Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama Selects Homobigot Rick Warren for Inaugural Invocation

By

UPDATE:  Parag Mehta is Obama’s LGBT liaison on the Transition Team – Email Parag with your disgust at parag.mehta@ptt.gov.  The Transition Team is also receiving emails via this web form

UPDATE 2:  Obama people respond.  Pam said it better than I can.

I hate to break it to them, but this statement out of the Obama camp isn’t going to help them on the damage control front. They’ve invited a homophobic, womb-control advocate to open the inauguration, but it’s just about outreach.

Linda Douglas, a spokeswoman for Obama, defended the choice of Warren, saying, “This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history.” “The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] issues. But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues.”

I’m sorry, but you don’t have to give the podium and mic to someone who cannot understand church-state separation, a man who like Dobson, would like the state in everyone’s bedroom.

Obama has chosen the gay hater Rick Warren to perform the invocation, or prayer, at his inauguration.  Obama had a knack during the campaign for cozying up with religious homobigots, but this takes the cake.  Warren works actively to strip LGBT people of our legal rights.

Watch Warren talk emphatically why people had to support Prop 8.

And this is who Obama has selected to give the friggin inaugural prayer?  The election is over, so there can be no mealy mouthed defense that he’s just humoring the bigot vote.  

F&*% you, Obama.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • I just left a detailed message and asked for a call back to explain how the problem would be redressed.

      • Dear Parag,

        <

        p>Choosing anti-gay activist Rick Warren to give the invocation at Mr. Obama’s Inaugural is unconscionable.  It condones Warren’s message of anti-LGBT hate.  It says that Obama does not believe that our call for civil rights is valid or supported by him.  And what a special insult at this pivotal moment in civil rights history when a non-white person is inaugurated.  Talk about spitting in our faces.

        • Rick Warren?  Seriously?

          <

          p>Surely there are ministers somewhere in America who didn’t actively work for CA’s Prop 8, the most damaging anti-gay ballot initiative in decades (maybe ever).

          <

          p>I’m straight.  I worked hard to elect Barack Obama, and I raised a lot of money for him ($50,000 +).  This is a disastrous choice, and sends a really really bad message.

          <

          p>Thanks for your consideration.

  5. Obama does not believe that LGBT rights are civil rights.  How many times did he state that he thinks marriage is between one man and one woman, and a religious thing?  Fuck him and his abuse of the LGBT & Ally vote.  And let’s see just how long he can string the apologists along and not move meaningfully on pro-LGBT legislation.  There will ALWAYS be something “more important” to do legislatively according to his sort, and the apologists will lap it up.  Utterly disgusting.

    • It was clear from the get going that O was not as far left as his supporters claimed him to be. If you really cared about the issues, you would’ve voted for Nader, like I did. This is one of the first in, I’m afraid, a long series of proofs that O is not all that different from the rest of the pack.

  6. The morning of HIS inauguration, Deval spent in a service mainly led by anti-equality “men of God”.  And he’s turned out okay.

    • Warren successfully helped strip us of our existing civil rights just 6 weeks ago.  If Obama really is about unity, he would NOT give Warren the national pulpit on this historic inauguration day.   This is an incredible insult and sets a very bad tone for the administration.

      • Deval’s ministers were just as enthusiastic about attack equal marriage in Massachusetts; the only difference is that his ministers failed.  I have never been under any illusions about Obama’s lack of commitment to equality based on sexual orientation or religion.  Perhaps my sarcasm should have been turned up a bit.

    • I think that might be the nicest thing you’ve said about the governor here in a while! đŸ™‚

      • I wish I agreed with what he was doing more often.  đŸ™‚  I did have some good things to say about his decision to re-organize education.

  7. He could have picked Rev. John Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ, which is after all Obama’s denomination.  I’d also like that as a way of raising the UCC’s profile in the public consciousness.  If they hadn’t had their falling out it would have been fun to pick Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright just for the pleasure of watching his critics squirm.

    <

    p>I can’t explain the choice of Rick Warren; they must have gotten awfully chummy at the Saddleback Forum.  Is there a statement from the Office of the President-elect on this matter?  I still hold out hope that we can persuade Obama to change his tune on this particular issue (He DID oppose Prop. 8, remember.), but sooner rather than later would be awfully nice.  Meanwhile let’s tone down the profanity against the President-elect; it’s very disrespectful and a personal pet peeve of mine.

    • you gotta be freaking kidding me!  if you don’t understand how profoundly Obama is disrespecting LGBT Americans by selecting Warren, the I have no hope for you.

