Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
You're Likable Enough, The Gays!
What I think is really important about this article, is that Rich points out that homosexuals are being compared to criminals. Also, he is continuing the dialogue. The national news media and pundit class are diminishing the real concerns of gays and lesbians and all those working for an equality agenda. No one in the Obama administration seems to take this seriously either, as all of their responses have been timid side steps. Anyway, I hope you read the article, and I hope you find it worth your time, and maybe it will even inspire you to pick up the phone and help us out.
You’re Likable Enough, Gay People
By FRANK RICH | NY TIMES | December 27, 2008
IN his first press conference after his re-election in 2004, President Bush memorably declared, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” We all know how that turned out.
Barack Obama has little in common with George W. Bush, thank God, his obsessive workouts and message control notwithstanding. At a time when very few Americans feel very good about very much, Obama is generating huge hopes even before he takes office. So much so that his name and face, affixed to any product, may be the last commodity left in the marketplace that can still move Americans to shop.
I share these high hopes. But for the first time a faint tinge of Bush crept into my Obama reveries this month.
As we saw during primary season, our president-elect is not free of his own brand of hubris and arrogance, and sometimes it comes before a fall: “You’re likable enough, Hillary” was the prelude to his defeat in New Hampshire. He has hit this same note again by assigning the invocation at his inauguration to the Rev. Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch preacher who has likened committed gay relationships to incest, polygamy and “an older guy marrying a child.” Bestowing this honor on Warren was a conscious — and glib — decision by Obama to spend political capital. It was made with the certitude that a leader with a mandate can do no wrong.
In this case, the capital spent is small change. Most Americans who have an opinion about Warren like him and his best-selling self-help tome, “The Purpose Driven Life.” His good deeds are plentiful on issues like human suffering in Africa, poverty and climate change. He is opposed to same-sex marriage, but so is almost every top-tier national politician, including Obama. Unlike such family-values ayatollahs as James Dobson and Tony Perkins, Warren is not obsessed with homosexuality and abortion. He was vociferously attacked by the Phyllis Schlafly gang when he invited Obama to speak about AIDS at his Saddleback Church two years ago.
There’s no reason why Obama shouldn’t return the favor by inviting him to Washington. But there’s a difference between including Warren among the cacophony of voices weighing in on policy and anointing him as the inaugural’s de facto pope. You can’t blame V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an early Obama booster, for feeling as if he’d been slapped in the face. “I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” he told The Times, but “we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most-watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”
Warren, whose ego is no less than Obama’s, likes to advertise his “commitment to model civility in America.” But as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC reminded her audience, “comparing gay relationships to child abuse” is a “strange model of civility.” Less strange but equally hard to take is Warren’s defensive insistence that some of his best friends are the gays: His boasts of having “eaten dinner in gay homes” and loving Melissa Etheridge records will not protect any gay families’ civil rights.
Equally lame is the argument mounted by an Obama spokeswoman, Linda Douglass, who talks of how Warren has fought for “people who have H.I.V./AIDS.” Shouldn’t that be the default position of any religious leader? Fighting AIDS is not a get-out-of-homophobia-free card. That Bush finally joined Bono in doing the right thing about AIDS in Africa does not mitigate the gay-baiting of his 2004 campaign, let alone his silence and utter inaction when the epidemic was killing Texans by the thousands, many of them gay men, during his term as governor.
Unlike Bush, Obama has been the vocal advocate of gay civil rights he claims to be. It is over the top to assert, as a gay writer at Time did, that the president-elect is “a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot.” Much more to the point is the astute criticism leveled by the gay Democratic congressman Barney Frank, who, in dissenting from the Warren choice, said of Obama, “I think he overestimates his ability to get people to put aside fundamental differences.” That’s a polite way of describing the Obama cockiness. It will take more than the force of the new president’s personality and eloquence to turn our nation into the United States of America he and we all want it to be.
Obama may not only overestimate his ability to bridge some of our fundamental differences but also underestimate how persistent some of those differences are. The exhilaration of his decisive election victory and the deserved applause that has greeted his mostly glitch-free transition can’t entirely mask the tensions underneath. Before there is profound social change, there is always high anxiety.
The success of Proposition 8 in California was a serious shock to gay Americans and to all the rest of us who believe that all marriages should be equal under the law. The roles played by African-Americans (who voted 70 percent in favor of Proposition 8) and by white Mormons (who were accused of bankrolling the anti-same-sex-marriage campaign) only added to the morning-after recriminations. And that was in blue California. In Arkansas, voters went so far as to approve a measure forbidding gay couples to adopt.
There is comparable anger and fear on the right. David Brody, a political correspondent with the Christian Broadcasting Network, was flooded with e-mails from religious conservatives chastising Warren for accepting the invitation to the inaugural. They vilified Obama as “pro-death” and worse because of his support for abortion rights.
Stoking this rage, no doubt, is the dawning realization that the old religious right is crumbling — in part because Warren’s new generation of leaders departs from the Falwell-Robertson brand of zealots who have had a stranglehold on the G.O.P. It’s a sign of the old establishment’s panic that the Rev. Richard Cizik, known for his leadership in addressing global warming, was pushed out of his executive post at the National Association of Evangelicals this month. Cizik’s sin was to tell Terry Gross of NPR that he was starting to shift in favor of civil unions for gay couples.
Cizik’s ouster won’t halt the new wave he represents. As he also told Gross, young evangelicals care less and less about the old wedge issues and aren’t as likely to base their votes on them. On gay rights in particular, polls show that young evangelicals are moving in Cizik’s (and the country’s) direction and away from what John McCain once rightly called “the agents of intolerance.” It’s not a coincidence that Dobson’s Focus on the Family, which spent more than $500,000 promoting Proposition 8, has now had to lay off 20 percent of its work force in Colorado Springs.
But we’re not there yet. Warren’s defamation of gay people illustrates why, as does our president-elect’s rationalization of it. When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.
It is even more toxic in a year when that group has been marginalized and stripped of its rights by ballot initiatives fomenting precisely such fears. “You’ve got to give them hope” was the refrain of the pioneering 1970s gay politician Harvey Milk, so stunningly brought back to life by Sean Penn on screen this winter. Milk reminds us that hope has to mean action, not just words.
By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history.
Since he’s not about to rescind the invitation, what happens next? For perspective, I asked Timothy McCarthy, a historian who teaches at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and an unabashed Obama enthusiast who served on his campaign’s National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Leadership Council. He responded via e-mail on Christmas Eve.
After noting that Warren’s role at the inauguration is, in the end, symbolic, McCarthy concluded that “it’s now time to move from symbol to substance.” This means Warren should “recant his previous statements about gays and lesbians, and start acting like a Christian.”
McCarthy added that it’s also time “for President-elect Obama to start acting on the promises he made to the LGBT community during his campaign so that he doesn’t go down in history as another Bill Clinton, a sweet-talking swindler who would throw us under the bus for the sake of political expediency.” And “for LGBT folks to choose their battles wisely, to judge Obama on the content of his policy-making, not on the character of his ministers.”
Amen. Here’s to humility and equanimity everywhere in America, starting at the top, as we negotiate the fierce rapids of change awaiting us in the New Year.
You’re Likable Enough, Gay People
By FRANK RICH | NY TIMES | December 27, 2008
IN his first press conference after his re-election in 2004, President Bush memorably declared, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” We all know how that turned out.
Barack Obama has little in common with George W. Bush, thank God, his obsessive workouts and message control notwithstanding. At a time when very few Americans feel very good about very much, Obama is generating huge hopes even before he takes office. So much so that his name and face, affixed to any product, may be the last commodity left in the marketplace that can still move Americans to shop.
