signs of the Apocalypse.

  215. 215
  216. 216
    John O says:

    Repeating now, again, Montysano:

    Generalization is the only way to describe the masses, and those generalizations in no way apply to individuals.

    Until the Southern "religious" leaders change their tune, you need to wear the fabulously fitting shoe.

    Once those (real, but cred-wise) mythical people you describe get power within their own sphere of influence, we can talk. Until then, gimme a break.

  217. 217

    I don’t think Obama would, in a perfect world, leave this up to the states. But it would be a good start (unlike abortion, which is clearly an economic more than social issue in practice), not the least because no one in MA, VT, or any other place that has liberalized gay rights has shown any signs of the Apocalypse.

    Well, you kind of lost me here, John.

    Not sure I agree with you on the abortion point.

    But more to the point, if we just use Cole’s summary of Obama’s positions on this from the top post above ….. isn’t he saying Yes to every right and protection you could ask for, just not via the m-word?

  218. 218
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Let’s see how the CA court rules, TheHat.

    That’s a fail strategy.

    Of course it’s not. Voter resentment isn’t a valid reason for a court not to be asked to consider the larger issues raised by a measure.

  219. 219
    Xenos says:

    I have spent some time living in the deep south, and I hardly mean to bash the south as a whole, or all evangelicals. Some lynchings were in the north, and even catholic Quebecers are joining the Klan now. Wherever it is located (and Warren in is California), there is a deeply toxic strain in the culture that can come out, and we see a lot of that in the present day. Nowadays it focuses its hatred on gays, who are really the last good target for them.

    I call out the Baptists because they are the ones most aggressively organizing their churches and communities around bigotry. Aside from the Phelpses, that is.
    Just hating on the haters, here.

  220. 220
    Grendel72 says:

    My work takes me to quite a few churches in the Deep South. I think you’re a bit off with your redneck, queer-bashin’, love-me-a-good-lynchin’ stereotype. It’s not quite the monolith that you imagine. But everyone needs their Emmanuel Goldstein, I guess.

    But wait, I thought we were all agreed that people are monolithic groups, like the mythical screeching faggots y’all are bitching about. Or is it only bad to treat people as a monolithic group if those people are promoting discrimination against others?

  221. 221

    @Zuzu’s Petals:

    Actually, AZ did just amend its constitution to adopt the "one man, one woman" defintion of marriage.

    I wasn’t sure about AZ and was basing my statement on the 2006 vote that failed. And I was including all of the state referendums from the 11 in 2004 to present. The states this time around were purple and blue states mostly, so the percentage was lower.

    Plenty of people, including the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California, disagree with that assessment. For some excerpts on this very topic from the California decision

    I’m not surprised coming from the bluest of blue states Zuzu. And I think you really have to stretch the constitution to get the marriage term declared part of the BOR’s. But that is not my point. My point is in the minds of the vast majority of American’s they are just not ready to grant social or cultural parody for gay marriage. Legal rights yes, but forcing, or trying to force cultural acceptance through legal channels by insisting on use of the word Marriage seems the best way not to win what I suspect LG’s want most, and that’s full social acceptance. But I’m probably wrong about that.

  222. 222

    Voter resentment isn’t a valid reason for a court not to be asked to consider the larger issues raised by a measure.

    No, it’s a means of getting amendments that take the issue away from the courts.

    That’s the whole point of the amendments.

    Gay marriage opponents have a methodical state by state plan to get amendments and take the thing away from the courts in the states. They have a righty US Supreme Court protecting that flank. Even in the face of a general collapse of the conservative movement, they are winning this battle.

    If they aren’t, then why the big reaction to Warren?

  223. 223
    Darkrose says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Wasn’t Warren’s larger point that he’d be publicly muzzled? And isn’t that essentially what we’re trying to do here, in the name of preventing some kinda, uh, validation. And so aren’t his fears, in fact, confirmed? Yeah, that’s what I thought..

    Sorry, I guessed I missed the part where the First Amendment guarantees a platform.

    Warren can say whatever he likes in his church, or on the street. The question here is whether it’s appropriate to invite someone who thinks that some Americans are less equal than others to give the invocation at the Presidential inauguration.

  224. 224
    Duke of Earl says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    If you think that’s what he’s doing, what does it say about you?

    I’m helping Obama?

  225. 225
    John O says:

    Sorry, TheHat.

    I’ll try again.

    Abortion will ALWAYS be available and safe to the rich and powerful, irrespective of the laws of their state.

    I think Obama is being perfectly practical and politically rational when it comes to the ghey issue. I also don’t believe he is getting everything he would want if he was absolute ruler. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

    And personally, I don’t give a flying f**k what the word is, I want the discrimination out of the law. Hell, if I had my way, marriage would not be a civil, governmental issue at all, bein’ as how I’m pro polygamy, and pro-freedom of self about everything consenting adults feel like doing in the absence of tangible and real harm to others.

  226. 226
    John O says:

    Arghh.

    More apologies, TheHat.

    Being that the rich and powerful will always have access to safe abortions, well, that’s what makes it more an economic than social issue.

    All outlawing abortion will do is make poor people more likely to die when they have one than their rich, well connected "counterparts," using the term loosely.

  227. 227

    Abortion will ALWAYS be available and safe to the rich and powerful, irrespective of the laws of their state.

    Oh, okay. Agreed.

    And personally, I don’t give a flying f**k what the word is, I want the discrimination out of the law. Hell, if I had my way, marriage would not be a civil, governmental issue at all, bein’ as how I’m pro polygamy, and pro-freedom of self about everything consenting adults feel like doing in the absence of tangible and real harm to others.

    Ditto, mostly (the polygamy thing is problematic because of the gross abuses of it). Unfortunately, we are in the minority. And maneuvering the rapids of politics as a minority is a tricky business.

  228. 228
    Darkrose says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    There you have it. That is a reasonable view, even if you disagree with it, which I do

    Well, actually, it’s not reasonable, because it’s wrong and completely ahistorical. The concept of marriage as one man and one woman who love each other happened, historically speaking, yesterday. I have to wonder if the so-called Christians claiming that marriage has always been the same everywhere in the world have actually bothered to read their source material. The Old Testament is all about guys marrying sisters, and knocking up their slaves because their wives can’t have kids–and that’s before you get to the Rome of the New Testament, which had three different kinds of legalized marriage.

    So not only is Warren a liar, he’s an idiot.

  229. 229
    Incertus says:

    @Comrade Stuck: In the case of interracial marriage, which is the best analogue here, the change was forced by the courts and the public eventually came to accept it. But the public only reached majority acceptance of interracial couples within the last twenty years or so, and it’s still seriously looked down on in large swathes of the country. Compare that to the majority position that gays ought to have at least civil unions (if not complete marriage) right now.

    One more thing–no one knows better than the LGBT community that you’re not going to be able to force social acceptance via legislation or judicial decision. All those things can do is remove the legal impediments that keep full equality from being a possibility. But once you remove those impediments, you find greater social acceptance follows. It takes time, but it does happen. Look at the difference in the way younger people think about homosexuality now as compared to 30 years ago, and you’ll see the difference.

  230. 230
    Punchy says:

    I’m workin on the premise of an open thread–

    Al Fucking Funnyman Franken poised to snatch the Senate spot from Norm Undy Investy Coleman. Fifty-fucking-nine Sens. Thanks, GA.

  231. 231
    John O says:

    I don’t see how polygamy is tricky provided all are adults and consent to the arrangement.

    As I intimated earlier, if I could talk Jennifer and Angelina into not only loving me, but each other, most our culture would think I was some sort of God.

    And, with all due respect, I would be. LOL.

  232. 232
    John O says:

    I don’t see how polygamy is tricky provided all are adults and consent to the arrangement.

    As I intimated earlier, if I could talk Jennifer and Angelina into not only loving me, but each other, most our culture would think I was some sort of God.

    And, with all due respect, I would be. LOL.

  233. 233
    John Cole says:

    @Darkrose: Obama rejected the 50+1 plan as an electoral strategy and we celebrated. Now he is rejecting the 50+1 plan of governance (FUCK RICK WARREN, FUCK THE CHRISTIANS, FUCK THE GOP) and we are supposed to be upset.

    His idea is to, with the least drama possible, move us toward the goals he has enunciated clearly and repeatedly for the past two years. And, his plan for doing that is to drag as much of the country with him as possible. In so doing, there will be times that he is conciliatory to folks you and I think are less than perfect.

  234. 234
    Mrs. Peel says:

    The Old Testament is all about guys marrying sisters, and knocking up their slaves because their wives can’t have kids-

    Noah’s daughters getting him drunk and having sex with him. Just good ole southern family values.

  235. 235
    John O says:

    Sorry about the double-post. Getting tired. Don’t have to work tomorrow.

    And I love this place. Smart people everywhere, and by and large civil discussion.

  236. 236
    Darkrose says:

    @Montysano:

    What if…. what if, in the near future, Rick Warren were to disavow that statement, to admit that he’d been unfair and wrong? What if he moved, shifted his position?

    Given that the president of the National Association of Evangelicals was recently forced to resign for saying that maybe civil unions were okay, I’m thinking your scenario is highly unlikely.

  237. 237
    Incertus says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Even in the face of a general collapse of the conservative movement, they are winning this battle.

    If they aren’t, then why the big reaction to Warren?

    The big reaction is because they see it as an unnecessary concession. The right wing is winning battles at present on gay marriage, but they’re going to lose the war and they know it. They can read polls as well as anyone, and they know that the younger the group polled, the more support there is for full-on same-sex marriage. It’s only a matter of time–they admitted as much when they were pushing for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

    The other reason for the big reaction to Warren probably has something to do with the disappointment they’re feeling. After all, it’s one thing to be shat on by Bush and the Republicans–you expect it. It’s another to be shat on by one of your own, even if it’s more of a PR shit than a policy one.

  238. 238
    John O says:

    Exactly, John.

    Glad to see you’re still awake. :-)

  239. 239
    Duke of Earl says:

    @John O:

    I don’t see how polygamy is tricky provided all are adults and consent to the arrangement.

    ISTR that the Chinese ideograph for "trouble" is "two women under one roof".

    Having multiple wives means multiple honeydo lists and multiple times of the month too, although they do tend to synchronize after a while.

    I have enough trouble keeping one wife happy, I don’t even want to think about multiples. Think Harry Mudd on the Star Trek episode where he ends up with about fifty identical nagging harridans.

  240. 240

    The concept of marriage as one man and one woman who love each other happened, historically speaking, yesterday.

    You and I might (might) agree on that, but I don’t think that argument wins the votes necessary to defeat the measures being propped up in the states. It’s too …. cereberal. This is a gut issue at the voting booth IMO.

    The "love each other" thing is the biggest fail in the false legacy view. Marriage has traditionally been more of a business transaction than a romantic idea, it seems to me. And modern divorce rates are not exactly making the romantic view look better.

    But … if you take the romantic view away, what’s left to prop up the idea of marriage at all in the modern world? Why isn’t civil union the solution? See, that’s where I end up, and I strongly believe we’d have happy gay families and no fight over this if more people agreed with me.

    Of course, I am sure that if everyone agreed with me on everything, the world would be a perfect place. In fact, I am sure of it. Why can’t others see the rightness of this?

  241. 241
    Montysano says:

    @Darkrose:

    Given that the president of the National Association of Evangelicals was recently forced to resign for saying that maybe civil unions were okay, I’m thinking your scenario is highly unlikely.

    I think that the fact that he even said it makes my point.

  242. 242
    Mrs. Peel says:

    Having multiple wives means multiple honeydo lists

    And some men can’t even satisfy one woman. They think life would be better if 2 or 3 more were pissed off at them?

  243. 243
    Darkrose says:

    @John Cole:

    @Darkrose: Obama rejected the 50+1 plan as an electoral strategy and we celebrated. Now he is rejecting the 50+1 plan of governance (FUCK RICK WARREN, FUCK THE CHRISTIANS, FUCK THE GOP) and we are supposed to be upset.

    I’m not saying you’re supposed to be upset. I don’t actually care if you’re upset or not.

    I, however, am…not upset, but disappointed. And I reserve the right to be disappointed that a man who supported forcing the annullment of my marriage, who thinks that my relationship with my wife is equivalent to incest and pedophilia, is being treated like a reasonable person.

    There are other people of faith who don’t think that loving someone of the same gender makes you unworthy of full citizenship. I can wish Obama had chosen Katherine Jefferts Schori to give the invocation (Yes, I know–not gonna happen, but a ex-Episcopalian can dream) without being OMGOBAMATHRUUSUNDERDABUZ!!!!111

    The problem is that for some people, the question of GLBT equality is a policy issue. For me, it’s personal, and I get annoyed when people tell me I don’t have a right to be upset when people who hate me are given prominent positions.

  244. 244

    The right wing is winning battles at present on gay marriage, but they’re going to lose the war and they know it. They can read polls as well as anyone, and they know that the younger the group polled, the more support there is for full-on same-sex marriage. It’s only a matter of time—they admitted as much when they were pushing for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

    Yeah, but how much time are we talking about? Why aren’t politicians lining up to cash in on this trend?

    And if all that’s needed is patience, then why the big uproar over things like Warren and Prop 8?

  245. 245
    Punchy says:

    And some men can’t even satisfy one woman

    You mean watching football isnt satisfying?

  246. 246
    Darkrose says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    You and I might (might) agree on that, but I don’t think that argument wins the votes necessary to defeat the measures being propped up in the states. It’s too …. cereberal. This is a gut issue at the voting booth IMO.

    Oh, absolutely! One of the many reason Prop 8 passed was because the No on 8 campaign was too abstract. I’m just pointing out that the "marriage has been unchanged for 5,000 years" line is bullshit, and shows the ignorance of the people promoting it.

    And for the record, I agree that civil marriage and religious marriage should be considered two completely separate things. While I like being able to say that I’m married, if it was simply a matter of having the exact same rights and responsibilities as a het couple, then call it bagel for all I care. Unfortunately, it’s not really gay marriage than Warren and his friends object to. It’s gay people who don’t have the courtesy to stay in the closet where we belong, where decent people don’t have to think about us.

  247. 247

    @Incertus:

    : In the case of interracial marriage, which is the best analogue here

    It may be the best analogy, but not a good one. Sexual insecurity is pervasive in humans, even the hetero kind. Same sex sex is just too much for most people to accept at this time. It is evolving to acceptance slowly but surely, and that can be seen with the gen x, and will eventually be fully accepted. The only question is when and the best way to speed up and not slow down.

    But once you remove those impediments, you find greater social acceptance follows.

    i understand what your saying, but am not sure with this issue it’s true. And I do believe the tendency right now is to conflate the two legal/social into a legal fight. Like I said, I may well be wrong, but what I do know that if votes were taken in all 50 states today, well over 3/4 would vote to ratify a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage forever. All that is required is for 2/3 of the Congress and an anti-GM presnit to sign it. Something to think about.

  248. 248
    mey says:

    Obama goes along to get along. If people don’t speak up and out, regardless of how small the issue may seem to others, he will just go along. When people speak out (squeaky wheel, squeaky wheel), then the pols are forced to respond. And they learn…

    I WANT them to be annoyed by progressives, so annoyed that they THINK before they do something that might annoy/anger/whatever the "left."

    This is the ONLY WAY anything will change. We, literally, must become a "nation of whiners," haven’t we learned that? Those regressives on the right have been whining for decades, and they’ve been getting their way. It’s pathetic that our politicians must be treated this way to get them to do the right thing. But, if it’s what it takes, then fine… Obama, you fuck, FISA (FAIL), Wallstreet Bailout (FAIL, FAIL, FAIL, closing in on 2 trillion FAILS), Rick Warren??! (FAIL! Where the hell is your real reverand, Reverand Wright?! Shame!).

  249. 249

    It’s another to be shat on by one of your own

    That’s where we probably part ways on this topic. Nobody has been shat on. That’s just manipulative rhetoric. That’s about as realistic as the War on Christmas nonsense.

    We are talking about people who look at me, a guy who has lobbied, argued and voted in defense of LGBT rights, being told he’s an asshole because I won’t bend on this Warren thing. I was talking for gay rights 40 years ago. But now I’m the enemy … and they are being shat on? Fuck that.

    Are we suggesting that Obama’s pick constitutes shitting on somebody? Sorry, no sale. That is just pure asshattery. I am not coming to the defense of that kind of idiocy.

  250. 250
    John O says:

    LOL! I’m not in the slightest bit saying polygamy would be easy.

    I’m saying if people choose it, I have no interests other than prurient. And those are just fun.

    :-)

  251. 251
    John Cole says:

    You know, when I was a Republican, I thought dealing with democrats suck.

    Now that I am a Democrat, I realize I was right.

    Has anyone in this thread dealt with, you know, the facts I posted? The facts that show Obama has been an unwavering supporter of gay rights. The facts that show he is, at least on this issue, the most progressive Democrat ever elected President?

    He may let us all down, but until then, count me out in the freak out.

  252. 252
    John O says:

    Well, John, I think I have, even if I haven’t made it explicit.

    One thing is for sure: No President in my lifetime has had more hopes and dreams put upon him before he was even freaking inaugurated than this one.

    So I’ll be even more explicit than I have been: I agree with your take 100%. And the facts you posted are why.

  253. 253

    While I like being able to say that I’m married, if it was simply a matter of having the exact same rights and responsibilities as a het couple, then call it bagel for all I care.

    If people start agreeing with each other all over the place, this blog is dead.

    I suggest that you take a different and more adversarial tone.

    Heh.

  254. 254
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @Comrade Stuck:

    Well, in 2004, the issue was mostly on the ballot in the reddest of the red states. In the bluer or purple states like Oregon, Ohio, and Michigan, the percentage was much closer – around 60%.

    NCSL

    And strictly speaking, the Equal Protection Clause isn’t part of the Bill of Rights. However, the state courts in the cases in question were interpreting their own state constitutions, which – at least in California’s case – have similar EP provisions. Of course the state court is applying its own jurisprudence as well.

    On the other hand, if you read the holdings of the courts that have examined it under their state constitutions, no, it isn’t such a stretch.

  255. 255

    @John Cole:

    Has anyone in this thread dealt with, you know, the facts I posted?

    The flashing light icon might have helped. Probably not though. It’s venting time for the natives and nothing can stop that, and maybe shouldn’t.

  256. 256

    Has anyone in this thread dealt with, you know, the facts I posted?

    Yes, I have mentioned them several times. Nobody wants to confront them.

    Your approach is too sensible.

  257. 257
    Darkrose says:

    @John Cole:

    The facts that show he is, at least on this issue, the most progressive Democrat ever elected President?

    He may let us all down, but until then, count me out in the freak out.

    John, you were still a Republican then, so you may not have been paying attention when Clinton was first elected. Queers were thrilled, because he wanted to repeal the ban, and everything was going to be great…

    …and we got DADT.

    …and DOMA.

    Obama was opposed to Prop 8, it’s true. But he never came out very forcefully against it. He was, however, very good at repeating over and over that "marriage is between a man and a woman", so that when Yes on 8 wanted to put out fliers, they could use Obama’s picture and that quote from him to imply that he supported 8 and have it sound perfectly reasonable.

    So yes, his voting record looks good. But he’s also shown once again that he’s rather tone-deaf when it comes to the symbolism WRT the gay community (see: Donnie McClurkin), and for me, that means not taking his support as a given.

  258. 258
    Punchy says:

    Has anyone in this thread dealt with, you know, the facts I posted?

    Ha ha! Since when do yo peeps actually address the pertinent query that you’ve proffered? You could do a post about abortion, and eventually the thread will drift to Bang & Olufsen speakers and why green turds are more disconcerning than the brown ones…..and then someone will successfully link the two….

  259. 259

    I’m saying if people choose it, I have no interests other than prurient.

    We’re going to have to see it work without having nasty adult men having sex with 14-year-olds. That isn’t too attractive.

    Ahem Warren Jeffs Ahem.

  260. 260
    Cain says:

    Maybe we need a recap on the current positions. First, I think we’re pretty much all in agreement about gay rights so you should all note that we’re on the same damn team with the same end goal.

    So, that said. Anti-Warren people are up in arms because Warren is an anti-gay bigot who makes inappropriate comparisons about who gay identity and lifestyle. But he has the ear of many evangelicals who listen to him and is considered quite powerful in the evangelical movement. He’s considered less insane than the Dobson group but not by much. The primary objection is the fact that having him at the ceremony symbolizes that the president is not serious about pushing for gay rights and after the prop 8 debacle gays have become much more sensitive to gay marriage and it’s passage than ever before. They feel that for such a time honored ceremony that the presence of anyone who holds hateful views would demean the ceremony and what it stands.

    The other camp takes a different view of the situation. They believe that this is really political theater and that Obama is manipulating the right wing by presenting himself to be reasonable and inclusive at cost of a 60 second invocation. Then using it to stymie gay right critic’s agenda and provide political cover to actual move on gay right legislation. They feel that the other side is putting up too much drama for what amounts to a 60 second invocation. Arguments about having such hateful figures at the ceremony is part of the political price to get agenda going and that it is judicial prudence to ignore the slight and move on.

