Do you think that reaching out to Warren will improve the chances for equal rights?

[yardwork]

If you believe that, will you explain this to me please? Thanks in advance.

Cleveland--A domestic partner registry passed by city council last week appears to be headed for the ballot box.

Council passed the registry, Ohio’s third, on December 8. Mayor Frank Jackson has promised to sign it, and the measure would take effect 120 days later.

Meanwhile, a group of conservative ministers say they will try to stop it with a citywide vote.

....

Pruitt co-sponsored the registry ordinance, but voted against it.

Asked directly if he had been strong-armed by ministers, Pruitt said “Yes.”

Pruitt said he still supports the registry, calling it “a good concept, a good idea.”

Pruitt said the threats caused him to withdraw support for the registry and vote against it, and that it was purely related to his special election.

“I couldn’t risk having the ministers, who don’t have all the facts, on the pulpits preaching against me on Sunday,” Pruitt said.


http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories08/december/1219081.htm

[Critters2]

1. Pastors who preach against a candidate should have their tax-exempt status pulled

A couple instances of that would shut 'em up real fast!

[yardwork]

4. Perhaps, but that's not happening in Cleveland. Instead, the preachers are intimidating officials.

This legislation was passed with overwhelming support in Cleveland until the preachers got involved, and now the officials are being intimidated into backing away from it and putting it up for a popular vote, which the preaches will also influence.

It was just a minor thing, anyway - nothing like gay marriage. Just a registry for couples to get a few rights.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. No. These people are bigots. They will never change. Obama is so naive to think

that he can bring these people "to the table". Their hatred is unyielding!!

[Bluebear]

3. And their apologists disgusting.

Thank you for your post. :toast:

[saracat]

5. Amen. And so it continues.

[TankLV]

18. Absolutely...

at least we can know who these IDIOTS and ASSHOLES are now...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

199. And when they make excuses for why we would just sit back and accept Warren and the

hatred that he and his followers spew, I just don't know what to say. How can anyone sit back and allow the bigotry unchecked? That is unconscionable.

[yardwork]

6. Come on. 66 views and only five replies? Where is everyone?

You've been telling us queer folk that Obama has it all under control, that reaching out to Warren and the religious right will further our shared goal of obtaining equal rights for gay people - and now this, in Cleveland?

What am I to make of this? Please explain.

[Two Americas]

7. kick

I would like to see your question answered, too.

[yardwork]

36. No answer offered so far.

[gravity]

8. I don't think it will improve or hurt the chances for equal rights

This issue is blown way out of proportion.

[LostinVA]

10. Advocating equal rights can NEVER be blown out of proportion

[foxfeet]

11. In what way is it blown out of proportion?

[gravity]

12. Assuming that a two minute prayer is going to change anything

[Bluebear]

14. Two minute prayer. Plus countless hours of free TV time.

Larry King. 20/20. PrimeTime. All shows that have had Warren on "explaining" his views. Let alone the propaganda Warren will get out of reshowing the "two minute" prayer over and over for years to come. No, it's not just a two minute prayer.

[LostinVA]

43. You forgot his new publishing deal with Reader's Digest

[yardwork]

53. Not just a publishing deal. Huge multi-media network, including TV, radio, internet,and publishing.

[leftstreet]

59. And don't forget his Faith-Ba$ed Federal Dollar$

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4694671

[LostinVA]

201. I did't realize it was a "synergy"-type deal -- wonderful

[donco6]

118. And now the invite to MLK day.

As ironic as that may be. . .

[yardwork]

221. Which is the day before the inauguration, so Warren will be headlined all weekend.

[QC]

246. HE'S JUST GOING TO SING ONE SONG!1!!!!11

[Two Americas]

21. is anyone?

I don't think anyone is "assuming that a two minute prayer is going to change anything" in and of itself.

[leftstreet]

22. He's getting an endorsement from a Rock Star Status President

What part of this don't people understand?

:shrug:

[foxfeet]

23. I believe you ( and many others) have missed the point.

A "two-minute prayer" is obviously of no consequence to you and many others. Fine and dandy. But that same two minute prayer is of great importance to millions of the Religious Right, both for its content (whatever that turns out to be) and its symbolic value. The objections to Warren's invitation are pretty much unanimously focused on the issue of symbolic value. In that context, it is of great importance that the PE has invited an unreconstructed homophobe, misogynist, and religious bigot to address the nation on the occasion of the inauguration. A more ham-handed selection is difficult to imagine. As has been stated many times in many threads, there are a plethora of other conservative clergy who are more deserving of the symbolic honor of performing the invocation and who are in themselves far less-divisive figures. To bestow the symbolic honor on Warren gives the appearance of the PE's imprimatur on Warren's homophobia, misogyny and religious bigotry.

[yardwork]

40. But we've been told by the Obama team and many posters here that it will.

I have personally been told, over and over again, by both the Obama team and posters here on DU, that inviting Rick Warren is part of a brilliant strategy on Obama's part to reach out to "the other side" and nullify their hatred.

Gay people have been repeatedly told here at DU that we are "just too stupid to understand the brilliance of Obama's strategy."

I want to hear some explanations for what is happening right now in Cleveland - post election and post-Rick Warren invitation - in which Christian ministers are preventing passage of a city ordinance allowing couples to registry for minimal rights. No scary word "marriage." No demands for "civil unions." Just minimal rights for both same-sex and straight unmarried couples.

And apparently that is to be defeated by a group of ministers. Why?

[yardwork]

28. I was asking for an explanation for what's happening in Cleveland right now.

As described in the link, this is the situation:

The city council of Cleveland approved a couple's registry so that same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried couples can register to share some minimal rights. There is no same-sex marriage or civil union right in Ohio. All types of civil unions were made unconstitutional by statewide vote in 2004.

Some local jurisdictions are beginning to offer the couples registry. This was approved overwhelmingly by the Cleveland city council until some preachers jumped into the situation and began fighting it. They intimidated even the measure's sponsor into backing off, and now the measure will be put up to a popular vote. The preachers are going to ensure that their congregations vote against it.

We've been told by the Obama campaign that "reaching out" is part of a strategy to ensure gay rights. Doesn't seem to be working. Explanation?

[nosmokes]

9. Not by so much as a hair's breadth.

They(the Warrens of this world) have the *inerrant* word of their god on their side. Since the Bible can't be wrong neither can they. Just ignore those spots where it contradicts itself and pick the part that matches your own personal agenda at the moment. It's a time honored process that has served bigots and confidence men well for hundreds and hundreds of years and will no doubt continue to do so for hundreds and hundreds more to come.

[leftstreet]

13. If Jesus wasn't able to cure these fundy bigots, why would anyone think Obama could?

:hi:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. that is an interesting perspective. nt

[AntiFascist]

15. Let me play devil's advocate for a moment...

Obama is willing to trade gay marriage in exchange for being able to push other gay civil rights issues. His statement that heterosexual marriage is "sacred" where "God is in the mix" reinforces this, and his selection of Warren in a place of honor, in a way, codifies this as part of his Administration policy. Unfortnately, he may also be willing to trade marriage rights in California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and to some extent New York, as well. The question is, is this a fair trade?

[yardwork]

29. The situation in my OP is in Ohio, where neither civil unions nor marriage are an option.

Civil unions and marriage are both unconstitutional for same-sex couples in Ohio.

We're being told that if we back away from the word "marriage" and let Obama "reach out" to fundamentalist preachers, we'll get equal rights.

But here in Ohio a very minimal measure - simply a registry, certainly not marriage or even civil unions - is being opposed by fundamentalist preachers. In fact, there was no opposition whatsoever until the preachers got involved.

Please explain in light of the assurance from the Obama campaign about the brilliance of his strategy.

[AntiFascist]

83. This is exactly what is currently legal in California:

registered domestic partnerships, which can easily be viewed as second class relationships...certainly not as "sacred" in the eyes of the church. Eventhough Obama supports civil unions, and would certainly support registered partnerships, his religious views would also carry a lot of weight with the clergy who are opposing this in Ohio. If gay relationships are in no way 'sacred', and God cannot be found anywhere in the mix, then perhaps from Ohio's point of view it is also not in the best interests of the state to recognize them.

[yardwork]

87. Obama's views definitely carry a lot of weight with these preachers in Cleveland.

They helped him get elected. Turnout in Cleveland was key to winning Ohio. Ohio helped win Obama the election - it was a battleground state.

If Obama really cared about gay rights, he could easily persuade these preachers to drop their opposition. Instead, the preachers themselves began this initiative AFTER Rick Warren was chosen to give the invocation.

[FrenchieCat]

104. Since you have determined that Obama doesn't really care about Gay Rights......

I think that discussing anything with you in reference to any of this, as I tried to with a few posts below, will do much good.....or so it seems.

I almost feel like if I don't totally agree with you, then I am just plain wrong without discussion. That's not a problem, and so be it.

So I have decided that I will STFU on this issue, and you can be right.
That way, you win.....

[yardwork]

111. You've been telling me and others to shut up for months. Don't whine now.

[FrenchieCat]

158. I haven't told anyone to shut up.

What is reasonable for me to surmise is that I cannot debate with you, because you want to get hostile, and I don't. I'm sure that you are justified in this, but I'm not trying to create an enemy on these boards, but if in what I have posted thus far, I have earned your ire, so be it. In the end, you win. There is no doubt about it.

[donco6]

122. Or you can just admit you're wrong.

I mean, I loved the rah-rah for Obama during the election, and I was right in there with you. But he blew it big time with the Warren endorsement, and it's long past time for people to just face it.

[FrenchieCat]

140. We don't have to agree about the same things 100% of the time,

or do we?

I wouldn't have chosen Warren for the Invocation, but I am not Obama.

Was it a mistake?
Perhaps.....

I'm sure many of MLK's followers believed that he made mistakes as he went along too. Not saying that Obama is an MLK, just saying that sometimes judging in the moment doesn't give one the real answer.

[donco6]

149. WTF is "perhaps" about it?

I mean, really. The guy fought against our right to marry! He was INSTRUMENTAL in overturning a right that had been hard-fought for YEARS. And now he has an endorsement by Obama? The guy WE worked to elect? The preposterousness of it makes my head spin.

There just is no possible "perhaps" about it. There is no equivocating about it. It's not only a mistake, it's just painfully wrong.