      <

      p>FUCK OBAMA

      • you are helping Obama gain the respect of the majority of the country by letting us know he is disrespecting LGBT Americans so profoundly.  It will help his presidency.  Selecting someone that even had a whiff of pro-gay to them would cripple him, as any half-way intelligent student of politics surely knows.  So good job!

      • I never said that Obama wasn’t being disrespectful and his decision on this does disappoint me.  I was talking about more basic principles, to wit:

        <

        p>First, simply using the F-word is by definition disrespectful in the extreme, though I’ve refrained from following my instincts and giving 0s or 3s to any and all comments that use it.  Just how I was brought up I guess.

        <

        p>Second, anything that is disrespectful in general strikes me as more egregious when directed at the President.  We have a fundamental right, and some would even say duty, to speak truth to power and strongly air our disagreements.  However, the office of the President and the person who holds it should always be treated with the highest level of respect.  This reminds me of a quote I read early in President Clinton’s term.  He was speaking to a veterans group and some of that group jeered him because of his draft history.  One veteran strongly objected to this saying, “You can boo an umpire, but you don’t boo the President of the United States!”

        • In our republican system, without a powerless monarch to invest all our maudlin and submissive sentiments in, we attach them to a political office that has real power over us. Very stupid.

          <

          p>You can believe in the Constitution and the offices it prescribes without signing up for a self-imposed police state for your feelings about them at any given time.

          <

          p>Seriously, it’s an authoritarian trait.  

        • I picked up a piece of advice from somewhere, long ago, which was basically this: When you start swearing, people stop listening.

          <

          p>In practice, what I’ve seen is foul language, like shouting or getting overly angry, distracts from the message one is trying to convey. Some people then just concentrate on the language issue as they are doing here. I’ve been in meetings where someone gets all worked up and then I ask someone afterward, “What did you think?”. “Boy, he was pissed.” The message was missed.

          <

          p>So, Laurel, go ahead and drop the F bombs all you want if it makes you feel better, but my experience tells me you’ll be more effective if you leave that out of the posts. Your mileage may vary.

          • I think people that drop swears in every rant the launch/post tend to get tuned out, but, on the other hand, when people who never swear drop in the f-bomb or something strong, it grabs attention.

            <

            p>For instance, my Grandfather never swears, but on the rare occasion that he did, you knew that he was dead serious on making his point. It was usually a jaw-dropping moment when he used strong language; there are several occasions where I remember how I felt when I heard him swear.

            <

            p>I will acknowledge that Laurel will certainly turn off some with her f-bombs. To me, however, I see it differently because I’ve known Laurel’s comments for about two years and by seeing her say f Obama, it communicates how strongly she feels on the issue; it’s not like Laurel says “f personX” at the drop of the hat the way another commenter here consistently hurls swear insults at people he dislikes.  

            <

            p>I’ll say that, for me, Laurel’s use of the f bomb communicated her point to me in a highly effective manner and the post would have lacked if it had been omitted.

            • when millions of black people say “F#@% LGBT people, they only care about themselves, remember how they protested at Obama’s inauguration, which was such a historic moment for the country, saying ‘F@#% Obama’?  Well, F#@% them!”  

              <

              p>Maybe she thinks it’s too late to win black support, or useless, or maybe she doesn’t even want it, but that is not fair to millions of people in same-sex relationships that need protections for their relationships.  She shouldn’t screw them over with her crazy obsession of marriage rights for them.

              • Unlikely that anyone uses the profanity of a single person to justify saying eff an entire group, except as an exercise of rationalization.

                • And it’s not unusual today for a single anonymous comment to go viral and show up on DrudgeReport or WND as “what the libs are saying”.  And it’s not as if they’d be wrong, Laurel got her post front-paged, after all.

                  <

                  p>And, even when people recognize that it is only one person, it still affects people’s views of everyone they perceive as at all sympathetic.  Yeah, it is rationalization, but that’s what we do.  Like, the Phelps’s are only a few dozen people, but are used by LGBT activists to raise thousands of dollars and more importantly righteous indignation and motivation.  The same thing happens in reverse.

                • Indeed, I have sparred with Laurel over precisely that.

                  <

                  p>Here’s the thing: its still wrong.

  8. I watched Rick Warren’s statement, and listened noting how he was asking for voters to support Proposition 8, and I emphasize “asking”.

    <

    p>A majority of voters agreed with him.

