It's easy for you not to be furious about Rick Warren - you think it doesn't affect anything

[ruggerson]

When the McClurkin imbroglio occurred, many of us tried to explain to you how it impacted gay families. That it was outrageous to exploit bigotry in the South Carolina church community to drum up votes.

Many of you called us vile names and screamed that we were using Donnie McLurkin as a partisan club to bash Obama. Remember "faux outrage?" Many of you still believe that.

But, then a funny thing called Prop 8 happened.

And our direst warnings came to fruition. You see, we were right and you were wrong. One of the fundamental tenets of our country and of our party is that we should not condone bigotry, anywhere, anyhow, for any reason.

When we actively or passively condone bigotry, put it on a stage, give it plaudits, give it legitimacy, it blossoms into things like Prop 8 and the other anti-gay referendums which passed this last election day.

When Prop 8 passed, many of you who had bashed us over McLurkin professed outrage over the California amendment. How could this have happened? It was unfair and undemocratic. You stand with the gay community, you said.

But. You. Still. Had. Not. Connected. The. Dots.

Giving a central, symbolic role at the inauguration to someone like Rick Warren is tantamount to giving the finger to gay and lesbian families. But, more importantly, it lends Warren, the man and his movement, moral authority and it leads to many more Prop 8's.

Most of us can put this into perspective. I am not abandoning Obama over this. I'm wildly delighted that he is President and McCain is not. But one can be glad that Obama is President elect and still be outraged over the stupidity and sheer offensiveness of this decision.

The saddest thing is that many here at DU think they support equal rights for gays and lesbians because they get angry when Prop 8 passes.

They haven't yet understood that standing up to the bigoted forces behind the Prop 8's and calling them out for who they are and not giving them platforms to advance their cause is the very first step in changing the world.

This is the exact wrong message to send. The very first step in moving the world is to challenge and silence the bigots like Rick Warren, not to lend them a majestic podium.

[yardwork]

1. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I知 not opposed to that as much as I知 opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I知 opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I知 opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I知 opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/16/7415

Who could disagree? And his views on abortion - so steadfast! Not even the life of the mother is to interfere with saving that little fetus's life, because the fetus is more important than the woman, don't you know?

And it's so comforting to know that children will be taught that the earth is only 6,000 years old and any scientific comments to the contrary are ungodly.

Rick Warren is the ideal choice to symbolize Obama's connection to God. Don't you agree? Who wouldn't?

[Connie_Corleone]

8. Did you email change.gov?

[yardwork]

9. Yes. Does that mean I'm not allowed to comment here?

[Connie_Corleone]

17. I just asked you a question. I can't ask you a simple question?

I'm not Rick Warren. No need to get touchy. I didn't even mention your comment.

[yardwork]

18. Who's touchy? I asked you a question.

[Connie_Corleone]

20. Your question didn't make any sense because I never mentioned your comment.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Warren=Good, David Duke=Bad... and people get the message of what's acceptable by decent folk

It is symbolism of inclusively toward some bigots, exclusion toward other bigots. And symbols matter as much or more than policies in setting the national tone... the national sense of who is fair game, and where the middle is.

It keeps hammering the message home: "This gay things is NOT a civil rights issue."

[ruggerson]

26. exactly

[crappyjazz]

3. Excellent

K&R

[racaulk]

4. I will NOT have you ruin this for the rest of us!!!

:sarcasm:

[IndianaJones]

5. at this point...is the attitude on display really surprising? nt.

[ruggerson]

23. Sadly, no

n/t

[polichick]

6. Well said. k&r (Everybody see MILK to be inspired by people standing together.)

[Starry Messenger]

7. Allow me to be the first to rec this.

What a beautiful post.

[Beausoir]

10. K&R.

Very well said.

[DJ13]

11. Question

And try to answer without using the net.

Who gave the Invocation for:

Carter

Reagan

Bush Sr.

Clinton

Bush jr. (in 2000)

?

Cant remember off the top of your head?

So who will remember this whackjob assnut in a few years?

[Bluebear]

12. This whackjob actively campaigned for Prop 8. It's not "just a prayer"

[The_Casual_Observer]

14. Because those were probably reasonable choices.

[yardwork]

16. Billy Graham gave all those invocations, I believe. Did he ever say anything like this?

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I知 not opposed to that as much as I知 opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I知 opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I知 opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I知 opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/16/7415

[alwysdrunk]

19. What, you think Billy Graham is pro-gay rights?

I'm willing to bet he isn't. There's no need to even start a link war over it, you know I'm right.

[yardwork]

22. Did he say the things that Rick Warren has said? Did Graham promote constitutional amendments?

Do we expect more from Obama than we expected from Reagan and the Bushes? Is it progress to invite someone who holds these views to give the prayer at the inauguration?

[tigereye]

21. that's what I was thinking

I guess I don't get what Obama feels he owes this guy... personally I'd rather see Rev. Wright up there - with some progressive fire and brimstone!

[The_Casual_Observer]

13. Couldn't they have just gotten a legitimate clergyperson to do this?

What was so fucking hard about doing this? Why choose a deceiver?

[Oceansaway]

15. BO lost my confidence when he and

his lapdogs let Lieberman stay on...and yes, i let them know...

[Laelth]

24. I'm disappointed. This affects us all.

If one group lacks equal rights, we all lack equal rights.

A person who loathes the Constitution should not be allowed to give a speech at the inauguration of the President. A person who, quite obviously, does not believe that "all men are created equal" does not deserve this honor.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--procedural error corrected, clarity.

[TexasObserver]

25. I don't get furious. But I do despise Rick Warren.

Furious is not an emotion I experience. I MAKE others furious sometimes, but never have that feeling myself.

Rick Warren is a rightwing jackass pretending he's not a rightwing jackass, which makes him a bigger jackass than the rightwingers who don't pretend they're not rightwing jackasses.