    Let’s forget about the first argument, not because it’s not important but rather it has no tangible outcome; at the end of the inauguration, gay rights agenda is still unchanged regardless of who has delivered the invocation or even who attended the inauguration. If what is important is gay marriage passage or at the very least legal protection for all spouses regardless of gender than we need to move towards.

    The question then becomes will it work? Can having Warren deliver the invocation and the symbolization it bring be enough to actually provide what we need to make political progress for gays. What more needs to be done? Because Obama is using Warren at the expense of better candidates to prove a point. I’m interested to know what that is. Will voters who hold opposing views of gay marriage be able to connect with the president to trust him on gay rights? I think those are more interesting questions than this back and forth that we’re currently having because neither side has really changed their stances. But it might be we are focusing on the wrong thing. Getting people to focus on the end goal is a lot more worthwhile IMHO.

    cain

  261. 261
    Darkrose says:

    …and on a totally different topic, since I’m bored with this now:

    I have 1 (one) buddy code for a 2-week trial of City of Heroes/Villains. Not only do you get to play for 15 days, you also don’t have to actually buy the game–you can download it for free with the code.

    First person to email me gets it.

  262. 262
    John O says:

    Aww, bullshit, TheHat.

    There is no reason that polygamist marriages couldn’t be at most as predatory as any other kind of marriage.

    Since I can’t explain myself well, and I admit it, I’ll try again to make it as simple as I can: Consenting ADULTS.

    Christ, I wouldn’t give minors their fucking drivers licenses until they got out of high school, diploma in hand, and crime-free.

  263. 263
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    The case currently before the California Supreme Court – which is what John O was talking about – raises the larger issue of whether the state constitution can validly be amended that way in the first place.

  264. 264

    Well, we seem to be asserting facts not in evidence. Why do we think that the Warren choice by Obama is about gay rights at all? Why wouldn’t it just be about picking a typical and popular evangelical snakeoil salesm… I mean, preacher …. and making a statement that we are including that demographic in our pageant, our disagreements notwithstanding?

    The gays are doing all the talking about this, but that doesn’t mean that this issue is first, or even twelfth, on Obama’s mind WRT Warren, does it?

  265. 265

    There is no reason that polygamist marriages couldn’t be at most as predatory as any other kind of marriage.

    Not in theory, but in practice. Out here in AZ, UT and TX, its a major problem.

  266. 266
    John Cole says:

    Obama was opposed to Prop 8, it’s true. But he never came out very forcefully against it.

    Black guy. Middle name Hussein.

    WHY THE FUCK WAS HE NOT OUT TRUMPETING GAY MARRIAGE?

    Seriously, DR, I am with you 100%, gays should have full rights, including marriage, to the point that just saying gay rights should just sound stupid, because they are FUCKING CIVIL RIGHTS, but can we have a little damned perspective here?

  267. 267
    John O says:

    Someone keep me away from sharp objects.

    OK, Cain, while I agree with you in general, this sort of grates:

    The other camp takes a different view of the situation. They believe that this is really political theater and that Obama is manipulating the right wing by presenting himself to be reasonable and inclusive at cost of a 60 second invocation. Then using it to stymie gay right critic’s agenda and provide political cover to actual move on gay right legislation. They feel that the other side is putting up too much drama for what amounts to a 60 second invocation. Arguments about having such hateful figures at the ceremony is part of the political price to get agenda going and that it is judicial prudence to ignore the slight and move on.

    Look, I have no more idea than anyone else does, but why is it automatically considered "political theater" and not, you know, a sincere attempt to expand the dialogue?

    Why wasn’t that one of your summaries?

    How could that not be possibly true, here in ConjectionLand where we’re all living?

  268. 268

    raises the larger issue of whether the state constitution can validly be amended that way in the first place.

    Don’t know the theory behind that case. Is there a procedural issue? Doesn’t the state’s constitution specify the process for amendment?

    Or does "that way" mean something else? (Something not related to the amendment process).

  269. 269
    John O says:

    Tempted to bring up Prohibition here, TheHat.

    But I’m really tired.

    If the culture considers a certain thing normal, there is no reason to pervert it.

    Children are off. Fucking. Limits. For lots of things, not just sex and marriage.

  270. 270

    But I’m really tired.

    Me too. We should take a break and see where we are with this tomorrow.

    Have a good night.

  271. 271
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    You know, when I was a Republican, I thought dealing with democrats suck.
     
    Now that I am a Democrat, I realize I was right.

    Become a small "i" independent John. You can point and laugh at both sides and still vote for the one you like (which, for me, is invariably a Democrat) yet you can stay above the fray or dive on in if you are a bit bored. This shit is why I am not a Democrat anymore (at least in name), let them have it.

    I am reading the outrage on the right about Warren accepting the offer to deliver the invocation and it is the mirror image of the outrage on the left. Blagoalphabet is out of the ‘news’ and instead we are getting outrage in stereo on a ‘hot topic’, so the press is creaming their jeans and breathlessly reporting it. Meanwhile, Obama just keeps trucking along while these two extremes line up the firing squads and blast away at each other. If anything, Obama is getting the press to drop the non-news about Blagoalphabet and get them to focus on something that is a real issue.

    Brilliant move! A major issue for gays and their supporters is front and center and non-news is pushed out of the way. Obama changed the national conversation (in the news and online) and this is bad?

    Obama must truly be a moderate, one who truly tries to find ‘the middle way’. When you piss off both extremes on an issue, you are driving right down the middle of the road. I hope he keeps it up, and I hope he has the judgment, strength and stamina to deal with it.

    I sure as hell wouldn’t.

  272. 272
    Darkrose says:

    @John Cole:

    I didn’t want him to "trumpet gay marriage". I just wish he didn’t feel the need to say, "BUT I’M REALLY, REALLY AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE CAUSE EWWWW!" every single time the subject came up. All he had to say was, "Proposition 8 is wrong because the constitution should never be amended to take rights away from a specific group."

  273. 273
    Cain says:

    @John O:

    Look, I have no more idea than anyone else does, but why is it automatically considered "political theater" and not, you know, a sincere attempt to expand the dialogue?

    Why wasn’t that one of your summaries?

    Well, you’ve added it now haven’t you? Consider it part of the summary. I brought in political theater because this is what has been going on for the past 8 months. So, I was going with that. Yes, he could actually want to expand the debate. But we weren’t really talking about having an honest dialogue are we? It’s become a good vs bad thing. Once we get into that and the lines are drawn, there is no hope for debate just two sides shouting at each other.

    cain

  274. 274
    Darkrose says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Don’t know the theory behind that case. Is there a procedural issue? Doesn’t the state’s constitution specify the process for amendment?

    The question is whether Prop 8 was an amendment, which can be passed by 50%+1 of the voters, or whether, since it was removing a right that the CA Supreme Court had previously affirmed was guaranteed by the state constitution, Prop 8 was actually a revision. Constitutional revisions require a 2/3 vote of the state legislature to convene a constitutional convention to decide whether the issue will go to the voters. Since the state leg has twice passed marriage equality bills that Der Governator refused to sign, if 8’s a revision, then it’s dead.

  275. 275
    Montysano says:

    So: which version of teh Lesbian and Gay Band Association will show up for the inaugural parade? This one, or this one? Either one = Win.

  276. 276
    AhabTRuler, V says:

    Who the hell wants to be President, anyway?

  277. 277

    @Zuzu’s Petals:

    Every single state that has voted on GM has voted against it by large majorities, that’s just a fact. But this past election the margins have come down some, which is a good sign. But not near enough to claim other than large majorities of American’s blue and red are not ready to accept it.

    On the other hand, if you read the holdings of the courts that have examined it under their state constitutions, no, it isn’t such a stretch.

    Maybe, but would the Current SCOTUS see it that way? Me thinks not. Just a novel thought, what if liberals quit hammering him for imagined unsupport (see Cole’s above list of the O’s support for gays) then maybe he will have the political capital to appoint judges who will be helpful to GM rights. Just a thought.

  278. 278
    John O says:

    Not me, Cain.

    Admit it.

    I’ve been doing my best to be an honest broker all night. I don’t just support gay rights, I support gay marriage, hook, line, and sinker. How to get it done, and how it will get done is the only thing I’ve been quibbling about. Well, that and Obama’s motives.

    TheHat, thank you, and sleep well, and if I don’t "see" you again, have a wonderful Christmas/Whatever season with your loved ones.

    Same to all of you. I lurk in many places, but this is the one of the few I post on. That’s because most of you’re not all a bunch of single-issue, lunatic fringe morons.

    I credit our enlightened, once truly retarded host. :-)

    Try posting this stuff, topic-relevant, at Pandagon, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. LOL.

  279. 279
    Grendel72 says:

    "Let’s expand the dialogue by embracing the very people who have rotted the Republican party from the inside out to the point that they actually considered Sarah motherfucking Palin a qualified candidate. What a brilliant idea!"

  280. 280
    John O says:

    Grendel72, wouldn’t you love to see Palin as the 2012 GOP nominee?

    I would. The battle would be further along in terms of the war if that happens.

    Expand your view, grasshopper.

  281. 281
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    To oversimplify, the state constitution specifies that it may be amended by the Legislature passing a proposal by a 2/3 vote, then presenting it to the voters, by a constitutional convention, OR by an initiative measure approved by the voters.

    However, the constitution also specifies that a revisionof the constitution may only be achieved by a Legislative proposal passed by a 2/3 vote and presented to the voters or by a constitutional convention. Not by initiative measure. It’s a higher procedural hurdle.

    There isn’t a whole lot of jurisprudence on the issue in the state, but basically, a revision can consist of a measure that affects multiple parts of the constitution, or one that affects a far-reaching and underlying constitutional principle beyond the simple wording of the provision itself.

    I’m not describing it very well, but you can read the arguments here:

    CSC filings

    Or read about it here:
    LA Times

    It is a pretty novel question, and as I say, there isn’t a lot of jurisprudence, but I do think it’s worth asking at what point a particular right doesn’t get to be subject to the opinion of the majority of voters at any given time.

    By the way, an amendment to the state constitution is not an automatic response in every case. For example, the Massachusetts court holding still stands, because there is a particularly high hurdle for amending the commonwealth constitution – an amendment cannot be placed on the ballot until passed at two consecutive constitutional conventions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....t;>Wiki

  282. 282

    @Mrs. Peel:

    And NOW we have it, right there for everyone to see. A classic case of a self-hating closet queen. It’s only "man + man" that’s involved? Seems to me that there’s been more woman + woman couplings, but your mind automatically goes to 2 guys.

    I will gladly support any referendum you point us to to elevate woman on woman…as long they’re hot.

    John, most of us are completely aware of the facts. As I stated earlier, I went into pointy stick mode sometime this afternoon. Really, why argue, when you can get someone’s panties in a twist.

  283. 283
    TenguPhule says:

    but can we have a little damned perspective here?

    In Balloon Juice? Surely you jest!

  284. 284
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Laura W:

    Are nipple clamps so last decade?

    Soooooo 2007…..

  285. 285
    Grendel72 says:

    @John O

    Grendel72, wouldn’t you love to see Palin as the 2012 GOP nominee?

    I would. The battle would be further along in terms of the war if that happens.

    Expand your view, grasshopper.

    I get where you’re coming from, but quite honestly no. I would greatly prefer neither major political party were infected with the idiocy of the Religious Right. I fail to see how giving a very public spotlight to the "hot new face" of Christofascism does anything to marginalize them.

    It would be nice to have no intrusion of religious mumbo jumbo into the inauguration at all, but if we must have it why go to the same old douchebags who have been overrepresented for decades. It’s not like we haven’t all seen fat-ass white guys who hate fags preaching before.

  286. 286
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @Darkrose:

    You have explained it a lot more succinctly than I could manage. One point, though…a revision can be accomplished by a legislative proposal OR a constitutional convention, both subject to voter approval.

    Cal. Const.

  287. 287
    John O says:

    On that, Grendel72, we can agree.

    How about we see how it plays out? Is it not possible, after you’ve seen Obama defeat both the mighty Clinton machine and McCain, that he has a better long-view on this than you or I?

    I’m no different than anyone else, meaning I doubt it. But he sure has been smart about things so far.

    I have nothing but contempt for the "wad" that is the politically active religious right. I just think it will take a long time to marginalize them appropriately.

  288. 288
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @Comrade Stuck:

    Well, I think your first two sentences contradict each other somewhat. And I’ve shown that the "large majorities" only voted against single-sex marriage in the reddest of the red states in 2004. I don’t disagree that a lot of minds will have to be changed before the idea of single-sex marriage is accepted everywhere.

    As to the USSC would hold … as far as I know, the federal courts do not hold the right to marry as a"fundamental right" subject to strict scrutiny, as the California court (for example) does under its constitution.

  289. 289

    @Grendel72: You’re not getting it. You’re still wanting to agree on the field of battle and the right has already dug the trenches and started cutting supply lines. The "religious mumbo jumbo" is already their. It has been around since the birth of this country. It subconsciously effects everything you and I (yes you too) do. Even the most strident of atheist is influenced by Christianity in this country. So while you quibble about what should and shouldn’t be happening, the far right is already (proverbially) raping the women, burning the houses, and stomping on the ant hills.

  290. 290
    handy says:

    Man do I miss the good old days! You know, when we were all talking about how much cut of the money B-Rock wanted from Governor Blegowhatshisname in the Senatorgate scandal.

  291. 291
    demimondian says:

    @Darkrose: It’s worth pointing out that the history of such lawsuits, much as I’d like this one to prevail, is very depressing. I looked at the stats, and I don’t think that any of them have ever succeeded.

  292. 292

    @Zuzu’s Petals:

    I don’t disagree that a lot of minds will have to be changed before the idea of single-sex marriage is accepted everywhere.

    Rather than quibble over what constitutes a large majority, this is the point I was trying to make.

    As to the USSC would hold … as far as I know, the federal courts do not hold the right to marry as a"fundamental right" subject to strict scrutiny, as the California court (for example) does under its constitution.

    LOL, now your hitting me with lawyer speak. Whatever form the issue comes before the current SCOTUS, I would be surprised if the ruling would be in favor of granting gays the right to marry, and maybe even CU’s. That’s all I was saying.

  293. 293
    Broken says:

    "Black guy. Middle name Hussein.

    WHY THE FUCK WAS HE NOT OUT TRUMPETING GAY MARRIAGE?"

    I agree. How does Obama get anything done if he doesn’t get elected?

    A long time ago someone said liberals would rather be "right" than do what’s necessary to make political progress. The Warren reaction is a classic example.

    Let’s look at Obama’s strategy here:

    Obama said he would continue Bush’s "faith based" charity initiatives. He kills two birds here. On one hand, he helps the poor through community organisations (churches) which, cost-wise is very efficient. On the other hand, he defangs the fundamentalists who would be his biggest adversaries. The fundies are the GOPs most energetic base. Neutralize them and the Republicans have little left. Warren wants to be first in line for Obama’s faith-based funds. Hence the unlikely alliance.

    Gays need to chill out on this. Right now they are behaving like their own worst enemy. Yeah, Prop 8 was hard, but this is a four to eight year battle. Forget the symbolism shit. Go for the political win.

  294. 294
    Darkrose says:

    @demimondian:

    @Darkrose: It’s worth pointing out that the history of such lawsuits, much as I’d like this one to prevail, is very depressing. I looked at the stats, and I don’t think that any of them have ever succeeded.

    It’s certainly quite possible–I’m not counting on it. It’s asking the judiciary to explicitly overturn an electoral result…but then, that electoral result was kind of a kick in the face to the judges, so who knows.

    I’m more hopeful about the suit that’s based on the fact that CA now has two classes of queers: those of us who got married before Nov. 5–especially if our marriages remain valid– and those who didn’t. I am SO not a lawyer, but that seems iffy to me.

  295. 295
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Michael D.:

    I know that Cassidy responded to this above, but I just have to say that this:

    Unlike John, and others, I know exactly how you feel. They’ve never had the experience of being discriminated against like we have.

    is one of the more stupid things I have ever read on this blog.

    Wah! Wah! Because we are gay we have a special insight into being discriminated against that no one else has.

    Bullshit. First of all, almost everyone in the world has experienced the pain of being discriminated against because of something they are, whether it’s being a woman, or a different colour, or having a disability, or being jewish or christian, or short or tall, or having red hair, or (even) being a white, heterosexual male. Being gay doesn’t put us in some special category that means we have a better claim to the pity party than anyone else.

    Second, as white, middle class gay men who live in a Western country, we have, for the most part, fuck all to complain about. I’m not suggesting that being a gay man is all wine and roses (there are more than enough gay bashings and gay youth suicides and fat arsehole preachers who don’t like us to knock that idea on the head). But still, no one is sending us to prison camps, or stoning us to death, or bombing our houses, or slaughtering our families. We have it pretty fucking good, and it will get better, particularly now there is a US President who actually gives a shit about our rights.

    Suggesting that no-one else (or even no one else on this blog) knows the trouble you’ve seen, or can’t even empathise, seems pretty fucking pathetic to me.

    Michael +5

  296. 296
    A la lanterne les aristos says:

    Brock, over on SFist has a good post related to this;

    The Executive Director of Equality California is not going to the inauguration after all because of the Warren thing.

    Brock has some things to say about that, and even quotes Star Trek.

    I think he makes some good points.

  297. 297
    mey says:

    A long time ago someone said liberals would rather be "right" than do what’s necessary to make political progress. The Warren reaction is a classic example.

    Doing what’s "right" and what’s necessary to make political progress is to loudly point out when we’re being fed bullshit. The party of no-spine (I’m a small-i because I detest the regressives and the spineless democrats) has constantly tried to play the understanding adult to the tantrum children on the right. And what has it gotten us? The fucking country moved to the "right". Hello. Lesson learned yet?

    If you don’t speak about something wrong, whether big or small, it won’t change. Obama would not have come out and affirmed his commitment to civil rights for every US citizen if the-roll-your-eyes-at-these-hissy-fitting-DFHs hadn’t put up a stink — righteously so.

    And for every post that someone says, "Oh, come on, THIS is what you have a problem with?", I hope a dozen reply that, "YEAH! Hell yeah, I have a problem with that. And with that, and that, and that." The problems are so overwhelming, the list so long. But every time we let even a "little" thing like this go, we lose. Yeah, this means it should be a constant, 24/7, 10-year rage-fest of pointing out how fucked up things have gotten that people that KNOW this is wrong are trying to tell us to hold back, yet again, because there are a hundred bigger issues to worry about. Sounds like there should be 101 things we should be yelling about then.

  298. 298
    Ben V says:

    I’m outraged that Obama is inviting a speaker that represents the views of 52% of California voters. OUTRAGED!

  299. 299

    Let me see if I’ve got this right, this great big set to is about some guy is going to get up and tell the creator of a universe that we’re gonna have this guy swear to do something? Said guy is seriously considered to be the arbiter of the thinking of a universe creator and should be taken as a symbol of all things? (much less seriously) He’ll be talking about this on the basis of a book that all kinds of views make their backing for mutually exclusive views and it is certainly damn near the end of everything.

    Maybe all this god talk should take place some other time?

    Nah, we got to have our loving god, god talk so’s we can whack each other with our various versions and get totally pissed off in the name of … love?

    Grendel72 wants this to equate to bigotry, I’m sure there is some of that – hating queers – but a whole lot of it has to do with people not wanting something with a long tradition changed and that’s not bigotry. It may result in a lack of equal rights and responsibilities and feel the same, but it isn’t. You don’t win your point or win over those people by calling them names that aren’t accurate. You can get over that idea, or not, but if you want to fuck yourself over you’ll keep it up. If you want to keep right on not having equal rights and responsibilities you’ll do everything you can to create more of an atmosphere of anger and resentment on top of what already exists. When THOMC tells you about a political and social process call him names and alienate an ally because he’s willing to leave Rick Warren’s god talk go. Throw yourself on the floor and kick your feet, I’m sure that’ll help me bring people around to my point of view out here in the sticks. You want to win, or be pissed off? Me? I prefer winning.

    You take off the gloves and go bare knuckle when there’s a gain in it and there’s no gain here.

  300. 300
    Trinity says:

    Best fucking post I’ve read on this.

    Many thanks John. This is why I keep coming back here.

  301. 301
    Trinity says:

    @Tattoosydney: A-fucking-men!

  302. 302
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @Darkrose:

    There’s certainly isn’t a lot of precedent, but the court has in the past invalidated the adoption of an initiative measure as a revision that had far-reaching effects:

    The petitioners note that "the right to equal protection has been part of the California Constitution since its inception. Thus, they say, it would surely require a constitutional revision to abolish the California state requirement of equal protection itself. This would not be an empty gesture. Although the Federal Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause already applies to California, elimination of the state’s own equal protection clause would eliminate the possibility that the state courts could find violations of the state version in circumstances in which the federal courts would find no violation of the federal version. And indeed, in Raven v. Deukmejian, the California Supreme Court held that a change by which California courts would be stripped of the power to find violations of various criminal procedural protections, requiring them to interpret the state provisions in "lockstep" with the parallel federal provisions, was indeed a revision, not a mere amendment.