[TankLV]

16. Not only "No" but "HELL NO!" The only thing it's "improved" is WARREN'S agenda...

and that ain't good at all.

It's EMBOLDENED that idiot asshole warren and his ilk...

[Swamp Rat]

17. No. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

19. Yes. I think that it positions Obama to be listened to by more than would have normally

when he proposes actual Gay Right initiatives. Some who's confidence in him, he will have built up, will think things through more throughouly prior to taking a hard stance.
That's what I think.

Perhaps I'm wrong (and so is he) but time will tell who is accurate on this.

[Luminous Animal]

20. When you say, "some who's confidence in him"

you lost me. To whom are you referring?

[FrenchieCat]

26. Those Americans who are on the fence in reference to progressive ideals

and how they relate to Gay Rights.

Voters who may be compelled by Obama's inclusion to abstain from coming down hard in rationalizing their displeasure with their congresscriters.

Or those same voters who might be compelled to positively engage in the case of their congress critters in reference to proposed legislation centering around Gay rights.

Or, something as small as when a poll is taken on the subject of Gay Rights, to have some who might have previously objected, now becoming more amenable to the idea that Rights are for everyone, and not just them. As we know, opinion polls does drive the media, and the media does drive the political climate.

These may be small things, or maybe not. I believe that it is worth a try, in particular there is a possibility that it moves the overall agenda forward.

Of course, that's just what I think, and doesn't counter those who believe otherwise....as they are free to believe that all Americans are already either for supporting equal rights for all or are not, and that they are all of immovable sentiments not to be bothered.

[Luminous Animal]

38. This makes no sense to me.

Are you claiming that the mere presence of known gay-hater Rick Warren is going to get people off the fence?

I would expect it would be to the contrary. A national platform legitimizes bigotry.

[FrenchieCat]

58. Well, we believe differently.

I think that those who are neither here nor there in terms of Gay rights, but are familiar with Warren in a general way (meaning they are not as aware of his strong stance against Gay Marriage, but do have respect for him in reference to the book that he has written) and may or may not have voted for Obama, might be more objective when Obama champions some of the issues that affect the Gay Community.

I am one who doesn't believe that all Americans have a firm pro or con view on Gay Rights and are open to persuasion. I also don't believe that these same Americans will view Warren giving a 2 minute invocation as a sway for them to now stand against Gay marriage alongside of Warren. Perhaps you know how many who know of Warren know of his stance on the Gay Marriage issue. I know that I sat through a six week, once a week workshop (as a favor to my SIL)dealing with his book and never knew his stance on Gay marriage or Gay rights.

[yardwork]

64. You participated in a 6-week workshop discussing Warren's book?

That's a piece of information I haven't seen you reveal until now.

In any case, you're still ignoring the second part of my two-part question - you know, the explanation I've requested for why the strategy appears to be failing miserably right now in Cleveland.

[FrenchieCat]

74. I have revealed it before.......

There has been 30,000 churches who have participated in this endeavor. Any person in a congregation who decided to participate in "A Purpose Driven Life" workshop was to invite 5 people to their home, once a week, for six weeks. There is a DVD, a workbook, excercises, etc....

My sister in law asked me to participate, and so I did.

Again, until that workshop, I had no idea who Rick Warren was. In looking at the DVD, I felt somewhat uneasy, because I am one that stays away from Prosperity churches and teachings, and I couldn't tell who he was, but started to get an inkling that he was indeed a properity minister. However, I did not know about his particular stance on Gay Rights till after hearing more about him, after Saddleback. Now, I live in California, and voted against Proposition 8, and assumed like many others, that this proposition would not pass....but it did.

In reference to Ohio, I did answer your question as best as I could elsewhere in this thread.....

[yardwork]

77. I missed your explanation for what happened in Cleveland. Please point me to the post.

Thanks.

[Two Americas]

48. I fully support that sort of reaching out

I spoke Christmas Eve to 300 Warren fans. I do not think that they are "all of immovable sentiments not to be bothered."

The question is does giving Warren more visibility help reach his followers, or does it not? I say that the exact opposite is the more effective approach - go to his followers for the purpose of countering Warren and the other leaders of the religious right.

You say that including leaders of the religious right is worth a try. But haven't we already been trying that for decades now? They have had the stage for years, been included, had a seat at the table, had influence.

The question then becomes this - are the leaders of the religious right responsible for the divisiveness, or are we? I do not think we should accept the blame for the divisiveness, and saying that we need to change or give something a chance is saying that.

Going into the lion's den and speaking to his followers is effective. Bringing him in to speak to us is not.

The first is about his followers being open to our message - a true reaching out. The second is about Obama's followers being open to Warren's message.

Asking us to be open to including Warren is asking is to be open to his message.

[FrenchieCat]

70. I believe that Warren brings with him a certain population to Obama......

that Obama normally wouldn't reach....or would reach, but only with their included preconceived notion as to who and what Obama represents.

The point is to get those who respect Warren to also come to respect Obama, and Obama's point of view about many things, including the rights of the gay community.

I consider the whole analysis of the invocation to be an incomplete painting of a picture. Because we do not know what Warren's 2 minute invocation will say or if it would make a difference, nor do we know what references Obama will make to equal rights in his 45 minute inauguration address, nor do we know how and when Obama will be proposing initiatives positive to the progress of equal rights for the Gay Community.

Because of the unfinished work towards equal rights that the Gay Community has at the beginning of an Obama administration, I cannot say with any certitude what will work and what won't and what will have been accomplished at the end of such an administration. Perhaps I presume that trying different approaches is better than not. Perhaps I presume too much and am totally off base (and I'm sure many think that this is the case), or perhaps what I'm saying makes perfect sense to some who like me do not believe that drawing a line in the sand and daring anyone to choose to stand on one side or another is the only way......as there are folks who are all over the place that can be herded.

[yardwork]

73. Cleveland voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Why are preachers in Cleveland going after gay rights?

These preachers voted for Obama. The city council voted for Obama. Everyone in Cleveland voted for Obama, practically. Cleveland is a strong, strong base of support for Obama.

The Cleveland city council passed an ordinance allowing minimal rights for gay couples. No marriage. No civil unions. Nothing religious. Everyone was happy - until a bunch of preachers got involved.

I've been told - by you among others - that reaching out to Rick Warren would prevent this from happening. Where's the love?

[FrenchieCat]

100. That is the thing, perhaps....that standing for Gay Rights and voting for Obama

are not one in the same. Or are you saying that you thought anyone who voted for Obama would think alike in everyway? I don't believe that would be the case, and I would venture to guess that you don't either. (stats on Prop 8 voters http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7639 )

What I'm saying is that Obama has yet to start to govern....so to come to a conclusion about the future of Gay Rights by pointing at something in the present and asking where's the love, is to believe that Obama will hold no sway as his term progresses.....and to believe that whatever directions things are going in now, is the direction they will continue to go into, nothwithstanding that Obama has yet to take the office. It is also saying that the debate that is currently going on, and will continue to go on will affect no one....even if it now said by some that if Proposition 8 was put on the ballot now, as opposed to on November 4th, it would not pass now, although it did then. The stats also show that polling on proposition 8 allowed folks against the proposition to believe that it would not pass.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/EDGQ140F5R.DTL

Instead of mouthing off capriciously to make you feel good, and to feel the righteous anger of the underdog, how about we look at this issue and we start to address it? What is it necessary to do to turn this around? Where do we begin?

Here are some modest suggestions:


Strengthen the movement of LGBT people of color. Why? Because we need to support the multi-issue work that is at the core of the lives of people of color in our own community. People like Pam Spaulding or Alexander Robinson don't have the luxury of being gay one day and black the next. They live both realities everyday, and one of the most important things the LGBT movement as a whole can do is to lift up the individuals and the organizations that bridge both communities.

Strengthen and support our straight allies in communities of color. We need to build on the good work of people like Alice Huffman at the California NAACP who took a courageous stand in favor of marriage equality early on. Some LGBT community leaders are already engaged in doing this, but more of us need to do more of it. We have to raise the level of visibility and support for our allies of color.

Become a movement that stands for racial justice. Dan Savage can joke all he wants, but the work of NGLTF on race is critical. If we are not good allies ourselves, then LGBT people of color will walk away from our movement (many already have; witness the blogger, Jasmyne Cannick, who has been publicly critical of the gay movement in a way that is not usually that productive). And there will be little incentive for straight allies to speak up on our behalf. Yes, that means we have to talk about affirmative action. Yes, that means we have to talk about immigration, and not just the LGBT aspects. Yes, that means we have to talk about poverty and the legacy of Hurricane Katrina. I'm sorry, we are long past the era of gay tunnel vision. If we want allies, we have to be an ally.

Finally, let's get some data (some of which we may already have) about what this attitudinal divide is all about. Is it pure homophobia or are there underlying beliefs and issues that we can constructively address? Let's then put our best minds to work on education, message development and on cross-movement work. Sure, there are bigots of all kinds in every community. We saw that at the McCain/Palin rallies. But carping about black homophobia in a reckless and unhelpful way won't change anything. It just digs us deeper into the hole.

I'm sure there are people who will criticize me as just another voice on the left talking about racism, like Dan saw the Task Force as an easy target. But again, how productive is that? If we do nothing but vent, we can just expect the same results next election day.
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/11/our_choice_on_prop_8_and_african_america.php

[yardwork]

106. Cleveland is majority black. Most gay people in Cleveland are also black.

Are you suggesting that these ministers are going after a same-sex registry in Cleveland because they don't feel sufficiently "reach out to" by white people? All the people involved in the equation in Cleveland are black - the ministers, the city council, the gay couples, the straight couples.

[dsc]

110. that isn't quite true

Cleveland is about half black and about half non black (white, hispanic, arabic). The city is still very segregated with the east side being close to 100% black and the west side being close to 100% non black. Downtown has become a hip place to live with mostly wealthy whites. Thus council is about evenly divided (all non blacks and two blacks voted for the registry while the rest of the blacks voted against). The ministers are all black with the gay couples being both races.

[yardwork]

114. Even more interesting. I'm even more interested in hearing some explanations.

[dsc]

125. I am very disappointed in McMickle

He should know better he ran for Congress in the 1990's as a liberal Democrat. I was apparently a bit wrong on numbers in that council apparently has only 9 black members vs 11 non black ones. I thought it was 10 to 10. One of the council men is openly gay though the man he beat is trying to get him recalled. Cleveland is about the most segregated city in the nation though and that surely doesn't help.