    <

    p>The venom from most of the posters here is directed at Obama and Warren but you people really feel this anger about the majority. You just don’t want to further alienate the people you’re trying to win over. So you don’t state what’s obvious.  

    <

    p>I live in Massachusetts and was never given the chance to vote on this issue.

    <

    p>The reason I won’t say, and you won’t publicly hear opposition to gay marriage (I emphasize “publicly”) but always find it expressed in the privacy of the voting booth) is that most people don’t hate gay people, in fact they are quite tolerant.  Tolerance of gays but not license, not official societal approval.

    <

    p>Why can’t those who support gay unions see that maybe accepting half a loaf (civil unions) is an acceptable compromise.

    <

    p>It may take 50 years, 100 years or more to get your ultimate goal or you may find that it is not ever going to be accepted by the majority.   Civil Unions are what is acceptable then that may be that.  Accepting what life gives you is some times as natural as accepting the existence of gravity.  I can’t see so far into the future to say “NEVER” but I do know that you sometimes have to cut a deal.

    <

    p>It’s time for you to cut a deal.

    <

    p>  

    • but in my opinion merely disagreeing with you doesn’t warrant a sub-5 rating.  I gave you a 6 because you wrote a well thought out, respectful, interesting post.

      <

      p>That written, I think you’re wrong because self respect means not settling for anything less than equality for everyone.

      <

      p>I hope those with no loaf get a half a loaf ASAP — but then get 3/4 a loaf immediately thereafter, and a whole loaf the very next day — the same whole loaf which I have access to in all 50 states.

      <

      p>I think Laurel et al have a right to feel angry at the majority.  The majority have treated Laurel et al unfairly in a deeply hurtful, deeply personal way.  I often disagree with Laurel’s tactics, but not her goals and not her insistence and understanding that a compromise for a half a loaf is a compromise on her very existence.

      <

      p>

      <

      p>PEOTUS Obama made a bad decision here, and for all the good that I think Obama will do in so many different parts of America, it’s becoming clear to me that he won’t seize the opportunity to do his best for the LGBT community, and that’s a real shame.

    • I live in Massachusetts and was never given the chance to vote on this issue.

      <

      p>You’ve also never been given the chance to vote on clubbing baby seals, or state energy policy, or whether we should extend a commuter rail line to Greenbush. I don’t see you getting all het up about any of these issues and your lack of a vote on them.

      <

      p>That’s because you elect a senator, a representative, and a governor to reflect your positions, and they make these sorts of decisions. Exactly as they did on gay marriage. Why is this issue any different?

      <

      p>maybe accepting half a loaf (civil unions) is an acceptable compromise

      <

      p>1) Separate but equal is rarely equal.

      <

      p>2) Civil unions confer 0 federal rights. They are state-level only. This is because the phrase “civil union” (or any derivative thereof) simply does not appear in the US Code, whereas “marriage” (and related derivatives) occur 1,138 times (as of 2004). Thus, civil unions aren’t actually half a loaf; they’re a slice, or maybe a fluffernutter sandwich (two slices and some sweetener, not much more).

      • could say that for all federal purposes, state civil unions shall be treated as marriages.  Voila, no?  They’d need to define Civil Unions somehow, of course, but that’s a good thing – civil unions should be uniformly defined, so we need a federal definition to follow.  

        <

        p>They could do that without recognizing state same-sex marriages, in fact, I think they’d only be able to do it if Massachusetts and other states turned SSMs into CU’s.  Would that trade off be acceptable to Laurel?

  9. Sorry, but this is hardly a big deal.

    <

    p>If Obama put Warren in charge of some social issues commission, or “religious outreach”, or something, then sure, that could be a problem. But he chose Warren to give the inaugural prayer, which will be dull, bland, and forgettable, just like all the other inaugural prayers you (won’t) remember. To claim that this is cozying up with “religious homobigots” is ridiculous.

    <

    p>Another example of how liberals often can’t pick their battles. They make mountains out of molehills. They are generally right on policy, but this tendency sure is obnoxious.

    • shall i return the favor and lump you together with all the soft-core bigots out there?  you know, the “good men who let evil happen”?  

      • Yes, my post was a little strong. I apologize for stereotyping. (Though I don’t apologize for calling you out on the over-the-top “F&*% you, Obama” comment at the end of your post).

        <

        p>In any case, you know I’m on your side on the policy. I just don’t see this worthy of much outrage. I wouldn’t have made a point of responding myself until seeing this story explode all over the place, for no good reason in my mind.