I share these high hopes. But for the first time a faint tinge of Bush crept into my Obama reveries this month.
As we saw during primary season, our president-elect is not free of his own brand of hubris and arrogance, and sometimes it comes before a fall: “You’re likable enough, Hillary” was the prelude to his defeat in New Hampshire. He has hit this same note again by assigning the invocation at his inauguration to the Rev. Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch preacher who has likened committed gay relationships to incest, polygamy and “an older guy marrying a child.” Bestowing this honor on Warren was a conscious — and glib — decision by Obama to spend political capital. It was made with the certitude that a leader with a mandate can do no wrong.
In this case, the capital spent is small change. Most Americans who have an opinion about Warren like him and his best-selling self-help tome, “The Purpose Driven Life.” His good deeds are plentiful on issues like human suffering in Africa, poverty and climate change. He is opposed to same-sex marriage, but so is almost every top-tier national politician, including Obama. Unlike such family-values ayatollahs as James Dobson and Tony Perkins, Warren is not obsessed with homosexuality and abortion. He was vociferously attacked by the Phyllis Schlafly gang when he invited Obama to speak about AIDS at his Saddleback Church two years ago.
There’s no reason why Obama shouldn’t return the favor by inviting him to Washington. But there’s a difference between including Warren among the cacophony of voices weighing in on policy and anointing him as the inaugural’s de facto pope. You can’t blame V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an early Obama booster, for feeling as if he’d been slapped in the face. “I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” he told The Times, but “we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most-watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”
Warren, whose ego is no less than Obama’s, likes to advertise his “commitment to model civility in America.” But as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC reminded her audience, “comparing gay relationships to child abuse” is a “strange model of civility.” Less strange but equally hard to take is Warren’s defensive insistence that some of his best friends are the gays: His boasts of having “eaten dinner in gay homes” and loving Melissa Etheridge records will not protect any gay families’ civil rights.
Equally lame is the argument mounted by an Obama spokeswoman, Linda Douglass, who talks of how Warren has fought for “people who have H.I.V./AIDS.” Shouldn’t that be the default position of any religious leader? Fighting AIDS is not a get-out-of-homophobia-free card. That Bush finally joined Bono in doing the right thing about AIDS in Africa does not mitigate the gay-baiting of his 2004 campaign, let alone his silence and utter inaction when the epidemic was killing Texans by the thousands, many of them gay men, during his term as governor.
Unlike Bush, Obama has been the vocal advocate of gay civil rights he claims to be. It is over the top to assert, as a gay writer at Time did, that the president-elect is “a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot.” Much more to the point is the astute criticism leveled by the gay Democratic congressman Barney Frank, who, in dissenting from the Warren choice, said of Obama, “I think he overestimates his ability to get people to put aside fundamental differences.” That’s a polite way of describing the Obama cockiness. It will take more than the force of the new president’s personality and eloquence to turn our nation into the United States of America he and we all want it to be.
Obama may not only overestimate his ability to bridge some of our fundamental differences but also underestimate how persistent some of those differences are. The exhilaration of his decisive election victory and the deserved applause that has greeted his mostly glitch-free transition can’t entirely mask the tensions underneath. Before there is profound social change, there is always high anxiety.
The success of Proposition 8 in California was a serious shock to gay Americans and to all the rest of us who believe that all marriages should be equal under the law. The roles played by African-Americans (who voted 70 percent in favor of Proposition 8) and by white Mormons (who were accused of bankrolling the anti-same-sex-marriage campaign) only added to the morning-after recriminations. And that was in blue California. In Arkansas, voters went so far as to approve a measure forbidding gay couples to adopt.
There is comparable anger and fear on the right. David Brody, a political correspondent with the Christian Broadcasting Network, was flooded with e-mails from religious conservatives chastising Warren for accepting the invitation to the inaugural. They vilified Obama as “pro-death” and worse because of his support for abortion rights.
Stoking this rage, no doubt, is the dawning realization that the old religious right is crumbling — in part because Warren’s new generation of leaders departs from the Falwell-Robertson brand of zealots who have had a stranglehold on the G.O.P. It’s a sign of the old establishment’s panic that the Rev. Richard Cizik, known for his leadership in addressing global warming, was pushed out of his executive post at the National Association of Evangelicals this month. Cizik’s sin was to tell Terry Gross of NPR that he was starting to shift in favor of civil unions for gay couples.
Cizik’s ouster won’t halt the new wave he represents. As he also told Gross, young evangelicals care less and less about the old wedge issues and aren’t as likely to base their votes on them. On gay rights in particular, polls show that young evangelicals are moving in Cizik’s (and the country’s) direction and away from what John McCain once rightly called “the agents of intolerance.” It’s not a coincidence that Dobson’s Focus on the Family, which spent more than $500,000 promoting Proposition 8, has now had to lay off 20 percent of its work force in Colorado Springs.
But we’re not there yet. Warren’s defamation of gay people illustrates why, as does our president-elect’s rationalization of it. When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.
It is even more toxic in a year when that group has been marginalized and stripped of its rights by ballot initiatives fomenting precisely such fears. “You’ve got to give them hope” was the refrain of the pioneering 1970s gay politician Harvey Milk, so stunningly brought back to life by Sean Penn on screen this winter. Milk reminds us that hope has to mean action, not just words.
By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history.
Since he’s not about to rescind the invitation, what happens next? For perspective, I asked Timothy McCarthy, a historian who teaches at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and an unabashed Obama enthusiast who served on his campaign’s National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Leadership Council. He responded via e-mail on Christmas Eve.
After noting that Warren’s role at the inauguration is, in the end, symbolic, McCarthy concluded that “it’s now time to move from symbol to substance.” This means Warren should “recant his previous statements about gays and lesbians, and start acting like a Christian.”
McCarthy added that it’s also time “for President-elect Obama to start acting on the promises he made to the LGBT community during his campaign so that he doesn’t go down in history as another Bill Clinton, a sweet-talking swindler who would throw us under the bus for the sake of political expediency.” And “for LGBT folks to choose their battles wisely, to judge Obama on the content of his policy-making, not on the character of his ministers.”
Amen. Here’s to humility and equanimity everywhere in America, starting at the top, as we negotiate the fierce rapids of change awaiting us in the New Year.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Another Coward Smacked (By Email)
I have been responding to a lot of the articles I have been reading about the Warren thing. Here's one and my go round with the "lady" who wrote it. First her "article" then my email, her email and my email.
Free the Saddleback One
By Debra Saunders | SF Chronicle
Gay civil rights groups -- the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force -- are calling on President-elect Barack Obama to yank his invitation to Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural prayer on Jan. 20. They demand tolerance from others, but won't spare any for those with whom they disagree. Unless of course, that person is Obama, who, like Warren, opposes same-sex marriage. Then they get real ecumenical. Not to mention, very forgetful.
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me as a Christian -- it is also a sacred union," Obama said at a presidential candidate forum at the Saddleback Church in August. Obama could not make his opposition to same-sex marriage clearer.
It's true that Obama opposed Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban approved by California voters in November, on the grounds that codifying a same-sex ban would be "divisive" -- whereas Warren endorsed the measure.
Obama supports civil unions -- "I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view," Obama explained. Warren spokesperson Kristin Cole told me that Warren "is OK on civil unions, but does not believe in redefining marriage."
Then why are gay leaders applauding the election of Obama, while calling on him to exclude the participation of the Warren? It makes no sense -- unless they had convinced themselves that Obama did not mean it when he said he opposed same-sex marriage. As long as they think he lied, he still can be their hero.
Because Warren clearly meant what he said, he's a villain. Forget the campaign Warren began to organize 1 billion Christians to fight global poverty and scourges like AIDS. Ignore the countless children he has helped save. Think only of the feelings he has wounded.