    Prop 8, of course, does not eliminate equal protection. It has the effect of changing the interpretation of equal protection in one context: same-sex marriage. That smaller, fine-grained change, some scholars argue, makes it a less than fundamental alteration, and thus one that can be accomplished via amendment. (See, e.g., here.) The petitioners (who filed before Prop 8 was on the ballot but whose petition was simply held by the California Supreme Court, no doubt in the hope that the voters would make its resolution unnecessary) argue that despite its few words and seemingly confined subject matter, Prop 8 makes a sweeping change, because it carves out an exception to the fundamental principle that discrimination against a suspect class triggers strict scrutiny.

    Yet the doctrinal arguments hardly seem so easy. The California Supreme Court invalidated the state’s anti-miscegenation statute on state constitutional grounds in Perez v. Sharp, in 1948, long before the Supreme Court took the same step on federal constitutional grounds in Loving v. Virginia. Suppose that following Perez (but before Loving), someone proposed defining marriage in California as "the union of a man and a woman of the same race." Is it obvious that this would not have been the sort of fundamental change—an expression of white supremacy antithetical to the very principle of equal protection—that requires the use of the revision process rather than the amendment process? And if that change would have required a revision, then can one really say that the petitioners’ claims here are doomed? A court that thinks the same-sex marriage prohibition denies equal protection is likely to regard the case as similar to my hypothetical example.

    Dorf on Law

    I disagree with his idea that the justices could be swayed by purely political considerations, by the way.

  303. 303
    Comrade This One says:

    Oh, John. First, I want to second something that CaliMatt expressed above. I love your blog. You write with candor, directness and humor without fretting too much about the “noble” factor — the natural desire to appear “good,” even if not infallible. Maybe even better, you attract a lot of funny, clever commenters.

    But I’m afraid that I also have to echo CaliMatt in his judgment that you are simply wrong on this subject. Surely wrong that the Warren honor is no big deal, but that is not exactly what prompts this note.

    I think you’re really wrong to be trying to douse the strong reaction that this honor is generating among the supporters of sexual minority rights, and maybe especially wrong in the way that you are making that attempt. I know I had to resist the tremendous temptation to write a short, snarky, infuriated comment to the effect, “Thanks, John, now that you have assured this 56-year-old gay man that the Warren announcement is not a slap in the face to gays, I can sleep tonight.” Or maybe I could have simply noted that, yes, Obama is more of a gay rights advocate than any of his predecessors (though “fierce advocate” moves us perilously close to the outright laughable), and that undoubtedly homophobic clergy have been giving the inaugural invocation for literally centuries so that the current controversial situation can hardly be construed as a big step backwards. Gays should simply be grateful for whatever concessions the establishment deigns to grant us and shut the fuck up.

    But snark doesn’t seem right with such a direct and honest person (though, of course, here I’ve sneaked it in anyway). I guess what I would be trying to express is my feeling — a feeling that I believe motivates a lot of the high emotion running through the left-ish blogosphere in the last 36 hours — that even our best-intentioned allies, even some fellow gays and lesbians (to employ the awkwardest of labels) just don’t get it. The frustration of seeing one’s pain and sense of injustice derogated by comrades just fuels a lot of the heat; and the hotter the fire, the faster the fuel flows. No one, especially someone as intelligent and sensitive as yourself, likes being told he doesn’t get it, and no one likes being told that the real, personal hurt at the heart of all social injustice is a figment of the sufferer’s imagination. Maybe you do “get it,” John; and maybe people like me are overreacting. Nevertheless, it’s clear to me that this noisy dynamic is driving the present hostilities among political allies.

    But I’m rather optimistic about these exchanges. I think of it as an educational opportunity, with the main lesson being very simple: Same-sexers are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore. Proposition 8 was a kind of last straw (though of course there will be many others, starting with Warren). I can remember when Jim Foster of San Francisco’s Society for Individual Rights was allowed to address the 1972 Democratic Convention about gay rights at two o’clock in the morning (the whole thing being an embarrassing joke to television at the time) — certainly before many of the commenters here were even born. There have been a lot of last straws since then. And the progress that has been made in gay rights has not come about because we shut up or feigned being the “model of civility” when so instructed by our social superiors. And it certainly didn’t come about by simply waiting for politicians to do the right thing.

    One thing I think you are very right about, John. We need to save our nerves for the trials ahead. I have hesitated to write anything about this issue online precisely because I know personally I need to steel myself for the continuing horrors ahead — continuing wars abroad, continuing human rights abuses, and widespread, desperate suffering due to a global economic depression. There’s plenty of time yet to panic.

  304. 304
    Mrs. Peel says:

    Sorry but Obama peaked too soon. He specifically says "yeah, get me the bigot to bless this event". He can’t even make it to the inauguration without wandering into an airplane propeller. This is a definite pattern forming. One term and out the door. Mark my words. He doesn’t know what he’s doing.

    He’ll be better able to express himself with more clarity than chimp boy, but he’s as lost as Atlantis.

  305. 305
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Comrade This One:

    Thanks Comrade. There is so much in your post that I agree with. Even if I disagreed with you utterly, the considered reasonableness of your erudite post would deserve to be noted. Please note that as I drunkenly oversimplify below, I am responding to the general tenor of discussion on here – not trying to pick holes in anything you have said.

    It surprised me how little mutual understanding there was in the many posts there have been on here over the last two days, and how quick many people were to shove everyone into ridiculous categories – the straights who just didn’t understand, and the gays who were overreacting and hysterical. Michael D.’s comment (that I was (in my view, justifiably) rude about above) is a good example.

    There have been some people though, gay and straight, (John included) who have been trying to point out how much we actually agree with each other.

    I understand how disappointing it is that Obama has not acted exactly how I would want him to, and it angers me when straight people just don’t seem to understand the visceral feeling, very close to pain, that I get as a gay man that my government tells me that I can’t get married – that in the eyes of the law in my country, the years of my relationship with my boyfriend are not equivalent to the relationship of a man and a woman who met a week ago and decided to get married.

    But at the same time, I think that our natural anger, coupled with the great hope that many of us invested in Obama, means that many gays and their friends are overreacting, and simplifying the other side’s views as "Gays should simply be grateful for whatever concessions the establishment deigns to grant us and shut the fuck up", when what many of them are really saying is "We agree with you, but is this the fight we want to have now? Is this the most important thing, or just one of many important things?"

    And the progress that has been made in gay rights has not come about because we shut up or feigned being the “model of civility” when so instructed by our social superiors. And it certainly didn’t come about by simply waiting for politicians to do the right thing.

    Exactly. This is why it baffles me that the reaction to any set backs among my community seems so often to be to simply demand that the "straights" fix everything all at once – that we have done with trying to convince them of the justness of our cause – that they should set aside all of their (our) other problems and wave a magic fairy wand and pass laws that mean that we all live together in a big happy pink tent.

    Yes, we have to keep fighting for our rights, and most of the people on this blog will fight for us, but we have to make our case as part of the bigger agenda, not just stamp our feet and demand that our issues be dealt with now.

    Michael (still + 5 after a Christmas party but moving towards more wine for dinner)

  306. 306
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    /yawn

    Seriously, with all of the shit facing us this is a tempest in a teapot. Go ahead, force the issue and see what it gets you. Shove them hard and all you will get in return is a shove right back. I am not ‘in the choir’ but I am in your audience and you are quickly losing me (or at least my ears). Obama isn’t even in the fucking office and the shrieking from the left is already deafening.

    I am glad I am not a Democrat anymore. Shit like this makes it less likely I will ever consider being one again. The Democrats know how to kneecap themselves better than the Republicans ever could. Fucking ritualistic circular firing squads.

    I have a feeling that I am going to wish McPalin had won before Obama is through his first four years, but only because the Democrats don’t deserve Obama. That and at least they would have something legitimate to bitch about.

    Edit: Not directed at you Tattoosydney, yours is a post that is easy on the ears and eyes. Thank you.

  307. 307

    What is it ConservLib that makes you think all or most of the catterwaullling is from Democrats? I’m less than impressed with your prescience, the IDs I’ve noted seemed to be self-congratulatory (I)s saying how nice it is not to be a filthy (D), including your own. I could name several self-identified (D)s from this and other posts, THOMC, JC, myself and, oddly, there seems to be little screeching from them.

    I would like to take this moment to thank all of you (I)s for all your hard work recruiting candidates, writing platforms, creating support systems and generally being such fine additions to the process. I’m quite sure none of that could have been managed without your assistance and all your critiques are taken strictly in that sense. I am equally sure that everyone will take time to thank you for the (I) faction in the US Congress which has kept the system in such fine repair.

    The part I really admire is how you get out and find good talented people and nurture them through the local offices into state office and on up. Your dedication bears real fruit for your fellows and is so much more to be desired than empty complaints on a blog.
    /FU

  308. 308
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Chuck, I am more than aware of your hard work for the Democratic party and more power to you for doing it. My Mom did the very same thing through the Jane Jefferson’s Democratic Womens group, and as a 12 year old kid I got my start doing door to door campaigning with my Mom and older sister for Gladys Morgan in Spokane (she lost and her campaign signs were a horrid dark neon orange and green). I proudly registered as a Democrat at 18 and I remained a very active Democrat until my mid-30’s when I got fed up with the direction the party was taking. I still vote an almost exclusively Democratic ticket but I will no longer give my name or my time to the party as a registered Democrat, although I did donate to the DNC and Obama this time around.

    Now I get the ‘if you are in the middle of the road then expect to get run over’ from both sides, and all it does is make me laugh. I get what the gays and their supporters are pissed about, but what they are doing is not going to help them a bit (IMO). All they are doing is making the wingnuts happy and making a stink about something that is not going to change anything.

    While I have not been discriminated against like they or people of color have, being in possession of hair to my waist since the late 60’s has exposed me to a particular flavor of discrimination that only DFH’s get. I will readily admit that this is a choice I made, not something that I was born with, so I am not complaining about it. It is a fact of life and I just deal with it when it rears its ugly head.

    Like I said, I am in their corner but I sure as hell am seeing a lot of shit dumped on Obama when I really don’t think he deserves it. Sure, bitch away all you want, that is your right. As it is my right to get sick and tired of it already.

    Chuck, please note that I have posted here that the ‘caterwauling’ is coming "in stereo" so I recognize that the noise is not coming from one direction. Please also note that the descriptor you used, "filthy", is not one that I would agree with when referring to Democrats. Circular firing squad, yes. Spineless, yes. "Filthy"? Maybe in your mind.

    Keep up the good fight at your end Chuck, you are a dying breed in a party that needs someone like Obama to revive it. I sure hope he can give his party members in Washington a spinal transplant because they really need it.

    No nasty or witty rejoinder for you, sorry.

  309. 309
    Duke of Earl says:

    Here’s another reason teh gay are upset, this Warren thing is not happening in a vacuum, it’s really just one outrage after another, the US is now aligning with the most theocratic Muslim countries in wanting to continue persecuting teh gay.

    US balks at backing condemnation of anti-gay laws

    UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

    In all, 66 of the U.N.’s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration – which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

    Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

  310. 310
    DecidedFenceSitter says:

    Few things, I believe Dark Rose hits the button. The homosexual contingent within the Democratic party, particularly the DLC, I think gets treated in a similar fashion to the religious right does by the corporate side of the Republican Party, "Support us, but don’t be surprised if we marginalize your social concerns for our economic concerns." The Right has abortion issues (amazing how little forward motion is made) the Left has gay rights issues.

    I can understand them being sensitive to these appearances, they’ve been left out in the cold for political expediency multiple times, and these things leave scars. No administration comes to power in a vacuum with a blank slate, there are expectations, reasonable or not, and there are old hurts that need to be dealt with.

    Secondly, polygamy as practiced by the fundamentalist sects of the LDS is abusive.

    However, that doesn’t prevent adults from forming non-traditional family units. I know, I’ve been in such a multiple adult relationship for four years or so. Look at Big Love on HBO, or look up polyamory (while not at work so the firewall doesn’t trip you up), it has become the hip thing among the trendy counter-culture, but it is how I live my life. (Thank heavens Darrell isn’t around, the last time I came out on BJ it was 2006 elections and he was OVERLY interested in my wives’ sex lives.)

  311. 311
    Duke of Earl says:

    @DecidedFenceSitter:

    Few things, I believe Dark Rose hits the button. The homosexual contingent within the Democratic party, particularly the DLC, I think gets treated in a similar fashion to the religious right does by the corporate side of the Republican Party

    Eh, the Repubs honor and listen to their base, they don’t set out to deliberately piss them off, which is what I think Obama is doing with the Warren pick. Nothing makes Reichtards happier than angry libs, particularly when we are angry at our own.

    The reaction to Warren by teh gay and gay supporters was roughly as predictable as gravity, he is as outright offensive to us as David Duke would be to blacks or those who support their struggle. If you think Obama didn’t see this coming a mile away then you think he is a political naif.

  312. 312
    Michael D. says:

    @Darkrose:

    John, you were still a Republican then, so you may not have been paying attention when Clinton was first elected. Queers were thrilled, because he wanted to repeal the ban, and everything was going to be great…

    …and we got DADT.

    …and DOMA.

    That’s what I fear most. And it’s the reason I don’t like (but am not getting myself in knots over) Obama’s choice of Rick Warren. There are so many more men and women he could have chosen to participate in this ceremony, and picking one who is diametrically and publicly opposed to the civil rights of a core Democratic constituency seems just plain wrong to me.

    I don’t want a repeat of Clinton with respect to gay issues.

    Rick Warren compared my relationship to a man marrying a child or an incestuous relationship. When the reporter asked him if he really meant that, Warren said, “Oh, I do.”

    Warren is also against a woman’s right to choose.

    Finally, an apology for two earlier comments. The first, where I stated that you don’t know discrimination like I do. I know there are plenty of you out there who have experienced discrimination. I apologize for minimalizing that. What I should have said is that you don’t have the experience of having that discrimination codified in the constitution. While you may be denied a job because of your race or sex, it is unlawful for that to happen. In several states, it is perfectly legal to fire gay people.

    The second, where I replied to TZ and said “we don’t want you to kneel. We just want you to act.” What I should have said was “We want you to CONTINUE to act.” I know the vast majority of you act every time you cast a ballot.

    Having said that, there are dozens of other ways you can ACT that I am sure most of you don’t do – and neither do most gay people, by the way. You can encourage gay friends to come out. If you live in a state where marriage is on the ballot, you can talk about how terrible it is at the office and try to change minds there.

    If you are gay, do something I do. If I am invited to any kind of reception or party where there is a dance involved, I never sit it out because it might make others uncomfortable. Fuck ’em! I always get up and dance with my partner.

    Anyway, back to Warren. As I said, I strongly disagree with Obama for inviting him to give the invocation. It’s not just “a 60 second” thing like a lot of you have said. It’s a very important part of all inaugurations – a symbolic pick that people wait to see – and that Obama has invited a bigot to do it is very disappointing to me. He had a chance to reject that, and he didn’t. That said, I am trusting that Obama will make good, as best as he can, on gay issues. I know he won’t always succeed. All I want him to do is make an honest effort to try.

    The bright spot in all of this is that the Religious Right is pissed of as well. Just watching on CNN how they are extremely disappointed that Rick Warren would give the invocation at the inauguration of a baby killer, or somesuch.

  313. 313

    Warren is also against a woman’s right to choose.

    Michael? Half of America holds this position.

    The country needs to grow up and stop pretending that the people who don’t agree with us or don’t share our values, don’t exist.

    We’ve seen 40 years of exploiting this by politicians. Now it’s time to try something else.

  314. 314
    Xenos says:

    Eh, the Repubs honor and listen to their base, they don’t set out to deliberately piss them off, which is what I think Obama is doing with the Warren pick. Nothing makes Reichtards happier than angry libs, particularly when we are angry at our own.

    It is all kabuki, and it is annoying as hell to go through, and to listen to, but it is important. This is how you move the Overton Window to the left guys.

    Make him defend his bigotry every time he goes in public – the line I keep hearing from him about every culture for ever and ever having marriage just like we have it now is so stupid that even his followers must realize it is BS.

    It is critically important for the future of this country that professional ignoramuses like Warren become radioactive. It will take a decade, but there is not time like the present to get started.

  315. 315

    The following list comprises a detailed, though not exhaustive, account of the demographics voting Yes on Prop. 8 from the CNN exit poll:
    84% of weekly churchgoers – (32% of those polled);
    82% of Republicans – (29% of those polled);
    81% of white evangelicals – (17% of those polled);
    70% of African Americans – (10% of those polled);
    68% of voters married w/children (31% of those polled);
    65% of all Protestants – (43% of those polled);
    65% of white Protestants – (29% of those polled);
    64% of voters w/children in household – (40% of those polled);
    64% of Catholics – (30% of electorate);
    61% of age 65 and over – (15% of those polled);
    60% of married people – (62% of those polled);
    59% of suburban dwellers – (51% of those polled);
    58% of non-college graduates – (50% of those polled);
    56% of union households – (25% of those polled);
    53% of Latinos – (18% of those polled);
    51% of white men – (31% of those polled). [133]

    Just for perspective. The politics of Yes of Prop 8 are not exactly subtle, and the demo is not narrow. It’s not as if a few rednecks went out and burst a bubble of happiness.

    The Yes on 8 side just did a better job in every aspect of the game, offense, defense, and special teams.

    Do the No on 8 supporters really want to win? Because they are doing a great imitation of a bunch of sore losers who can’t sell a piece of ass on a troop train. This was a Dem landslide election in a blue state, and the liberal side of this question lost.

    What does that tell you? That Warren is Satan, or that your side is doing something wrong?

    Whatever you think the answer is, sitting around and bitching about the best politician you have seen in your lifetimes seems to me to be counterproductive.

  316. 316
    John S. says:

    Grendel72 is right – most of us don’t know what it’s like to be hated or discriminated against. That is a completely unique gay condition.

    Like in 1993 when a bunchof skinheads jumped me because of the Jewish star I was wearing. They didn’t hate me because I was a Jew, theyhated me for my ostentatious gold jewelry which they thought was an indicator that I was gay.

    Right before they started wailing on me they said, "We’re not doing this because your Jewish, but because of your faggy gold jewelry. Faggot!"

    Thanks for speaking out, Grendel.

  317. 317
    breschau says:

    Michael:

    It’s a very important part of all inaugurations

    Really? Can anyone here, off the top of their head, tell me who gave the past five invocations? Can you name one of them?

    If not.. umm, exactly how "important" is it?

  318. 318
    Michael D. says:

    The Secretary of Energy is an important part of the administration, but I doubt anyone here could name the last 5. Probably not even the last 3 off the top of their heads.

  319. 319
    grendelkhan says:

    TheHatOnMyCat: Michael? Half of America holds this position.

    The country needs to grow up and stop pretending that the people who don’t agree with us or don’t share our values, don’t exist.

    We’ve seen 40 years of exploiting this by politicians. Now it’s time to try something else.

    Look, Rick Warren is a bigot. He’s a bigot in the same way that David Duke or Don Black are; his bigotry just happens to be pointed at a group that’s still socially okay to piss on. That means that Obama can get away with including him… but that sure as hell doesn’t make it right.

    What would you expect anti-racist activists to say if a noted white-supremacist was tapped for a major symbolic role in the inauguration? Do you think that pointing out that many Americans hold racist views, and that we shouldn’t exclude them, would hold any water? Would you complain that all those poor, poor racist Americans were being told that they didn’t exist?

    Yes, I’m aware that it won’t really cost Obama points, because even the portion of the public that doesn’t actively hate gay people doesn’t get too riled up when someone does. It’s just profoundly disappointing that he has an opportunity to tell this particular brand of bigots that their ideas are beyond the pale of civilized society, and instead he’s bridging the gap, doing his reaching-across-the-aisle schtick.

    I’d have a lot more faith in the reaching-across-the-aisle schtick if it sometimes didn’t involve reaching from the center to the far-right.

    Michael D.: The bright spot in all of this is that the Religious Right is pissed of as well. Just watching on CNN how they are extremely disappointed that Rick Warren would give the invocation at the inauguration of a baby killer, or somesuch.

    Well, the freepers are beside themselves, but I don’t think it’s with anger.

  320. 320
    Michael D. says:

    Obama’s talking points are out, including:

    The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what’s important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America’s promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.

    I could re-write that:

    The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Wright on many of the things that have recently come to light. But what’s important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America’s promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.

    Why is one fine and not the other?

  321. 321
    over_educated says:

    Does anyone else find it at all ironic that John is defending Obama’s use of Warren considering his role in the Schiavo debacle? I seem to remember him being pretty outspoken about the removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube being a "nazi like atrocity." The whole Shiavo thing was one of the primary motivations for John to start getting the hell out of crazy land.

    I don’t think this will make one whit of difference to Obama’s policies mind oyu, but I just hink it is a sad statement on Evangelism when the BEST dude they could find is a raging homophobe and was part of the Schiavo craziness.