        • It’s good to see someone else crossing swords with Laurel for a change, even from the standpoint of agreeing on the merits.

    • …is another woman’s mountain. With privilege comes the luxury of choosing your perspective.  

    • Pretty sure Obama understands the value of symbolism and theater of something like this.

      <

      p>I suppose, in his defense, it would be nice to de-escalate the perpetual, exhausting culure war for awhile so that he is free to deal with thinks like two wars and a crashing economy.  That isn’t really much of a defense, though.

      <

      p>But when Laurel says that there will always be something more important, she is right.  I think that time is ultimately on her side on these issues, but time is a frustrating ally.

      • Pretty sure Obama understands the value of symbolism and theater of something like this.

        <

        p>Yes, Obama understands the theater of this. He understands he now has one of the top fundamentalist leaders in the country in his back pocket. It will be a lot harder for Warren to criticize Obama in the future because of this move…or at least Obama will have a favor to cash in later.

        <

        p>Yet Obama gives up nothing but a meaningless invocation, and a few “F&*% you, Obama” posts on the Internet. A good trade-off in my view.

        • Obama gives up being taken seriously on actually caring about the LGBT community.  You may not feel it but this is a slap in the face to millions of people who support equal rights and a pat on the back of the millions more who oppose them.

          <

          p>I think why people are saying F you to Obama is because they realize now he actually doesn’t care about equal rights for same sex couples.  The fear isn’t that it will be harder for Warren to criticize Obama, the fear is that there will be no reason for Warren to criticize him, because Obama actually agrees with him.  

          <

          p>Bigotry towards the LGBT community is routinely told to take a back seat because it doesn’t fall down on class lines.  Minorities and women earn less than whites and men, so folks who might be bigots can be brought into a coalition under an economic justice argument.  The LGBT community doesn’t have that same economic prejudice against them (although prejudice can often have economic consequences) so it becomes “okay” for progressives to say wait your turn, it’s not.  It’s sad because our best hope is that this was a political decision and not representative of how he actually feels.  

    • is that there is no reason for Obama to have selected Warren.  He owes him nothing.  He owes the people of Saddleback Church nothing.  There are lots of Christian ministers who are pro-equality, and lots, lots more who may not exactly be in favor of gay marriage but at least didn’t go out of their way to back Prop 8.  Why not invite one of them to do the prayer?

      <

      p>It just feels like, in doing this, Obama is going out of his way to give the pro-Prop 8 crowd a big pat on the back, when what they deserve is a kick in the ass.

      • It just feels like, in doing this, Obama is going out of his way to give the pro-Prop 8 crowd a big pat on the back, when what they deserve is a kick in the ass.

        <

        p>I think this is entirely wrong. Obama’s M.O. is to reach out to people with whom he disagrees. I’m not just talking about some “team of rivals” thing, but rather that when he says what he says about reaching out to conservatives and Republicans, he actually means it.

        <

        p>This is a wise strategy, in my view. I don’t think (my opinion) that he’s doing it just because he’s some pushover. He’s doing it more out of the “keep your friends close and your enemies closer” school. He doesn’t agree with Warren on many issues. Let’s just put that on the table. But he does believe you have to engage with your political foes.

        <

        p>Maybe people disagree with this strategy, fine. But saying “F&*% You, Obama” because he selects Warren for some meaningless duty that will give Obama a chit to cash in later with Warren’s crowd…well, I can’t agree with that.

        • to reach out to someone with whom you disagree.  It’s another to embrace someone who espouses a particularly nasty viewpoint.  Obama claimed to be totally against Prop 8, and to believe that it constituted writing discrimination into a state constitution.

          <

          p>

          “And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” Obama wrote.

          <

          p>Now come on.  Do you seriously think that Obama would invite someone who advocated writing a different kind of discrimination into a state constitution — say, second-class status for African-Americans — to deliver the invocation as his inauguration, regardless of how great that person’s views were on world hunger?  I sure don’t.  So I find it hard to argue with Laurel’s basic position that Obama doesn’t seem to think this particular form of discrimination is all that important.  That’s a God damned shame.

              • There have been countless discussions on this site regarding gay issues and the word “faggot” is almost never dropped.  Civility in discussion, although often stretched, never descends into the realm of slurs and blatant insults to credo and faith here.  David is very careful in his choice of words, and a blatant choice to use the Lord’s name in vain in this discussion is an insult to ALL Christians, regardless if they share Rick Warren’s view on gay marriage — a view I don’t share.  