In the modern world, words speak louder than actions. And there is always an incriminating video clip out there.
In that spirit, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force cited an interview Warren gave on beliefnet.com and charged that Warren went "so far as to equate the marriages between same-sex couples with incest and pedophilia."
Warren did say, "I'm opposed to the re-definition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to a having brother and sister be together and call that a marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that a marriage."
Is that equating same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia? If it you want it to, sure. Or you could see the quote as proof that Warren holds traditional religious views -- and cut the guy some slack.
You know, show tolerance while seeking tolerance.
Instead, many critics have chosen to brand Warren as a "hater" and a "bigot" -- words that fire up the base and alienate everyone else. They are sending the message that anyone who dares speak as Warren did -- except Obama, of course -- runs the risk of being tarred and feathered, 2008-style. Think Scott Eckern, who resigned as artistic director to spare the California Music Theatre in Sacramento from a boycott threatened because of his $1,000 donation to the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign.
I suppose the Warren critics could argue that gays and lesbians simply want the same rights as others; that this is a big country, with room enough for the traditionally devout and same-sex couples.
Except groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force do not want to make room for people like Rick Warren. They want him muzzled and out of the picture.
write to her if you find her distasteful : dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
Here's my email to this person:
TITLE: You're right it's so intolerable to be offended when someone called you a pedophile...wait.
There have been a lot of heterosexuals in the new business taking the liberty of telling a lot of gay people how to feel this week. This is embarrassing, but no one seems to have much shame about it. The reason this shame or decency is missing is precisely because of people like Rick Warren and the media and the politicians that legitimize him. Wait keep reading.
I have no problem with Rick Warren having the 1st amendment right to say whatever he wants. And I don't care how he feels about me or his views on wether or not I'll be invited into his idea of heaven, a place I don't want to go. But what I think is utterly intolerable is the double standard that is taking place in the public sphere around this issue. That is to say, any public figure, politico, journalist, radio host, that related as identical any group other than gays (women, blacks, hispanics, jews, veterans, the disabled, or god forbid black women) to those committing pedophilia, incest or bestiality (which are crimes in our country) they would immediately be shunned and universally rebuked. Except if they were talking about gays. We shouldn't have to do the old mammy routine for our rights, but if we're going to have to we shouldn't have to beg for a little decency when were doing the shuffle. It is this aspect that I object to about Obama - who I have known all along is no alley of the LGBT community - raising this ignorant hateful man to a position of national prominence, even more than the one he has eked out for himself. And this is why when I read articles legitimizing his work and political value, or see Catholic heterosexual white men telling gay people their struggles are not relevant, not equivalent to those blacks experienced prior to having legal protections, I want to, pardon the crudity, barf. We are the only group of tax paying American citizens to be subjugated and not represented according to our taxation. Regardless of how you feel about us or how gross it may or may not be to sodomize a man (in a homosexual relationship) vs. a woman (in a heterosexual one), somewhere deep down pangs of basic fairness must cry out.
Maybe think a little more clearly about how what you say might negatively influence the real lives of people before you go to print. The only solice I have is knowing that we will outlast religion. As long as there are people, so to shall there be homosexuality. We will outlast intolerance. I just want to be there personally to see it.
With disappointment,
Brian
Her response:
I never said it is intolerable to be offended, and Warren didn't call you a pedophile.
DJS
My response:
Not personally, he said that what we do, I'm assuming he meant sodomy rather than having our long term monogynous relationships legally protected under the government that we pay equal taxes to support was equivalent to pedophilia, bestiality, and incest. Your parsing is transparent, I hate to say. I know this must be a moment of great (albeit, so far private) shame for those of you on the right with an intellect, which you clearly have, as you write well. But I want to let you know we are not scary. And allowing us rights and being civil to us and not writing hateful divisive things about us - would actually improve the quality of your lives. Like I say, Warren and those of you with heavenly ambitions have nothing to worry about from me. I don't want to alter or change your marriage or your religion, I just want the same freedoms and more over legal protections extended to my heterosexual brother and sister.
But you have to understand that when you demean the right of people to not want to be called pedophiles, you are not being very charitable. When you try an parse your way out of it, you are being cowardly. If you stand behind your article that is one thing, and I'm sorry you feel that way. But I think you're intelligent enough to know better.
Either way, thanks for your response, however terse.
Brian
Free the Saddleback One
By Debra Saunders | SF Chronicle
Gay civil rights groups -- the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force -- are calling on President-elect Barack Obama to yank his invitation to Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural prayer on Jan. 20. They demand tolerance from others, but won't spare any for those with whom they disagree. Unless of course, that person is Obama, who, like Warren, opposes same-sex marriage. Then they get real ecumenical. Not to mention, very forgetful.
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me as a Christian -- it is also a sacred union," Obama said at a presidential candidate forum at the Saddleback Church in August. Obama could not make his opposition to same-sex marriage clearer.
It's true that Obama opposed Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban approved by California voters in November, on the grounds that codifying a same-sex ban would be "divisive" -- whereas Warren endorsed the measure.
Obama supports civil unions -- "I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view," Obama explained. Warren spokesperson Kristin Cole told me that Warren "is OK on civil unions, but does not believe in redefining marriage."
Then why are gay leaders applauding the election of Obama, while calling on him to exclude the participation of the Warren? It makes no sense -- unless they had convinced themselves that Obama did not mean it when he said he opposed same-sex marriage. As long as they think he lied, he still can be their hero.
Because Warren clearly meant what he said, he's a villain. Forget the campaign Warren began to organize 1 billion Christians to fight global poverty and scourges like AIDS. Ignore the countless children he has helped save. Think only of the feelings he has wounded.
In the modern world, words speak louder than actions. And there is always an incriminating video clip out there.
In that spirit, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force cited an interview Warren gave on beliefnet.com and charged that Warren went "so far as to equate the marriages between same-sex couples with incest and pedophilia."
Warren did say, "I'm opposed to the re-definition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to a having brother and sister be together and call that a marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that a marriage."
Is that equating same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia? If it you want it to, sure. Or you could see the quote as proof that Warren holds traditional religious views -- and cut the guy some slack.
You know, show tolerance while seeking tolerance.
Instead, many critics have chosen to brand Warren as a "hater" and a "bigot" -- words that fire up the base and alienate everyone else. They are sending the message that anyone who dares speak as Warren did -- except Obama, of course -- runs the risk of being tarred and feathered, 2008-style. Think Scott Eckern, who resigned as artistic director to spare the California Music Theatre in Sacramento from a boycott threatened because of his $1,000 donation to the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign.
I suppose the Warren critics could argue that gays and lesbians simply want the same rights as others; that this is a big country, with room enough for the traditionally devout and same-sex couples.
Except groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force do not want to make room for people like Rick Warren. They want him muzzled and out of the picture.
write to her if you find her distasteful : dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
Here's my email to this person:
TITLE: You're right it's so intolerable to be offended when someone called you a pedophile...wait.
There have been a lot of heterosexuals in the new business taking the liberty of telling a lot of gay people how to feel this week. This is embarrassing, but no one seems to have much shame about it. The reason this shame or decency is missing is precisely because of people like Rick Warren and the media and the politicians that legitimize him. Wait keep reading.