[HamdenRice]

192. Out FM (Pacifica's GLBT radio show) said that GLBT organizations were MIA on other civil rights

issues. Your cited passage confirms this:

"Become a movement that stands for racial justice. Dan Savage can joke all he wants, but the work of NGLTF on race is critical. If we are not good allies ourselves, then LGBT people of color will walk away from our movement..."

According to Out FM reporting, GLBT organizations were noticeably absent in affirmative action, immigration and other civil rights issues, so they had never been part of a civil rights coalition. They reaped the fruit of their non-participation in California's many other civil rights controversies.

[dsc]

196. that is a bald faced lie

Gays were often the only group of whites that would vote for black candidates when no one else would. Bernard Rustin, a gay man, came up with the idea of, and organized the famous March on Washington at which the I Have a Dream Speech was given. Oh, and us evil racist gays voted 70 to 27 for Obama and gave him huge amounts of money.

[HamdenRice]

197. Your dispute is with Out FM, not me.

Listen to its December interview about Prop 8. It was about California GLBT organization participation in recent California civil rights issues, not Bayard Rustin, who was a gay African American who was active in the 60s, nor was it about voting patterns.

The broadcast is available as a download or a pod cast, but unfortunately they don't make transcripts. Listen to the show and get back to us with an informed opinion.

[yardwork]

216. So you are saying that African Americans voted for Prop 8 in large numbers? That's a change for you

You've been telling us ever since Prop 8 passed in California that it's a lie that African Americans supported the measure, and anyone who says they did is a racist. Now you're saying that African Americans did, in fact, support Proposition 8 in large numbers, and it's gay people's fault?

[HamdenRice]

239. Your argument is with these guys--->

[yardwork]

32. Then, please explain to me why these preachers in Ohio feel empowered to stop a registry.

Marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples are already unconstitutional in Ohio. This is simply a registry for unmarried couples. It was overwhelmingly approved by the Cleveland city council and there was virtually no opposition until a handful of preachers got involved. Now they've intimidated the co-sponsors into backing away and they're forcing this civil rights issue for a minority to be voted upon in a popular election - just like Prop 8 only this time there's no question of marriage or even civil unions.

The preachers started this campaign after Obama was elected. They are on their way to successfully defeating even minimal rights for gay couples in Ohio. Explanation?

[FrenchieCat]

47. The question posed by the OP was in reference to the Warren Invocation......

Which is the question that I tried to answer.

The original question was not in reference to what folks are and have been doing to reverse and constrict the rights of some.

If I understand correctly, Obama has been elected, but has yet to start to govern.

I will always believe that the majority should not be given the option of voting for or against the rights of any minority. That has to change. Is there a plan to get that done? Cause I find it to be the biggest impediment towards equal rights for all. I'm sure if a majority had been given the option of voting on the rights of African-Americans, there would not be a President Obama today. period.

[yardwork]

51. I am the OP and my question had two parts -

I asked IF you think that reaching out to Warren will further gay rights, THEN will you please explain what is happening in Cleveland?

You responded that you think that reaching out to Warren will further gay rights. I haven't heard your response about what is happening in Cleveland. How do you reconcile this new push to strip gay people of even minimal rights, in light of the assurances you have made that reaching out to Warren will stop that?

[FrenchieCat]

112. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried to answer the first part of your question.....

which is what I was doing.

sorry, as I didn't realize that I should either answer part I & II, or simply not make an attempt at either.

I apologize for my incorrect approach to answering your OP.

[yardwork]

120. We already know your opinion on the first part of my question. You can't answer the second part.

Your entire argument falls apart when we look at actual events instead of pie in the sky in the by and by.

You have no argument.

[FrenchieCat]

135. Progress will move on regardless of whatever the two of us think.....

But till then, please ignore what I have said in any of my posts (I'm sure that will be easy). I'll keep these kinds of opinions to myself in the future......as I do not feel like being told that my opinions are totally useless simply because I answered A without answering B. The kind of rigidity you have exercised in your insistence that one can only respond to you as you would dictate will only gain you support where you already have it, IMO.

I support the cause of Equal rights and that of Gay Marriage.
But I will say nothing further on the subject from this point on.
I will STFU on this matter, as I have no argument.....as you point out, according to you.

You will have Peace from me on this issue, Yardwork.

[yardwork]

139. Good. Stay out of my threads. Put me on ignore. Because I will not be quiet.

Gay rights are going in the wrong direction in this country. We have fewer rights today than we did before the election.

[FrenchieCat]

I didn't ask you to be quiet. Do you see that in any of my posts?

Didn't think so.

You are telling me to stay out of your threads, so in essense, you are the one encouraging me to be quiet. You are telling me not to speak in your threads.....and I will respect that, since you have requested that I do so.

Your hostility towards me is not understandable to me.....but I'll take my lumps, no problem....and you win this debate, hands down.

[yardwork]

151. You have told gay people to shut up about this for months. Don't pretend you haven't.

[FrenchieCat]

160. Please provide a link here or PM me a link where I did this.......

As I doubt you.

[AntiFascist]

148. "Is there a plan to get that done?"

Several lawsuits against Prop 8 are addressing that very point. Only the judicial branch can uphold the rights of the minority, and that is precisely the plan in the California Prop 8 court case. If Prop 8 is overturned then not only would this be a landmark case upholding Fundamental Rights in California, but it could set precedents that might be usefule elsewhere.

PE Obama, as a constitutional scholar, could be weighing in on this issue more publically, but instead he focuses on reaching out to Dominionist-types who feel that the rule of their version of god should rule all. Unfortunately Dominionism (whether we acknowledge it as such) is becoming increasingly popular through modern-day Evangelism, but when Obama reaches out to them we cannot afford to allow him to sacrifice any portion of our constitutional rights, no matter how inclusive he wants to be. This is precisely why the Warren issue is so much larger than just the issue of gay rights or gay and lesbian marriage.

[yardwork]

55. 18 replies so far and not a single explanation. Man, that's sad. You can do better than this.

Come on. There's a couple threads active right now in this forum assuring me that I'll get my rights because Obama's reaching out to bigots has nullified their hatred.

I'm not feeling the love in Cleveland. What gives? Help me understand.

[Starry Messenger]

24. No, I don't.

If I am totally wrong I will eat a hat of anyone's choosing.

[kdpeters]

27. Yes, I do.

[yardwork]

33. Then, can you explain what is happening in Cleveland to me?

Please read the link or at least my summaries of the article in this thread and explain to me why it is happening if Obama's strategy is sound.

[kdpeters]

54. No, I won't be led on a wild goose chase, but I'll be happy to stick to your original question.

Do you think that reaching out to Warren will improve the chances for equal rights?

This was your question and my answer is "yes, I do". I'm more than happy to elaborate.

For starters, I am more than convinced that GLBT equality is the right answer. Not only do I "feel" this is so, but I have seen over and over again, the more that it is discussed, the more that opinions move toward my position. Never in my 20+ years of GLBt activism have I ever been tempted to comprimise my values of GLBT equality, yet I have seen over and over and over again people who I had thought unreachable come around to my way of thinking over time. This has only occurred with people that I've maintained close ties to -- "reaching out" if you will -- enough to challenge their former ways of thinking. The movement only goes one way -- towards equality. I've never ever ever in my live seen an example of a person becoming more entrenched against gLBT equality by knowing one of us personally. Yet, I've known many many many who have softened or laxed their opposition just by knowing me in thier daily lives.

You asked me if I believe that reaching out will improve the chances for equal rights, and still my answer is "Yes, I do." Reaching out is the best way to challenge them and bring them around. They are wrong. We are right. The only way we are ever going to bring them around is to force them to deal with the fact that we exist and that we are people that they know and love and challenge them to deal with us openly and honestly. By the way, I just got back from doing just that. About half of my colleagues are real devout Bible thumpers, but I make no mind of that. I just bring my same sex partner with me and expect that we will be treated just the same as every other couple at our event. Guess what!! That's exactly how we are treated by everyone ... even the most strident of the bible thumpers in my program. Just like everyone else. Because that is the way I expect and demand to be treated.

Karl

[yardwork]

57. My OP was a two-part question. I'll cut and paste it again for you:

Do you think that reaching out to Warren will improve the chances for equal rights?

If you believe that, will you explain this to me please? Thanks in advance.

[kdpeters]

60. If you don't mind responding to what I wrote to you...

I'll be happy to then elaborate more fully if you have more questions. As it is, I'm not going to keep putting this much thought, time and effort into my responses just to have you ignore them.

[yardwork]

62. If you don't care to answer the questions in the OP, why come here and be rude?

I'm familiar with your argument, and I'm not disagreeing per se. I'm asking for an explanation about that strategy's apparent failure in Cleveland. That was the two-part question I posed in my OP.

[kdpeters]

66. OK, I guess I don't see how the strategy was even employed in Cleveland,

nor do I see how what wasn't even employed could be said to have failed. I'm seriously not trying to be rude to you, but I just don't see how the two events are analogous as far as the successes of "reaching out" are concerned. I'm totally sincere, yardwork. I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't see it the way you do (obviously to me, at least) and I don't at all see the analogy that you're trying to compare.

[yardwork]

71. We've been told that Obama's strategy is a national one.

First, most rational people would agree that "reaching out" is a sound strategy for trying to change people's minds. I would never complain if Rick Warren had been included on a panel or round-table discussing issues with Obama. I would expect Obama to have meetings with him, etc.

We've been told by Obama's team - official statements - and many posters here on DU that honoring Rick Warren by inviting him to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration is a form of "reaching out." We've been told that this is part of Obama's national strategy to change people's minds. We've been told that this gesture has "nullified" the haters. I've been told that numerous times here on DU.

I'm pointing out that this national strategy doesn't seem to be working. Cleveland is an example. There are many others. Gay rights are being denied on the state and local level - that's where it's happening.

I've been told that I need to shut up and sit down and let Obama work his strategy and everything will be fine across the nation. I'm pointing out that not only has nothing changed, this particular group of preachers in Cleveland (a strong base of support for Obama) appears to have felt empowered recently to go after a city ordinance giving only minimal rights to gay people.

I've also been told - repeatedly - that if I am only willing to let go of the term "marriage" everything will be fine with the religious right. In Cleveland there is no question of marriage or even civil rights - just a registry - but even that is being opposed by preachers.