                • After all, it is a shameful act, and one which my God ought damn.  YGRMV (Your God’s reaction may vary)

                • I’m a little skeptical, though.

                  <

                  p>Regardless, a.) “God damned” seems (at least anecdotally) that it isn’t taken as an offense by most American Christians* nowadays and b.) it is possible – and I’m not saying this is David’s case – for an English-speaking person of faith to feel so strongly that about something that they feel it necessary to use the speech act of blasphemy to express a point.

                  <

                  p>You can speak for yourself on this issue, but I don’t think you can speak for all or even most Christians, let alone Jews, and say that David’s comment was a blanket offense; evidence suggests otherwise.

                  <

                  p>From my frame of reference, saying that David is going to burn in Hell because he doesn’t accept Jesus Christ as his savior is much, much more offensive, even insulting to many Christians, than saying “God damned”.  I’m still not sure if you were saying that because that is your belief or if you were just reporting Warren’s beliefs.

                  <

                  p>—————-
                  *Swearing and obscenity varies from language to language and culture to culture.  

                • If you think the presidential pardon is powerful, imagine the God pardon.  God is the only one above God’s law, so it’s his call who goes in the big fire.  

                  <

                  p>Here’s why I found David’s comment so offensive.  Using the phrase he used is normally an exclamatory that people use when stubbing a toe or smushing a hand in a car door.  David used it in a fashion that, from my point of view, was a sarcastic attack on the religiosity of Warren, which is a religion I share albeit with some not so subtle differences.  

                • … that the ‘sin’ of allowing injustice might be a ‘shame’ and that ‘God’ might ‘damn’ such an action or find such a stance ‘damnable’ is an insult to Christianity?  Dos ‘God’ not ‘damn’ anything?  If he does, is it offensive to think that he might ‘damn’ this?  That is, after all, the literal reading of what he wrote.  

                • and knowing David’s tertiary opinions regarding conservative Christianity, you can read between the lines.  

                  <

                  p>However, in regards to whether or not God would damn the injustice, that I do not know.  God would probably be unconcerned with a litigious question such as what the legal definition of a marriage is in the United States. God would probably look more upon the charity and work to help people with AIDS (many many of which are gay) that Warren has done rather than his participation in a perceived injustice.*

                  <

                  p>*percieved, because Warren’s belief would have him view the traditional view of marriage as a facet of Natural Law, and therefore he would probably be unable to view non-marriage equality as injustice.

                • I follow the Augustine idea of the second death and an existence devoid of the grace of God, but generally fire and brimstone plays better with the unwashed masses đŸ˜‰

                • … doesn’t follow your idea be offended at the term ‘unwashed’?  That, after all, seems much more directly pointed at a target than David’s use of ‘damn’.

                • People were are not well spoken or well read in religious dogma would often have a difficult time understanding the suffering and misery of the second death as described by Augustine.  Unwashed masses normally is used to describe a group of people who are ignorant, which isn’t to say that ignorance is an insult, its just a state of being.  Such as being racist, homophobic, or just ignorant of religious reasoning or teachings regarding the afterlife, Heaven, Hell, inter alia.

                • And if the unwashed are to keep from conflating Catholic-types with Warren-ites, being clear on Hell is a natural place to elucidate the not-so-subtle differences of which you speak. From my POV, anyway.

                • From my frame of reference, saying that David is going to burn in Hell because he doesn’t accept Jesus Christ as his savior is much, much more offensive, even insulting to many Christians, than saying “God damned”.  I’m still not sure if you were saying that because that is your belief or if you were just reporting Warren’s beliefs.

                  <

                  p>I’ve got to say, I’ve never understood this. I’ve never felt offended or insulted by someone else’s views about my afterlife prospects, and I’m not sure why it’s thought to be offensive. Maybe a Christian would be upset by this on the grounds that, in his or her view, a co-religionist was distorting the faith. But what’s that to me, a non-Christian? I should only worry about this kind of thing if I took the speaker’s theology as true, and if I did, presumably I’d convert pronto.

                  <

                  p>TedF

                • Clearly tactless.  

                  <

                  p>FWIW, my understanding of Catholic theology is that it is far more comfortable with uncertainty on questions such as this.

                  <

                  p>Indeed one of the most important theological developments of Vatican II was the climb down from the us-only salvation view, still held, I believe by many evangelical Protestants, to, essentially: God works in mysterious ways.