I have no problem with Rick Warren having the 1st amendment right to say whatever he wants. And I don't care how he feels about me or his views on wether or not I'll be invited into his idea of heaven, a place I don't want to go. But what I think is utterly intolerable is the double standard that is taking place in the public sphere around this issue. That is to say, any public figure, politico, journalist, radio host, that related as identical any group other than gays (women, blacks, hispanics, jews, veterans, the disabled, or god forbid black women) to those committing pedophilia, incest or bestiality (which are crimes in our country) they would immediately be shunned and universally rebuked. Except if they were talking about gays. We shouldn't have to do the old mammy routine for our rights, but if we're going to have to we shouldn't have to beg for a little decency when were doing the shuffle. It is this aspect that I object to about Obama - who I have known all along is no alley of the LGBT community - raising this ignorant hateful man to a position of national prominence, even more than the one he has eked out for himself. And this is why when I read articles legitimizing his work and political value, or see Catholic heterosexual white men telling gay people their struggles are not relevant, not equivalent to those blacks experienced prior to having legal protections, I want to, pardon the crudity, barf. We are the only group of tax paying American citizens to be subjugated and not represented according to our taxation. Regardless of how you feel about us or how gross it may or may not be to sodomize a man (in a homosexual relationship) vs. a woman (in a heterosexual one), somewhere deep down pangs of basic fairness must cry out.
Maybe think a little more clearly about how what you say might negatively influence the real lives of people before you go to print. The only solice I have is knowing that we will outlast religion. As long as there are people, so to shall there be homosexuality. We will outlast intolerance. I just want to be there personally to see it.
With disappointment,
Brian
Her response:
I never said it is intolerable to be offended, and Warren didn't call you a pedophile.
DJS
My response:
Not personally, he said that what we do, I'm assuming he meant sodomy rather than having our long term monogynous relationships legally protected under the government that we pay equal taxes to support was equivalent to pedophilia, bestiality, and incest. Your parsing is transparent, I hate to say. I know this must be a moment of great (albeit, so far private) shame for those of you on the right with an intellect, which you clearly have, as you write well. But I want to let you know we are not scary. And allowing us rights and being civil to us and not writing hateful divisive things about us - would actually improve the quality of your lives. Like I say, Warren and those of you with heavenly ambitions have nothing to worry about from me. I don't want to alter or change your marriage or your religion, I just want the same freedoms and more over legal protections extended to my heterosexual brother and sister.
But you have to understand that when you demean the right of people to not want to be called pedophiles, you are not being very charitable. When you try an parse your way out of it, you are being cowardly. If you stand behind your article that is one thing, and I'm sorry you feel that way. But I think you're intelligent enough to know better.
Either way, thanks for your response, however terse.
Brian
Party Off, Don't Celebrate Hate.
Warren On? Party Off. | By Richard Cohen
The Washington Post | December 23, 2008
Not that he was planning to attend, but Barack Obama should know that my sister's inauguration night party -- the one for which she was preparing Obama Punch -- has been canceled. The notice went out over the weekend, by e-mail and word of mouth, that Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation had simply ruined the party. Warren is anti-gay, and my sister, not to put too fine a point on it, is not. She's gay.
She is -- or was -- a committed Obama supporter. On the weekend before the presidential election, my sister and my mother drove from the Boston area, where they both live, to Obama's New Hampshire headquarters in Manchester. There my mother made 76 phone calls for Obama, which is not bad for someone who is 96, and gives you an idea of the level of commitment to Obama in certain precincts of my family.
I should say right off that my mother feels less strongly about Warren than my sister does. But I should add immediately that my sister feels very strongly, indeed. She's been in a relationship with another woman, the quite wonderful Nancy, for 19 years, and she resents the fact that Warren has likened same-sex marriage to incest, pederasty and polygamy.
"I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage," Warren told Beliefnet.com's Steve Waldman. "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."
Waldman asked, "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?"
"Oh, I do," said Warren.
There you have the thinking of the man Obama has chosen above all other religious figures to represent him in this most solemn moment. He likens my sister's relationship -- three children, five grandchildren, so loving as to be envied and so conventional as to be boring -- to incest or polygamy.
The conventional thing to say is that Obama has a preacher problem -- first the volcanic Jeremiah Wright and now the transparently anti-gay Warren. But the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama's inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.
This was apparent to me almost a year ago when I reported that Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, had given a major award to Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. The award was presented in Wright's name and featured in a cover story in the church's magazine, Trumpet. When I asked the Obama campaign about this, I was told that Obama himself did not agree with Farrakhan. What a relief!
And what a joke. I never for a moment thought Obama viewed Farrakhan any differently from the way I do. But I also thought that as a U.S. senator, as a presidential candidate or even as a mere citizen, he had an obligation to denounce the award -- maybe quit the church. Do something! He did nothing.
Now we have a repeat of that episode. This time it is not Obama's preacher who has decided to honor a bigot, it is Obama himself. And, once again, we get the same sort of rationalizations. Obama says he does not agree with Warren about all things. Obama says he himself is not anti-gay and, in fact, although he does not support same-sex marriage (as opposed to civil unions), he has been a stalwart champion of gay causes. Therefore, it seems to follow, he can honor an anti-gay activist.
I can understand Obama's desire to embrace constituencies that have rejected him. Evangelicals are in that category and Warren is an important evangelical leader with whom, Obama said, "we're not going to agree on every single issue." He went on to say, "We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." Sounds nice.
But what we do not "hold in common" is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.
Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue -- the rights of gays to be treated equally -- as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate.
The party's off.
cohenr@washpost.com
The Washington Post | December 23, 2008
Not that he was planning to attend, but Barack Obama should know that my sister's inauguration night party -- the one for which she was preparing Obama Punch -- has been canceled. The notice went out over the weekend, by e-mail and word of mouth, that Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation had simply ruined the party. Warren is anti-gay, and my sister, not to put too fine a point on it, is not. She's gay.
She is -- or was -- a committed Obama supporter. On the weekend before the presidential election, my sister and my mother drove from the Boston area, where they both live, to Obama's New Hampshire headquarters in Manchester. There my mother made 76 phone calls for Obama, which is not bad for someone who is 96, and gives you an idea of the level of commitment to Obama in certain precincts of my family.
I should say right off that my mother feels less strongly about Warren than my sister does. But I should add immediately that my sister feels very strongly, indeed. She's been in a relationship with another woman, the quite wonderful Nancy, for 19 years, and she resents the fact that Warren has likened same-sex marriage to incest, pederasty and polygamy.
"I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage," Warren told Beliefnet.com's Steve Waldman. "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."
Waldman asked, "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?"
"Oh, I do," said Warren.
There you have the thinking of the man Obama has chosen above all other religious figures to represent him in this most solemn moment. He likens my sister's relationship -- three children, five grandchildren, so loving as to be envied and so conventional as to be boring -- to incest or polygamy.
The conventional thing to say is that Obama has a preacher problem -- first the volcanic Jeremiah Wright and now the transparently anti-gay Warren. But the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama's inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.
This was apparent to me almost a year ago when I reported that Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, had given a major award to Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. The award was presented in Wright's name and featured in a cover story in the church's magazine, Trumpet. When I asked the Obama campaign about this, I was told that Obama himself did not agree with Farrakhan. What a relief!
And what a joke. I never for a moment thought Obama viewed Farrakhan any differently from the way I do. But I also thought that as a U.S. senator, as a presidential candidate or even as a mere citizen, he had an obligation to denounce the award -- maybe quit the church. Do something! He did nothing.
Now we have a repeat of that episode. This time it is not Obama's preacher who has decided to honor a bigot, it is Obama himself. And, once again, we get the same sort of rationalizations. Obama says he does not agree with Warren about all things. Obama says he himself is not anti-gay and, in fact, although he does not support same-sex marriage (as opposed to civil unions), he has been a stalwart champion of gay causes. Therefore, it seems to follow, he can honor an anti-gay activist.
I can understand Obama's desire to embrace constituencies that have rejected him. Evangelicals are in that category and Warren is an important evangelical leader with whom, Obama said, "we're not going to agree on every single issue." He went on to say, "We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." Sounds nice.