I'd like an explanation from the posters on DU who have been telling me to shut up and let Obama's strategy work. It's not working. Now what?

[kdpeters]

127. Yardwork, I hate breaking down your post and responding line by line ...

but, I feel like it's warranted in this instance. so, if you'll indulge me, I want to make sure we're on the level and understanding one another. I don't want to end up talking past one another because I always always always value what you say and I really don't think you and I are very far apart in our thinking as far as the big picture issues are concerned. So, in this instance, I am going to break down your post and respond line-by-line and hope that it helps to make me understood.

First, most rational people would agree that "reaching out" is a sound strategy for trying to change people's minds.

This is as sound of common ground as any. I think this is a good place to start.

I would never complain if Rick Warren had been included on a panel or round-table discussing issues with Obama. I would expect Obama to have meetings with him, etc.

Now this is where I think the little difference has been turned into a big one. To me, I don't see the inaugural invocation as being all that much more significant than a round-table discussion. In fact, it seems like something even less important. Something more ceremonial than anything at all impacting substantive policy in any meaningful way.

We've been told by Obama's team - official statements - and many posters here on DU that honoring Rick Warren by inviting him to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration is a form of "reaching out." We've been told that this is part of Obama's national strategy to change people's minds. We've been told that this gesture has "nullified" the haters. I've been told that numerous times here on DU.

My personal opinion: Rick Warren was to be honored one way or another because he also went out on a limb to be somewhat civil to Obama. There may be things more personal between two politicians at play here, but overall, I think it was not only reasonable, but expected that Warren would play a part in the inauguration considering what Warren did for Obama during the campaign. There's probably a lot more going on beneath what either you or I can see that makes much more sense than we can make of it.

I'm pointing out that this national strategy doesn't seem to be working. Cleveland is an example. There are many others. Gay rights are being denied on the state and local level - that's where it's happening.

Reaching out to Warren is a long term view in my opinion. Cleveland is a near term loss that doesn't necessarily compare with the strategy of reaching out to opponents currently.

I've been told that I need to shut up and sit down and let Obama work his strategy and everything will be fine across the nation.

Not by me!! I would tell you, "You go girl". Keep standing up. Keep speaking out. I may have a slight disagreement on the particulars of the Warren scandal, but in no way do I presume that my opinion is the "right" opinion. I disagree that the Warren issue is the one to take our stand on, but never would I ever try to silence your voice though it disagrees with mine.

I've also been told - repeatedly - that if I am only willing to let go of the term "marriage" everything will be fine with the religious right.

Let me register right now my 100% solidarity with you regarding marriage equality. I am gay and totally committed to a partner that I should marry should it ever be legal in Georgia. I might argee with "reaching out" to Warren-types, but I will never, ever suggest we should compromise with anything less than full equality in the long run.

I'd like an explanation from the posters on DU who have been telling me to shut up and let Obama's strategy work. It's not working. Now what?

Well, that wouldn't be me. Don't ever shut up. We may disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, you just may be right and I just may be wrong. What's more important to me is that I know you are fighting on the right side. Do I "trust" Obama? Well, as much as I ever trust any heterosexual politician. He's going to be a great president, but the advances we as GLBTs will make this decade are up to us and up to the President to get out of our way more than to lead us. Obama will get out of our way and we will make our own way. I truly believe that.

Karl

[yardwork]

133. I don't think that we disagree, or at least, not very much.

The posters who have been telling gay people to shut up and get over it are mostly absent from this thread. No surprise.

If Obama's team had stated that Warren was being honored because he was civil to Obama, I would feel a lot better about this. Instead, there was no such honest statement. Instead, we got weasel words about how Obama was "everybody's president" and how "reaching out" would make everything bad go away.

I call nonsense. That's what this thread is about.

[kdpeters]

138. I think you're right. Reading your contributions to this thread...

I don't think we disagree on much at all.

[Luminous Animal]

76. I have experienced the same thing...

BUT, Warren is invested in his homophobia. Africa's money making frontier in regards to faith-based prevention is his goldmine. He will continue to preach this sort of thing:

"The Kampala Monitor reports:

Dr Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said."

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/3/30/54825/1882


And support clerics like this Nigerian archbishop who backs anti-gay laws worse than the third Reich's.

"...the Primate of All Nigeria and leader of the Anglican Communion's largest Province, Archbishop Peter Akinola, endorsed legislation that would ban most basic civil rights for gay and lesbian Nigerians, and enforce that ban with a 5 year prison sentence."

On April 30, 2006, pastor Rick Warren wrote an op-ed, for Time Magazine, which lavished praise on Akinola, likening the cleric to Nelson Mandela:

"Akinola personifies the epochal change in the Christian church, namely that the leadership, influence, growth and center of gravity in Christianity is shifting from the northern hemisphere to the southern. New African, Asian and Latin American church leaders like Akinola, 61, are bright, biblical, courageous and willing to point out the inconsistencies, weaknesses and theological drift in Western churches."

"...Akinola has the strength of a lion, useful in confronting Third World fundamentalism and First World relativism."

"...I believe he, like Mandela, is a man of peace and his leadership is a model for Christians around the world."

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:60cPuWPzZEkJ:www.talk2action.org/story/2008/12/24/185155/24+warren&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

I cannot wrap my head around any explanation that would endorse the idea that Warren, strategic or otherwise, deserves a seat at any Democrats table.

[yardwork]

78. Honoring Warren in this way is not "including him in a conversation."

Nobody will rebut whatever Warren says when he gives the invocation. Honoring Warren in this way is a tacit agreement with his views.

Inviting Warren to speak as part of a panel or round-table? Sure.

[Luminous Animal]

82. I'm not even sure he deserves that...

but I'll grant it as long as I get a seat, as well. Someone needs to ask him why he endorses throwing queers in jail.

[yardwork]

89. Instead, Warren is honored and we're told to stfu.

Somehow I'm not persuaded that this is going to lead to improved rights.

[AntiFascist]

171. How do you feel specifically about Obama aligning with Warren on the issue of marriage equality?

where he reaffirms his belief that heterosexual marriage is "sacred" and where "God is in the mix"? Just because colleagues treat you in a civilized way does not mean that may still have some deeply ingrained prejudices. Obama can act like a friend to gay equality all he wants, but this does not excuse the basic inequality in his principles.

[IndianaJones]

30. reaching out clearly worked with the south in the 1800's. nt.

[flvegan]

31. No more than him reaching out to Kucinich would improve the odds

that everyone went vegan overnight and statuesque women, en masse, started going for short, funny looking guys.

[yardwork]

34. self-edit

[flvegan]

44. Excuse me?

I apologize robustly if you didn't find my obviously mocking analogy to the potential of the subject OP demeaning.

Maybe you should reread my response with perspective.

[yardwork]

46. I apologize for misunderstanding your post completely, and I'll delete mine.

I'm sorry.

[flvegan]

50. It's cool.

This is a very hot topic, and I know that you are directly affected by Warren and the hate he preaches.

I'm one of your straight allies, and I was only trying to come up with an even more ridiculous scenario than Warren's "helping" with GLBT civil rights. I think that anyone that thinks "reaching out" to Warren helps with civil rights needs to have their head examined.

[yardwork]

52. Thank you for understanding.

I've been called a viper, a disease, and a number of other nasty things in the past weeks. But that doesn't excuse my jumping to conclusions. Again, I apologize.

[flvegan]

61. Yes it does excuse it.

That's why you didn't get a tirade of cursing from me.

I saw the "disease" namecalling. You've got it coming from both sides, so I think there should be a predisposition for levity in regards to jumping to conclusions.

Keep fighting.

[mopinko]

35. i don't think he is reaching out to warren. he is reaching for his followers.

he is trying to be another voice in debates that have occurred completely within the right wing echo chamber for the last 20 years. he is trying to counter the wedges driven by the preachers. trying to put some weight on the other side of the scale.

i think partly he is doing this for the strategery of it. but i also think that he honestly takes his duty to be the president of every american seriously. having this country split down the middle has resulted in some serious damage, imho. dialog is the first step out.

i am sorry that people feel so insulted by this whole thing. i think they are projecting an intent that just is not there.

[leftstreet]

39. The country is not split down the middle

The politicians and the M$M tell us this, but it's not true.

(Not saying you don't have accurate insight on Obama's motivations. I don't know.)

[yardwork]

42. The city of Cleveland was certainly not split on this issue at all until the preachers got involved.

[yardwork]

41. My OP is a request for an explanation about what is happening in Cleveland right now.

Please read the link in my OP, or my summaries of the issue in various posts here, and let me know your explanation for this apparent complete failure to counter the wedges driven by the preachers.

Because they seem to have been empowered by the election and choice of Rick Warren in this instance.

[Two Americas]

182. reaching out to Warren is not reaching out to his followers

I am surprised by the number of people here who are now in these circumstances suddenly willing to grant legitimacy to the leaders of the religious right. Their power is based on lies and deception, and they gain followers by playing to their fears and prejudice. That is not anything that our leadership is bound to take seriously, nor do I think that reaching out to those leaders is the same as reaching out to their followers. I think the opposite is true.

The apology that he has a "duty to be the president of every American" is misapplied here, since this is about showcasing a leader who wants millions of Americans to not be represented, to not have a voice.

I don't think that the objections to the Warren selection are merely a matter if people being insulted, nor is it merely about speculations on intent. Those are straw men you are setting up that are easy to knock done - "oh they are feeling insulted and think that this means Obama is an enemy." That is a "get over it, your objections are trivial" line of argument, and it is based on a misrepresentation of people's thoughts on this.

The country is not "split down the middle." That is a corporate mass media lie.

[Luminous Animal]

188. There are some great posts on this thread...

and this is one of them.

[yardwork]

211. Thank you for that excellent post!

[dsc]

37. Hell no and here's why

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=39155

They are now after suicide prevention programs. Lest one think they are worried about government waste it isn't that they don't work. No, it is that they have the audacity to make gay people, and some non gay people, think that being gay isn't evil. I know, you think I am making this up, so here are some links.

http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2006/07/1-800-suicid ...

With teenage suicide being the 3rd leading cause of death between 18 to 24 year olds - our government should not be duplicating prevention efforts but helping fund the many local organizations and non-profits with proven track records on prevention. In addition our government should not be in the business having access to this private and sensitive information!