                  <

                  p>

                • I do know quite a bit about the Catholic view of this, at least with regard to Jews. While some on the Catholic right disagree with his view, Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews, said in 2001:

                  <

                  p>

                  One of these questions is how to relate the covenant with the Jewish people, which according to St. Paul is unbroken and not revoked but still in vigour, with what we Christians call the New covenant. As you know, the old theory of substitution is gone since II Vatican Council. For us Christians today the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality. There cannot be a mere coexistence between the two covenants. Jews and Christians, by their respective specific identities, are intimately related to each other. It is impossible now to enter the complex problem of how this intimate relatedness should or could be defined. Such question touches the mystery of Jewish and Christian existence as well, and should be discussed in our further dialogue.

                  The only thing I wish to say is that the Document Dominus Iesus does not state that everybody needs to become a Catholic in order to be saved by God. On the contrary, it declares that God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.

                  <

                  p>TedF

          • Do you seriously think that Obama would invite someone who advocated writing a different kind of discrimination into a state constitution — say, second-class status for African-Americans…?

            <

            p>This is a false analogy, and I think misses my point entirely. Obviously Obama wouldn’t invite someone who advocated second-class status for African-Americans. What’s the difference? There are tens of millions of people in America who disagree with gay marriage. There are not that many who believe the same about interracial marriage.

            <

            p>These tens of millions are also squarely wrong, both politically and (as I believe) on moral grounds as well. But they exist and if you want to be effective governing a nation you have to deal with them. Shutting them out is simply bad politics.

            <

            p>Giving them a small fig leaf to ensure that they still will have your ear when it counts is worth it. It is not “embracing homophobia” or some such nonsense. It is politics. That’s the business Obama’s in.

            • My point is that Obama himself has described Prop 8 as “discrimination.”  So I don’t think it’s a false analogy at all.  Discrimination is discrimination, right?  Isn’t the idea to get rid of all of it?

              <

              p>Also, tens of millions don’t like gay marriage?  So what?  Tens of millions no doubt disagreed with interracial marriage at the time of Loving, and tens of millions unquestionably agreed with segregation at the time of Brown.  Should JFK or LBJ have invited George Wallace to speak at their inaugurations, as a gesture of good will toward people who objected to full equality for African-Americans?

              <

              p>You say it’s just politics.  IMHO, it is at best stupid politics.

              • Discrimination is discrimination, right?  Isn’t the idea to get rid of all of it?

                <

                p>Of course, it’s not that simple. The two of us can agree that banning same-sex marriage is discrimination, but the majority sentiment in the country right now disagrees (unlike, for example, feelings on interracial marriage at the time of Loving…otherwise the Court wouldn’t have touched the case with a 100-foot pole).

                <

                p>What “discrimination” actually is changes with time. It also changes due to persuasive arguments aimed at changing people’s minds. Some people will never accept it, but others will. However, treating opponents and allies alike with utter disrespect like some people (not you) do doesn’t help that process.

                • “What ‘discrimination’ actually is changes with time.”

                  <

                  p>How individuals and society at large perceive to be discrimination can change over time.  Failure to recognize reality doesn’t change it.

                • is that Obama himself has described Prop 8 as “discriminatory.”  So by his own definition, he is inviting someone to bless his inauguration who believes in, and in fact actively promotes, discrimination.  Assuming that you are right that “the majority sentiment” in this country is that Prop 8 is not discrimination, Obama claims to disagree with that sentiment.  

                  <

                  p>Also, frankly, I wonder whether you are right about the timing of “majority sentiment” on Loving.  And I have no doubt that millions and millions of Americans, perhaps a majority, disagreed with the Court on Brown.  That, after all, was 1954, 13 years before Loving.  The Court has indeed put itself out of step with majority sentiment on numerous occasions.  And, of course, that’s what it’s supposed to do, when the Constitution calls for it.

            • I don’t see the Rick Warren invitation as any more of a reaching out to people of faith than would be that of a more tolerant Christian preacher.

              • OK, like who, however? If you’re being practical, you note that Warren is one of the probably top-5 well known and influential preachers in the U.S. Is there a “more tolerant” preacher with anywhere close to Warren’s status? I just don’t know.

  10. Atrios:

    Who would Jesus assassinate?

    …it should be obvious, but in case it isn’t, imagine the headlines here if a prominent cleric who had called for the assassination of Bush spoke at an equivalent Iranian event? That’s some diplomacy we can believe in, my friends!

    where the link provides the following:

    Responding to Hannity’s assertion that “we need to take him [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] out,” Warren agreed, saying that stopping evil “is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers.”