But what we do not "hold in common" is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.
Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue -- the rights of gays to be treated equally -- as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate.
The party's off.
cohenr@washpost.com
Monday, December 22, 2008
HELP STOP HATE, BY USING YOUR VOICE
If you have spoken to me in the last week or been reading the blog you know that I am dismayed about the selection of Rick Warren to participate in the inauguration of Barack Obama. Now we may have differences about the severity of this issue, but I wanted to let you know what I have done to express my concern and maybe you will feel moved to do the same.
The key grievance that I have with Rick Warren's selection is that he equates homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality and incest, participation in which are all crimes. I know that if these comparisons had been made about any other group, blacks, women, latinos, the deaf, asians, veterans or anyone that he wouldn't have been considered. For Obama to elevate him to a position of further national prominence is really damaging to our (hopefully, one day) inclusion in society and (hopefully, one day) being given the legal rights that are afforded to everyone else.
So I made a series of calls expressing my frustration and disgust. I'm listing below the people I called. These calls make a difference. If you are inclined to think it is unacceptable to elevate a man who thinks I (and millions more like me) am a pedophile, please give any of these elected representatives a phone call or an email and let them know how you feel.
• The Presidential Inaugural Committee : 202-651-2009
• The Transition Team : 202-540-3000
http://change.gov/page/content/contact/
• The Democratic National Committee: 202-863-8000
or can be emailed at: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues
• Congressman Rahm Emanuel : 202-225-4061
• Senator Diane Finestein : 202-224-3841 / 415-393-0707 / 310-914-7300
or can be emailed: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe
• Senator Barbra Boxer : 202-224-3553 / 213-894-5000
or can be emailed : http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm
• Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger : 916-445-2841 / 213-897-0322
or can be emailed : http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email
•Representative Henry Waxman : 202-225-3976 / 323-651-1040
•Representitive Xavier Becerra: 213-483-1425
Thanks very much. Happy Holidays, my you have a healthy and happy 2009.
Love,
Brian
The key grievance that I have with Rick Warren's selection is that he equates homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality and incest, participation in which are all crimes. I know that if these comparisons had been made about any other group, blacks, women, latinos, the deaf, asians, veterans or anyone that he wouldn't have been considered. For Obama to elevate him to a position of further national prominence is really damaging to our (hopefully, one day) inclusion in society and (hopefully, one day) being given the legal rights that are afforded to everyone else.
So I made a series of calls expressing my frustration and disgust. I'm listing below the people I called. These calls make a difference. If you are inclined to think it is unacceptable to elevate a man who thinks I (and millions more like me) am a pedophile, please give any of these elected representatives a phone call or an email and let them know how you feel.
• The Presidential Inaugural Committee : 202-651-2009
• The Transition Team : 202-540-3000
http://change.gov/page/content/contact/
• The Democratic National Committee: 202-863-8000
or can be emailed at: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues
• Congressman Rahm Emanuel : 202-225-4061
• Senator Diane Finestein : 202-224-3841 / 415-393-0707 / 310-914-7300
or can be emailed: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe
• Senator Barbra Boxer : 202-224-3553 / 213-894-5000
or can be emailed : http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm
• Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger : 916-445-2841 / 213-897-0322
or can be emailed : http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email
•Representative Henry Waxman : 202-225-3976 / 323-651-1040
•Representitive Xavier Becerra: 213-483-1425
Thanks very much. Happy Holidays, my you have a healthy and happy 2009.
Love,
Brian
A Heartbreakingly Common Story
Ok, I'll tell you my gay story again. Short and sweet.
from DailyKos | by W Clathe | December 22, 2008
I am not sure how many times I've told my story, yelled it from the treetops, begged, worked, wrote, struggled to get to where I am today with a good life, husband, child, family and friends. Life is good, now. But she's right. You are condescending to think to advise me to 'not be angry,' to 'strategize'. What do you think I've been doing for a half century, holding my anger so as not to be beaten, strategizing so as not to be hurt. So, let me tell you again,
I fell in love at 15, with a boy. After Stonewall, before Milk.
He killed himself when I was 18. His father found out he was gay. I found him, in his room bloody and dying. That was the year Milk became supervisor.
Reeling from pain, anguish and trauma, I became a Mormon soon after his death. I went on a Mormon mission to Korea (secretly hoping it would change me). That was the year Milk was assassinated.
After returning from my mission in 1981, my bishop decided I needed to undergo therapy to 'change.' For a long, horrifying year, I underwent 'aversion therapy.' This nearly destroyed me. It was the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.
Following my first love's footsteps, in 1983 I attempted suicide because life was hell.
In 1984, attempting to see for myself what life was like "on the other side" I visited a gay bar in D.C. while working there for the summer. Two 'frat boys' saw me leave the bar, followed me, cornered me in a park and beat me.
In 1987, I joined the National Guard, hiding my sexuality.
In late 1990, after some reasonable therapy and getting up courage I came out to my mother, a brother and some friends.
In January of 1991, I was called up for Desert Storm (I was in the National Guard. Back in the closet.
Returning from Desert Storm, I came out to my father. He stopped talking to me, for years. During these years DADT was instituted (I was still in the active Reserves) and DOMA passed.
In 1993, I was "outed" in my graduate school (I was getting a Ph.D. in molecular biology). For the next 3-4 years, a particular member of my committee let it be known he didn't like my sexuality. Luckily, there were other members of the committee that weren't so homophobic.
In 1996, having been out but celibate (trying to remain a Mormon in good standing), I met the love of my life. He was my soulmate, he still is my soulmate.
1n January of 1997, I was excommunicated from the Mormon church for immoral conduct... loving my soulmate.
In December of 1997 we had a commitment ceremony (in what has turned out to be the first of our four 'weddings'). 150 people attended, our lives were changing.
In 1999, my Dad starting talking with me again.
In 2000, we tried to make our relationship at least partially legal with a California Domestic Partnership and a small ceremony.. our second 'wedding'.
In 2002 we adopted an infant girl, after YEARS of navigating the already normally difficult adoption process made more so by being gay, our sweet amazing daughter.
In 2004 we got married (our third 'wedding') in the San Francisco marriages.
Just this October we got married in our FOURTH wedding, now that is threatened with the passage of prop 8 and current law suit.
All along we have been shunned by my brother-in-law and his family and many others, and fought long and hard with many hours of our time and a large portion of our income to bring some legal protections.
Yes, we've come a long way. But we suffered, struggled and crawled our way here... sometimes LITERALLY crawled to get here.
We endured hate, beatings, death, torture, shunning, excommunications and discrimination to get even just this small part of equality. (and when I say "we" I mean I.. I have endured EVERY thing on that list, as have many gay and lesbians here).
So, give us a bit of slack when we get angry and hurt when someone who represents, and is an integral part of, all of that hate and torture and death is giving the prayer that will bring in what we hoped will be a new and hopeful presidency.
We've endured a hell of a lot to get even here. There is my story, in a nutshell. So, please, don't presume to tell us when we should be 'calm'. I've spent nearly four decades being 'calm.'
