obama, anti gay petition

[peterlondon]

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/tell-a-friend/2597795

im not american so forgive me for commenting on this, but i was disappointed to read anti gay preachers were participating in the inauguration, and the defence by obama of this homophobicchoice, if you would like to sign the petition the link is above...
Dear All,

I don't whether you have heard the news that President Elect Obama has chosen an anti-gay pastor to start the his inauguration ceremony in January. This is a blow as he claimed throughout his campaign to support lesbians and gay men. It is particularly upsetting as it comes at the same time as the religious right in the States are seeking to get the Supreme Court to overturn the thousands of lesbian and gay marriages that have taken place in California in recent months.

It would be good if you could take a couple of minutes to sign the attached petition asking him to change his mind.

Have a very happy Christmas and best wishes for 2009.

[sockguynyc]

As an American who voted for Obama I am extremely disappointed (and pissed off) but unfortunately not surpried.

[Head2Foot]

I'm an Obama supporter, I'm gay, and I'm definitely not an Evangelical Christian.

However, there is something that bothers me about this gay protest against Rick Warren. One of the reasons I voted for Obama was that I'm tired of the polarization in this society and the harm that it is doing to the country. Obama told us he would try to bridge and heal that gap. Now the gay community is acting just as intolerantly as the Christian right. If we protest against every bone that Obama throws to the religious groups, including inviting an Evangelical to give the invocation, we are just continuing to reinforce the polarization. Yes, speak out against religious groups' actions that infringe on our rights, but don't say that those groups or their representatives can't or shouldn't be allowed on the stage with us. "Trivial" protests such as this cannot possibly work in gay people's favor.

[ftlaudft]

Head2Foot, when you're right, you're right! I voted for Obama and I trust him. He wants to guarantee a place for everyone at the table and he's going to invite a lot of people I don't particularly like or agree with. But we're not in high school anymore. It's not "my" team against "their" team. It's not "us" against "them." Obama is trying to get all of us represented at the table together and he doesn't need my permission to invite whoever he wants in order to get the job done.

Am I happy about Rick Warren and his role in the fight to pass Proposition 8? Of course not. But I'm tired of listening to cranky gays sitting in their comfy closets, criticizing gay rights' parades and inventing lists of reasons for not supporting this group or that. If you're mad about Rick Warren, come out of the closet and open both your mouth and your pocket book!

And let Obama do his job.

[sockguynyc]

Obama should reach out to non-bigoted Christians (there are many of them).

But it's wrong having an intolerant bigot in such an important position in the inauguration.

[ftlaudft]

I have to admit, sockguy, that I would be happier if Obama had chosen someone else. But he didn't. And I trust Obama enough to believe he chose who he chose for the right reasons

What I find encouraging is the reaction of people like Melissa Etheridge, who decided to sing at the inauguration anyway. She obviously disagrees with Warren's views on same-sex marriage, but doesn't feel that that's reason enough to boycot the inauguration. Obama is trying to be the president of all of us, and while we shouldn't put up with any crap from anyone, we have to sit at the table with people we don't like and don't agree with. There are a lot of people I'd like to punch out. But we have to choose our punching bags carefully. People don't have the right to hurt us. But they have the right to disagree.

I'll be happy when ALL unions are civil unions, when ALL unions that need to be recognized by the government for protection and benefits are civil and not religious. The government has no place in our bedrooms. The government has no place in our churches or temples, either. The same-sex union issue should not be dividing us as it has.

Joyeux Noel!

[sockguynyc]

If there had been a minister who was against black and white people getting married given a position of great importance at the inauguration in 1965, we would look back now and know that was absolutely wrong.

Giving this guy such an important position in the inauguration is making him more powerful. Also it sends the message to Obama supporters (who might be on the fence) that it's OK to be against equal rights for gay people.

That's why it's important to always speak out against someone who is unjust, unfair, and just plain wrong.