  322. 322
    tony smith says:

    Obama, like many other candidates, has become more moderate-to-conservative on the national scene. While he took liberal positions representing ultra-blue Chicago, he has not been as liberal on the national scene. I would not conclude anything about his future support for gay rights based on his record of voting in Illinois. Also, Obama is a brilliant rhetoritician. He "believes" that DADT should be repealed, but he has not commited to doing it. Like his supposedly moderate military advisors, he wants to "study" the issue and move at the right movment. That moment probably will not arrive in the next four years.

    Obama could have invited a KKK or anti-woman type to deliver the invocation. But he did not. He could have invited Minister Farakhan or others who provoke anger among whites. But he did not. Gays are a small enough constituency that he can cut us loose on some issues. I imagine that all of the heterosexual apologists for Obama would not make the same arguments if he had an openly racist or sexist minister delivering the invocation. But, as with most issues, they want us to be silent.

  323. 323
    elmo says:

    From Grendel, last night:

    This is supposed to be a moment to bring the country together, and the only way to do that is to embrace divisive bigots.

    I think Grendel meant to be snarky, but there really is some truth to that statement. Whether we like it or not, people we consider bigots are a large, large segment of the population. If they aren’t a majority, they’re damn close.

    So yeah, if you’re serious about bringing the country together to enact health care, to change our foreign policy, to reduce income disparity and prevent us from becoming a banana republic, then you are going to have to "embrace divisive bigots," because there are so damn many of them.

    That’s why this is different from David Duke. David Duke might have a constituency, but it’s tiny. You can successfully marginalize him and his people, and still get your shit done. You can’t get your shit done without anti-gay bigots, because there are still too damn many anti-gay bigots out there.

    Sheesh. This isn’t difficult, people. This is politics as it’s practiced on planet Earth.

    (and yeah, I’m gay, if that matters to y’all)

  324. 324
    gex says:

    Blah blah blah. Shut up whiny gays. Blah blah blah. Why can’t we just respect the inclusion of a powerful political and religious leader who thinks you are as bad or worse than someone who rapes children. Blah blah blah. Look, we have ours, so we don’t mind you having to wait for yours. Blah blah blah. Dirty fucking hippies.

    Note: not necessarily disagreeing with Cole, even though I am angry about the pick. Just sick of being the one who has to shut up and take it for the team. And knowing that there is merit to the "there’s more important things to do" argument. Which means my issue will likely be addressed when I’m in a nursing home – if ever. Because really there will always be people who are against the gays and there will always be more important things.

  325. 325
    John PM says:

    All it took was two glasses of wine, and I am ready to have hot gay man on man sex with Joe Klein:

    I know that I am late to the party, but I just wanted to say that this comment made me throw up in my mouth a little. I am not going to be able to get any work done now.

  326. 326
    Mrs. Peel says:

    then you are going to have to "embrace divisive bigots," because there are so damn many of them.

    Thank you Pastor Ted. Maybe you can pray away your gay, since it obviously bothers you so much and you seem to believe that you ARE all the foul things they call you.

    How are things in the log cabin?

  327. 327
    gex says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Wasn’t Warren’s larger point that he’d be publicly muzzled? And isn’t that essentially what we’re trying to do here, in the name of preventing some kinda, uh, validation.

    Just want to point out that not being invited to do the invocation at the inauguration is not the same as being muzzled. But feel free to add to Warren’s incorrect argument that gay people are trying to take away his first amendment rights.

  328. 328
    T says:

    This isn’t about Obama’s policy positions past, present or future. This is about dead Americans.

    Warren has compared homosexuality to incest and pedophilia, he’s compared abortion to the holocaust and he supported assassinating the President of Iran on the basis that "The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers." Hate crimes against gays are on the rise and it wasn’t that long ago in this country that womens’ clinics were being bombed and the doctors who worked at them were being shot. Warren’s rhetoric encourages that kind of violence and now Obama has, despite his public "disagreement" with Warren, made that violence more likely by handing Warren a mega-phone.

    The selection of Warren is a defacto endorsement of his beliefs, not because Obama agrees with them, but because he accepts them as legitimate, mainstream views which make Warren a "moral leader". Obama has now clearly indicated that he believes the radical, and violent statements of Rick Warren are an acceptable part of our nation’s "civil discourse".

    Make no mistake, next year some one in this country is going to die in a spectacularly ugly fashion. A doctor will be shot dead in the street and a note reading "baby killer" will be left on his corpse. Or a teenager will be beaten to death in his own high school by some one screaming "faggot" as he lands each bloody blow. And this sort of thing will happen because the President of the United States has made it clear that, while he doesn’t agree, it is reasonable and acceptable to compare those people to Nazis and pedophiles.

    Rick Warren is dangerous precisely because he makes his intolerance seem so reasonable. Obama’s falling for his act and handing him the mike on a global stage is deeply irresponsible, and it will get people killed. And now that blood will be on Obama’s hands too.

    That’s why the GLBT community is so angry. They are afraid for their lives and rightly so.

  329. 329
    Susan says:

    I’d like to think you’re right. But the word "naive" comes to mind. And egotistical, frankly.

  330. 330
    elmo says:

    Thank you Pastor Ted. Maybe you can pray away your gay, since it obviously bothers you so much and you seem to believe that you ARE all the foul things they call you.

    Oh, I like this. This is perfect.

    Let’s not just demonize the bigots. That’s not nearly pure enough. Let’s also demonize the people on our side who don’t demonize the bigots.

    And then, of course, we must demonize the people who are on our side who don’t demonize the people who don’t demonize the bigots. To infinity.

    And then we few, we happy few, we band of the Judean People’s Front, can gather together in a single room and lament that nobody listens to us, man.

  331. 331
    Genine says:

    I imagine that all of the heterosexual apologists for Obama would not make the same arguments if he had an openly racist or sexist minister delivering the invocation.

    Actually, I wouldn’t care- and I’m black and a woman.

    I care about Obama’s policies, not who says some three minute prayer.

  332. 332
    Xecky Gilchrist says:

    @elmo: Let’s not just demonize the bigots. That’s not nearly pure enough. Let’s also demonize the people on our side who don’t demonize the bigots.

    That reminds me – how is the boycott of Utah going? That was about punishing not only the Mormon church but all its members and non-members who didn’t do enough to keep the church from supporting Prop Hate.

  333. 333
    Aristides says:

    The howls over completely over the top outrage really make it difficult to cling to my original position that picking this guy actually was a little ridiculous. I always hate to find myself on the side of very silly people.

  334. 334
    theturtlemoves says:

    @elmo: You just aren’t enough of an absolutist, man. You have to embrace an entirely black/white, good/evil world view. Because that’s what really succeeded in defeating Prop 8. Wait, that passed? By a solid majority? Well, obviously millions and millions of people are evil and we need to call them names on Internet forums. That’s how real progress is made, dontchaknow?

  335. 335
    Tim B says:

    How ironic that I preferred Obama over Hillary precisely because I thought he would be the candidate less likely to capitulate to the far right. Little did I know it’s a main plank of the Democratic party platform.

  336. 336
    Cyrus says:

    @tony smith:

    Obama could have invited [an] … anti-woman type to deliver the invocation.

    Given Warren’s stance on abortion, contraception, etc., I’d say he did. Gays are not, in fact, the only people thrown under the bus taking one for the team shafted by this.

  337. 337
    Mrs. Peel says:

    can gather together in a single room and lament that nobody listens to us, man.

    Well nobody will listen to you because you just reek of powerless wuss stench. Other people will lead the cause while you hang back and whimper how they shouldn’t do mean things like that.

    Wuss + 100

  338. 338

    […] Progressives should not worry that Obama will turn to Warren for policy guidance.  Obama has expressed support for the LGBT community very consistently for many years.  Still, there is something very […]

  339. 339
    Andrew says:

    In summary, John Cole and others think it’s okay to say fuck you to American gays, as long as you’re good on the issues, even though there is no good reason whatsoever to do so. Is that about right?

  340. 340
    elmo says:

    Other people will lead the cause

    Like Barack Obama!

    while you hang back and whimper how they shouldn’t do mean things like that.

    Like…

  341. 341

    The Rick Warren Controversy: Did Obama Get It Wrong?…

    by Damozel | Obama wasn’t my first choice for a Democratic candidate and this might be why I am less judgmental toward him now than many progressives who supported his "Change" brand without checking the specs or reading the list of ingredients on t…

  342. 342
    The Frito Pundito says:

    The whole notion of "inculsiveness" is nonsense. If Obama thinks that the Christian right will think he is any less of a Satanist, or if the GOP will cut him any slack on "values" he is sadly mistaken. They take desire for inclusiveness as a sign of weakness and capitalize on it. As Glenn Greenwald points out, virtually all Bill Clinton did during his term was to capitulate to the right (DOMA, Welfare Reform, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) and what did it get him? Impeachment and a frothing hatred that continues to this day. As Digby said, this is about the Religious Right moving the goalposts, but this time into Democtratic territory. They have succeeded in marginalizing gays in the GOP, and not they’re looking to do that in the Democratic party. And Obama allowing Warren to give the invocation is right in line with that agenda. Why Obama can’t see that I don’t know, or maybe he does and thinks he can beat them at their own game. I really doubt it.

  343. 343

    The problem here is that this was an incendiary move that fueled up the outrage machine of the left. Obama has been unimpressive in the transition. Yeah, he has high approval ratings. But he does for two reasons: 1. Nobody is paying attention 2. He’s now being directly compared to Bush. It’s one thing to cross your friends for a reason; it’s another to cross them for no reason and not even bother to make a phone call about it. Warren’s rhetoric–he compares gay people to pedophiles–is far from civil. There are other, less controversial pastors he could’ve chosen that would’ve made the same point. By attempting to reduce the flames of the culture wars, Obama ended up creating a culture war inferno. Dumb choice.

  344. 344
    Broken says:

    Damn, who stole the sane?

    You’d think Obama had just appointed Warren Chief Justice.

  345. 345
    Joshua Norton says:

    Obama has been unimpressive in the transition. Yeah, he has high approval ratings. But he does for two reasons: 1. Nobody is paying attention 2. He’s now being directly compared to Bush.

    He’s Clinton II, only more amateurish and powerless. His pathetic attempts at triangulating are so obvious he might as well just announce "hey, watch me triangulate this"

    A one-term wonder. Maybe Palin WILL be the next president if this the best we can do. Why mess around with Closet Fundie Lite when you can have the whole out-in-the-open hate-frothing real thing?

  346. 346
    Person of Choler says:

    Lefties are getting a quick lesson in the differences between a messiah and a politician.

  347. 347
    Broken says:

    Christ almighty, I expect Obama will do more for gay rights than any other president, period.

    If I am right, I demand that each and every one of you wankers plant a big sloppy kiss of apology on his black ass.

  348. 348
    Mrs. Peel says:

    I expect Obama will do more for gay rights than any other president, period.

    Sorry, but all I get from the Obama crowd is more assumptions based on assumptions. Perhaps you heard all kinds of wonderment and promises in his light, fluffy, kittens and rainbows speeches. All I ever heard was fluff. I veered towards supporting him because I was tired of 3 years of the press telling me that Hillary was going to be the next president – like my vote didn’t count for anything.

    It’s all turning out just like I expected it to. No substance then, no substance now. Just go along to get along with the last person who talked to you.

  349. 349
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    sigh…

  350. 350
    Andrew says:

    It’s all turning out just like I expected it to. No substance then, no substance now. Just go along to get along with the last person who talked to you.

    Yeah, it’s this sort of crazy shit that makes it difficult to make rational arguments against the warren choice.

  351. 351

    […] Read John Cole’s post “This Will Be My Last Post On This, So Help Me Flying Spaghetti Monster.” […]

  352. 352

    […] Balloon JuicePharyngula”Michelle GoldbergCurrent top recommended diary on DailyKosMatthew YglesiasEzra Klein […]

  353. 353
    Grendel72 says:

    Now, Obama is reaching out, giving a symbolic nod to the right, and people are freaking the fuck out.

    Because the religious right have such a long tradition of dealing honestly and fairly with others, and of arguing in good faith.

  354. 354

    @elmo: Shit dude, according to Grendel and Mrs peel, we’re all bigots since we’re not marching in lockstep with the gay community. Screw the middle class, two wars, the economy, social injustice to other minorities. Since we’re not all getting our gay on, we’re bigots.

    Re Mrs. Peel and her deep thoughts on a one term Obama Presidency.

    @T: @#328@
    I nominate for retarded post of the month…any seconds?

    Aw shit…mrs. peel @ 349 is trying to trump him. Damn…does the Screen Actors Guild have this much trouble?

  355. 355
    Gay Veteran says:

    The Other Steve: "…The self-absorption and selfishness of the gay interest group has long bugged me. At least the evangelicals know how to work with the other assholes in the republican party and don’t go around yelling "Me Me Me!" all the time."

    yassa massa, we’ll just sit in the back of the bus and STFU

    TheHatOnMyCat: ""I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage." There you have it. That is a reasonable view, even if you disagree with it, which I do.
    That’s your problem. It’s not an unreasonable position, and it’s not gay bashing to hold it."

    A "reasonable" view that marriage hasn’t changed in 5000 years? what, we still have polygamy as the norm?

    As for Obama, he has to EARN my support.

  356. 356

    @Gay Veteran:

    As for Obama, he has to EARN my support.

    Not really. He’s already been elected. Go back to your hole Toby.

  357. 357
    Broken says:

    It’s all turning out just like I expected it to. No substance then, no substance now. Just go along to get along with the last person who talked to you.

    Yeah, it just breaks my heart that Obama has yet to pass a single piece of legislation or written even one executive order.

    White evangelicals represent 25% of the electorate. That’s a huge roadblock to any progressive legislation, let alone gay rights. Obama has made it very clear how he plans to deal with this. Over and over again, the theme of creating "a UNITED states of america", "faith-based" poverty programs, reaching out several times to Warren, support of gay rights, soft-pedaling gay marriage.

    Unless the evangelicals and Rushbots are somehow defused, you risk another 1993 with republicans retaking the House in two years. That’s the political reality. Remember Clinton and DADT? How’d that work out?

    The gay movement is starting to sound like the women’s movement circa 1970s: bitter, self-righteous, unrealistic, and not learning from their losses. Let’s not replay that movie.

  358. 358
    Mrs. Peel says:

    we’re all bigots since we’re not marching in lockstep with the gay community.

    No. You’re just a pig. Period.

    I guess stark reality does get in the way of the Obamistas covering their guy with glory that he hasn’t earned yet.

    Most of us have seen other Dems start down the same path he’s taking and the results have always been the same. So all this "give him a chance" crap is just that – crap. Trust has to be earned. And he’s been untrustworthy too many times to just overlook it all now.

  359. 359
    Grendel72 says:

    hit dude, according to Grendel and Mrs peel, we’re all bigots since we’re not marching in lockstep with the gay community.

    No, motherfucker, you are a bigoted piece of shit because you obviously don’t care. You fucking assholes are actually claiming that Rick Warren isn’t a bigot! You’re mocking people who have had their marriages destroyed by this asshole.
    And you’re fucking bigots because your arguments are based on treating gays as a monolithic group who are in lockstep agreement on every issue ever.

    This isn’t that big a fucking deal if you shitheads would just prewtend for one goddamned minute to be actual human beings with just the slightest bit of compassion for others. Maybe if the argument wasn’t dominated by bigoted motherfuckers actually defending Rick Warren people wouldn’t be calling you what you so clearly are.

  360. 360

    @Grendel72: NO, I’m mocking hysterical drama queens (no pun intended) like you and peel, who can’t separate a 1-2 minute prayer from a history of pro gay rights legislation. I’m mocking idiots like you who are so self absorbed to think that you and only you have monpoly in prejudice. Trying growing up poor. Or better yet, trying growing up poor and gay, like my little brother, in the South. You wanna guess how many fist fights I was in, protecting my brother? I don’t think you can count that high.

    So do me a favor and take your bullshit, and shove it right up your ass (no pun intended cuz I’m a sensitive guy like that). I’ve been fighting the good fight on gay rights since I was a teenager, you pretentious little shit, and I won most of them. You wanna know which ones I didn’t win? The ones that required votes. Because dumbasses like you wanna bitch and moan and cry, instead of actually working to change peoples minds. You wanna demonize your own supporters because, heaven fucking forbid, we actually have a set of priorities that doesn’t have you at the top.

    Seriously dude? Piss off and take the PUMA with you. Shit son, us "breeders" have done more to fight for gay rights than most of you pissants anyway.

  361. 361
    Gay Veteran says:

    Cassidy the Racist White Man:

    @Gay Veteran: As for Obama, he has to EARN my support.

    Not really. He’s already been elected. Go back to your hole Toby.

    I said my support, not my vote, moron.

    btw, he did get my vote but not my money after his abominable vote for immunity for the telecomms after they broke the law in supporting Bush’s illegal wiretaping

  362. 362
    Grendel72 says:

    Fuck you, Racist.
    People are fucking defending Rick Warren here, claiming he’s somehow not a bigot, and you’re OK with that? Fuck you.
    And once again, motherfucker, we are not a goddamned monolith. You don’t know the first goddamned thing about me or anyone else who is offended by this fat-ass bigot preacher, beginning with the fact that I did grow up poor in the South, so don’t make any fucking assumptions, asshole.

  363. 363
    Michael D. says:

    @Grendel72: If this was a thread about George Bush inviting an anti-gay bigot to speak at the White House prayer breakfast, we’d be seeing a very different conversation here.

    It is Obama (D). Must. Not. Criticize.

    Just so you know.

  364. 364

    @Grendel72:

    so don’t make any fucking assumptions, asshole.

    ahem…pot…kettle

    @Michael D.: And you should know better. Now you’ve just gone back to being a moron. Apparently you learned nothing.

  365. 365
    bootlegger says:

    @Grendel72: I’m offended by the fat-ass bigoted preacher and I still think he’s not worth wasting more than a one sentence condemnation on.

  366. 366
    bootlegger says:

    And just so we’re clear, people like you have far more political power in terms of becoming an elected official than atheists like me and that fat-ass don’t like us either.

  367. 367
    Broken says:

    Nobody is defending Rick Warren here or saying what a wonderful guy he is, they are just saying he’s not the second coming of Adolf Hitler. Right now, Warren is the leftward side of the evangelicals. That’s left-er than it used to be, and it can get even left-er in the future.

    Since Warren is now saying he doesn’t have a problem with gay rights that don’t have the "marriage" label attached, there is room to advance a lot of gay rights that don’t exist today. If gays insist on everything now, they will only get a few pyrrhic victories and set back the whole progressive agenda for quite some time.

    That’s the political reality.

  368. 368
    Grendel72 says:

    Yes, because there’s no way someone could be both gay and an atheist, is there?

    You know, as much as I disagree with Obama here, I still expect great things from his administration, and I’d not have a problem with people defending Obama. The problem is y’all fucking morons seem to think anything Obama even touches magically turns to gold.
    Rick Warren is a stupid, bigoted piece of shit, the fact Obama likes him doesn’t change that. The fact he has fooled a segment of the public into buying his bullshit doesn’t change that either.

    And for those of you who are too stupid to grasp this no matter how many times it’s pointed out, I’ll repeat again: not everyone who is offended by this choice is white, or wealthy, or male, or for that matter gay. And the vast majority of us are and have been proud Obama supporters.

  369. 369
    Grendel72 says:

    Nobody is defending Rick Warren here or saying what a wonderful guy he is

    See, that is a flat out lie, and since you must be reading this very thread in order to have posted it I’m assuming you know it is. Or are you going to pretend now that the comments about how we’re trying to interfere with his free speech and the like are imaginary?

  370. 370
    Darkrose says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    The Yes on 8 side just did a better job in every aspect of the game, offense, defense, and special teams.

    Absolutely.

    I’ve been accused of blaming the victim for saying this, but the No on 8 campaign blew it. We let the other side set the terms of the debate so that we were always on the defensive. We didn’t realize there was a chance we might lose until we were already behind. We wrote off communities of color and didn’t bother to engage–when the Mormons are doing better outreach to black folks, you know you’ve screwed up!

    We were convinced that we were right, and therefore, that we shouldn’t have to persuade people to vote our way.

  371. 371
    bootlegger says:

    @Grendel72: You don’t have to be a dick about it. I’m trying to point out that you are not the only one here who has some serious hate-on for that fat asshole, but not all of us are pissed at Obama for what is an obvious low-cost political ploy.

  372. 372
    Broken says:

    There is a difference between defending what Warren is saying and defending his right to say it.

    Warren represents a large and powerful block of voters. You really think pissing them off will advance gay rights?

  373. 373
    bootlegger says:

    @Grendel72: Defending free speech is not the same as saying he is a wonderful guy. Leave the straw man on the ground, this thread has knocked the stuffing out of it already.

  374. 374
    Mrs. Peel says:

    The Yes on 8 side just did a better job in every aspect of the game, offense, defense, and special teams.

    Especially since little things like truth and facts didn’t stand in the way of all their propaganda.