Update: I have an open invitation to Rick Warren, if Obama and Warren want to start 'dialog'. Come to my home. Spend a day with us and some of our GLBT friends who are raising their own families, living their lives. Meet our children and our families. Listen to our stories. It doesn't have to be my home, there are hundreds of thousands of homes you could visit. Do this before the inauguration. Do it publicly. Discussion and dialog go both ways. I see many GLBT celebrities (Etheridge and her wife among them) willing to meet with you and then publicly announce how good you are. I'd like to see someone who has called me and my family no better than criminals and pedophiles be willing to do the same. My home is open. I'm sure there are many that are. Prove to us you are willing to be seen with and listen to us, publicly. Prove to us that there really is a dialog.
from DailyKos | by W Clathe | December 22, 2008
I am not sure how many times I've told my story, yelled it from the treetops, begged, worked, wrote, struggled to get to where I am today with a good life, husband, child, family and friends. Life is good, now. But she's right. You are condescending to think to advise me to 'not be angry,' to 'strategize'. What do you think I've been doing for a half century, holding my anger so as not to be beaten, strategizing so as not to be hurt. So, let me tell you again,
I fell in love at 15, with a boy. After Stonewall, before Milk.
He killed himself when I was 18. His father found out he was gay. I found him, in his room bloody and dying. That was the year Milk became supervisor.
Reeling from pain, anguish and trauma, I became a Mormon soon after his death. I went on a Mormon mission to Korea (secretly hoping it would change me). That was the year Milk was assassinated.
After returning from my mission in 1981, my bishop decided I needed to undergo therapy to 'change.' For a long, horrifying year, I underwent 'aversion therapy.' This nearly destroyed me. It was the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.
Following my first love's footsteps, in 1983 I attempted suicide because life was hell.
In 1984, attempting to see for myself what life was like "on the other side" I visited a gay bar in D.C. while working there for the summer. Two 'frat boys' saw me leave the bar, followed me, cornered me in a park and beat me.
In 1987, I joined the National Guard, hiding my sexuality.
In late 1990, after some reasonable therapy and getting up courage I came out to my mother, a brother and some friends.
In January of 1991, I was called up for Desert Storm (I was in the National Guard. Back in the closet.
Returning from Desert Storm, I came out to my father. He stopped talking to me, for years. During these years DADT was instituted (I was still in the active Reserves) and DOMA passed.
In 1993, I was "outed" in my graduate school (I was getting a Ph.D. in molecular biology). For the next 3-4 years, a particular member of my committee let it be known he didn't like my sexuality. Luckily, there were other members of the committee that weren't so homophobic.
In 1996, having been out but celibate (trying to remain a Mormon in good standing), I met the love of my life. He was my soulmate, he still is my soulmate.
1n January of 1997, I was excommunicated from the Mormon church for immoral conduct... loving my soulmate.
In December of 1997 we had a commitment ceremony (in what has turned out to be the first of our four 'weddings'). 150 people attended, our lives were changing.
In 1999, my Dad starting talking with me again.
In 2000, we tried to make our relationship at least partially legal with a California Domestic Partnership and a small ceremony.. our second 'wedding'.
In 2002 we adopted an infant girl, after YEARS of navigating the already normally difficult adoption process made more so by being gay, our sweet amazing daughter.
In 2004 we got married (our third 'wedding') in the San Francisco marriages.
Just this October we got married in our FOURTH wedding, now that is threatened with the passage of prop 8 and current law suit.
All along we have been shunned by my brother-in-law and his family and many others, and fought long and hard with many hours of our time and a large portion of our income to bring some legal protections.
Yes, we've come a long way. But we suffered, struggled and crawled our way here... sometimes LITERALLY crawled to get here.
We endured hate, beatings, death, torture, shunning, excommunications and discrimination to get even just this small part of equality. (and when I say "we" I mean I.. I have endured EVERY thing on that list, as have many gay and lesbians here).
So, give us a bit of slack when we get angry and hurt when someone who represents, and is an integral part of, all of that hate and torture and death is giving the prayer that will bring in what we hoped will be a new and hopeful presidency.
We've endured a hell of a lot to get even here. There is my story, in a nutshell. So, please, don't presume to tell us when we should be 'calm'. I've spent nearly four decades being 'calm.'
Update: I have an open invitation to Rick Warren, if Obama and Warren want to start 'dialog'. Come to my home. Spend a day with us and some of our GLBT friends who are raising their own families, living their lives. Meet our children and our families. Listen to our stories. It doesn't have to be my home, there are hundreds of thousands of homes you could visit. Do this before the inauguration. Do it publicly. Discussion and dialog go both ways. I see many GLBT celebrities (Etheridge and her wife among them) willing to meet with you and then publicly announce how good you are. I'd like to see someone who has called me and my family no better than criminals and pedophiles be willing to do the same. My home is open. I'm sure there are many that are. Prove to us you are willing to be seen with and listen to us, publicly. Prove to us that there really is a dialog.
Challenge to Morning Joe
I've been polite, but I'm losing my patience. Will you group of religious heterosexuals please get a gay person on to talk about this issue, rather than comparing us to fascists because we as asking for the rights that we pay for, same as you, with our tax dollars? The problem with Warren is not that he doesn't support gay marriage. It's that he calls gay people pedophiles. Which if he was speaking about blacks or women or any other group wouldn't be tolerated for a second. Don't you see how this is an incredible double standard? And then to be criticized for being upset about it, it just adds insult to huge and serious injury. Gay people are teachers, doctors, lawyers, actors, soldiers, we serve our country and our society that looks at us with total disgust. I don't mind if the evangelicals don't think I'm getting into heaven. I don't want to go to their heaven anyway. But I do want the same rights and benefits allowed my brother and sister, who are straight. We are in the same tax bracket, I want some equal representation. So I am begging you, on my hands and knees because I watch your program and this morning the conversation was so singular, get Dan Savage on. Get Donna Brazile on. Get Braney Frank on. I'll come on if you can't get anyone else and explain what exactly gay people are upset about. We know Obama isn't with us, though he was against prop 8. We just don't want to be called pedophiles or incest or bestiality practicers any longer! Is that so much to ask!?!
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Execute In The Name Of God
Not Another Word on Gay Marriage Until They Execute an Adulterer
posted by Cenk on The Young Turks 12/19/2008
The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.
They are completely and utterly disingenuous. They don't mean a word of it. They don't give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.
The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments. The Bible says you shall not wear two different types of cloths at the same time. Yet there are no Propositions against cotton and wool combos.
The Bible says you should leave your family and join Jesus Christ. The religious right pretends that Jesus was about family values. He wanted you to abandon your family. Read the Bible.
The religious right pretends that the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. But that is a bald faced lie. Have any of these people ever read the Bible? The Bible is full of men taking on second wives, servants, prostitutes and concubines. And all the while, God heartily approves. How many wives did King David have? Eight? Twelve? Let alone his possibly gay lover, Jonathan.
Now the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same exact book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution. So, who will execute the first adulterer? Please step on up. May the one without any Biblical sin cast the first stone.
Here is a question no one can answer -- and lucky for the right wing, the media never bothers to ask -- why do you only focus on the part of the Bible against homosexuality but not on the part against adultery? It's one thing to say you're against adultery; it's another to take away their rights. How come no religious figure in this country has mounted a campaign to take away the rights of adulterers? Let alone execute them.
I'll tell you why. Because there are too many of them. Their followers are adulterers. They don't make for good scapegoats. They are not an easy target to ostracize and focus your hatred on. Gays are perfect. They are a small enough percentage of the population and different enough from the rest of us to be able to get people to focus their negative, barbaric instincts on them. The Bible is only a tool for this tribal, ugly tactic.
But I am tired of hearing people saying that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible when they never quote the rest of the Bible (probably because a great majority of church goers have never independently read the Bible or they have built up a reservoir of excuses for the parts they find inconvenient). So, from now, I would like to tell the Rick Warrens of the world, you are perfectly allowed to say how much you would like to take gay people's rights away from them based on the Bible so long as you agree to do one thing first -- execute an adulterer.
If you can do that for me, then I'll believe that you actually believe in the Bible literally and will accept your literal argument against homosexuality. Fair is fair. Step on up.