Despite the fact that almost 2 million callers have reached help and hope over the last 8 years, and a government funded evaluation stating the benefits of 1-800-SUICIDE, the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA), a division of Health & Human Services, has decided to create their own government run system where they would have direct access to confidential data on individuals in crisis.
You might recall SAMHSA, which came under fire from the fundies back in February of last year. Agency officials were forced by the Bush admin (after the WH received hopping mad calls from Family Research Council's Tony Perkins) to remove all LGBT references from a federally funded suicide prevention conference in California and to kill gay-positive content from the SAMHSA site.

The Bushies also suggested a session on "faith-based" suicide prevention, and threatened the conference's funding. The wingnut admin functionaries backed down after an outcry for sanity from response from mental health professionals.

SAMHSA also took a big hit when its web site featured a section called "Celebrating the Pride and Diversity Among and Within the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations" which flew in the face of the flat-earth science often promoted in government under Bush that seems to either ignore or condemn homosexuality. The SAMHSA link above is to The Memory Hole, btw. My original post on this was called How long before a Bush drone puts a stop to this?

The answer was 12 days. That's how long it took for a Bush drone to scrub a government web site of gay-positive content.

end of quote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

ACCORDING TO BRIAN, "In Massachusetts, anything labeled 'youth suicide prevention' is always a homosexual program in disguise. No one else is ever interested in youth suicide issues because it is not really a problem in the schools. In fact, there is no youth suicide 'epidemic' in Massachusetts."

Please do the right thing for parents and children - DO NOT CAVE-IN TO THE MURDEROUS RIGHT-WING BIGOTED AGENDA! THEY ARE CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT A CONSCIENCE!

end of quote

Brian is the head of the anti gay alliance of Massachusetts.

Let me be blunt this is pure evil. It is nothing less than the idea that Matthew Sheppard is the ultimate ex gay. These aren't, sadly, the Fred Phelps of the word. These are the supposedly reasonable anti gay zealots. We can't let these people win. If they are willing to sacrifice straight teenagers just so someone, somewhere who is gay won't get a positive feeling about him or herself. This is the type of Christian we are up against. Why should we believe for a minute they will entertain the notion of compromise? At best, they don't care if we live or die. At worst, they wish us dead. Compromise isn't an option.

[quiet.american]

45. I wonder how many know the story of Shirley Chisholm and George Wallace?

Shirley Chisholm's Legacy
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/2098

Excerpt:

One of the most remarkable moments of the 1972 campaign came after Alabama Governor George Wallace, a foe of civil rights who also sought the party's presidential nomination that year, was shot. Wallace was shocked when Chisholm arrived in his hospital room to express her sympathy and concern. "He said, 'What are your people going to say?' I said, 'I know what they are going to say. But I wouldn't want what happened to you to happen to anyone.' He cried and cried," Chisholm recalled.

From George Wallace entry on Wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

Chisholm created controversy when she visited rival and ideological opposite George Wallace in the hospital soon after his shooting in May 1972, during the 1972 presidential primary campaign. Several years later, when Chisholm worked on a bill to give domestic workers the right to a minimum wage, Wallace helped gain votes of enough southern congressmen to push the legislation through the House....His term as Governor (1983–1987) saw a record number of black appointments to government positions.

Given the current climate on DU, I can't help but think Shirley Chisholm would have been the object of a lot of rage on this board if "the internets" and DU had been around then. She certainly deserved better. Personally, I think Obama does, too.

[yardwork]

49. I met Shirley Chisholm and I am familiar with the events in question.

You didn't answer my question, though.

I'm asking for an explanation for what is happening Cleveland. I'm not asking about "what if" and "it worked back then" and anyway, I've been repeatedly told that my search for equal rights has nothing common with previous civil rights movements, so I don't see how your analogy is relevant if that is true.

I'm asking for an explanation for something it is happening right now, not a promise of pie in the sky by and by.

[quiet.american]

63. Maybe you've been told your search has nothing to do with civil rights for one reason:

In the great civil rights movements of India and the U.S., there is one vital thing missing from the current one, and I wonder if you can figure out what it is... because the absence of it makes me keenly aware of how difficult it must have been for Ghandi and King to convince their supporters, across all lines, of the one thing that must be accomplished, and which they themselves were amazing models of... true non-violence.

The kind of non-violence that goes deep.... meaning, hate fought with hate with hate and anger leads to nothing but more hate and anger... and maybe considering that responses dripping with derisive impatience do nothing to further your cause.

As for what some preachers in Ohio have to do with Obama inviting Warren to give an invocation... I have no idea what the correlation is. Maybe you want me to say that the Warren invocation will make no difference to what's happening in Ohio. Alright, it won't. In fact it won't make any difference one way or the other.

I can tell you that it's incredible to me, that in one breath you invoke the civil rights movement, in the next, you don't want to take any lessons from that era.

Personally, I support gay marriage, and I do feel that the gay community's fight for equal rights is akin to the civil rights movement; it took me a long time to come to that conclusion.

I also think Obama will sign many bills, and make several appointments that will be very inclusive of gay citizens. But that won't matter to some. It's a no-win situation.

[yardwork]

65. So my words here are "violent" but Malcolm X was not?

:rofl:

Ok, that one really deserves some kind of an award.

[quiet.american]

68. You really don't much about the civil rights movement, do you?

After you finish rolling on the floor with laughter, seriously, pick up a copy of MLK, Jr.'s "Strength to Love," and read (or re-read) "The Autobiography of Malcolm X."

Seriously.

[yardwork]

75. King didn't write The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

Google the Black Panthers.

[quiet.american]

84. You're reading too fast. I never said that in my post. nt

[yardwork]

90. Have you found out about the Black Panthers yet?

[quiet.american]

94. Oh yes, for many years, now.

But you'll note I referenced Ghandi and King in my original post.

The tactics of Malcolm X, and the Panthers have their place in history; yet it is the principles of King, the "strength to love" of King, that truly effected the Civil Rights Act, and rippled out to effect true change.

[yardwork]

96. Your post was very clear, it's right up above.

My words are more violent than anything that happened in the Civil Rights Movement or Ghandi's movement (which involved a bitter civil war that you don't seem to know about).

You are clueless.

[quiet.american]

102. No, I never said King wrote "Malcolm X."

You do know the civil war happened after Ghandi's movement freed India from British rule, and thus was created Pakistan?

[Number23]

225. You are awesome

It's fascinating that even now, many are ignorant that before his assassination, Malcolm X. was well on his way to adopting many of the non-violent principles of MLK.

Some think that may have been one of the reasons he was assassinated. But I'm digressing. Please carry on. Your posts are wonderful.

[LostinVA]

244. Why? For insulting another poster, who I KNOW knows about civil rights?

[Number23]

250. Yes. Insulting another poster is exactly why I think that poster is "awesome"

:eyes:

And the OP was sooo wounded and insulted that later on in the thread, those same two posters had conversations littered with "thank you's" and :hug:. It appears that they were able to move on, so why can't you??

[Luminous Animal]

56. Not a very good analogy.

1) Warren and Obama are not ideological foes.
2) Obama is not gay. He's a straight Christian man against gay marriage reaching out to another straight Christian man who is against gay marriage and against gays, period.

[quiet.american]

67. Not accurate.

Obama may personally be against gay marriage, but he is not against equal rights for gay citizens, and will never attempt to have his personal beliefs written into law.

I'm not quite sure what the "Obama is not gay" angle has to do with anything.

[dsc]

69. He has repeatedly stated that he isn't in favor of gay marriage

and feels civil unions are the proper solution for gays. He has been crystal clear on this.

[quiet.american]

72. Yes. That's essentially what I posted he said.

And because he was so crystal clear, I'm sure those in the gay community were well aware of this when they voted for him.

[yardwork]

79. I was not aware that he would immediately honor one of the country's most prominent bigots.

[quiet.american]

81. You know, Obama appeared during the campaign season at Warren's church.

It simply was not a shock to me that Warren was invited to give the invocation.

[Luminous Animal]

86. One is called "going into the lions den".

A courageous thing to do. The other is feeding the lion your brother.

[quiet.american]

88. :) Just curious, is that what Etheridge did too, by inviting Warren to her home?

I can only guess she's considered a traitor to the gay civil rights movement now.

I thought what she did was in the true spirit of the civil rights movement.

[yardwork]

91. While you're sitting around singing kumbaya with Melissa, I'm going to fight for my rights.

Your arguments have not convinced me to shut up.

[quiet.american]

95. And you shouldn't back down.

I also don't think Melissa will stop fighting for equal rights for gay citizens.

You will fight your way, and she will fight hers.

I hope you both win. :)

[bluedawg12]

105. It was AFTER meeting with her, Warren made that ugly analogy

between gay marriage and pedophelia and bestiality.

The same gay marriage Etheridge had hoped for. Oddly, she was not as anxious to release her praises after those comments, as when she was charmed into warbling his praises, prior to them.

[quiet.american]

107. She couldn't be responsible for what he did afterwards, but to me she did the right thing.

She reached out with an open mind.

[bluedawg12]

116. She reached out with an open mind, in return she got hateful bigotry

which he then tried to deny, except it was all caught on video. His homophobic statement and it's denial.

If the gay community rejects Warren at this stage and have repeatedly said: dialogue first and we want to be included in that dialogue about our own civil rights, what is the persistent attempt at justifying something that is unacceptable to many of us, of something allegedly done in our name?

[quiet.american]

142. You know what, I haven't been justifying Warren, I've been agreeing w/Etheridge.

Besides which, I surely wouldn't have held much hope that an evangelical preacher was going to turn on a dime after one visit with a gay couple.

But I still think she did the right thing.

[bluedawg12]

172. You know what else? This is about Cleveland and not Etheridge.

The question was to explain what is going on in Cleveland, about taking away civil union and how has elevating Warren done anything at all, except to be seen as empowering clerical, religion based prejudice and bigotry and in Cleveland - intimidation of politicans.

Great new climate of INtolerance.

[quiet.american]

179. "New" climate? Are you serious?

Are you trying to say that it's the Warren invocation that has ushered in some age of intolerance?

I know you know that intolerance, especially amidst conservative preachers, existed long before Warren came on the scene. In Cleveland, Ohio.

[yardwork]

185. But we're being told that the Warren invocation changed all that.

I know it sounds ridiculous. We think it's ridiculous too.