    How could a respectful ad asking for equal treatment compare to the ones that shrieked "the queerz is a-comin’ for your kidz"?

    The usual cast of low intelligence bottom-feeders fell for it hook, line and sinker.

  375. 375
    Darkrose says:

    @Zuzu’s Petals:

    Cool–thanks for the links! I wasn’t entirely clear on the specifics; I just have a general sense that the political workings of this state are kind of whacked all the way around.

  376. 376
    Darkrose says:

    @A la lanterne les aristos:

    Huh. He does makes some good points.

    If I’d been in Kors’ position, I’d totally go. And then I’d try to get 5 minutes with Warren. And I’d ask him politely to explain with specifics how my marriage hurt him or anyone else. I’d ask if he really thought that my relationship with the woman I’ve been with for five years now, the woman I moved across the country to be with, the woman I love, is functionally equivalent to someone marrying their sibling or an adult marrying a child. I’d wait, and let him squirm, and try to balance the desire not to look like an asshole with his publically stated position.

  377. 377
    Grendel72 says:

    Defending free speech is not the same as saying he is a wonderful guy.

    And denying a bigot a stage in front of the entire country is not the same thing as attacking free speech. Warren is free to say whatever ignorant shit he wants to, that doesn’t demand he be given a prime speaking engagement.
    Shit, I’m not invited to speak at the inauguration. Motherfuckers are violating my first amendment rights!

    It’s a dishonest argument in defense of this bigoted moron, and it’s far from the only one being made here. The stupid on the face of it "5000 years of history" argument is being made as well.

  378. 378
    Cyrus says:

    People are fucking defending Rick Warren here, claiming he’s somehow not a bigot, and you’re OK with that? Fuck you… And once again, motherfucker, we are not a goddamned monolith.

    Who are these people claiming Rick Warren isn’t a bigot? Link or cite or take it back. I don’t see it in this thread. I did a word search on "bigot". There are 64 instances of it as of comment 366, and not one instance of it was claiming it didn’t describe Warren. (No, I admit I didn’t search for similar terms. Sorry, but it’s a 366-comment thread and there’s only so much time in the day.) The closest I can see is someone saying that it’s a reasonable position to claim that the definition of marriage has been unchanged for 5,000 years. I don’t agree with him, but that’s not even close to the same as saying that Warren isn’t a bigot or otherwise offensive. Apparently NO ONE here, despite your repeated claims to the contrary, is defending Warren or his views, only the strategic decision to have him speak. As far as I can see, it looks like you’re complaining about arguments people aren’t making.

    And Michael D.,

    It is Obama (D). Must. Not. Criticize.

    Are you really dumb enough to be unaware of the differences in records between those two politicians, or think their records are completely and totally irrelevant to this? Really? How do you tie your own shoes in the morning?

  379. 379
    Darkrose says:

    @Comrade This One:

    The frustration of seeing one’s pain and sense of injustice derogated by comrades just fuels a lot of the heat; and the hotter the fire, the faster the fuel flows. No one, especially someone as intelligent and sensitive as yourself, likes being told he doesn’t get it, and no one likes being told that the real, personal hurt at the heart of all social injustice is a figment of the sufferer’s imagination.

    What you said.

  380. 380
    Cassidy the Racist White Man says:

    Keep winning those votes, Mrs Peel. At the rate you’re going, you might get someone to vote on your side.

  381. 381
    Mrs. Peel says:

    At the rate you’re going, you might get someone to vote on your side.

    Bite me. Pig.

    Excuse me Racist pig.

  382. 382
    bootlegger says:

    @Grendel72: Fine, that’s a fair argument though I’m not the one that argued he be given a microphone because of free speech. I’m only saying it doesn’t equate to saying he’s a wonderful guy. Besides, you know better than to suggest that only "wonderful" people be given the microphone. The notion of gay rights, or womens’ rights, or anti-slavery, or any movement to stop oppression would never gain traction without a free and open microphone, and back in the day nobody thought these folks were wonderful. Its a 2-way street. I don’t agree with this choice, you don’t agree with this choice, but it is not the end of the world to let this man talk.

  383. 383
    Darkrose says:

    @DecidedFenceSitter:

    I know, I’ve been in such a multiple adult relationship for four years or so. Look at Big Love on HBO, or look up polyamory (while not at work so the firewall doesn’t trip you up),

    I was actually on Sex in the ’90’s on MTV talking about polyamory. Having seen (and been involved in) Polyamory: You’re Doing It Wrong more than once, I really do admire someone who can make it work for the long haul.

  384. 384
    Broken says:

    And denying a bigot a stage in front of the entire country is not the same thing as attacking free speech.

    Unfortunately, a large block of voters do not think Warren is a bigot, they think gays are immoral. For every gay in this country there are more than three evangelicals. They are just as sure of the righteousness of their position as you are of yours.

    That is the reality. Wrap your mind around it.

  385. 385
  386. 386
    A la lanterne les aristos! says:

    Exactly, even if it didn’t faze Warren at all it wouldn’t certainly give me a certain amount of satisfaction.

    Hell, if one were feeling less polite than that, it would even be a nice show-chucking opportunity ;)

  387. 387

    @Mrs. Peel:

    Excuse me Racist pig.

    You are so 1970’s. A few minutes at a mall and a brazilian can fix that, though.

    Oink, I say. Oink.

  388. 388
    Darkrose says:

    @Mrs. Peel:

    Especially since little things like truth and facts didn’t stand in the way of all their propaganda.

    How could a respectful ad asking for equal treatment compare to the ones that shrieked "the queerz is a-comin’ for your kidz"?

    Well, it didn’t help that the No on 8 focus groups discovered that people were uncomfortable with actual gay people, so they went with a strategy of not showing us, or our families, or our children, or you know, mentioning the words "gay" or "lesbian".

  389. 389

    Especially since little things like truth and facts didn’t stand in the way of all their propaganda.

    Have you been around an election, in say, the past 30 years? This has got to be the most naive statement I’ve heard in a while. My kids have a better grasp of political realities.

  390. 390
    Laura says:

    I hope you don’t stop posting about this. You are one of the few people in the progressive blogosphere who is speaking about it rationally and I applaud you for that. I understand what Obama is doing and I am discouraged by the way some people whose opinions I normally respect are reacting to this. I understand being upset but the fact that people are acting like he deceived them when he has talked about building bridges to religious leaders with whom we disagree on social issues for several years. Maybe it was insensitive to the gay community in the wake of Proposition 8, but I don’t think it should be taken as a slap in the face because I am sure that he didn’t mean it that way. I’m working on an entry for my own blog and Kos about this and I will probably get flamed but it’s good to know there are at least a few progressives who share my views on this and are not ready to start talking about primary challenges for 2012 yet.

  391. 391
    janinsanfran says:

    You don’t get it. Obama just pissed on people who worked for him. We get mad. You see, we did something we haven’t done in a long time: we tried to believe someone was on our side. Silly us. They are all just out for themselves — Obama, Warren, the whole lot of them.

    And you my friend. So what?

  392. 392
    Mrs. Peel says:

    My kids have a better grasp of political realities.

    Get real. I doubt that anything spawned by you could find their ass with 2 hands, let alone grasp your "political realities".

    Pig.

  393. 393
    A la lanterne les aristos! says:

    Hmmm… I meant ‘shoe-throwing’ of course. But I’m kind of delighted with the typo anyway.

  394. 394
    bootlegger says:

    @Darkrose: Yeah, that was a bad move. I think its becoming clearer every day that the way to break this wall down is to let people become familiar with the gay members of their community who are all around them, look like them, eat like them, drive like them, have kids and pay taxes. This is by far the most effective tool for taking out the Warrens once and for all.

  395. 395
    Grendel72 says:

    Unfortunately, a large block of voters do not think Warren is a bigot, they think gays are immoral. For every gay in this country there are more than three evangelicals. They are just as sure of the righteousness of their position as you are of yours.

    Well gosh, then, how could we ever disagree with them? They must be right if there are so many of them.

    And by the way, what does that even begin to have to do with the argument I made, which is the dishonest arguments being made in defense of this bigoted piece of shit? Or are we just changing the subject at will now?

  396. 396

    Someone needs to get laid…whoo! All that emo angst must be hell on the social life. You can call a professional, you know. No shame in that.

  397. 397
    Mrs. Peel says:

    This has got to be the most naive statement I’ve heard in a while.

    Only if you’re an uninformed idiot, which I take it you are, since you weren’t even involved with Prop 8. The people the Moron Mormons were lying about went on TV to debunk their lies (like the Superintendent of Schools) , but it didn’t stop them from from spreading more. Anyone who saw the actual ad campaign would have known what I was talking about. But a passive-aggressive piggie has to find something to cling to.

    Have at it.

  398. 398
    bootlegger says:

    @Grendel72: That is, of course, no reason for thinking people to side with the bigots, but it is a political reality and we do live in a democracy so that particular political reality can’t be ignored.

    I only saw the "free speech" defense of Warren and all the "leave Obama alone he knows what he’s doing" arguments. Is there someone who isn’t a troll saying something else to defend Warren?

  399. 399
    Hyperion says:

    @Darkrose:

    And I’d ask him politely to explain

    i expect his answer would be along the lines of :
    GAWD says……

  400. 400
    Xenos says:

    Will you two get a room already?

  401. 401

    @Mrs. Peel: Since you were a little to slow to get it…assuming that facts and rightness, will trump propaganda, well funded propaganda mind you, is naive. Sure, it sucks and at times depressing, but the realities of the modern political landscape dictate otherwise. So, while I was just as disappointed in Prop 8 as you, or the Florida Amendment in my own state, we all have to accept the realities that our side sucked and we lost.

    So, you can sit here, cry and whine about it, and demonize those who voted with you, as well as "only gays know oppression" hyperbole, or you can suck it up, get your shit together, and get ready for another round, because their are going to be lots of those. And maybe one day, my brother will be able to get married, but not until he stops wearing the skinny jeans…I mean seriously, not cool. Stop wearing those please.

    So the Mormons lied. People lie all the time. Get over it and get over yourself.

  402. 402

    @Xenos: I don’t think we "play for the same team". ..nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

  403. 403
    Steve K. says:

    While I agree that this is not the end of the world, I am strongly opposed to Warren given the invocation for the following reasons:
    It gives a tacit endorsement to the speaker. Anyone Obama invites to share the stage with him is granted status and stature on the world stage. This can only increase the worldwide respect for an acknowledged homophobe. Should that be Obama’s goal? After all Obama chose to give this man the spotlight.It sends the message that gays and feminists deserve less respect than other minority groups. I am unaware of any anti-black or anti-latino speakers being invited to share the inaugural stage.It presumes that gays and feminists will swallow their resentment of this obvious slight, having nowhere else to turn. In the short run that may be true, but it risks much in the long run. I and many of my friends are already re-evaluating future financial support for Democratic candidates, and Obama himself, for this action. We in the SF Bay Area are courted for our wallets, and if this presages the future, our wallets will be less open in the future.Finally, for those that argue that Obama should have a dialog with those that he (and his base) disagree, I believe that to be a wise philosophy. For the reasons I have listed above, I assert that this is not the forum to accomplish such a goal.

  404. 404
    Grendel72 says:

    @bootlegger
    Well, there is this:

    I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage.

    There you have it. That is a reasonable view, even if you disagree with it, which I do.

    That’s your problem. It’s not an unreasonable position, and it’s not gay bashing to hold it.

    I think claiming something that is so incredibly stupid on the face of it is "not an unreasonable opinion" and is "not gaybashing" is a real stretch to defend the ignorant piece of shit Rick Warren. It is obviously intellectually dishonest, yet the only people arguing against it are those of us being dismissed as screeching drama queens.
    There have been other stupid, dishonest arguments like this one and the dishonest whining about free speech, but I don’t feel like digging back through all of the threads to link them. And all of these dishonest arguments defending Rick Warren have one thing in common: the vast majority of you who are so outraged that gay people might be offended by this bigot being invited to speak at the inauguration haven’t had anything to say against them.

  405. 405
    Broken says:

    Well gosh, then, how could we ever disagree with them? They must be right if there are so many of them.

    And by the way, what does that even begin to have to do with the argument I made, which is the dishonest arguments being made in defense of this bigoted piece of shit? Or are we just changing the subject at will now?

    Didn’t say you can’t disagree with them, just acknowledge they have a place at the table.

    I am not going to re-read this steaming heap of a thread. Which "dishonest arguments made in the defence of this piece of shit" peeve you?

  406. 406
    bootlegger says:

    @Grendel72: I’ve been at this debate here for two days now and not one of the regulars has made that absurd and patently false claim about marriage and history. If some troll left it here all I can say is sweep it up. Only a moron believes something so stupid and my general impression of the Balloon Juice community is that they are generally wicked smart. True, there has been a great debate about whether or not Obama should be thumped for dissing his peeps in this way. Some, like me, think he should play the game how he sees fit and we’ll judge him by the outcomes. Others, such as yourself, are pissed that he would play it this way. I get both sides but I think Obama’s move is far more strategic. Shit, the wingnuts are already slobbering all over themselves about it. Let’s see what he does policy-wise in the next six months. If he is still stonewalling I’ll grab my pitchfork and join you on the streets.

  407. 407
    ricky says:

    Since this little fun fest over who is going to give the shout out to the cloud dude at the Inaugural is still going on, I might as well poke the offended auras of those who thought we should have someone consult the crystals at the swearing in.

    Did Pastor Warren compare gays getting married to child molestation? I thought he said he did not think marriage was an institution that should be open to those in same sex relationships any more than old geezers who are poking children ougth to be allowed to use the insitution of marriage as an excuse for that crime. Just asking.

  408. 408
    Grendel72 says:

    Didn’t say you can’t disagree with them, just acknowledge they have a place at the table.

    Well I, for one, am completely shocked to hear that gays are a minority. I had absolutely no idea.
    And with support like we see from you folks, it’s clear we can’t expect a place at the table.

  409. 409
    Darkrose says:

    @Hyperion:

    i expect his answer would be along the lines of :
    GAWD says……

    At which point, I’d ask him for unambiguous citations from the New Testament–i.e. Not Paul. I’d ask for a single example of anything in the actual Gospels that specifically references homosexuality. And if he was dumb enough to go back to Leviticus, I’d ask if he was following all of the other 600+ Levitican proscriptions and avoiding cheeseburgers, shrimp, and poly-cotton blends.

    Then I’d point out that regardless of what his deity says, the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights is quite clear that the demands of his god don’t trump the requirements of my god, goddess, or lack thereof.

    I’d also suggest that before arguing with someone who went to a Jesuit school, he might want to do his research.

  410. 410
    bootlegger says:

    @Grendel72: Peace Grendel72, I gotta roll. Happy Monkey!

  411. 411
    Grendel72 says:

    You know, gay people are always going to be a minority population. If that’s how we decide things you folks have already written us off forever.

  412. 412
    Hyperion says:

    @Darkrose:

    and i’m sure you would have a warm, smug feeling for a bit.
    but you will not have changed anyone’s mind.
    ’cause it ain’t about facts and logic.
    but, please, be my guest.

  413. 413
    Broken says:

    And with support like we see from you folks, it’s clear we can’t expect a place at the table.

    You will get my support if you show a little patience and realistic attitude. But, honestly, my priority is that Obama get his economic plan through Congress. If he is successful pulling the economy out of it’s nose dive, he will gain a lot of political capital which can be put to other purposes.

  414. 414
    Grendel72 says:

    You will get my support if you show a little patience and realistic attitude. But, honestly, my priority is that Obama get his economic plan through Congress. If he is successful pulling the economy out of it’s nose dive, he will gain a lot of political capital which can be put to other purposes.

    And how, exactly, does some people being offended by the selection of Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration interfere with that? How does telling Obama that we’d prefer Warren were disinvited interfere with that?
    You people are bitching and screaming at people who for the most part worked their asses off to get Obama elected. You’re having a hissy fit and making your bigoted little jokes and shit because people on your side are upset with something Obama has done. Because gay people are allowed, but we have to remember our place.
    There’s always a higher priority, a more important issue. And there always will be. after all, we’re such a tiny minority of the population, we just have to wait for the majority to come along. And if we think that maybe treating the religious right with deference slows what chance of acceptance we may have, well we just have to shut up about it because there are so many of them they deserve a place at the table. Never mind that they have fought tooth and nail against every progressive cause.

  415. 415
    iatrosm says:

    There are 2 things that strike me about this.

    First, it is very interesting to read Obama, a constitutional lawyer saying, in supporting civil unions, "giving them a set of basic rights." I thought rights were inalienable, given simply by virtue of belonging to the human species–whether you believe they are god given or inherent in being human. society does not give us rights. What society gives us is the freedom to practice our rights either more or less unencumbered.

    He seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he says the above and then in another interview that he believes that all people-gay or straight-deserve the same rights to assist their loved ones. Again, rights are not an issue of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’.

    The courts in ruling for allowing gays to marry (there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’–you are either married or not) refer to the equal protection clause. But Obama has not ever referred to that. Interesting for a constitutional lawyer. Perhaps he feels it doesn’t apply.

    And yet if it is not made clear that the equal protection clause DOES apply in this case, the ability of gays to care for their spouses and families will forever be at the mercy of the vagaries of socieity–whichever way the wind blows for the moment. This is never the way for a people to live.

    Imagine if we said interracial marriage was up to the states. It was wrong before and it would be wrong now.

    Marriage is a state institution, not a religious one. you can marry in every church in the nation, but if you don’t get your license from the STATE, the marriage simply has no validity. by the same token, marriage w/i a church or by clergy is not necessary to have a valid marriage.

    Atheists are allowed to marry, and ironically so are pedophiles and people who engage in incest and in beastiality–groups w/whom homosexuals are often compared.

    it is ironic that Obama says it is his religious beliefs that infuse his belief about marriage being sanctified between a man and a woman, because he once time a member of the United Church of Christ (UCC) denomination–the first denomination to agree at its national conference to support full inclusion of gays into marriage. so he actually disagrees w/a denomination he once belonged to (i don’t know if he is still a member).

    There are certainly other denominations that will marry gays if asked–parts of the Episcopal church, the Unitarian church, several ‘denominations’ w/i the Jewish faith, and the Metropolitan Community Church (a denomination started specifically for gays).

    So it doesn’t need to be religious, but then again some religions will marry. It does need to be state, and that is separate from the religious institution of marriage. The logic of him opposing it escapes me.

    I hope he will be more firm in SOME conviction of his. I have heard he tends to fold before opposition. We shall see, as he will certainly face a lot of it w/the programs he wants to enact.

    The second thing that is remarkable is the focus on gays and Rick Warren. It is one thing to welcome all to the table, it is quite another to make them a centerpiece in the most watched inaugural in history. Rick Warren has compared abortion to the holocaust, and says that those who support freedom of choice are like those who supported the holocaust. He has stated publicly that people who are not of a faith (eg atheists) should not be allowed to hold public office, and less than a month ago he called for the assassination of the president of Iran. Setting aside the incredible anti-Christ spirit of that sentiment, what a great message it sends to the middle-east.

    Of all the the clergy in this country that Obama could have picked, how unfortunate that Warren is the ‘religious face of America’ the world will see. Wonder if Obama will care when Warren ends his prayer w/ "in JESUS name we pray." Very ecumenical indeed.

  416. 416
    Broken says:

    Never mind that they have fought tooth and nail against every progressive cause.

    They are against much that I believe in besides gay rights: evolution, tolerance of muslims, women’s reproductive rights, stem cell research, etc, etc. But they exist and are a political force to be reckoned with.

    Obama’s strategy is to find common ground in community service, help for the poor and AIDS victims. Even the evangelicals are disgusted with the corruption of Bush and Wall Street. That can be harnessed. When people work together on common issues they become less vehement about their differences.

  417. 417
    Darkrose says:

    @Hyperion:

    Well, then, which do you suggest? Making it personal doesn’t work, because religion trumps that. But logic doesn’t work either. So I guess you’re saying just suck it up and deal?

    Sorry, but I don’t buy that. Warren’s set himself up as the voice of authority. If he can’t deal with being challenged, then he should STFU.

  418. 418
    A la lanterne les aristos! says:

    Aside from the warm fuzzies, and even if it did nothing to change Warren’s mind it might be a useful exercise for anyone else watching.

    Surely we are not expecting for ‘the other side’ to change it’s mind spontaneously somehow?

    And surely simply removing oneself (as Kors has) from the event entirely is not the way to have a greater impact, is it?

    Warren will have a presence and a voice and Kors will not-and that’s by Kors own choice.

  419. 419
    Grendel72 says:

    Obama’s strategy is to find common ground in community service, help for the poor and AIDS victims. Even the evangelicals are disgusted with the corruption of Bush and Wall Street. That can be harnessed. When people work together on common issues they become less vehement about their differences.

    I think there are better faces of the religious right that could have been chosen, as iatrosm @415 notes, Obama belongs to the UCC- a gay accepting evangelical denomination. He could have chosen from within his professed denomination and come up with an evangelical voice that doesn’t preach hatred of gays.
    But I can at least accept that argument as coming from an honest place. If the multiple threads on this subject had been dedicated to the argument you put forward there would be a hell of a lot less anger than there has been at the Rick Warren defenders and the bigoted little "jokes" and dismissal of gays.