Watch The Young Turks Here
PS -- In case anyone is a maniacal literalist, please do not actually attempt to execute any adulterers or anyone else. Check yourself into a mental hospital instead because the seven headed dragon in Revelations could be out to get you.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Change, Less Than
I'm tired of being told by my straight "liberal" friends that gay people shouldn't be upset about Rick Warren. I'm tired of gays being indifferent to our societal role, as the village rape object. "Be fair to Obama," "Give him a chance!" "You guys just have to wait, there are more important things that he has to take care of first." How quickly would that shoe fall if they were after straight rights, or women's rights, or latino's, or black's, or asian's, or the disabled. I'm tired of this bullshit. That's what it is. We have a right to be angry. We have a right to defend ourselves. We have a right to protection under the law. We have a right to be heartbroken by Obama. And we have a right to be vocal about it. We have a right and reason to be disgusted with our friends apathy. We have a right and reason to be disgusted by our own.
If you are comfortable in the idea that you are liberal, you are a democrat, you voted well, you voted for change - I ask you to really take stock. Do any of your core beliefs really mean anything, if you are not willing to stand up and defend those who are less than you, who are the least in society? I know it's easy to cast out my complaint, I am comfortable, have a house and a fancy car, but I am less than you. I have been less than you my entire adult life. If this doesn't bother you, I don't want to know you.
Dr. Mr. Obama,
You are a disgusting man. Elevating Rick Warren to a higher position of national prominence is a blow to any civil rights agenda that you pay lip-service to. If you are interested in being inclusive, why not invite a clansman on to help out with the festivities? You haven't, would it be because the clan is anti-black, or because it would be morally reprehensible? Or would it be because it would be a costly political move. You betray your own moral bankruptcy by this choice. You're not interested in inclusion, just in taking campaign contributions and votes from gays and throwing them overboard at your earliest convenience. You should be frankly ashamed to be seen on the same stage as a man who compares homosexual to pedophiles, because you are validating his position by your presence. The larger point is, if Rick Warren or anybody said the same things about blacks, women, the irish, catholics, jews, the disabled - all groups that you are born into and do not choose, like homosexuality - this wouldn't even be a discussion, because the political fallout would have been so extreme. And this will be too. We are tired of being a cultural whipping post for the ignorant. We shouldn't need to beg for our rights at all, much less be forced to beg for them from a fellow minority. No matter how disgusting you find homosexuality, you should know better. It was not long ago, that your rights were dictated by an ignorant mob of bigots. Now you have joined them, congratulations, you have achieved your personal aims of being elected at the price of your soul. Ever read Faust Mr. Obama?
I wish McCain would have won the election, at least with him you know where he stands, and he wouldn't lie to your face when he was advocating the theft of your civil liberties, he'd just try and take them. It's more honest. Oh and yes, I know you were supporting the No on Prop 8 movement, with a full throated press release. And a single dollar to the campaign? Couldn't do any outreach to your Californian base? Send one group email?
You're a disgusting, bankrupt, Machiavellian coward. I hope you lose every ounce of happiness you have ever seen.
Brian Crano
Thursday, December 18, 2008
BUS CALLED CHANGE Quote Around
Obama’s Outreach to Religious Right Somehow Not Sitting Well With Liberals
New York Magazine | Daily Intel | 12/18/08
The program for Barack Obama's inauguration was announced yesterday, and it's an impressive lineup. Let's see: Aretha Franklin, Yo-Yo Ma, and Itzhak Perlman will perform — very classy. Civil-rights icon Reverend Joseph E. Lowery will deliver the benediction, and poet Elizabeth Alexander will be there too (reading poetry, naturally). Saddleback megachurch pastor and author of bazillion-selling book The Purpose-Driven Life Rick Warren will be giving the invocation. Great, everyone happy? Oh, wait ... we're hearing dissent in the Obama ranks over Warren. Isn't he one of those good religious leaders, preaching about poverty and AIDS? And also an adamant supporter of Proposition 8 who likened gay marriage to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy? Right, that guy. What gives with the invite, Obama?
• Marc Ambinder assumes that Obama picked Warren "because (a) Obama likes the guy, and (b) he knows it would send a message to groups like the HRC [the Human Rights Campaign], and to conservative Christians who might be wary of the new president." Obama has made clear many times that he disagrees with Warren on some issues, but he's making clear that "Rick Warren is a part of Obama's America, too." [Atlantic]
• Jonathan Stein is puzzled and shocked that Obama would choose someone "whose views stand in stark contrast to the ones held by the tens of millions of Americans who elected Obama." [MojoBlog/Mother Jones]
• Andrew Sullivan concedes it may be "[s]hrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now" based on this "depressing omen." [Atlantic]
• Damon Linker also believes that it's a shrewd move, noting that Warren extols "a fairly anodyne form of American Protestantism," and that giving him "a prominent (but purely symbolic) place in the inauguration is a politically cost-free way of furthering this partisan agenda." [New Republic]
• Steve Benen reasons that by "elevating a conservative religious leader to new heights, giving him stature and credibility, and making his far-right message that much more meaningful when he challenges Obama administration policies in the future," Obama is making his biggest mistake so far. [Political Animal/Washington Monthly]
• Steve Waldman claims that, "despite some areas of disagreement" with Obama, Warren has many admirable characteristics and his selection "helps to depoliticize prayer — which, of course, is very politically shrewd." [Beliefnet]
• David Brody "can understand why the liberals are not happy. Can you imagine President Bush going with a prominent pro-choice pastor for his inauguration?" But Obama told us "all along that he wants to reach across ideological lines," and the Warren pick "says a lot about Obama and how he's trying to make good on his promise." [Brody File/CBN]
• Ta-Nehisi Coates finds it an "obvious move to embrace the 'new' religious right." And while Warren is perceived as a moderate, Coates "can't find much daylight between a dude who equates gay marriage with incest and the old right." [Atlantic]
• Chuck Todd and friends suspect "Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning" because "it never hurts — at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election — when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party’s interest groups." [First Read/MSNBC]
New York Magazine | Daily Intel | 12/18/08
The program for Barack Obama's inauguration was announced yesterday, and it's an impressive lineup. Let's see: Aretha Franklin, Yo-Yo Ma, and Itzhak Perlman will perform — very classy. Civil-rights icon Reverend Joseph E. Lowery will deliver the benediction, and poet Elizabeth Alexander will be there too (reading poetry, naturally). Saddleback megachurch pastor and author of bazillion-selling book The Purpose-Driven Life Rick Warren will be giving the invocation. Great, everyone happy? Oh, wait ... we're hearing dissent in the Obama ranks over Warren. Isn't he one of those good religious leaders, preaching about poverty and AIDS? And also an adamant supporter of Proposition 8 who likened gay marriage to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy? Right, that guy. What gives with the invite, Obama?