    Simultaneously offending gays, lesbians, and the Iranian theocracy is a singular achievement.

  11. is that he’s giving Warren a platform and credibility with this choice.  What the hell is he thinking?

    • He’s thinking that he’ll be able to cash this in down the road some how, if not with Warren, then with people who look to Warren as an example.

      <

      p>In practice though, he’s sending a message to both Warren-ites and the left that he tacitly endorses Warren and his anti-gay activism.  

      • That’s the way to think of it.  This will help him and same-sex couples in the DOMA debate, when he’s trying to extend equal protections via Civil Unions, like he promised.  By establishing some credentials as respecting people like Rick Warren and by visibly upsetting people like Pam and Laurel (so make some rainbow anti-Obama signs and get out there!), it will help get CU recognition passed, without tearing apart his presidency.  Think of this move as a check LGBT can put in its back pocket (but don’t agree, or you’ll ruin it.  In fact, delete this comment!)

    • And that they have opinions that matter.

      <

      p>I continue to be suprised by Obama’s decisions, that he would actually walk the bi-partisan walk after winning the election.

  12. He should have gone with a Catholic.

    <

    p>I mean, he’s already going with an anti-gayer and a pro-lifer, might as well have gone another step and gone with a Catholic priest so that at least God would be on his side.  

  13.  From CBS News:

    <

    p>”When it came time for questions, a woman stood up, proclaimed her Judaism, and asked Warren if she was going to burn in hell. He paused before responding — and then answered her question the only way it could be answered. Yes, he said to audible gasps. My reaction was that either you believe that Jesus is the savior or you do not, and I found myself impressed that Warren remained true to his convictions, knowing full well that the audience would not like what he said.”

    <

    p>Very disturbing.  I think Obama’s gotten over his head.

        • from a purely theological standpoint, failure to embrace Jesus as your Lord and Savior, i.e. salvation by faith, is a ticket to the big fire.  

          <

          p>Don’t like it?  convert.

              • Christianity != “What I think Christianity is”

                <

                p>There are plenty of good faith Christians who believe in salvation of all.  Others believe in salvation for a handful.  Jesus is the only one who has any business deciding which are “true” Christians.

                • “Jesus is the only one who has any business deciding which are “true” Christians.”

                  <

                  p>… so many people seem to think it’s their obligation to try.

          • That’s evangelical Protestantism, the thinnest, least respected theology in the Christian universe.  

          • As American’s we’re entitled to bigoted religious beliefs, but not to a national stage from the president.  Obama has the right to his bigoted religous beliefs too, but it’s disappointing plus it goes against the teachings of the United Church of Christ.  

          • not for anything we do or don’t do.  God damned the whole human race, not one of us is worthy of Heaven.  Conversion to the traditions and trappings of Christianity does not get you a ticket to Heaven, and a conversion of the heart (which is a ticket to heaven, but can’t be willed by us) doesn’t have to mean ditching Judiasm or its trappings and traditions, or any traditions.

            • Is original sin biblical or is it a traditional interpretation? I’m trying to remember whether St. Paul came up with this doctrine.

              • Hmm, wikipedia says it was Paul, but I think Augustine is credited with turning it into a theological doctrine.  The Garden Of Eden story is in Genesis, of course, which is biblical and in the Koran too.

                <

                p>I’d say it is also in Buddhism in the Dukkha/Nirvana formulation.

                • Wow, wouldn’t it have been fun to work on the Original Sin wikipedia page?  It was created Dec 15 2001 and has been revised 1,196 times since then!  They are still revising it (today someone just added a link to Immaculate Conception).  Thank you crazy Wikipedia people!

              • I would say that it is at least implicit in Genesis.  It is certainly explicit in the epistles, though I can’t remember which one.

                <

                p>If I recall correctly Augustine’s (misguided, in my view) big contribution was to inject an awful lot of his own weird notions of sex, and how bad, bad, bad sex is–even more than Paul, who had plenty of hang ups of his own– into the concept of original sin.

                <

                p>We might have been better off if one or the other had misplaced those portions of their manuscripts.

  14. Rick Warren is a divider, not a uniter. He strikes at the heart of Obama’s campaign message, and sets the wrong tone for his inauguration. I think David’s point about how unlikely this invitation would be had Warren advocated an amendment to the California Constitution that forbade inter-racial marriage was apropos. Something tells me Pastor Warren would not be center stage if that had been the case. This is just pandering to try to reach out to the evangelicals, I think. Maybe he will invite Jeremiah Wright as well.