  420. 420
    Mrs. Peel says:

    as well as "only gays know oppression" hyperbole,

    Since I’m not gay, that would be a rather unusual thing for me to say. What lights my fires are the glad-handing enablers of the bigots. If they’re bigoted about gays, then you know damned well they’re bigoted about women and blacks and mexicans and asians and poor people and and anything else that isn’t like them. Especially vile are the bible thumping swine who drape Christ’s robes over their fat white bellies.

    And by enablers, I mean apologists just like you.

  421. 421
    Broken says:

    Thanks. Yes the circular firing squad has been a sight to behold.

  422. 422
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Grendel72:

    You people are bitching and screaming at people who for the most part worked their asses off to get Obama elected. You’re having a hissy fit and making your bigoted little jokes and shit because people on your side are upset with something Obama has done. Because gay people are allowed, but we have to remember our place.

    Grendel, honey, the only person I see bitching and screaming and having hissy fits on this thread is you.

    Almost everyone else (with the exception of our resident trolls, and Mrs Peel (who has decided that Obama is going to fail utterly as President and it’s her job to tell everyone, while dismissing Cassidy as a pig)) is trying to have a reasonable discussion about a difficult topic.

    Your contact bitching at the people on here – most of all your constant portrayal of every person on here who doesn’t agree with everything you say as hating and dismissing all gays – isn’t helping.

    Yes you (we) are upset. Yes you (we) have good reason. Don’t take out your anger at the people on here who actually support us (that would be most of them), but simply take a different view on one issue.

  423. 423

    Here is the deal, if you’re going to depend on the legislative process to get gay marriage you’re going to have to persuade people. You might get there without that in the Courts, but once voters are involved it’s down to persuasion. Your ethical or moral rightness matters not one damn iota if you don’t get the votes.

    I am in the difficult position of being a Democratic activist in a red area. I also KNOW these people and my job is going to require time and a certain amount of subtlety. I want a win on this issue and a bunch of others, but I am not going to get there by being ham handed. I will not swing a single vote by calling that voter a bigoted redneck. I can reach these same folks by separating marriage and church and talking about equal rights AND responsibilities, but not a chance by insulting them. I will get nowhere by insulting their pastors when they take a certain meaning from words in a Book they take seriously. If you really like tilting with windmills and getting bloody for it, crash yourself repeatedly into a matter of faith.

    If you start from a frame of mind that your opponents are all bigots, you’ve given up. You are done. You have no approach and no persuasion to work with. "Fuck off" isn’t helpful, that leaves you with reducing the vote pool to win – ie kill a bunch of them.

    If Obama obviously allows them to hold their religious beliefs, the move toward secular recognition is less threatening. If you cannot get that YOU are also guilty of not being able to draw a line between church and state.

    At one time in Nazi Germany Catholic priests whose basic religious tenet held that Jews were slated for damnation worked at great personal risk to rescue Jews. Is teaching that Jews are slated for damnation bigotry?

    Yes, you have to stand up for yourself, but that also involves a recognition of what ground the fight is going to be played on. If you screw that up you’re going to lose. A lot of generals and a lot of politicians have lost for that reason. If you think you can fight this on the ground of religion I’d like to point out that you’ve already lost that fight – repeatedly. If you want to make Warren’s version of Christianity the issue, you’ve already tried that and lost. Winning is better.

    Obama lets Warren have his Christianity in a very obvious way. That is not the same thing as saying it is in the State’s interest to follow it. I’ve made it clear I don’t have a stake in the words or interpretation of the words in Holy Books, I have a real stake in how the State treats my fellows. If you want to win, I’d suggest watching Barack Obama for tips.

    All that is pretty damn far from calling you silly queers or a permanent disregardable minority. It recognizes certain political realities, nothing more. Political reality is going be what counts.

  424. 424
    Dr Zen says:

    Not much surprise that the conservative supporters of Obama are all for hugging up to homophobes. Warren is a huge "fuck you" to gays. Don’t hold your breath for a repeal of DOMA: I’m putting my money on "other priorities do not permit this use of my political capital" because there is no big gay bloc in Congress, but there are a ton of conservatives who can prevent him pursuing his agenda.

  425. 425
    Grendel72 says:

    Bottom line, you’d rather suck up to people who have fought tooth and nail against every progressive cause for generations than stand up for people who have a long history of supporting progressive causes. Because surely this time the religious right will go along with what is just, never mind what history shows us.
    As long as the religious right have a place at the table, they will fight against social justice. It’s what they do. Meanwhile despite the idiotic bigotry of some here in the real world gays overwhelmingly support the Democratic party. For all the good it does us.

  426. 426
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @Keith:

    Apparently, Obama may name an openly gay man as Navy Secretary. If that doesn’t make the savviness of the Warren decision obvious, I don’t know what will.

    Let the Village People jokes commence.

    A-one two three …

  427. 427
    Darkrose says:

    Okay, all of you who are wondering why this is such a big issue?

    The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

    I’m sitting here at my desk in tears, because these fucking assholes can’t even let me say be happy with having made it in before Prop 8. No, they want to rip up my marriage license–and you know I’m not getting my $171 back!–and make it real clear that I’m just a fucking dyke who doesn’t deserve to be happy or treated just like anyone else.

    That’s what Rick Warren is saying, although he makes it sound nice and not like the hateful bigotry that it is. And Obama is saying that telling me I’m not worthy of being a full citizen is just a "disagreement".

  428. 428

    @Mrs. Peel: Big difference between not caring and belong an apologist. You’ll notice that I haven’t given an opinion on Pastor Warren, other than to say my personal choice would have been Jay Bakker. Now before you get into that Redstate level "but you didn’t denounce" him crap, I have to say that I could care less who Obama picks to say a prayer at his inauguration. If he was Muslim or Jewish, I’d feel the same way. Personally, I’d rather him pick a spiritual leader that is meaningful to him personally, than a political move, and maybe he is. Obama has shown on several occassions that he can agreeably disagree, and I wouldn’t doubt that he is asking someone he considers a friend to pray. You would be foolish to shitcan every friend who doesn’t think as you do, but I imagine you have done that already.

    I also take exception to the constant shrieking that since we aren’t making teh gay our number one priority, that somehow we are bigots. While I don’t feel the need to prove my civil rights loving bona fides to you, I have a family of 6 to support and I’m going back to war next year, so you’ll excuse me if I have more important things to worry about.

    Secondly, after a year+ of watching Obama dismantle every opposition to him, I’m convinced that he’s the Anderson Silva of politics. I have absolutely no doubt that he will advance a civil rights loving agenda, but I also recognize that the majority of Americans care about other things first and that has to be addressed.

    So Americans don’t consider gay rights the top priority; suck it up. Civil rights doesn’t happen overnight, but alienating your supporters can.

  429. 429
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Darkrose:

    I’m sitting here at my desk in tears, because these fucking assholes can’t even let me say be happy with having made it in before Prop 8. No, they want to rip up my marriage license—and you know I’m not getting my $171 back!—and make it real clear that I’m just a fucking dyke who doesn’t deserve to be happy or treated just like anyone else.

    Anything I would write would be inadequate to express my sympathy.

  430. 430
    Henk says:

    THis seems like a very good idea. Go along to get along kinda thing. Everyone knows all the devisiveness in the last few years have come from the right. If Obama just placates them the noise will subside and maybe they’ll let him do one or two things that don’t bug them too much. Excellent plan. I wonder why it took the Dems so long to think of it.

    Its a whole new era.

  431. 431
  432. 432
    Bhall35 says:

    I’ve been following this comment board for two days, lurking, and I think Jane Smiley at HuffPo has one of the most reasoned and sadly disappointed responses to the Warren affair:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....52237.html

    John, I’ve been a long time reader, and this is maybe my second post. I agree with many of the other anti-Warren posters here; you’ve misjudged the hurt that many of us feel. Identity politics gets a bad rap these days, but this disappointment is the purest manifestation of it, for better and for worse.

  433. 433

    Damn, it’s like talking to a two year old about electricity.

    If you want to get around someone you reassure them that you’re not trying to harm them. Warren is invited to pray. Obama is the State. The State will find it real useful to not have the Praying Crowd scared to death while the State takes care of the State’s business. Obama has been damn clear about the State and abortion and gayness.

    I thought it was made pretty damn clear in the Prop 8 fight that having religion scared is a bad idea. But you just won’t fucking get it, you’re having way too much fun playing victim of Obama. Is it entirely possible that not one of you has ever heard of the word, co-opt? That’s not kissing up, it is something entirely different, and it is politics played with the long term in mind.

    Politics is a lot like chess if you’re going to succeed, you have to be able to think several moves into the future. I like winning and I’m a lefty in a righty world so I seldom get short term gratification. You might feel real good about yourself if you could get this Invocation crushed and you’d have screwed yourselves in the process. I wouldn’t even spend two words on this if I didn’t care a lot about winning on this issue.

  434. 434
    Grendel72 says:

    I thought it was made pretty damn clear in the Prop 8 fight that having religion scared is a bad idea.

    No, what that made pretty damn clear is that religious people hate gays and will spend millions to prevent us from being happy. What it made clear is that religious people lie, that they will never debate anything in good faith.

  435. 435
    Sondra says:

    OK. You talked me down a little and I feel better now.

  436. 436

    It is obviously intellectually dishonest

    You are so wrapped around this that you cannot see the obvious.

    The whole concept of a state-approved "marriage" is the thing that is intellectually dishonest.

    Marriage doesn’t belong embedded in the law so that the state can decide who marries. Marriage doesn’t even work any more, the divorce stats I posted the other day paint a picture of a completely failed, dysfunctional insitution.

    You guys made a bad tactical error when you tied your legitimate demand for rights to a completely dysfunctional, religion-bound, emotional and fairy-tale thing called "marriage" — and then asked everyone to agree with your desired defintion of it.

    Everyone is not going to agree, and they are not all bigots, or evil, or stupid, for not agreeing with it. And that’s why you lost Prop 8 and Arizona and will continue to lose this battle at the polls, because you just don’t get this.

    And maybe if you stopped yelling at people like me, who are already voting with you, and listened, you might get somewhere. But one thing I have learned in the last couple of years …. you won’t. The victim thing just feels too good, apparently.

  437. 437

    Damn, it’s like talking to a two year old about electricity.

    Believe me, Chuck, your two year old grandchild will get electricity before these people get this issue.

    And probably grow up and get a degree in electrical engineering before they get it.

  438. 438
    Grendel72 says:

    You guys made a bad tactical error when you tied your legitimate demand for rights to a completely dysfunctional, religion-bound, emotional and fairy-tale thing called "marriage"—and then asked everyone to agree with your desired defintion of it.

    It’s not a fucking "tactic", it’s our lives. the fact that the religious right lie about every fucking thing they ever open their mouths to opine on is not our fucking fault, the fact that people who are too god-damned stupid to deal with the real world hate us is not our fault.
    It’s not a fucking debate, asshole, it’s people’s lives.

  439. 439

    I wish all people who weren’t truly devout religious types would just admit that what they really want and need is a civil union and this thing called ‘Marriage’ is a stupid argument.

    If you can live together and get the same benefits, what’s the f’n difference?

    Does the word itself hold some coveted benefit? I’ve been married, it was no picnic, I would choose to go into a civil union in the future, not a marriage.

    The problem isn’t with the GLBT community wanting marriages recognized, it’s that the straight community seems to think marriage is more than a religious vow that few truly honor anymore, and really, what we should all have is civil unions with a religious ceremony to call it a marriage for those who are spiritually motivated.

  440. 440
    Bhall35 says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat

    There seems to be a certain amount of vigilance on your part to keep posting this far into the discussion; a motivation I don’t entirely trust. Having said that, I will agree with you that:

    Marriage doesn’t belong embedded in the law so that the state can decide who marries. Marriage doesn’t even work any more, the divorce stats I posted the other day paint a picture of a completely failed, dysfunctional insitution.

    But you really need to know that there is a growing well of resentment that no longer wants to accept the status quo thinking on the matter, and a lot of it is generational. If people like you and Cole think it’s wanking, or some romanticized victimhood, then you need to talk to more breathing, living gay people.

    Talking about strategy at the expense of our civil rights makes us feel like nothing but chess pieces.

  441. 441
    Grendel72 says:

    I wish all people who weren’t truly devout religious types would just admit that what they really want and need is a civil union and this thing called ‘Marriage’ is a stupid argument.

    And all of the laws and regulations that refer to "marriage" will magically transfer immediately with not the slightest argument from the lying bigots who routinely give lie to their stupid argument that this is about semantics by wording their hate amendments broadly enough to prevent civil unions, by pushing to have any sort of recognition stripped from same sex couples, naturally.
    It certainly wouldn’t turn one fight into thousands of fights over every single instance of legal recognition granted to marriages, would it?

  442. 442

    It’s not a fucking debate, asshole, it’s people’s lives.

    If it’s really that important, maybe it’s worth stepping back from the thing you are so focussed on, and getting a different perspective?

    Do you want to win, and get what you want, or do you want to be absolutely right?

    This is politics. It’s about people. There are people on the other side who are just as emotional as you are. They are just as sure they are right as you are.

    Is everybody who disagrees with you an asshole? That means that half the people in America are stupid assholes?

    That’s not exactly a persuasive argument. The fact is, most people want the same basic things. Maybe if you stop fighting over what words mean you can have what you want?

    Here in my backward town, the City Council voted to basically give all couples the chance to get a big chunk of rights, especially the next of kin stuff, just by filing a paper that says "We’re next of kin." Simple. Easy. Hardly a whimper of objection that I’ve heard in this Mormon and Catholic enclave. Which would you rather have? The rights, or a marriage certificate?

  443. 443

    their stupid argument that this is about semantics

    It is entirely about semantics. That’s why you are so frustrated, because you can’t see that.

  444. 444

    a motivation I don’t entirely trust

    How would you understand it unless we talked about it?

    Why should I trust your motivation? Why should anyone here trust anyone else?

    What would be the basis for suspicion? You haven’t asked me any questions about my motives, why would you draw any conclusions about them?

  445. 445
    Grendel72 says:

    It is entirely about semantics. That’s why you are so frustrated, because you can’t see that.

    So when the lying bigots write their amendments broadly enough to prevent civil unions that’s just about semantics? When the Virginia amendment went so far it prevented hospital visitation, and the religious right argued against allowing for hospital visitation, that was about semantics?
    I suppose when I’ve visited friends in the hospital because some rednecks decided it would be fun to beat the shit out of some fags that was about semantics as well.

  446. 446
    Bhall35 says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    That’s not exactly a persuasive argument. The fact is, most people want the same basic things. Maybe if you stop fighting over what words mean you can have what you want?

    You mean basic things like:

    http://www.ushistory.org/decla...../index.htm

    ???

    I think they actually got it, and even though I know the real meaning of the Constitution has been sadly distorted by the curent admistration, I believe Harvey Milk’s interpretation is both simple and true.

  447. 447

    The problem isn’t with the GLBT community wanting marriages recognized, it’s that the straight community seems to think marriage is more than a religious vow that few truly honor anymore, and really, what we should all have is civil unions with a religious ceremony to call it a marriage for those who are spiritually motivated.

    Very well stated.

    The straight marriage types are pretty confused about what marriage is. Ergo, the appalling divorce statistics I posted way back … yesterday, or whenever it was. But here’s the problem: They own the definition of marriage right now.

    That’s the whole point. Since they own it, they are not inclined to give that up, and as long as they have the votes, they won’t.

    What the LGBT crowd doesn’t see is that the marriage-owners own a myth, own something that doesn’t really exist. There isn’t any actual true romantic god-approved thing called marriage. They just want to think there is, and will fight having that taken away from them. LGBT stepped into a fight that wins them nothing and that they can’t win right now.

    You really want the right to join two thirds of your fellow citizens in a race to the divorce court? When almost everybody including your new president is telling you you can have the rights you want under a different label and without the aggravation of a failed institution?

    It’s a headshaker.

  448. 448

    So when the lying bigots write their amendments broadly enough to prevent civil unions that’s just about semantics?

    Nope. Civil unions have no traditional (romantic, or otherwise corrupt) baggage associated with them. There is no reason to deny civil unions whatever. That’s why all the reasonable people I know would vote them to you in a second.

  449. 449
    Bhall35 says:

    You really want the right to join two thirds of your fellow citizens in a race to the divorce court? When almost everybody including your new president is telling you you can have the rights you want under a different label and without the aggravation of a failed institution?

    I’d at least like the chance to find out.

    Wouldn’t you be surprised if we were better at marriage than you are?

    Sorta like interior decorating or hair, it might not be true, but maybe we could lead the way.

  450. 450

    If people like you and Cole think it’s wanking, or some romanticized victimhood, then you need to talk to more breathing, living gay people.

    Heh. That’s one thing I definitely do not need, I live smack in the middle of the largest gay enclave in Arizona. Couple square miles where just about every other house is owned by a gay couple. I can see three gay-couple houses from where I am sitting. I talk to these neighbors all the time, I am not isolated from their views. My city councilman is gay, and we really like the guy around here.

    I don’t live in a bubble. Well, I live in a gay bubble, I guess. Which is fine with me. Good neighbors.

  451. 451

    Wouldn’t you be surprised if we were better at marriage than you are?

    Meh, not really. I wouldn’t be surprised either way. In fact, if you guys (and gals) want to take over ownership of the whole idea of marriage, that’s fine with me. I think marriage is a trap, I’d much rather have a civil union.

    But the problem is that the bulk of the straight marrieds don’t agree with me, or you. See the Prop 8 polling stats I posted above. Pretty sobering.

  452. 452
    Grendel72 says:

    Nope. Civil unions have no traditional (romantic, or otherwise corrupt) baggage associated with them. There is no reason to deny civil unions whatever. That’s why all the reasonable people I know would vote them to you in a second.

    And yet somehow when it comes to the laws they push, they explicitly choose to word them so broadly as to prevent not just civil unions but in many instances any form of recognition.
    Somehow when Virginians had to make an exception in their overly broad amendment to allow for hospital visitation, the religious right argued against that. Those of us actually affected by this shit (as opposed to those who repeatedly insist they don’t care one way or another but can’t seem to quit spreading lies and disinformation on the subject, like you) have repeatedly seen the religious right argue that civil unions- not just civil unions but any recognition of gay couples at all, is a "backdoor to marriage." (Sorry about that, it’s hard to quote them without repeatedly bringing up imagery like that, it’s how they talk.)

  453. 453

    some rednecks decided it would be fun to beat the shit out of some fags that was about semantics as well.

    The tragic existence of rednecks and bigotry does not translate into the notion that everyone who opposes you is a redneck or a bigot.

    I don’t know how else to make that point, I mean, there it is.

  454. 454
    Comrade Stuck says:

    So when the lying bigots write their amendments broadly enough to prevent civil unions that’s just about semantics?

    No, it’s because by insisting on calling CU marriage, you are handing wingnuts the cover they need to ban any damn thing they want. Do you think that first demanding the rights that go along with CU without the marriage term, they would be able to get it on referendums and passed so easily as a banning amendment in every state it’s been on the ballot. Sure, some states might, but bluer states like CA, and even CO and FL probably not.

  455. 455

    not just civil unions but any recognition of gay couples at all, is a "backdoor to marriage.

    However, the political reality is that you can have the civil unions without the big fight, and get the rights.

    Who cares what those morons think? They can’t win that fight. They can only win the fight that you insist on having. Take that fight away from them. Most people will not go to the polls to keep you from having next of kin rights. But many of them will do so to cling to their Little House on the Prairie version of marriage.

    Like I said, do you want the rights, or their approval? If it were me, I wouldn’t care about their approval, I would just want the rights.

  456. 456
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    If people like you and Cole think it’s wanking, or some romanticized victimhood, then you need to talk to more breathing, living gay people.

    My best friend in the world is gay. Well, he’s not my best friend because I don’t have any friends but he’s my closest work confidante which I bravely try to pass off as a meaningful friendship. (We went shopping at BB&B today on lunch so that means something, right?)

    Anyway, he doesn’t give a shit about Warren. And if he did he’d be much too cool to go on and on and on and on and on and on about it for three days. He’s a bear, after all.

  457. 457
    Grendel72 says:

    Sure, some states might, but bluer states like CA, and even CO and FL probably not.

    And, y’know, fuck those unlucky enough to live in the Red states, right?
    Marriage cannot exist defined on a state by state basis. The supreme court decided that in Loving vs. Virginia.
    Of course, they also said in that decision that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental human right and we’re still arguing that.

    You know, I get that you sad fuckers have no experience with human love, so you don’t get why people who are capable of emotion might want to marry those they love, but we’ve already decided these issues.

  458. 458

    The problem isn’t with two people wanting to share their lives together (gay or straight), it’s with zealous religious bigotry deciding the terms (and the reason for that is because marriage is a religious concept and they think they own it). Don’t fight their idea of marriage, fight their idealism in general, because it’s a cancer on us all.

