Chicagoist: Gays Still Reeling Over Inaugural Guest Decision

Albanyparkour

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:27:00 -0600

@joshie: It's the echo chamber in the GLBT community. GLAAD puts out some finger-wagging statement, so does HRC. The usual talking heads go on television "shocked" and "appalled" yelling at the other talking heads who are "surprised" and "concerned". And still the little fat man mumbles his magic words and we're in the same political situation we were before everyone started yelling and clutching their pearls. -Repeal DADT -Make marriage equality a priority -Support gay rights globally Until Obama's doing that, it's all just legerdemain.

joshie

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:16:20 -0600

I think making a big uproar about this was a mistake. Before all this I didn't know who Rick Warren was, now he's becoming a household name. Why give him all this extra attention? Most people probably wouldn't have even known his stance on gay issues (I didn't, and I'm gay). I wish people would think more before raising a ruckus about something. This was a minor issue made into a major issue when it should have just been left well enough alone.

Spook

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:10:16 -0600

I think its time for real Queers to fight back! If gays make comparisons to the Black Civil Rights Movement, then where are the protests? Its pretty disgraceful to allow Obama to get away with show casing( internationally an advocate for limiting other folk's equal rights, even marriage. Its bigger than Amerikkka. Gays are being killed all over the world/ If he wants to throw the religious nuts a bone, then give them a job or two. This is a dangerous slippery slope, Gays should be alarmed. And straight people don't have the right to tell them not to be

Albanyparkour

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:41:15 -0600

Token. And if they were trying to give bigots more ammunition..."In the Navy"...by "The Village People" Christ, it's the first thing I thought of.

Ingrid

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:33:18 -0600

How long can the DADT policy last when William White, an openly gay man, is being considered for the secretary of the Navy job? It's a civilian job, but it's a pretty big step in the right direction.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:59:51 -0600

@Matilda: I don't share your opinion on DADT. The utter nonsense of that rule is how, if done right, it would make him look "strong on defense" and bolster his standing with gays and lesbians. I'm an irascible optimist about equality. I keep hoping and working for it, thinking it's just over the hill. Gays always raise a ruckus at the bieginning of Democratic Presidencies, and then when it becomes immediatly apparent that any Democrat is better than the draconion laws of Bush, they will settle down. Do you only speak in pejoratives Rachel?

jennyblur

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:29:25 -0600

Gays always raise a ruckus at the bieginning of Democratic Presidencies, and then when it becomes immediatly apparent that any Democrat is better than the draconion laws of Bush, they will settle down. I think tensions are still flaring over Prop 8, a and this guy is from Cali... This is a big to-do over nothing. And I think "don't ask, don't tell" is on it's way out. Obama can just unilaterally decide about that.

matilda

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:40:05 -0600

But Don't Ask Don't Tell? Here to stay. I'm pretty optimistic this will go away within the next four years. For one, there is a decent number of high-ranking officers who think the rule is stupid--yes, many of these officers are retired, but they still have influence. I also think repealing this rule is a relatively easy way for Obama to get more street cred among those on the left. Gay marriage? Someday, but probably a generation before it is widespread. But it will come; younger people don't care all that much about it as the older people do, according to poll after poll after poll, and simple common sense. True equality? No such thing in general, especially if you are not rich or connected.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:22:13 -0600

Well, he's one of the few prominent Christian leaders who gives a damn about people with AIDS, for one. Speaks volumes about the kindness and charity of Christians more than this plump little sausage of a Reverend. Frankly, I think it's funny really. Here's Obama, trying to "reach out" to the zealots and alienating some of his most loyal supporters. But he's the funny part, the zealots will never come over to his side. Not unless Obama is secretly pro-life. Even funnier? Those loyal gays? They're supporting the same old bigotry from Barry as they got from Bill. Sure, they'll take queer money, dance with Ellen and talk a good game. But Don't Ask Don't Tell? Here to stay. Gay marriage? Nope. True equality? Nah, just more lip service. I almost respect the right more for simply casting us all as sinners. Their hypocrisy is saved for the Minnesota airport men's room.

Slaphappy

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:10:43 -0600

Name one Warren stance you agree with Slap. Well, he's one of the few prominent Christian leaders who gives a damn about people with AIDS, for one.

Ward Up

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:47:28 -0600

I get the point that the Warren choice may be a "necessary evil" so that Obama can reach out. However, I still think that Warren was the wrong pick. The guy is wants to discriminate against gays. That should rule him out. However, on gay issues this is not Obama's real test. The measure of Obama on LGBT issues is what he will do with REAL issues, e.g., with "Don't ask, don't tell." It seems LGBTs should give him a while in office before jumping on him.

Ingrid

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:38:46 -0600

matilda, I see what you're saying. You're right. You're absolutely right. Free speech covers everyone. Even the ones who think wrong thoughts. That's the hardest part...knowing that what he's thinking is vile (well, a lot of it). And it is a noble idea to think that the truth will set us all free, but that means we basically have to wait for everyone to come around to believing that we all have equal rights. I guess I just don't have that much faith in humanity. Anymore. I think that most of the time I'm a pretty trusting person, but this last election...what with all the Palin supporters and so much video of the hatred and ignorance that was spewed by so many, I gained more of a negative attitude towards my fellow Americans. I think that you give the masses too much credit. And I want to know where is the separation between church and state anyway? It seems that as the years go on, that line becomes more and more blurred and that to me is very, very troubling.

Not_another_username

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:36:42 -0600

Name one Warren stance you agree with Slap.