My entire point in this thread is that the Warren invitation is not going to usher in some new age of tolerance, despite the assurances of same by the Obama team.

It's also nice to see some acknowledgement of the persistent intolerance amongst conservative preachers, because that too is being denied here on DU with some regularity.

[AntiFascist]

183. Obama may never attempt to have his personal beliefs written into law...

but that did not prevent him from speaking his beliefs before a huge national audience, which effectively helped to bring about the victory of Prop 8. Obama is demonstrating that he can not only reach out to the religious right-wing but he can also aid them, quite substantially, in bringing about their discriminatory agenda. This is why many of us are angry, and giving Warren a position of honor at his inauguration seems to be saying that he doesn't really care about the small percentage of the population affected by his actions, but that his own popularity is more important.

[HamdenRice]

195. Excellent reply!

There are so many other excellent replies in this thread! If only everyone can stop and think and let the insight sink in.

[Number23]

224. Fantastic

Given the current climate on DU, I can't help but think Shirley Chisholm would have been the object of a lot of rage on this board if "the internets" and DU had been around then. She certainly deserved better. Personally, I think Obama does, too.

Fantastic, fantastic, fantastic...

[nini]

253. Chisholm is my first political hero

She was an amazing woman with a strength rarely seen.

[leftofthedial]

80. "reaching out" to Warren has already caused the only substantive thing it will ever cause.

It has alienated the left and put them in their place, reminding them that their issues, if not their votes, are utterly disposable.

[yardwork]

85. It would appear that honoring Warren may have empowered anti-gay bigotry in Cleveland.

Everybody was happy about the new registry in Cleveland until late December, when some preachers decided to take it down. It looks like they will be successful.

[mzmolly]

92. Frankly yes.

Warren is greatly popular among the evangelical crowd. He's come out in support of Civil Unions, which the vast majority of states do not allow or recognize.

If Obama and/or Democrats were to legislate on this issue in the future, Warren may be of help getting support from Republicans in office and beyond. We may need that support.

One step at a time as they say.

Sorry, I realize that my position may be unpopular here, but it's not the first time. ;)

[yardwork]

97. You've answered the first part of my question. The second part is important, too.

Since you think that reaching out to Warren will help, can you explain to me what is happening in Cleveland now? Thanks.

[mzmolly]

108. Resistance

is what's happening in Cleveland. All the more reason we may need someone like Warren in times to come.

Remember MLK was murdered roughly 40 years ago because of his role in the struggle for equality. He did not fight in the manner people suggested he should. Some called for violence. He rejected the suggestion that people needed to proceed in such a manner in order to win the larger battle. He had his own ideas about how to effect change. He was criticized, but ultimately he was vindicated.

As you know we recently elected a black President. Who could have predicted this day in 1968?

Progress doesn't ever come quickly enough, but it does come. And, while it bubbles up from the conscience of reason, it ultimately comes with the support of so called "mainstream" society.

Peace Yardwork. :hi:

You are free to disagree with me, but I hope you'll respect my opinion and realize, that while we have the same destination in mind, we're free to support different means to an end.

[yardwork]

109. We need somebody right now. Not in "times to come." Right now.

Gay people in Cleveland are having their rights stripped away right now.

I voted for Obama twice. I sent him money. He says he's my president. I need him now, not "in times to come."

Nobody is calling for violence - at least, I'm certainly not. The violence is waged against gay people, not vice-versa.

[mzmolly]

113. I agree.

But my opinion on when we need change wasn't sought. As I've said, "change" never comes in time.

[yardwork]

117. Obama chose to elevate Warren now, and the rights are being stripped in Cleveland now.

And I'm being told to shut up and be quiet and wait.

[mzmolly]

128. I'm not telling you that.

But if that's how you choose to twist my commentary, you're free to do so.

[bluedawg12]

132. Gay rights is not a question of "when"- as it is never convenient for some.

[yardwork]

136. I didn't say that you were telling me that. My OP is a question to those who have.

I have been repeatedly, constantly, relentlessly told to shut up about this here at DU. I've been called a disease and a viper and in this very thread I'm told that my words are more violent than anything that happened during the Civil Rights Movement.

Not by you. I didn't say that.

[mzmolly]

141. I'm sorry

that you've been treated such a way.

:hug:

[yardwork]

146. Thank you. I appreciate your kind words. It has been difficult and continues to be difficult.

I don't really care what people think of me. I'm used to it.

All I ask is for equal rights under the law, the same rights that everybody else in the United States has but me and other gay people.

[mzmolly]

153. You are entitled

to such rights. And you have my full support.

Peace :hi:

[yardwork]

156. Thank you!

:pals:

[bluedawg12]

121. Cleveland would be a perfect chance for Warren to speak out for CU's!

If he is so in favor of justice for gays.

Of course, there is nothing because he is not our advocate.

[yardwork]

124. If Obama and his little buddy Warren cared about gay rights, they'd be in Cleveland now.

Every single one of the ministers pushing this in Cleveland voted for Obama and urged their folks to do the same. Obama's opinion carries a lot of weight with them.

[bluedawg12]

129. There is no leadership on gay civil rights from the top.

There was plenty of "talk" when votes were needed, though.

[yardwork]

137. There appears to be leadership - for going in the wrong direction.

When the ministers get through there will be fewer rights for gay people in Cleveland, just as there are in California. The leadership's response to this? Honor an anti-gay minister.

[bluedawg12]

147. Clev = PropHate8 revisited: actively working against the civil rights of other human beings.

That's a lot more than just a difference of opinion.

[yardwork]

155. That's why we need to talk about it. We need to discuss reality now, not vague promises.

Obama could be speaking out about what is happening in Cleveland. So could Rick Warren, if he is as invested in gay rights as some on this thread say.

[bluedawg12]

169. Cleveland would be a perfect chance for Warren to man up.

Money talks bullsh*t walks.

[bluedawg12]

99. here's the problem, it is not for others to say we should accept CU's politically.

That is way too premature, as PE Obama has not been sworn in yet and the world is a crazy and dangerous place and he will have many issues to contend with.

Having said that, when there is some dialogue between the gay rights activist community and the new adminstration and when an agenda is set, then, it would be fair to say what the goals should and will be.

For now, courting Warren, over CU's, may be expedient instead of "marriage," but it is still up to the people being oppressed to set their political goals, and in truth, justice and equality are non-negotiable, no matter how difficult.

The elevation and lionization of Warren at this stage is so premature, that the GLBTQ community has been left out of setting the final goal. Hence, the anger, frustration and hurt.

[mzmolly]

True.

But gays do not all agree on this issue. So, who among the oppressed gets to choose the method for seeking change? Melissa Etheridge or Sandra Bernhardt?

I applaud them both and respect their differing opinions on the Warren matter. But reality is reality and we have to operate from a perspective of not only where we want to be, but where we are at present.

Where we are currently is that very few states have rights supporting partnership equality among same sex couples. What's standing in the way? Largely the Christian right. What hero among that group has come out in support of Civil Unions? Rick Warren.

I see Warren as an ironic avenue to change. But, again I understand why many disagree.

[bluedawg12]

134. Please cite your understanding of when the transition team met with gay leaders

to discuss the goals for same sex marriage equality.

[mzmolly]

144. Please cite your understanding of why

this would be a necessary element in order to have common sense goals.

[bluedawg12]

157. You brought up the question, remember? So when did PE Obama and gay leaders talk?

"But gays do not all agree on this issue. So, who among the oppressed gets to choose the method for seeking change?" - mzmolly

How can the transition team know what the gay community wants, unless they talk?
When did they talk?
Or did they?

[mzmolly]

159. I think it's

obvious that everyone wants equality.

Peace and out.

[bluedawg12]

162. it is not up to Warren to impose his CU's on gay people, nor PE obama.

I pointed this out earlier. Who has the right to say what is and is not the right agenda for an oppressed group, other than the oppressed group?

In order to know what such a group wants and is working toward, one must meet with them and not exclude them.

So far, it seems that PE Obama and Rick Warren know more about what gay leaders want, than the gay leaders have been invited to say.

There has been no such meeting about gay marriage with gay leaders to date. This is premature lionization of Warren.

peace and out.

[yardwork]

143. I'm not seeing Rick Warren championing civil unions anywhere.

Will Rick Warren go to Cleveland and tell the preachers there to lay off their opposition to a couples registry? I'm not seeing it. What I am seeing is Rick Warren comparing gay couples to incest and bestiality.

[bluedawg12]

165. I see PE Obama championing Warren, he has not even discussed CU with gay leaders.

[NWHarkness]

145. I admire your optimism

But I think it is extremely unlikely that Warren is going to do or say anything that advances the cause of equality in this country.

[mzmolly]

154. I honestly

disagree. Time will tell, but I may bookmark my thread just for an "I told ya so". ;)

[NWHarkness]

164. I'd be quite happy to be wrong.

:)

[AntiFascist]

184. Uh, why don't you try Lambda Legal?

the fight for gay marriage does not depend on Melissa Etheridge, Sandra Berhardt, or Rick Warren. It's being fought in the courts at the present time, and that's where the primary battles will be won or lost. I would prefer that Obama just stay out this for time being as he is causing many more problems, in this arena, than are being solved. Prop 8 was successful partially because of Obama's words and Warren's support. Cleveland threatens to be another repeat of that situation.

Why can't Obama reach out to the right wing in some other way? The answer is clear, he is doing this for his own political damage control because gay marriage is such a hot button issue with the religious right. Obama's image has been severely damaged during the campaign in the eyes of the right-wing knuckledragger crowd and this is the easiest way for him to make reparations. Your elaborate decription of Obama's intent sounds very soothing, mzmolly, but I'm afraid the truth lies elsewhere.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

93. Fuck no, it won't.

Obama allowing him to give the invocation legitimizes Warren's hateful, heretical, brand of Christianity. There will be no compromise from people like Warren and his ilk.

[yardwork]

98. Still no explanation from anybody about what is happening in Cleveland!

[bluedawg12]

103. Simply put, socially conservative religious leaders have put pressure on politicians

and the pols caved in.

The same idea that Warren supports, when he speaks of gay marriage and bestiality in the same breath as an unrepentant bigot.

The same conservative theology that will be celebrated in Atlanta. For, I surely don't know what Warren has done to gain status as a champion of civil rights.