    The majority of people who are not religious bigots have NO PROBLEM with civil unions and want gays to have the benefits of partnership that those in marriages have.

  459. 459

    You know, I get that you sad fuckers have no experience with human love, so you don’t get why people who are capable of emotion might want to marry those they love, but we’ve already decided these issues.

    WTF?

  460. 460
    Grendel72 says:

    WTF?

    Well, what with all the talk of "tactics" and "debate" and everything else I’m guessing you guys don’t understand why people want to marry.
    Protip: people don’t propose to score political points.

  461. 461

    Like I said, do you want the rights, or their approval? If it were me, I wouldn’t care about their approval, I would just want the rights.

    Absolutely!

    No, it’s because by insisting on calling CU marriage, you are handing wingnuts the cover they need to ban any damn thing they want.

    I repeat, absolutely!

  462. 462
    Darkrose says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Nope. Civil unions have no traditional (romantic, or otherwise corrupt) baggage associated with them. There is no reason to deny civil unions whatever. That’s why all the reasonable people I know would vote them to you in a second.

    The problem is that the people responsible for putting these amendments on the ballot aren’t reasonable.

    Look at Michigan: as soon as the marriage amendment passed, the people who pushed for it filed suit to make the state stop offering domestic partner benefits, after saying during the campaign that they weren’t interested in doing that. The law was worded to bar recognition of marriage or anything else that was resembling marriage, and so the Michigan SC had to rule that the state couldn’t offer DP benefits.

    It’s possible if the word marriage were taken out of the equation, it would be harder for the amendments to pass in some places, but I’m not that optimistic. The AmTaliban folks would change the argument to be, "Those queers are making a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage with their ‘civil unions.’" That’s certainly what happened in Vermont, when Howard Dean was getting death threats after signing the civil union bill there.

    The bottom line is that the AmTaliban doesn’t want to keep gays from getting married. They want us not to exist–or if we do, to keep being miserable and self-loathing and closeted so that they don’t have to consider the fact that perhaps their way isn’t the only way.

  463. 463

    Sorry, those Prop 8 numbers are at #315, above, it just seemed like yesterday.

    Anyway, those numbers are telling a story. And the story is not about bigots and rednecks who beat up gays. It’s about a broad swath of pretty ordinary people.

    Enough of them would concede you civil unions and rights without batting an eye, that you could have those immediately if you framed your strategy around that.

    Even if they don’t agree with you, they are not inclined to deny you rights over it. Politics is about coalitions. Broaden your coalition, win.

  464. 464

    Well, what with all the talk of "tactics" and "debate" and everything else I’m guessing you guys don’t understand why people want to marry.
    Protip: people don’t propose to score political points.

    That was unfounded, WRONG and downright cruel.

  465. 465

    they want us not to exist—or if we do, to keep being miserable

    Yes, some of them do. But not enough to win consistently at the polls. Take your focus off the people you can’t win over, and focus on the ones you can. There are plenty out there. They aren’t particularly vocal, they aren’t the types to hang around and blog. But they are out there in large numbers.

  466. 466

    The bottom line is that the AmTaliban doesn’t want to keep gays from getting married. They want us not to exist—or if we do, to keep being miserable and self-loathing and closeted so that they don’t have to consider the fact that perhaps their way isn’t the only way.

    The problem with bigots is that they’re bigoted.

  467. 467
    Grendel72 says:

    That was unfounded, WRONG and downright cruel.

    I’m sorry, would it have been more polite if I’d compared you to pedophiles or puppy-fuckers?

  468. 468

    I’m guessing you guys don’t understand why people want to marry.

    Sir, or madam, take a breath. That’s pretty ridiculous.

  469. 469
    Comrade Stuck says:

    @Grendel72:

    And, y’know, fuck those unlucky enough to live in the Red states, right?

    Jaysus, you’re a hard case. This is how you win. One battle at a time. One state at a time. And each time a state says oK! to equal rights, which will be more than you think, that weakens the stance of bigoted states and their wingnut preachers. And at some point, those people will be defeated and the entire country will get on board. And maybe even at some point will accept the legal union as a marriage. Or you can insist on everything right now and keep losing and coming here for 48 hours of rage and belittling your supporters. Your choice.

  470. 470
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @Laura W:

    Ow, my eyes! No, my ears!

  471. 471

    Take your focus off the people you can’t win over, and focus on the ones you can. There are plenty out there. They aren’t particularly vocal, they aren’t the types to hang around and blog. But they are out there in large numbers.

    Most people, excluding the self-righteous bigots (who will end up going to hell if there is one) only want everyone to be happy and don’t care if someone wants to formalize a relationship with a person of the same gender.

  472. 472

    I’m sorry, would it have been more polite if I’d compared you to pedophiles or puppy-fuckers?

    I’m done with you, you’re not worth talking to.

    FOAD

  473. 473

    would it have been more polite if I’d compared you to pedophiles or puppy-fuckers?

    I’ve been called worse.

    But anyway, keep your focus. Politics is about coalitions and peeling away votes from your opposition. You can’t peel away the lunatic votes and the redneck and bigot votes. But there are plenty of votes in the remainder of your opponents’ tally available to you if you want them. In California you only would have had to move a little over two percent of the total to get all the rights you could want.

    If you sat down with those voters, and you said, can I have your vote if I call this thing a civil union instead of a marriage, and they said, "sure" …. would you take it?

  474. 474
    Grendel72 says:

    This is how you win. One battle at a time. One state at a time.

    That’s not how we’ve ever won any civil rights battle. Ever.
    We’d still be waiting for women to get the vote if we worked like that.

  475. 475
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Comrade Stuck:

    No, it’s because by insisting on calling CU marriage, you are handing wingnuts the cover they need to ban any damn thing they want.

    Sadly, this is very true. I understand the push to be able to be "married", I really do.

    Here in Australia we can’t get married, but after two years of living together we become legal de factos, and due to some recent changes in legislation, that now means that we have every right that a married couple do (except legally calling it a marriage).

    Is it perfect? No. It annoys me that I can’t get married to the man I have been with for four years, and that some guy can meet a girl and get married the same day if the whim takes them. It annoys me that I had to wait two years to get the same recognition.

    A few weeks ago, our Federal government passed the legislation which changed 68 pieces of other legislation, such that a defacto gay relationship has every right that a marriage does.

    My point is, though, that this passed parliament with votes from all sides of the political spectrum, and barely raised a ripple in the media. No-one (except those of us who benefited, and a few of our brand of wingnut) thought it was a big deal.

    Yet previously, every time gay "marriage" was mooted, there was outrage and upset.

    Words are important, but getting what you want (even if you have to call it something different) is even more important.

    I still hope that one day I can "marry" my boyfriend, but I’ll take the compromise in the mean time.

  476. 476
    Darkrose says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Yes, some of them do. But not enough to win consistently at the polls. Take your focus off the people you can’t win over, and focus on the ones you can. There are plenty out there. They aren’t particularly vocal, they aren’t the types to hang around and blog. But they are out there in large numbers.

    They aren’t really the issue, though. Left to themselves, most people will shrug and say, "Whatever." It’s the fanatics who care enough to put the measures on the ballot and to organize and mobilize to win.

    As I’ve said, I agree with you that focusing on the word marriage was a tactical mistake. Even without that, though, we still have the basic problem that in addition to the active haters, there’s a good-sized chunk of people who hears "gay" anything and thinks, "EW! BUTTSECKS!" I mean, the U.S. won’t even vote on a non-enforceable UN resolution that says, "Hey, guys, maybe people shouldn’t go to jail for being queer. Just saying."

    Now that I’m a little calmer, though, I think the anti-marriage equality crowd in CA has just made a huge mistake. It’s one thing to say that future marriages that haven’t happened yet will not be recognized. Showing up the week before Christmas and asking the court to invalidate existing marriages that are functionally no different from the state registered domestic partnerships that we had before looks petty and mean-spirited–and also, when you’d previously said you wouldn’t seek retroactive enforcement, makes you look like a liar.

  477. 477

    That’s not how we’ve ever won any civil rights battle. Ever.

    Do you want the rights, or do you want a glorious victory with a big dramatic finish? Do you want the rights, or do you want something called "marriage?"

    I am starting to wonder if you guys really care about the rights. It’s a little hard to believe, when the rights are basically yours for the taking and you want to fight over something else.

  478. 478
    Laura W says:

    @Zuzu’s Petals: I know. Just a full frontal assault on all of the senses, so to speak.
    But topical, nonetheless.

  479. 479

    we still have the basic problem that in addition to the active haters, there’s a good-sized chunk of people who hears "gay" anything and thinks, "EW! BUTTSECKS!"

    There are a lot of people out there who don’t like having to let ni—s into the restaurants they eat at. But lo, we just elected a black president. The morons lost. Outnumbered.

    You can’t frame your strategy around the lost and the morons, the worst out there. Politics is about carving out a majority, not unanimity. Don’t focus on the idiots, focus on the people who are fair minded and will be reasonable. A lot of those people are voting against you, but will vote with you, if you go about this right.

  480. 480
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Grendel72:

    Well, what with all the talk of "tactics" and "debate" and everything else I’m guessing you guys don’t understand why people want to marry.

    Grendel, I said it above but it didn’t appear to have any effect:

    Yes you (we) are upset. Yes you (we) have good reason. Don’t take out your anger at the people on here who actually support us (that would be most of them), but simply take a different view on one issue.

    You seem to have gotten yourself so angry that you are just lashing out at people who are actually on our side.

  481. 481
    Darkrose says:

    @Tattoosydney:

    I’ve said before that you could call it bagel for all I care as long as it’s exactly the same as what my het married co-workers have.

    But here, at least, the wingnuts don’t want us to have that, because they don’t want us to be equal in any way, shape or form.

    The president of the National Association of Evangelicals said recently that well, maybe civil unions were okay as a compromise. His constituency went nuts and he was forced to resign. Rick Warren doesn’t favor civil unions, because he doesn’t favor anything that might force him to acknowledge that the dictates of his religion cannot be used to set policy in a secular society.

    It’s a lot like the fanatical anti-choicers. They’re not really about the poor ickle fetii, because if they were, they’d be in favor of birth control instead of trying to make sure pharmacists don’t have to dispense the Pill to women because it’s against their religion. The anti-gay crowd doesn’t really care about gay people getting married–what they’re afraid of is that someone, somewhere, might be doing something differently from them, and God knows we can’t have that.

  482. 482

    As I’ve said, I agree with you that focusing on the word marriage was a tactical mistake. Even without that, though, we still have the basic problem that in addition to the active haters, there’s a good-sized chunk of people who hears "gay" anything and thinks, "EW! BUTTSECKS!"

    Fifteen years ago I would say this was a correct statement, but anal sex is not exclusive to the gay community anymore. There are many heterosexual couples who are engaging in it. Moreover, gays are getting a lot of exposure on television (fifteen years ago it was considered strange to show two people of the same gender involved in sexual playfulness, now it’s fairly mainstream on cable channels). You are living in a time when those views are changing, change your perspective along with it. That doesn’t mean the brass ring is within reach, but it’s closer.

  483. 483
    Tattoosydney says:

    This is how you win. One battle at a time. One state at a time.

    That’s not how we’ve ever won any civil rights battle. Ever.
    We’d still be waiting for women to get the vote if we worked like that.

    Um.

    Lydia Chapin Taft was an early forerunner in Colonial America who was allowed to vote in three New England town meetings, beginning in 1756.

    In 1848, at the Seneca Falls Convention in New York, activists including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott began a seventy year struggle to secure the right to vote for women. Susan B. Anthony, a native of Rochester New York, joined the cause four years later at the Syracuse Convention. Women’s suffrage activists pointed out that blacks had been granted the franchise and had not been included in the language of the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments (which gave people equal protection under the law and the right to vote regardless of their race, respectively). This, they contended, had been unjust. Early victories were won in the territories of Wyoming (1869)[18] and Utah (1870), although Utah women were disenfranchised by provisions of the federal Edmunds-Tucker Act enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1887. The push to grant Utah women’s suffrage was at least partially fueled by the belief that, given the right to vote, Utah women would dispose of polygamy. It was only after Utah women exercised their suffrage rights in favor of polygamy that the U.S. Congress disenfranchised Utah women.[19] By the end of the nineteenth century, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming had enfranchised women after effort by the suffrage associations at the state level.

    National women’s suffrage, however, did not exist until 1920.

    This is how we win. One battle at a time. One state at a time.

  484. 484
    Comrade Stuck says:

    @Tattoosydney:

    I still hope that one day I can "marry" my boyfriend, but I’ll take the compromise in the mean time.

    Sounds like Australia is at least moving toward a full rights "marriage". We are just about always last when it comes to overcoming bigotry. No doubt due to an overpopulation of idiot right wingers. Maybe you need some down your way, free shipping:)

    And I wish we had a Parliament, it sounds so much cooler than Congress.

  485. 485

    You seem to have gotten yourself so angry that you are just lashing out at people who are actually on our side.

    Yup, I would like nothing more than to see Grendel enjoy the same rights of partnership that heterosexual couples have, but what do I know I’m just a "puppy-fucker"… and now I really couldn’t care less what Grendel wants, although I’d be more than happy to engage in this debate with someone who is reasonable.

  486. 486

    The president of the National Association of Evangelicals said recently that well, maybe civil unions were okay as a compromise. His constituency went nuts

    Yes, but …. that constituency is 30-35% of the voters out there. Between them, and the 51% mark, are 15-16% of persuadable voters. You only need a fraction of those.

    Stop focussing on the crazies and the loudmouths. They are always out there. Focus on the other voters.

    With that, I gotta go. Step back from the argument and think it all over. Things might look a little different. Politics is the art of coalitions. Think coalitions. We’re entering a new era of coalition opportunities. Forget the past, grab the future.

    Good luck.

  487. 487
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Darkrose:

    But here, at least, the wingnuts don’t want us to have that, because they don’t want us to be equal in any way, shape or form.

    Believe me, it’s the same here.

    I think that TZ’s point (if I may be so bold as to paraphrase) is "Fuck the wingnuts. The majority of the US population is quite happy to give you civil unions. Getting 98% of what you want (despite the wingnuts) is great revenge."

  488. 488
    Laura W says:

    @Grendel72: Have you eaten, or slept, or walked outside for some air since this thread began 27 hours ago? Seriously…no snark intended…go tend to yourself for a while. This thread (or another like it) and this subject will always be here to come back to. You’ve got to be exhausted by now.
    Grab your cat, or your dog, or a friend’s cat or dog.
    You’ve got more allies here than you are allowing yourself to acknowledge. Just go breathe for a while. Preferably, in nature.

  489. 489
    Darkrose says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    You can’t frame your strategy around the lost and the morons, the worst out there. Politics is about carving out a majority, not unanimity. Don’t focus on the idiots, focus on the people who are fair minded and will be reasonable. A lot of those people are voting against you, but will vote with you, if you go about this right.

    See, I think the default for most people, especially right now, is, "I’ve got other shit to worry about"–unless you give them a reason to think that gay marriage will, in fact, directly affect them.

    Prop 8 won primarily because, as you said, the Yes side had better ground game. Specifically, they appealed to emotion: fear that your pastor will be arrested if he doesn’t marry a gay couple (lie) or fear that your kids will be taught about gay sex in school and you won’t be able to do anything (also a lie).

    What No on 8 should have done was responded with an emotional appeal of our own, rather than talking abstractly about "discrimination" and "fairness".

    I have a friend who lives in Florida. She and I agree on pretty much nothing politically (I keep trying to get her to come over here.) She sent me a long email recently about the marriage thing, saying that until she met me, her idea of what being gay meant was pride parades and the Folsom Street Fair. It wasn’t until we became friends that she saw someone who identified as gay in a relationship that’s pretty much indistinguishable from any het relationship.

    She voted against the FL marriage amendment. I don’t think she’d have done that a few years ago. Which isn’t as much to pat myself on the back as it is to say that in the end, it’s not up to the courts. It’s about making it personal.

    So…I think we’re mostly in violent agreement?

  490. 490

    The president of the National Association of Evangelicals said recently that well, maybe civil unions were okay as a compromise. His constituency went nuts

    This is also an excellent point. Why did this president of the National Association of Evangelicals say this? Because he felt it would be acceptable. Not all of the people in that group are as bigoted as the loudmouths. Yes, they have pull, but if they were as cohesive as we believe them to be, this man would never have go on television and said that. Think about that.

  491. 491

    Good advice Grendel. Take a break, relax, or drink heavily, or whatever you need to do. Almost everyone around here is on your side, even if not agreeing with you on any particular point. Circus, case in point.

    Cheers. I’m going to make some tea and eat a bear claw.

  492. 492

    So…I think we’re mostly in violent agreement?

    Agreed!

  493. 493
    Darkrose says:

    @CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII:

    Fifteen years ago I would say this was a correct statement, but anal sex is not exclusive to the gay community anymore. There are many heterosexual couples who are engaging in it.

    I was exaggerating, but only slightly. There have always been het couples having anal sex; at the moment, where you see a lot of it is with kids who’ve signed the abstinence pledges. Apparently if it’s up the butt, it doesn’t count as sex.

    I really do think there is a visceral "eww!" reaction to the idea of two men having sex for many people, one that isn’t there for two women. If there was a bill to allow just lesbians to marry, it’d probably pass.

  494. 494
    Darkrose says:

    @CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII:

    Yes, they have pull, but if they were as cohesive as we believe them to be, this man would never have go on television and said that. Think about that.

    I suppose that’s the optomistic view. Glass half-empty, though, he got pilloried and forced out of his job for saying that perhaps letting other people live their lives was okay.

    I do realize that evangelicals aren’t monolithic. If Obama needed an evangelical to speak, he should have picked Fred Clark. Of course, then Warren would have accused him of being a Marxist, as he has all other progressive, social justice oriented Christians. Episcopalians probably make his head explode.

  495. 495

    I was exaggerating, but only slightly. There have always been het couples having anal sex; at the moment, where you see a lot of it is with kids who’ve signed the abstinence pledges. Apparently if it’s up the butt, it doesn’t count as sex.

    This is a misconception, I think. I know quite a few adults who engage in anal sex, or wish they could. Men are engaging in this activity with women, it’s not that much different from gay anal sex, really. The times, they are a changing and with that change, you will see less resistance to such things.

    I have heard of the abstinence anal sex thing, it sounds like idiocy, it’s still sex. Duh!

  496. 496

    Episcopalians probably make his head explode.

    Funny you should say that, TZ and I are both non-practicing non-religious baptized as Episcopalian babies. LMAO! I’m SURE we would make his head explode.

  497. 497
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Grendel, don’t listen to the reasonable people. Tap into yer angst right now to make a distraught but eeriely compelling Leave Britney Gay Marriage Alone! video.

  498. 498
    Grendel72 says:

    The American people rejected Republicanism, largely as a reaction against the outrages of the religious right. Look to John Cole for example.
    The religious right have already destroyed one of our political parties from the inside out, and rather than keep them away from power they are obviously dangerously unqualified to hold we give them space at the table in the opposition party. How does that make any sense? The gaybashing is only one of a myriad of reasons this jackass shouldn’t be given a public stage.

    Yes, it’s ridiculous to have religion mixed up in the inauguration ceremony to begin with, but if we’re going to have it why must we continue to act like the lunatic fringe is the very definition of religion? Frankly I’d be more offended if I were a Christian.

  499. 499
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Comrade Stuck:

    We are just about always last when it comes to overcoming bigotry. No doubt due to an overpopulation of idiot right wingers. Maybe you need some down your way, free shipping:)

    We have our own thanks – although admittedly less, and less insane. We tend to ship our worst ones to you, rather than the other way around.

    Sorry about that.

  500. 500

    he got pilloried and forced out of his job for saying that perhaps letting other people live their lives was okay.

    The point I’m making is that he had no clue that was going to happen. He didn’t realize how bigoted his bigots truly were, and being the president of such a group, he probably engaged in conversation with quite a few who made him feel they were a less bigoted group, which is probably why he felt he could get away with saying such things. Yes, I realize the loudmouths won out, but, if they were as cohesive as we feared, he should have known that. It was a faux pas both on his part, and in showing that they don’t all agree with each other.

  501. 501

    The American people rejected Republicanism, largely as a reaction against the outrages of the religious right. Look to John Cole for example.
    The religious right have already destroyed one of our political parties from the inside out, and rather than keep them away from power they are obviously dangerously unqualified to hold we give them space at the table in the opposition party. How does that make any sense? The gaybashing is only one of a myriad of reasons this jackass shouldn’t be given a public stage.

    You apparently poke sharp sticks at cornered animals too?

    Yes, they are marginalized, but unless the Rapture happens overnight, they have not disappeared and we cannot just act like they don’t exist. They are still 35% of the voting population, and when they create sob stories, they still get some sympathy. These crazy lunatics have much of the country believing they are good Christian god-fearing people and don’t realize that they are just angry political activists. They need to be marginalized much more before they are no longer a problem. It takes time.