[Head2Foot]

Sockguynyc, the only thing that has given this "position" such "importance" is the gay protest against Rick Warren. No one would have paid much attention to a preacher giving an invocation if there had been no protest. Now, of course, to some people he's the only thing that is important about the inauguration. I hate to come across as some kind of apologist for Rick Warren, but I think this is a truly misguided action on the part of some gay factions. The only people that might be persuaded about gay civil rights are those Evangelicals who had a reasonable viewpoint and may now be convinced by this protest that gays are intolerant of Christians and don't deserve their support.

[sockguynyc]

If he was a minister who was against black and white people getting married it would be important and people would be rightly protesting-- whether it annoyed some people or not. Or whether it made some bigoted people express their bigotry more openly.

[ftlaudft]

Maybe we should think a little about what the law can do and what the law cannot do. Maybe we should think a little about what Pastor Warren has the right to do and what he does not have the right to do. Does he have the right to throw stones at us when we walk down the street? No. Does he have the right to beat us up? No. Does he have the right to choose to avoid our place of business and shop elsewhere? I think so. Does he have the right to decide whether or not we can get married in his church? Most definitely. Does he have the right to prevent a union, a CIVIL union, valid in the eyes of the government, a union that gives any couple all the rights of any married couple? No! No! and again, No!

Can the law make Pastor Warren like us? No. Can the law make Pastor Warren let us get married in his church? No. Can the law make Pastor Warren welcome us in his church and greet us with a Christian bear hug? Gee, I really don't think so.

Can the law protect us from religious fanatics who would like to stone us to death? Yes. Can the law protect us from people who want to stop us from committing acts of sodomy or hippo-podamy in our bedrooms, our bathrooms, our kitchens - even our backyards if the hedges are high enough? Yes, the law must protect us.

But the word "marriage" is a sore spot in all our arguments. Marriage has a religious component and it also has a civil component. The civil component should be the only part the government concerns itself with. ALL couples, gay, straight and undecided, should have CIVIL registration or ceremony. Period. If the law is going to give couples the rights of married people, ALL the rights, then ALL people being united should be required to have a CIVIL ceremony or registration act. Nothing else is necessary.

Then, if any couple wants a religious rite or ritual, let them go to their church or temple and do what they want to do. If they want to go to a mountain top, whip out their dicks and shake them at the moon while they recite "Mary had a little lamb", why, let them go to it. I really don't give a rat's ass! Do you?

But until the religious component is removed from the government's concern, until all couples are required to register in civil acts, we will be running in circles as we are now and shooting ourselves in the ass with our own protests. If Pastor Warren and the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury don't like my attitude, well, I don't plan on inviting them to my next strawberry and sodomy lawn social either!

[beneyw]

If he was a minister who was against black and white people getting married it would be important and people would be rightly protesting-- whether it annoyed some people or not. Or whether it made some bigoted people express their bigotry more openly.

Contrary to what some gays WANT to believe, like it or not, not all gay people support gay marriage. Are we to be condemned as well? If the answer is yes, then all the chatter about tolerance is worthless.

[flickfire]

It was Obama's choice, one which he had every right to make, and it's not a bad idea for him to extend an olive branch to the right wing Christians. It might benefit the Democrats politically in the future.

I do wish that Obama would have stronger support for gay civil unions. He takes the safe approach that it should be a "states' rights" issue. But he's got bigger fish to fry now, especially with the conflict in Israel intensifying. What a mess he's going to have on his hands next month in fixing this country.

[donald]

What i find interesting about this is that a black man in power is behaving no differently then whites did not so long ago when the white leaders gave no assistance to the discriminated blacks. So black people need not be smug. Human behavior is human behavior no matter what color or fetish you have. There is no acceptable time to honor a bigot.

[Head2Foot]

I agree with ftlaudft that the government should only recognize civil unions for couples, whether they are straight or gay, and that it is up to religious organizations to perform whatever marriage ceremonies they believe in. This is the practice in many European countries, isn't it? Sounds like an ideal solution. Just wondering if the United States could ever get to that point--it seems too logical--and I have the feeling many religious groups and most right wingers would put up huge barriers to such a transition.