[Critters2]

131. And they feel emboldened by Obama's support of Warren. nt

[yardwork]

150. Yes. I think that that may be the case in Cleveland.

Where will it happen next?

Gay people are being told to be quiet and meanwhile are rights are being systematically denied.

[donco6]

152. I think that's the answer no one is willing to express.

It's just too ugly to contemplate.

[yardwork]

161. That's why I started this thread.

From the very beginning there has been an obvious, common sense interpretation to the events in question, and there has also been a concerted effort from Obama's transition team to stop talking about the common sense interpretation and accept their highly convulated, confusing, irrational explanation instead.

[donco6]

163. And hasn't it been amusing to see people dancing around it?

All these posts, and not one person willing to just spell it out.

[bluedawg12]

170. It's Orwellian. The new double speak.

[bluedawg12]

166. There was only one meeting, with 60 gay rights leaders and there was NO

discussion of any legislative matters.

Yet, we are being told that this is in furtherance of OUR civil rights agenda?

The facts do not support that conclusion.

[NWHarkness]

119. Rightly or wrongly

I suspect that the Clevland ministers figured Obama had their backs.

[yardwork]

123. Looks like they were right.

[bluedawg12]

130. Far, far, far right, in terms of social politics.

Once again taking away legal and promised human rights.

[bluedawg12]

126. They know the climate - social conservativism has crossed party lines.

Rick Warren is scheduled to cap off a week long salute to civil rights icon, Martin Luther King Jr.

He is invited to speak at the service because of his "unifying spirit" and "commitment to his conservative faith."

[quiet.american]

177. I'm sorry, yardwork, I have to ask you this question:

Why do you think it's the Warren invocation that's suddenly given "a group of conservative ministers" the emboldenment to "try to stop it with a citywide vote."

First, with them being a group of right-wing preachers, they certainly don't need any excuse to do whatever they can to keep the rest of the country from embracing the 21st century.

Secondly, the first thing that comes to mind, if they needed an excuse for emboldenment, is that Prop 8 passed in CA.

But really, I think the phrase, "a group of conservative ministers" says it all as to their actions.


(Edited for accuracy. Thanks to poster who corrected me.)

[Starry Messenger]

178. I think you meant, Prop 8 did pass in CA.

Yes on 8 passed.

[quiet.american]

180. Thanks, yes. nt

[yardwork]

186. At the very least, the invitation to Rick Warren did nothing to stop the Cleveland preachers.

That, right there, refutes the many assurances we've been given by Obama's team and DU posters that honoring Rick Warren will "nullify" the haters and lead to great rights for gay people. So far, that's not working, obviously.

Second, if Obama and his team are sincere about making equal human rights a priority, why is Obama silent on what is happening in Cleveland? He could easily pick up the phone and put a stop to this instantly.

Third, it's interesting timing, isn't it? The Cleveland city council passed a measure giving some small amount of rights to gay couples - about the best they can manage given the state's constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage and civil unions. Then, after the election, suddenly the ministers in Cleveland decide to take down the new regulation. Is it a stretch to assume that they figured that they could get away with it? So far, they are winning and the politicians are backing down.

[quiet.american]

202. All very reasonable points.

And maybe true enough.

The only thing is, truly, even if Obama had picked a gay minister to give the invocation, it would not have stopped a group of right-wingers in Ohio from doing what right-wingers do. How would a phone call from Obama have had an impact on what a group of wingnut ministers are up to? I do think it is a stretch to think that the ministers in Ohio felt they could get away with it simply because Warren will be giving the invocation. We know they've been doing this stuff for decades now -- and we know they really went hog-wild with it under the current pResident. It's not like they've been holding back under the reign of the faux-faith-based Bush.

As for the timing, if it relates at all to a federal level, it seems to me it might be more propelled by the fact that the pResident's reign is ending, and then on another level to the business with Prop 8 in CA. I really can't see a bunch of right-wing preachers high-fiving each other, saying, "Look, Rick Warren's giving the invocation, we're free! Let's roll!" They were already prepared to do whatever they could to attack this measure.I would be willing to wager that they were not sitting on their hands while this bill made it's way through the City Council. I do think it is a stretch to assume that the Warren invocation made them figure they could get away with it. That's not the way wingnuts think. They don't pause to think of whether or not they can get away with something. They just do whatever devilry they have in mind, then spin the outrage that follows as, "What? What's everyone so upset about?," e.g. the "Barack the Magic Negro" cd. Oh, and for added measure, they make themselves seem like a victim of whatever it is they have perpetrated on others.

I also think that if one expects overnight change, you're going to be in a perpetual rage over the next few years. I know you don't want to hear about the past, but when JFK was elected, you know African-Americans still had a long, hard slog ahead of us, with many moments when it seemed like nothing would ever change.

My point is, Obama himself has said that change will take time. I also don't think one can point to this one situation in the country that's happening on a city level, before Obama is even sworn in and declare, see, no change, no change at all.

[bluedawg12]

203. One of the "wingnut" minister leaders is a Dem, a former Obama delegate

also, if Ms. Sabra Pierce Scott, an elected official - is a Democrat, which I assume she is, or at least was strongly pro-Obama in the GE, then, as the head of the Democratic party PE Obama would have a strong voice in setting the party agenda.

Two out the three leaders in the Cleveland anti-gay opposition to the scantest of minimal gay rights are Democrats: Sabra Pierce Scott and Marvin McMickle. Their political position may be wingnuttery, but they are politically active in Democratic politics and sadly, appear to be what passes locally for "mainstream" Democrats.

........
In a dozen Cuyahoga County precincts, the vote was unanimous: Everyone wanted Sen. Barack Obama to be president.

And in 89 precincts -- in Cleveland, East Cleveland and Warrensville Heights -- Obama got at least 99 percent of the vote.

"It really shows that when people want to make a change, it can happen," said Cleveland Councilwoman Sabra Pierce Scott, in whose ward Obama got 99 percent of the vote.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2008/11/07/
..........

Rev. Marvin McMickle

Marvin McMickle - pastor and Democratic politician

A pastor who once ran against the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones and a Cleveland Municipal Court judge have joined the race to represent the 11th Congressional District.
The entries of the Rev. Marvin McMickle, pastor at Antioch Baptist Church, and Judge Michael Ryan bring the list of announced candidates to six.

The Rev. Marvin McMickle was a former Obama delegate.

It's also noted that Rev. McMickle had US Senate aspirations at one time, back in 1999.

[quiet.american]

205. Yes, I hear you about the Democrats, sad state of affairs.

But seemingly, still wingnuts in reality when it comes to this issue.

With Obama now not merely a candidate, but in the limbo of being the President-elect, I'm not sure how much the lines could be blurred between setting the party's agenda, and interfering in local politics. Much better, I would think, to, as Obama has alluded to, work towards signing legislation that would clearly designate these kinds of efforts as discrimination.

[bluedawg12]

206. In short, thus far, failure on a local and national level.

Adding another wingnut, from the republican side, isn't going to help achieve change. :eyes:

[quiet.american]

209. But seriously, neither would an invocation from a progressive minister.

If Obama had appointed Warren to his cabinet, I could truly then see how there would be a fear that Warren would be involved with day-to-day decision-making in the WH. However, Warren won't be. That's the simple reality of it. On Jan. 20, he is going to step to the podium, say a prayer that no one will remember, and step back. I'm sure Obama will continue to keep an open discourse with him, but he simply will not be the James Dobson of the Obama administration.

[bluedawg12]

210. You make a good point.

Of course Warren isn't appointed to a cabinet position (yet :eyes:) but we all know the symbolism of the invocation.

More than that,quiet.american, is the additive symbolism and recall that perception is everything in politics, of Warren at the MLK tribute week, as keynote speaker, in Atlanta. Personally, I see that as even more troubling, as it is suggestive of a growing coalition of conservative religions that cross party lines and who agree on wedge issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=111351&mesg_id=111351

Just when Rove has departed, wedge issues return as (un)intended consequences because the social conservatives never rest on these issues, viz a viz, Cleveland. Dear heaven, what a cheap shot that is. So cynical. Kicking gays, who have already been kicked to the bottom in terms of marriage rights in Ohio, now a gratuitous kick for sport?

Kicked by low level local politicians?

One who is a rambling mess and simply appears maliciously obstructive. Another, who has had failed political aspirations and a third with self righteous bigotry hiding behind religiosity.

These actions and the actors need to be put into the spot light and shown for who they are and apparently have been.

In the meantime, actually Warren is like Dobson and has said so himself - just a more manipulative version.
Warren's role in the future remains to be seen. You are aware that PE Obama has also, already brought Warren into a meeting with the Senate Democratic caucus, where Warren read the Senators like a dime novel and manipulated the heck out of them, explaining away his five non-negotiable issues? I'll have to find that reference. Also, don't forget, PEPFAR, the FREEDOM medal to shrub, that and a whole lot more that tells us that Ricky is not leaving town quietly on the next train after the inauguration.

[quiet.american]

230. Yes, I hear you on all those points, blue, yet I still hold to, Warren won't be an Obama-whisperer.

I simply don't believe that Obama, an exceptional law student, a scholar of constitutional law, a teacher of constitutional law, will look to Rick Warren to guide him as to what his perspective should be on gay civil rights.

Granted, I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

I also think Warren himself may be laboring under some illusions about how much sway he will have with Obama, and that he may be extremely active in trying to become to Obama what James Dobson is to Bush. I also predict, that at some point in the next four years, Warren will announce to his followers that some legislation or other that Obama signs into law has deeply disappointed him (which will probably be a good thing for the rest of us), and he can no longer find it in his heart to support him.

But I truly do not see Obama, as president, seeking to blur the lines between church and state. Especially not at the feet of Rick Warren.

[yardwork]

212. But you can see why many of us are skeptical. Things are going in the wrong direction.

Maybe Obama will turn that around with legislation. I will certainly do my part to encourage him to do so. But so far, we're seeing "reaching out" to the extremists and no reaching out to gay folks at all.

[quiet.american]

229. Yes, I really can appreciate your feelings around this. I can. nt

[yardwork]

231. Thank you for expressing that understanding. It means a lot.

[quiet.american]

233. :)

:hug:

[NMDemDist2]

101. no.

:hi:

[donco6]

115. Snort.

That would be a "no".