  502. 502
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    Okay, it’s official. The California AG, who normally would be defending Prop 8 before the Cal. Supreme Court, has opined that the measure “must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”

    NY Times

    Granted, the fact that Jerry Brown is the AG made this pronouncement a surprise to no one.

  503. 503
    Linda Binda says:

    Not to be a link-spammer, but here:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....n150241S64

    Kenneth Starr wants to help the Yes on 8 people invalidate the existing marriages of gay couples in California.

  504. 504
    Comrade Stuck says:

    @Linda Binda:

    Kenneth Starr wants to help the Yes on 8 people invalidate the existing marriages of gay couples in California.

    That fucker is like a cosmic case of Herpes. they. just.never quit with the hate.

  505. 505
    Joshua Norton says:

    That fucker is like a cosmic case of Herpes. they. just.never quit with the hate.

    Ms. Starr is obviously in it more for the sex involvement. He read his whole Clinton report into the congressional record personally. In lurid Barbara Cartland detail. Using only one hand.

    If there’s a sexual twist to the story, you’ll find a frustrated wingnut like him within spitting distance.

  506. 506
    Neal says:

    Quare: if gay marriage is a matter best left to the states, what happens when a citizen of say, Massachusetts gets married to a foreign national. Should the question whether the spouse can get a visa to enter the country also be a matter of state law, or is the Massachusetts resident’s ability to live with his or her spouse properly dependent upon whether the spouse is of a different sex.

    If the Feds won’t recognize a gay marriage for immigration purposes, then the easy notion that marriage vs. civil unions is silly semantics is palpably flase, and Obama’s easy solution is in fact deeply dishonest.

    Neal

  507. 507

    Jaysus, you’re a hard case. This is how you win. One battle at a time. One state at a time. And each time a state says oK! to equal rights, which will be more than you think, that weakens the stance of bigoted states

    Man..if only their was some sort of "equality movement"…something that pursued civil rights….and had this charismatic leader who was surrounded by other charismatic intelligent men and women…something in recent history that could be used as a blueprint…if only

    Yup, I would like nothing more than to see Grendel enjoy the same rights of partnership that heterosexual couples have,

    Word

    @Grendel72: Have you eaten, or slept, or walked outside for some air since this thread began 27 hours ago? Seriously…no snark intended…go tend to yourself for a while. This thread (or another like it) and this subject will always be here to come back to. You’ve got to be exhausted by now.
    Grab your cat, or your dog, or a friend’s cat or dog.
    You’ve got more allies here than you are allowing yourself to acknowledge. Just go breathe for a while. Preferably, in nature.

    What she said. Character flaw…I like playing with the sharp pointy stick and seeing who squeals.

  508. 508

    The CU route is probably the most practical approach, but without Fed recognition it would come up short, way short. I don’t know what approach Obama has in mind. What I’m damn sure of is that he’s trying very hard to marginalize the effects of religion on secular issues.

    In OR the man/woman amendment passed with its backers explicitly stating that CUs wouldn’t be a problem. The next cycle the CU passed and before it could take effect the reichtards were in court trying to block it. They got handed their heads in OR so they tried the US 9th and got whacked again. Now they sulk. No, the CU doesn’t do the entire job.

    I’d guess that within a couple years one could get a gay marriage amendment passed, here. It would take some real smart campaigning to do it, and what I’ve seen here makes me want to encourage several of you to not help us try to do it.

  509. 509
    John T says:

    It looks like the embers are starting to die down a little bit around here, so I thought I’d add another log to the fire: Queers Read This: a leaflet distributed at pride march in NY, 1990. Just for some historical perspective.
    Here’s something a little more contemporary for anyone who’s ever wondered Why so angry? Why so hostile?

  510. 510
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    It would take some real smart campaigning to do it, and what I’ve seen here makes me want to encourage several of you to not help us try to do it.

    Agreed, the same thought was crossing my mind as I read your post. The phrase ‘you are your own worst enemy’ comes to mind.

  511. 511
    Linda Binda says:

    Man..if only their was some sort of "equality movement"…something that pursued civil rights….and had this charismatic leader who was surrounded by other charismatic intelligent men and women…something in recent history that could be used as a blueprint…if only

    That sounds a little like the black civil rights movement of the ’50s and ’60s, the same movement that black people say they own patents and copyright on, and thus, no one is allowed to make comparisons with or take cues from.

    You mean that one? You couldn’t mean that one, could you? Dunno what you mean. :) And you know how unfair and condescending and patronizing and other negative verbs would be to black people were we supporters to borrow their ideas or note the similarities between their plight and those of gays, (never mind that civil disobedience was Gandhi’s idea, (and that, the Polish used it, too, and so did the Suffragists, if that HBO movie is to be believed :P) but who cares about Indians’ struggles from the first half of the 20th century — that’s, like, LONG AGO. It’s all about NOW!)

    Oh, no! That’s wrong! Surely, you don’t mean that! :(

    (For the record, I’m black, too.)

  512. 512

    […] of The Common Man, tempest in a tea cup, The Editors, The Poor Man Institute, Warren |   I nominate John Cole. Not that John is common, in the pedestrian, useless term of the word. More that John is uncommonly […]

  513. 513
    AnneLaurie says:

    I guess what I would be trying to express is my feeling—a feeling that I believe motivates a lot of the high emotion running through the left-ish blogosphere in the last 36 hours—that even our best-intentioned allies, even some fellow gays and lesbians (to employ the awkwardest of labels) just don’t get it. The frustration of seeing one’s pain and sense of injustice derogated by comrades just fuels a lot of the heat; and the hotter the fire, the faster the fuel flows. No one, especially someone as intelligent and sensitive as yourself, likes being told he doesn’t get it, and no one likes being told that the real, personal hurt at the heart of all social injustice is a figment of the sufferer’s imagination. Maybe you do “get it,” John; and maybe people like me are overreacting. Nevertheless, it’s clear to me that this noisy dynamic is driving the present hostilities among political allies.

    As a white woman who can remember (I was in high school) Shirley Chisholm & Bella Abzug at the 1972 Democratic convention being told to shut up, go back to the kitchen, wait our turn because "most people" just weren’t ready to deal with women contending for serious political offices…

    And who can also remember Obama’s "early adopters" sniffily dismissing all Hillary Clinton supporters as nothing more than racists — senile hysterics perversely fascinated by fear of the big black, uh, politician — sheeple not to be taken seriously because we were embedded in our secure middle-class suburban fantasy lifestyles…

    I am sardonically amused by all the helpful people here who are busy explaining that "most people" just aren’t ready to deal with gay couples wanting to be treated like… people.

    Begin as you mean to go on, President-Elect Obama.

    On the other hand, maybe the Secret Service told him that stationing an oleaginous bigot of a godsbotherer on the platform would confuse some percentage of the would-be lone gunmen currently polishing their rifles and dreaming of their place in history. Because it would take one heckavu high-powered bullet to pierce the armour-coated layers of piety & petroleum products radiating from Pastor Warren. Or some of his newfound defenders.

  514. 514
    Linda Binda says:

    For the record, also, I don’t mean to come off as a troll: I mean to mock the black hypocrites who claim that gay rights aren’t civil rights, but "SPECIAL RIGHTS"™ I bet this was what they were probably telling women during the first-wave feminism days post-Civil War, too, even though Frederick Douglass was the feminists’ ally.

    I grew up in a Nigerian household, where my parents were either too self-involved (my father) or too broke (my mother), working in underpaid jobs in downtown Atlanta to make ends meet in our house in the lower-middle-class suburbs of Clayton County, to take us to church on a regular basis, so I have to say that I’m lucky to have been mostly spared the noxious propaganda of southern Christianity, the black church in particular, to see people saying that shit. Everything I know about Christianity was from reading children’s bibles and memorizing all the stories; my copy of "The Children’s Bible in 365 Stories" (it’s great — good artwork, good, English writing — get it for your kids!) says that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was over lack of hospitality and unchecked crime, and that’s good enough for me. The entire book says nothing about the supposed evils of homosexuality, thus, I grew up never being able to comprehend people’s hatred, insensitivity, and intolerance for gays. I’d say I was better off, yes?

    I don’t see any federal gay marriage amendments to enable, not BAN, (the latter of which is far disturbingly closer to reality, stubborn senators like McCain notwithstanding), taking off without successful groundwork at the state level, and the marriage equality opposition is far closer to banning gay marriage than the proponents are to stopping the bans. The Christianists types are 30-0, so far. They only need about, what, 3/5 to 3/4 majority of all state legislatures, beyond the U.S. House and Senate, to pass that Federal Marriage Amendment?

    I think the whole activist effort needs a serious reboot: I know next to nothing about how many activist groups there are, but I get the feeling that there are too many, they’re not unified enough, and they are too weak; there needs to be a VERY STRONG emphasis on working on the local and state levels; there needs to be constant media exposure, to the point where familiarity breeds contempt :); the battle should be multi-prong and stronger — in the courts, in the public arena, in academia, and in politics; I know there are black historians who publish journals, and if these exists for the GLBT folks, people should do more to make them less obscure; no more compromising, no more acquiescing, and there should be probably be more gay Christians in the mix, too — their public exposure would be good for everyone. Whatever the Christian right-wing base has, there should be an equivalent opposing force to, and if it’s there already, it should get more support, monetary and publicizing. That, and I think it’s in everyone’s interest to reform education in this country: a lot of our problems begin and end with poorly learned, culturally deprived people, deprived due to interference from closed-minded conservative forces or due to lack of resources. Joining in on other movements could be good, too: for instance, if the activists decided to aid in revamping the way education is done in this country, a lot of people could get on board, including a lot of black people, since many suffer from crappy schools.

    Of course, I’m a failed English major at Georgia State, and so you can take my babblings with a grain of salt.

    And about Warren: unimaginative and stupid choice — ’nuff said.

  515. 515
    MBSS says:

    i got linked to this page from greenwald and after a quick glance i must say that my first impression is that john cole is a massive faggot who doesnt know shit. and i mean faggot in the derogatory sense and not in the gay sense.

    fuck rick warren and all obama apologists. tom v. in the cabinet to promote monsanto also. democrats are idiots. they keep getting fucked over and then asking why.

    vote nader or green next time fuckwads.

  516. 516
    Siryn says:

    So yes, his voting record looks good. But he’s also shown once again that he’s rather tone-deaf when it comes to the symbolism WRT the gay community (see: Donnie McClurkin), and for me, that means not taking his support as a given.

    Who’s tone deaf? You have gays marching in the inaugural parade. Rev. Lowry giving the benediction.

    The ones that are tone deaf are those who continue to fail to see the forest for the trees, and that this has to be an inclusive America. Quit focusing on Warren so damned much and look at the bigger picture.

  517. 517
    Grendel72 says:

    and that this has to be an inclusive America.

    God this is such a fucking tiring and assholish argument. The sad part is that you assholes seem to have no idea how motherfucking infuriating it is to have you blather on about "inclusion" while sucking up to bigots. This is an extremely old and annoying rhetorical trick beloved by disingenuous bigots. Because of course judging people based on their actions is exactly the same as treating whole groups of people as second class citizens.

  518. 518
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Grendel72:

    Grendel, I’m gay. I’m angry and on many fronts I agree with you. But I give up on you. If you can’t discuss these issues with people who are basically on your side without calling them assholes, then you are either a troll, a spoof or not worth bothering about.

  519. 519

    How’s this grendel, I’ll take your hysterical insulting prickish self to be a measure of all gays and walk the fuck away from a fight that has NO personal impact on my married heterosexual self. Try this, Fuck You. Fuck your hysteria, fuck your meaness, fuck your bigotry toward heterosexuals.

    Try to wrap this around your pin sized head, it costs me to work for gay equality. 99.9% of the people I come into contact with are heterosexual, I don’t have intimately affected people to run to to pet my head when I get bitten. I hang myself out in public for something that has not one singularly personal connection to me.

    I will try to succeed at this and I will try to do it in my most reasoned manner. I know perfectly good and well that throwing a fucking ing-bing over this is a real good way to lose.

    Co-option works. It has a name as a political tool because it does work. Throwing yourself into a propellor blade does not stop an airplane, turning the engine off does. If you care that Warren’s religion sees you as a sinner, you’re going to have a very unhappy life. I don’t give a flying fuck what his religion thinks about it, I do care about getting it out of the business of writing laws. The way to do that is to assure them that they can run their religion exactly as they please while the State does what is in the State’s interest. What is in the State’s interest is that there is stability in relationships and responsibilities. The State gives a flying fuck if you’re in love, it cares that business gets taken care of. That happens if you have equal rights and equal responsibilities.

    If you think your emotional happiness is of great import to the State you’re crazy. It doesn’t much matter to me, since I only know you as an obnoxious prick. Given a choice over whether people are happy or unhappy I’d pick happy – but that’s not my call so I don’t get into an uproar about it. I want you to have equal rights and responsibilities, beyond that it’s nothing to do with me, it’s up to you.

    If you’re trying to ape Gardiner’s Grendel, you need to go have a converstation with the Dragon.

    Apparently you’re from CA, well get this, you fucked up a campaign really badly. You fucked it up by not looking at it in a cold clear manner and knowing what was going to come your way. You fucked it up by thinking your personal happiness counted for something against others’ fears. You took the most advantageous political atmosphere and fucked it way. Now you want to kick other people, in particular one who showed he knows how to win. You are an ass.

  520. 520
    Tattoosydney says:

    @Chuck Butcher:

    At this stage I am voting for wingnut spoof who is trying to create division. I’m not going to apologise for Grendel’s behaviour on behalf of my people because I no longer believe that Grendel is actually a gay person posting his views.

    Every other person posting on here on the "gay" side (if I can so generalise) has put their arguments forcefully, but with respect.

    Grendel has spent almost every post on this thread generalising, insulting and hissy-fitting.

    Assholes blathering on about how silly we are to expect equality, assholes blathering on about how the "spirit of inclusiveness" demands embracing people who are by definition the exact motherfucking opposite of inclusive.

    You know, I get that you sad fuckers have no experience with human love, so you don’t get why people who are capable of emotion might want to marry those they love, but we’ve already decided these issues.

    and my favourite…

    Well, what with all the talk of "tactics" and "debate" and everything else I’m guessing you guys don’t understand why people want to marry.

    Pie filter is on.

  521. 521
    Gay Veteran says:

    Comrade Stuck: "…it’s because by insisting on calling CU marriage, you are handing wingnuts the cover they need to ban any damn thing they want…."

    TheHatOnMyCat: "…However, the political reality is that you can have the civil unions without the big fight, and get the rights."

    wow, the stoopid, IT BURNS. Would you trade your marriage for a civil union?

    …sound of crickets chirping…

    yeah, that’s what I thought because you know that civil unions do NOT provide you with the same rights as marriage

  522. 522

    @Tattoosydney: But it’s so much fun to keep poking…you know you enjoyed it.

  523. 523

    @Gay Veteran: Ummmm…my marriage is a civil union. I didn’t get married in a church. I got married by justice of the peace, so technically, I have a civil union.

    Yeah, the stupid is burning bright this morning.

  524. 524
    Comrade Stuck says:

    yeah, that’s what I thought because you know that civil unions do NOT provide you with the same rights as marriage

    What I know is so far neither exists for you. Reality is not fair. But it is still reality. By all means, keep doing what your doing and maybe you will win. Either way, this thread is now dead to me.

  525. 525
    Bhall35 says:

    One more thing: All this talk about building political alliances forgets the fact that many of us don’t think issues like gay marriage should be put up to a vote, AT ALL.

    We need activist judges to override the insanity of things like Prop 8, and I don’t care what the majority thinks about this issue. In fact, it is the tyranny of the majority that requires us to reject it, forcefully.

    Granted, Obama is more likely to appoint said judges than McCain, but based on his triangulation on this issue (which is what it is, and what it was called when Clinton did things like it, not the euphemistic "inclusion"), I have to say I remain skeptical.

  526. 526
    joehines says:

    In the old days I would preface this remark with the comment that I do not have a dog in this particular fight (not politically correct). However, it has occurred to me that Rick Warren is quite possibly a creationist. People with his theology usually are. If that is so, isn’t that even more insulting to the Obama base than the GLBT issue (as important as it is)? Creationists overwhelming supported McCain after all. Is Obama signaling that he is reaching out to the non-reality based segment of the population? Why not appoint a few to the National Science Foundation to try to win over the young earth wingnuts? Maybe one can explain to Stephen Chu how God created a pillar of fire and the burning bush in Exodus.

  527. 527
    roberto says:

    Juan, you miss a huge point.

    This is not entirely about gay and lesbians and is not even about Obama’s superior record on gay issues. Warren’s invitation is simply offensive to everyone who values civil rights, enlightenment and who is opposed to honoring those who preach bigotry based on ignorance and intolerance.

    There are so many far superior choices Obama could have made for the religious leader who would usher in his presidency and the beginning of a new political era for the nation.

    No matter what Obama has stood for or will accomplish in terms of civil and gay rights, this is, was and shall remain forever a terrible choice.

  528. 528
    mwfolsom says:

    Siryn says:

    You have gays marching in the inaugural parade.

    I’m sure Obama and Warren will have a big laugh about the ferries on parade.

  529. 529
    MNPundit says:

    The planet would be an immeasurably better place if all those ultra-conservative evangelicals had been aborted. They cannot be reasoned with, only made minimally dangerous.

    Ban me if you want.

  530. 530
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Would you trade your marriage for a civil union?

    Yes, as long as my wife and I are recognized as a legal couple. The piece of paper we have says "Certificate of Marriage" but it could say "Sirtiffickit uv Beein Hitched" for all I care. As long as we are legally recognized then I am fine with that. Is that enough for you or are you hung up on the word "marriage"? I didn’t have a choice, that is what they call the damned thing.

    Kos is a disaster zone over just about anything Obama. They should have those rotating red lights all over the place, maybe some blue ones tossed in for good effect. They went off of the rails shortly after the election. I enjoy some of the regular diarists there but their stuff is getting pushed off the rec list by crappy screeds that have people who are supposed to be on the same team bickering and fighting with each other. Some of the behavior is almost PUMAish in the way they are ripping into Obama. If they were supporters of his then their support didn’t run too deep, that’s for sure.

    I can understand being pissed but some of this expression of anger has been so over the top that it can’t be reasoned with in any manner. I think that is the intention, at least for some of the people.

    The planet would be an immeasurably better place if all those ultra-conservative evangelicals had been aborted.

    Great. You think they should have been aborted and they want you to burn in hell for eternity. Two wrongs don’t… aww fuck it.

  531. 531
    Tothiro says:

    um, no. Actually, us atheists are waaaay over here on the other side, watching the rest of you argue about who says grace. Even when the gay wars are over, everyone will still be hating us.

    Ha-ha. Two bald men fighting over a comb. teh awesome.

    Seriously though – Obama’s political stance on equal rights is well documented and could not be more public or transparent. The notion that a one minute prayer by some hate filled, sad person will change that, or more specifically is the signal of any change in that, is patently absurd.

    It really is no different than the "Secret Muslim" or "Give our monies to HIS people" (I don’t think they meant Hawaiians) tirades. Not only is there less than zero proof, but it’s damaging to the very public validity of the cause it seeks to support by making the accusers so easily dismissed.

    The prop 8 situation is upsetting, clearly, and with good reason, and it needs to change. Focus on the issue – effect change, lobby tirelessly. Warren is to Obama’s Presidency as Paris Hilton is to Global Warming. Pointless. Distracting.
    At the very most maybe a useful human shield.

  532. 532
  533. 533

    […] politician he’s never been a champion of gay rights. He’s just a Democrat who has taken the minimum, politically necessary pro-gay positions to be a viable national […]

  534. 534

    […] politician he’s never been a champion of gay rights. He’s just a Democrat who has taken the minimum, politically necessary pro-gay positions to be a viable national […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] politician he’s never been a champion of gay rights. He’s just a Democrat who has taken the minimum, politically necessary pro-gay positions to be a viable national […]

  2. […] politician he’s never been a champion of gay rights. He’s just a Democrat who has taken the minimum, politically necessary pro-gay positions to be a viable national […]

  3. […] of The Common Man, tempest in a tea cup, The Editors, The Poor Man Institute, Warren |   I nominate John Cole. Not that John is common, in the pedestrian, useless term of the word. More that John is uncommonly […]

  4. […] Balloon JuicePharyngula”Michelle GoldbergCurrent top recommended diary on DailyKosMatthew YglesiasEzra Klein […]

  5. […] Read John Cole’s post “This Will Be My Last Post On This, So Help Me Flying Spaghetti Monster.” […]

  6. The Rick Warren Controversy: Did Obama Get It Wrong?…

    by Damozel | Obama wasn’t my first choice for a Democratic candidate and this might be why I am less judgmental toward him now than many progressives who supported his "Change" brand without checking the specs or reading the list of ingredients on t…

  7. […] Progressives should not worry that Obama will turn to Warren for policy guidance.  Obama has expressed support for the LGBT community very consistently for many years.  Still, there is something very […]

Comments are closed.