Slaphappy

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:30:24 -0600

What I hate about this "uproar" is the notion that because you disagree vehemently with Warren on one topic (as I do with his opinions on gay marriage), that this somehow discredits or discounts all of his other opinions and stances that you might agree with.

CL

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:29:24 -0600

Pandering to the religious types doesn't necessarily make for a doomed existence though. Reagan was heavily criticized because technically he won the presidency the first time around by relying on the religious right and then he went off and put Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court and they hated him for it because she had a "pro-abortion" stance. Presidents pander to these people, it's rare that they let them influence policy. I'd say Bush was the exception and not the rule. I don't think prior to his presidency Regent University graduates filled the ranks. I don't think Obama will do that now (he has already pissed off the creationists with his science advisers). By no means am I a fan of Warren, but I can't ignore the fine line Obama has to walk at this time.

Not_another_username

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:18:02 -0600

There shouldn't be prayers at a state function. Of course the Reverend Warren thinks I should be stripped of my rights because I don't believe in his sky friend. Now which one of us has the ear of the P-E?

matilda

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:22:14 -0600

Ingrid: But is only you that is decinding this is like giving the KKK a national platform. To other people, Warren is perfectly reasonable. I'd rather give every idea voice so that good ideas can kill bad ideas in what amounts to a free intellectual marketplace. Yes, that's simplistic, but I do belive it. Supporting free speech--really supporting the deep and noble concept of free speech-- is a lot harder than most people realize. (I know you are not calling for outright censorship, so please excuse my bit of melodrama, which I felt was needed to make my point.)

Ingrid

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:16:32 -0600

matilda, That's exactly why I agreed with the decision at first - and this addressed CL too - but what he's thinking is wrong. And I know he's only giving an invocation, he's not going to be on the pulpit spreading his views. But it's giving a national stage to him, which means validating him in some way. It would be the same as having a KKK guy the same platform. Even if he weren't there to talk KKK propaganda. I see both sides of the argument. And I give Obama credit for being so inclusive. All I can say is, I'm glad I don't have to make his decisions. Because I think that this is not an easy choice. I think I kind of see this as every time the LGBTQ community goes two steps forward, they have to take one step back when something like this comes up.

CL

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:04:30 -0600

But Ingrid, he's not being asked to preach anti-gay messages from the White House lawn. He's giving a general prayer. Just a question, did JFK have a Catholic priest give his inaugural prayer? I'd find it interesting if he did given the fact that there was a whole to-do about his Catholicism during that campaign.

matilda

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:00:08 -0600

I feel that a voice should not be given to people who have the power to spread powerfully harmful messages to a vast public. I don't care what he thinks in private, but his thoughts shouldn't be given that kind of validation. To me, this is dangerous. What's more dangerous, I think, is wanted to stiffle any view rather than let it be aired so that people can examine every idea out there--you know, the whole "marketplace of ideas" theory. Who decides what is harmful, for instance? For many outside our little world, gay marriage represents massive harm (that I disagree with such crap does not mean I effectively want to limit the spread of such ideas. I prefer to fight bad ideas with good ideas, not semi-enforced silence). Remember: This is a big country, some 300 million people from all types of ethnic and religous groups, and whether you like it or not, getting out of our various messes right now will require working with people whose cultural values and politics you will find extremely distasteful. If you want to remain ideologically pure, that's fine, but not much will get done. In this case, we simply would have the leftist version of the failed Bush administration.

three

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:39:22 -0600

it's a political move, if you ask me.

Ingrid

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:27:30 -0600

I tended to agree with Obama's decision at first. But the more I think about it, the more I know he should rescind the invite. I feel that a voice should not be given to people who have the power to spread powerfully harmful messages to a vast public. I don't care what he thinks in private, but his thoughts shouldn't be given that kind of validation. To me, this is dangerous.

happyfunball

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:22:04 -0600

What's lost in all this crap is this: Why do we even need an invocation in the first place? I kind of like the whole "separation of church and state" thing. I get "tradition" and "not tempting fate", but why not trot out a rabbi, or a monk, or hell, even a voodoo priestess while we're at it?

matilda

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:15:49 -0600

CL: Yeah, I get the sense that for many on the left, when Obama talked about being post-partisan--a phrase that still sounds more PR than realistic---many on the left thought Obama meant he would really be reliably leftist. Funny stuff.

Navin

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:05:58 -0600

ignite the passions of the gays You probably don't need the "the" there bro.

CL

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:03:12 -0600

Well said matilda. You know, every one likes the idea of a politician that goes for mass appeal but we forget how difficult that is when it comes to situations like this. There is saying that you are going to unite the country and then there is actually doing it. By actually attempting to do it and following through on it.....expect for some people to get their panties in a bunch.

matilda

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:57:06 -0600

Where else are the gays going to go? It's not like Obama needs their money right now, and there are no alternatives. I don't mean to sound flip or glib or offputting. But this is politics, as CL notes, and it is good politics, and a good way to polish Obama's image when he'll need it: He will need at some GOP support right out of the gate, and he needs to show he really is serious about being post-partisan. Warren's ideas on gay marriage are, in my view, primitive and hateful. So what? It's a big country and Obama needs to show he is serious when he says he is the president of the entire USA, not just those who might have voted for him. In any case, it is just some Bible-believing jackass offering superstition to some great imaginary sky-creature in any case. If it makes the left feel any better, the far-right doesn't like Warren all that much anyway (though many, many relatively moderate Jesus freaks do).

CL

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:42:23 -0600

I get why they're upset, but it's also easy to see why Obama asked this guy: It's called throwing a bone to conservatives.