Of course none of this helps Obama as he tries to heal the rifts in this country, divisions that go far beyond the gay marriage issue. There's one guy whom Obama has given a few minutes to give the invocation; he represents a fairly large group of Americans, and Obama, as president, represents those Americans also. For balance, Obama has assigned the benediction to another preacher who represents a different segment of the population. There will also be a poet and someone will sing. Amidst all of this, the most important element of the inauguration will be Obama's address. Rick Warren's part is insignificant.

[ftlaudft]

I just love a post that begins "I agree with ftlaudft!" Since it's Sunday and I'm feeling peachy and preachy I'd like to add a few thoughts.

I've never been concerned at all about the possibility of a gay marriage. Do you know why? What was I concerned about for decades and decades of my life? I'll tell you what I was concerned about. I was concerned about staying out of jail.

For most of my life the sex acts I was committing, the acts of love and joy and caring and sharing, were crimes, punishable by prison. I can remember one of my first lovers who had an apartment on the second floor. Every time we heard footsteps at night on the stairs we would panic. Could it be the police, who might cart us away to jail, ruin our careers and embarrass us in front of friends and family? Our panic was real. We had reason to be afraid.

Does anybody remember Michael Hardwick?

Michael was arrested for sodomy on August 3, 1982. A police officer, who was actually looking for someone else, found him having sex in his own bedroom and jailed him for 12 hours. He was humiliated at the jailhouse, everyone there was clearly informed of the exact nature of his "crime" and several years later our Supreme Court upheld Georgia's right to enact its own laws dealing with homosexual activity. By the time the Supreme Court reversed that decision in 2003, invalidating all the antiquated anti-sodomy laws in the country, Michael Hardwick was dead. Beautiful Michael Hardwick! He was a handsome blond guy, extremely goodlooking, and he never lived to see the day when his lovemaking would be declared a legal and natural activity that was his constitutional right.

I understand that there are gays who want to mate and have their union recognized by the government and by society. Many also have parenting skills and would like to have a legally defined and protected relationship in which to raise children. I don't know what the percentage is, but they are certainly entitled to the option of a union with full government protection for all the rights of any married couple.

I personally have never sought to formalize a union. What any relationship meant to me was something my partner and I worked out together. I never sought to imitate a hetero marriage. Each relationship was unique and unlike any other. All I ever cared about was protecting myself and my lover from police intervention or from the electric shock treatments well-meaning family members might want to straighten us out.

People who want to pair off should have the legal option. I wonder how many of us that includes. I'm still celebrating the 2003 Supreme Court decision, which to me was the great victory for gay rights and the freedom to love. I still rejoice that it happened in my lifetime. As for wedding bells, well, they do have a lovely sound. But the only sound I want to hear is the squeaking of a happy bed. And if there are footsteps on the stairs, no worries any more about the police. Maybe it's just the neighbors asking us to keep the noise down.

[flickfire]

That's good to know that Rick Warren won't be hogging the spotlight so to speak. But I have
a feeling that Obama's inaugural address will be a knockout, and I can't wait to see he and his wife walk down Pennsylvania avenue together hand in hand! That will cement his win in my eyes for me! I can't wait!

[sockguynyc]

Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage Warren would deny a group of people their rights. If this guy was bigoted against any other group of people he wouldn't be at the inauguration.

If the government would no longer recognize marriage (gay and straight) and only recognize civil unions for all (both gay and straight) then that would be equal. After a civil union people could get 'married' in a religious or non-religious place if they wanted.

[ropedfeet]

You guys have to admit that what sockguynyc says is true, that if that man Warren was against the equal rights of any other group of people, or had ever made such disparaging and derogatory remarks about any other group, he would not have been invited to be a featured speaker/participant at the inauguration ceremonies...

[ftlaudft]

Go to advocate.com for great commentaries on the subject. Two headlines for today are "NYT Columnist Calls Out Obama on Warren Selection" and "Rick Warren Does the Gay Rights Shuffle." But the article that really grabbed my attention was "Jerry Brown's About-face: Void prop 8." That's right, the California attorney general has submitted a 111 page brief asking the state supreme court to void prop 8! Brown writes that as the attorney general he feels it's his job to defend the constitutional rights of a minority!