• Marc Ambinder assumes that Obama picked Warren "because (a) Obama likes the guy, and (b) he knows it would send a message to groups like the HRC [the Human Rights Campaign], and to conservative Christians who might be wary of the new president." Obama has made clear many times that he disagrees with Warren on some issues, but he's making clear that "Rick Warren is a part of Obama's America, too." [Atlantic]
• Jonathan Stein is puzzled and shocked that Obama would choose someone "whose views stand in stark contrast to the ones held by the tens of millions of Americans who elected Obama." [MojoBlog/Mother Jones]
• Andrew Sullivan concedes it may be "[s]hrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now" based on this "depressing omen." [Atlantic]
• Damon Linker also believes that it's a shrewd move, noting that Warren extols "a fairly anodyne form of American Protestantism," and that giving him "a prominent (but purely symbolic) place in the inauguration is a politically cost-free way of furthering this partisan agenda." [New Republic]
• Steve Benen reasons that by "elevating a conservative religious leader to new heights, giving him stature and credibility, and making his far-right message that much more meaningful when he challenges Obama administration policies in the future," Obama is making his biggest mistake so far. [Political Animal/Washington Monthly]
• Steve Waldman claims that, "despite some areas of disagreement" with Obama, Warren has many admirable characteristics and his selection "helps to depoliticize prayer — which, of course, is very politically shrewd." [Beliefnet]
• David Brody "can understand why the liberals are not happy. Can you imagine President Bush going with a prominent pro-choice pastor for his inauguration?" But Obama told us "all along that he wants to reach across ideological lines," and the Warren pick "says a lot about Obama and how he's trying to make good on his promise." [Brody File/CBN]
• Ta-Nehisi Coates finds it an "obvious move to embrace the 'new' religious right." And while Warren is perceived as a moderate, Coates "can't find much daylight between a dude who equates gay marriage with incest and the old right." [Atlantic]
• Chuck Todd and friends suspect "Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning" because "it never hurts — at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election — when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party’s interest groups." [First Read/MSNBC]
A DISPATCH FROM UNDER THE BUS CALLED CHANGE.
From Bryan Jackson's Blog!
Obama's Faulty Logic
Now we hear from Linda Douglass, Obama spokeswoman defending the choice of Warren for the Inauguration, "This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history."
Um, Excuse me?
She continued, "The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues," Douglass said.
He does? Um, let me see...how would you clearly establish you disagree with someone? Hmmm...
"But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues."
Common ground?
So Obama, invite a racist who you completely disagree with on discrimination, but agree with that recycling is good. Cause recycling the religious right and promoting the views and stature of hateful people you definitely are
Obama's Faulty Logic
Now we hear from Linda Douglass, Obama spokeswoman defending the choice of Warren for the Inauguration, "This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history."
Um, Excuse me?
She continued, "The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues," Douglass said.
He does? Um, let me see...how would you clearly establish you disagree with someone? Hmmm...
"But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues."
Common ground?
So Obama, invite a racist who you completely disagree with on discrimination, but agree with that recycling is good. Cause recycling the religious right and promoting the views and stature of hateful people you definitely are
Unreal! Fuck Barack Obama. He's Ludicrous.
Being gay isn't the same as being a pedophile. Being gay isn't the same as fucking your sister. Having an open tent isn't aggrandizing bigots. Obama is a loser. He has turned his back on us, a lot of people who voted for him. What a disgusting panderer. I want my vote back.
As Andrew Sullivan said, "[It's] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now," in the Atlantic Web site Wednesday.
Once Again, Barack Throws Faggots Under The Bus.
I was with him. I was behind the transition. I thought that the appointments were very good. But wouldn't you know I had been flim-flammed. Obama is not change, he's just black. That's the difference. That's what has changed. He's not going to run a progressive agenda. Equality is not on his mind, because he has overcome. But we have not. It is so disappointing to have a president so many are falling all-over-themselves to felate, who could care less about the civil rights of 10% of the country. I wrote him another letter which he will ignore. I'm sure.
An open letter to Barack Obama:
As a member of the gay community, no wait don't stop reading, I know that you have turned your back on our community as soon as you took our money or our votes, but this letter is important because we are a serious constituency and we will make your political lives very difficult as you have allowed our actual lives to be. Mr. Obama was supposed to be an agent of change, in fact, that was kind of the whole message right? The agent of change, the agent of social justice? Well where is the president elect for his citizens, his gay citizens? For though we are not treated with the same rights or offered the same dignity as the rest of the country, we are still obliged to pay taxes and there for are extended "citizenship". Evading taking a real stand against proposition 8 (and all the other hate filled propositions, that strip rights from citizens) was disgusting and cowardly. Inviting Rick Warren to do perform the inauguration was disgusting and cowardly. By inviting one of the strongest proponents of proposition 8, you are validating his position and elevating his national status. You and your team are a bunch of panderers. Why not be sworn into office by a gay pastor? Wouldn't that have a positive social effect? That would show that you and your team have some consideration, even if only as an after thought for the gay citizens of this country. And I know this letter will do nothing. I know now that you are in the white house you will be the same business as usual politician, serving your own ends, ignoring any issue that might be politically costly, but lets get this straight, I would rather leave the country than vote for you again if you continue to support those who want to make me and have made me a sub-citizen, a sub-human, 3/5 a human for something I did not chose but was born into. You and your team and your children should be embarrassed of your cowardice. Should be embarrassed of your double speak. Should be embarrassed by the transparency of your political opportunism and your lies.
If Rick Warren or any supporters of hate toward gays are further bolstered and given credence and your support, I will do everything in my power to unseat you. In four years or sooner if possible.
Brian Crano, hopefully a future citizen of the United Kingdom.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Monday, December 15, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Police shoot man in Angelino Heights; continue to search for his friend
LA TIMES
3:06 PM, December 12, 2008
Police shot a man this afternoon in Angelino Heights while responding to a domestic disturbance allegedly involving his friend and the friend's ex-wife, authorities said. Police are still searching for the ex-husband, who fled the scene before they arrived.
The incident began about 8 a.m. when police went to the ex-wife's home in the 600 block of Laveta Terrace in response to reports of an argument between a divorced couple. When they arrived, the ex-husband's friend was standing outside with a gun and fled, said Lt. Joe Losorelli of the Los Angeles Police Department. Police lost sight of the man at West Edgeware Road and established a perimeter in the neighborhood to find him.
Read more after the jump.
Police caught up with him a block away on Kallam Avenue, where they shot him in the ankle. He had a gun in his hand, they said. It was unclear what provoked the shooting.
The initial call to police came from the ex-wife, who said her ex-husband was arguing with her because she refused to let him take their children from the home. The woman told police she would not let the father have the children because it was not a court-approved visitation day under their custody agreement.
Streets in the neighborhood remain closed while police continue their search for the ex-husband.
-- Ruben Vives
3:06 PM, December 12, 2008
Police shot a man this afternoon in Angelino Heights while responding to a domestic disturbance allegedly involving his friend and the friend's ex-wife, authorities said. Police are still searching for the ex-husband, who fled the scene before they arrived.
The incident began about 8 a.m. when police went to the ex-wife's home in the 600 block of Laveta Terrace in response to reports of an argument between a divorced couple. When they arrived, the ex-husband's friend was standing outside with a gun and fled, said Lt. Joe Losorelli of the Los Angeles Police Department. Police lost sight of the man at West Edgeware Road and established a perimeter in the neighborhood to find him.
Read more after the jump.
Police caught up with him a block away on Kallam Avenue, where they shot him in the ankle. He had a gun in his hand, they said. It was unclear what provoked the shooting.
The initial call to police came from the ex-wife, who said her ex-husband was arguing with her because she refused to let him take their children from the home. The woman told police she would not let the father have the children because it was not a court-approved visitation day under their custody agreement.
Streets in the neighborhood remain closed while police continue their search for the ex-husband.
-- Ruben Vives
Thursday, December 11, 2008
THE BEST REBECCA GETS NOMMED!
I’M A LITTLE EXCITED ABOUT THIS.
REBECCA HALL, HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR A GOLDEN GLOBE FOR BEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY OR MUSICAL. THIS IS FANTASTIC AND WELL DESERVED FOR HER AMAZING WORK IN WOODY ALLEN’S VICKI CHRISTINA BARCELONA!
I HAVE SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR REBECCA AND WHILE IT IS TRENDY TO SAY AWARDS DON’T MATTER AND ITS ABOUT THE WORK AND ALL THAT...FUCK THAT IT MATTERS, ITS HUGE AND HAS BEEN EARNED! I’M SO HAPPY FOR HER.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