    • I think David’s point about how unlikely this invitation would be had Warren advocated an amendment to the California Constitution that forbade inter-racial marriage was apropos.

      <

      p>Only a couple comments down, this poor analogy raises its head again. Do people not realize that the battle for acceptance of interracial marriage has been won? And the battle for same-sex marriage has NOT been won? That’s a big difference.

      <

      p>Pro-equal marriage advocates are in the minority (for now). In the meantime, insulting millions of your fellow Americans and saying “F*&k you” even to your allies over meaningless, trivial nonsense isn’t a way to build a winning coalition.

      • … your wife to describe the importance of your marriage in your life, ‘trivial nonsense’ might be the least likely thing to come out of her mouth.  We keep talking about this issue as if it is merely a political football, as if it was merely a policy point.  We describe marriage as one of the most important milestones of one’s life, but we trivialize their marriages as objects of political convenience.  We wouldn’t tolerate a religious view that homosexuals should be denied education.  Is marriage less important?

    • I think the public impression of him is that he’s a uniter, and that will be the practical effect on most of America, on large parts of America that need uniting.  It is a good choice that he should be given props for.  Seriously, imagine what would happen if he brought someone perceived as LGBT-approved, or Rev. Wright (though I think Wright is more well-liked than the media portrays him).  Really, try to imagine that scene, what it would be like if he started off his Presidency by provoking the wrath and confirming the worst fears of 50 Million people.  If it’s pandering, then maybe it’s a good time to pander?  On the other hand, shoot, now you’re going to have to delete this comment too, or the effect of pretending to be all upset and offended will be ruined.

  15. 12/18/08

    <

    p>Dear Parag Mehta:

    <

    p>I am deeply disappointed that pastor Rick Warren will be giving the invocation at the inauguration of President Obama.  I worked for Obama, traveling to New Hampshire from Massachusetts to go door-to-door despite a hip replacement.  My husband and I donated and assisted in establishing the regional Obama office in Arlington, Massachusetts.

    <

    p>I stopped attending my church when a statement in favor of DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] was read from its pulpit.  I consider that by reading this demand that members support DOMA, my church crossed the line, and violated the separation of church and state.

    <

    p>In fact, I have come to the conclusion that while any church should have the right to decide what the qualifications are for marriage in and by that church, the state itself should not be in the business of regulating unions between adults other than in issues of public health [such as testing for sexually transmitted diseases or having a standard for what constitutes incest].

    <

    p>As a result, as long as Rick Warren will be giving the invocation, I will not watch nor will I celebrate.

    <

    p>Deb Sirotkin Butler

    <

    p>LAW OFFICE OF DEBORAH SIROTKIN BUTLER
    Office Phone: 781 641 9939
    Office fax line: 781 641 3769
    Mailing address: 19 Overlook Road, Arlington, MA 02474-1462
    Preferred e-mail address: AmberPaw dot aol.com

    <

    p>

  16. Curiuously unmentioned in the fuss over Warren is the choice of Rev. Joseph Lowery to deliver the benediction.

    <

    p>Doubtless those people who remain opposed to SSM will be outraged by this selection.

  17. You all act ‘shocked’ that Barack would use poor-judgement.  C’mon…
    I guess it would have been better had he chose his life-long spiritual leader…the great Reverand Jeremiah “G^& D*&n America” Wright for the invocation?  You know the same guy that preached about the Government purposely creating AIDS etc…
    Sorry Gays and Pro-Choice Community, …just organize a boycott of the inaugaration and add this to the soon-to-be long list of disappointments Barack Obama will deliver to his supporters.  You are one victim among the 69 million of you that got duped.
    The Glitz, Glamour, Hype, and Fist-Pumping all mean nothing now.  Although it is too late WAKE UP…better late then never…
    2012 Can not come soon enough.

    <

    p>

    • You joined BMG just to goad us with this weird, ellipsis-saturated rant. Hopefully, the rest of the holiday season will prove happier for you.

      • I’m very happy this holiday season, thank you!  I sincerely hope you have a happy holiday season as well and you don’t let Obama’s judgement and choices dampen your holiday either.  You’ll have plenty of time in the years to come to be critical of our next President….and who gives the invocation will really seem to be a very small issue in the whole scheme of things.
        Yeah, I did take advantage of this opportunity at a dig to any Obama voter that seems ‘shocked’.  Just brace yourself for more is all I’m saying.  Take care,

Archives