[flickfire]

Hooray for Brown! Let's hope he's successful in his goal. Of course the conservatives will put up a fight to block his proposal. But I think you guys are right, if Warren had insulted any other group the way he did gay people, he wouldn't have been invited to Obama's Inauguration.

Unfortunately, a lot of people still hold anti-gay prejudices deep in their hearts, and it takes a while for that kind of bigotry to go away, especially if people don't work on trying to change their attitudes on the subject.

I have heard that Obama wants to overturn the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy when he gets in. If so, then I hope he's true to his word, and doesn't get intimidated by all the rantings of the conservative homophobs who are so againist it!

[Head2Foot]

True, if Warren had expressed such negative views about any other group, he most likely wouldn't have been invited to participate in the inauguration. What makes gays different from other groups in the minds of a large segment of the population is (1) the idea that homosexuality is a choice, and (2) the fact that it is unacceptable in their religious viewpoint. These points don't make discrimination against gays right, but these views are the reality within every major religion. Of course, some religious denominations have become enlightened, but for those that aren't, I'm not sure that banishing them from the table does the gay cause any good. Better to work with them as Obama says to find what we do agree on, while expending our energy on real policy issues of discrimination, not on which preacher is giving the invocation.

[cheesehead]

Homosexuality as we all know is not a choice and it is true that many people, mostly religious people justify their discrimination on the false idea that it is and that their "holy" texts tell them that it is wrong.
However that is really no excuse for their bigotry at all. Imagine if Obama had invited a nazi with strong anti jewish views to give the speech. Religion as we all know IS a choice but if someone was given that honor who hated jews and had said those things about the jewish community it would be an outrage. Also the jewish religion contradicts many other religious "holy" texts as well, but I would be willing to bet that most people of other religions would find discrimination against the jewish community an outrage as well whether or not being jewish "violated" their "holy" creeds or not.

[gbmcleod]

I just saw this thread. Interesting, how varied the ideas of prejudice range...

When Bush took 3 days to act on Katrina, do you think that that wasn't a subtle show of his attitudes towards Blacks? The idea what the words matter more than the actions don't mean much to me as a Black man. I don't pay attention so much to words. A recent article on CNN revealed how much more racist people were than their statements. It involved participants and viewers. It had black people brushing up against the bodies of whites and not saying they were sorry. Then, it was followed by 3 statements: one neutural, one stronger and one using the "n" word.
The people IN the experiment said they were barely bothered by it, even when the "n" word was uttered by someone else in the test. The VIEWERS, however, had VERY strong feelings.
I can't help but think that perhaps, having had a lifetime of having to watch others' actions and assess my acceptance in a group, I see Obama as reaching across groups to unite. Others see him as inviting an "enemy" to speak. I read some of his statements, such as marriage is between a man and a woman, so he wasn't for Prop 8. For me, that's not enough to stone him. If I were stoning everyone who's made comments against Blacks, some of my friends wouldn't be my friends (or alive). There's a big difference between people saying stupid things and people DOING hateful things. If Warren encouraged people to harm gays, then I'd say B.O made a bad choice. However, lets look at the history lesson of George Wallace.
Wallace was the BIGGEST segregationist of the 60s. His name was synonymous with hatred of Blacks. It took the Kennedys and military forces to get him to step aside when black children tried to enter a white school.
Fast forward to the 80s.
Wallace went to Black churches and apologized for what he'd done. He asked their forgiveness and said if he got into office, he'd stand up for Blacks. Long story short: the black community's feeling was: if he can stand in front of us and apologize, that's good enough for us.
Wallace was re-elected.
Obama knows what most Blacks (in THIS country) know: actions speak louder than words. And sometimes, people DO grow past their limitations, and we must still hope that they will grow with kind encouragement -- and time. Otherwise, there'd BE no Black president, ok?
Sorry, but I'm not hatin' Warren.

[gbmcleod]

that wasn't clear in the original statement.