[Fearless]

167. Yes of course...

It solidified us behind the idea of gay as a civil rights issue, a point which was not particularly clear among the punditry beforehand. And secondly, it gave GLBTQ rights a LOT of air time. That is always good.

[yardwork]

173. Then, how do you explain this new move in Cleveland to strip even more gay rights?

After the election, after the selection of Warren, we have ministers in Cleveland rising up to defeat a measure already passed by the city council to allow minimal rights for gay folks. As a result of their intimidation, even the co-sponsors of the measure have now backed away and it's going to be tossed out to a popular vote, where it will certainly fail as the ministers are working hard to convince everybody to vote against it.

Not gay marriage. Not gay civil unions. Just a registry for unmarried couples. Gone.

What is the explanation for this?

[Fearless]

236. That's just non sequiter reasoning.

I said that it does good for the reasons I provided. I also don't see the connection between Warren's pick and Cleavland. Certainly, I did not attempt to claim that it would end all inequality, just that it is a step in the aforementioned directions.

[yardwork]

241. So when do you think that we'll start seeing the positive results?

[Fearless]

252. We have been seeing positive results. We just focus on the defeats more.

Don't forget that Prop 8 WILL be overturned. That will be the next bit of good news. Old good news... Massachusetts, CT, DC, HI, ME, MD, NH, NJ, OR, VT, and WA all have recognized some sort of civil unions or marriage rights for same-sex couples. Countless other companies now offer health insurance to us. The percent of Americans supporting civil rights equality for same-sex couples has gone up steadily for the past three decades or more.

I'd say that's progress.

Of course, we're not there yet and we cannot let our guard down. But it is progress and we should be proud of it.

[bluedawg12]

175. Wrong, the "punditry" knew of Candidate Obama's stance on gay civil rights, without Warren.

GLBTQ got a lot of air time after PropHate8 and increasing nationwide support and change of heart - without Warren.

[Fearless]

237. Thanks for your opinion.

However, I disagree. Warren extended the period of talking about GLBTQ issues in American media outlets. This is ALWAYS good because we are fighting a war which we can win with time (as the older generations die out, we gain positive support). Likewise, it continues to put a face on the issue. Issues like GLBTQ rights (or poverty or sickness, etc.) can easily be ignored if they aren't affecting you. While this does not affect them primarily, it does (if not secondarily) tertiarily. They begin to put faces to the issue of inequality. Likewise, the feature film Milk does the same (though in a vastly different way). Giving us a face is key because it is easier to hate people but far more difficult to hate an individual whom you may be able to connect with.

And, while the "punditry" as I see it, may have known about GLBTQ rights, it clearly had not been talking about it. The issue had moved behind other things like the economy and the war. Further, you say that they knew of Obama's stance on GLBTQ civil rights issues, but clearly this is also not true as evidenced by this very forum which day by day swings from one extreme to the other. He loves us. / He hates us. (Etc.) Likewise, the punditry exist on both sides of the issues and it is not important what they believe necessarily but that they are going to forgo other topics to talk about GLBTQ rights. The Rush Limpbaugh's of the world have further stated their misguided beliefs, which actually is a good thing because it is all the more to bite them in the ass when we do achieve our equality.

In terms of equality and the gaining thereof, we have time and momentum on our sides. As time progresses, the less tolerant (by and large) die, and our previously collected momentum has pushed us closer and closer to our goal. Issues like the Warren pick have catapulted GLBTQ rights back into the forefront even just for a little while, which cannot hurt our momentum in the long term in and of itself because so soon after Prop 8 we must not curl up and hide and not doing so will continue to press our issue. Essentially it shows that we're still here and that we're not going to let go. The power of that statement alone will be important in the coming months as we move forward to overturn Prop 8.

[TexasObserver]

168. No. We cannot defeat bigotry by honoring its proponents.

Shaming them, shunning them, and making them feel societal disapproval is the proper direction.

They may not see the light, but we can make them feel the heat of disdain. Just as racial bigots find more and more that they must hide their disgusting biases, so must the hateful anti gay contingents be corralled by condemnation.

[ismnotwasm]

174. No

The entire premise against gays is basically a pathological argument/condition, one that has caused incredible and possibly irreparable harm to the human spirit. These sociopaths argue from a position of power and domination, disguised as morality or some twisted version of workable social values. They use fear and hatred. Reaching out, the best you get is "love the sinner and hate the sin" bullshit.

My personal opinion is that Homosexuality is a necessary and hell yeah I'll say it-- sacred-- part of healthy human human sexuality. As long as Gays are hated and reviled, the rest of humanity suffers and cannot grow into the loving and creative people we really could be. Homophobia is a key ingredient to a lot of social ills and it needs to end.

I don't understand the hate arguments, and I refuse to call them anything less than hate.

Although raising a lot of hell against the hate might do some good.

[yardwork]

189. Wow. I really love that post! You've said something very new there.

I haven't seen this posted on DU, and it is a new and important contribution.

Thank you and please consider making it an OP, maybe in the GLBTQ forum.

[varelse]

207. Please consider making this an OP

It's a brilliant reply, but could stand alone (and should) in a thread of its own.

[bluedawg12]

176. For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination

against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law...I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. - Coretta Scott King

[quakerboy]

181. I do not know

I disagree with having Warren up, because of the hurt feelings it has brought out. But my own perspective is that Warren is coming as an endorsement of Obama, rather than the reverse. I don't see any of us here on DU taking back our commitment to vote for and work for civil rights when given what looks to be a fruitful opportunity. I do see the potential for Obama to inspire some on the other side of the isle to reconsider whether their faith truly requires them to have a bigoted laws in place. So in the end, I hope that it will help the struggle for civil rights. But I am not sure that it will, because instead of dividing them, we are being divided by this.

As to the second question, I feel you are trying to say that 1+2=5. Just because Obama may be "reaching out" does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that from this day forward all bigots will be converted. They were not with us before. They are not with us now. If you can think of a way to immediately get them on our side of this issue, lay it on me. I don't. But I do see the possibility of starting to get people to think, as a relatively Conservative Christian leader puts his stamp of approval on a liberal Christian president who has stated his support for civil rights(though not nearly as far as I believe he should). If Obama can make those connections , then when Obama appointed Judges start overturning bad laws, perhaps only 8 out of 10 preachers will fight it tooth and nail, instead of 10 out of 10. And thus I hope to see our country drug into a new age, despite itself.

[yardwork]

187. That's a lot of "ifs," but I thank you for being the very first poster to answer the question.

[druidity33]

190. nope, not unless

i'm reaching out with a VERY sharp stick and the will to maim.

:)

[HamdenRice]

191. Yes, of course.

It's been explained over and over.

[yowzayowzayowza]

194. Indeed. n/t

[yardwork]

215. Doesn't seem to have worked in Cleveland.

[HamdenRice]

240. There have been hundreds of little earthquakes in Yellowstone recently

and they have occurred since Obama was elected!!!!11!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Logic is your friend.

Actually, in your case I have to change that cliche. Logic would be your friend if you had ever met its acquaintance!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[bluedawg12]

193. I stand corrected - it's not even a civil union, in Cleveland.

http://ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=2982&MediaType=1&Category=26

>>Cleveland's domestic partner registry allows gay and straight couples to seek recognition of their union from the city. Ohio passed one of the toughest gay marriage bans in the country four years ago. To ensure that the registry does not run afoul of the state's prohibition it lacks any force of law and guarantees no protections whatsoever. Any benefits given to couples would be strictly voluntary.<<


On Edit:

This was not marriage.

This was not CU for ersatz gay marriage.

This was to include gay and straight couples. For the ministers, they might see this as a way of by- passing marriage and church marriage for straight couples and poaching on their turf. It might have been seen as weakening heterosexual marriage.

This may be the problem with half measures and half assed laws. Passing bad laws, is worse than no laws at all. Same as with the argument for CU's, get them on the books, when marriage rights are the goal, and you then will some day have to get CU laws off the books first, before gay marriage laws could be passed.

[bluedawg12]

198. We have gone backwards. In 1999 McMickle was Pro gay civil rights!

The Rev. Marvin McMickle is one of the pastors leading the crusade against the registry in Cleveland in 2009.

What is it about the new atmosphere, the "change we need" and the lionization of Warren, that gives permission to oppose a simple, voluntary registry 2009, when a decade ago he was pro -gay civil rights?

>>In 1999, “the Rev. Marvin McMickle has said he would vote for a federal gay and lesbian civil rights law. McMickle, a prominent Cleveland minister who is running for U.S. Senate, spoke with the Chronicle to clarify homophobic-sounding remarks he made during a television interview.

During the interview, McMickle referred to passages from Leviticus which identify "sinful" sexual behaviors, including homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, incest, pedophilia, and having sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period.

Several members of the gay community called the Chronicle after seeing McMickle’s television appearance. One caller, who asked to remain anonymous, quoted McMickle:

"He said, ‘Thou shalt not lie down with beasts,’ implying that homosexuality was like bestiality," the caller said. "It really got me because that was the same line used to justify racism. It worried me because he was just appointed to the Ryan White planning council and he is running for the Senate. I think the gay community needs to know where he stands on gay issues."


"Reverend McMickle’s comments were taken out of context," said Sheldon. "The report was about the increasing number of churches that are open and affirming to gays and lesbians. Most churches say that they are open to everyone, with the understanding that most people have engaged in immoral behaviors of some kind. Open and affirming churches say they believe homosexuality is not immoral."<<
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories/99dec31.htm

[yardwork]

214. Yes, things are going in the wrong direction. Warren is only one example.

Cleveland is another.

[1776Forever]

200. No and here's why - Rick Warren has a DREAM & it is all about HIM!

Not the Church that we think of as being loving and caring - This dream of Warren's is for thousands of Churches in all countries to eventually become "Purpose Driven Nations" like Rwanda has become:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1093746,00.html

For months the clergyman has alluded in general terms to an immense volunteer effort called the PEACE plan, aimed at transforming 400,000 churches in 47 nations into centers to nurse, feed and educate the poor and even turn them into entrepreneurs. Its details remain unknown, but its Rwandan element seems to have outrun the rest. Warren says he was "looking for a small country where we could actually work on a national model," and Kagame, impressed by The Purpose-Driven Life, volunteered Rwanda in March. In July Warren and 48 other American Evangelicals, who have backgrounds in areas like health, education, micro-enterprises and justice, held intensive planning meetings with Rwandan Cabinet ministers, governors, clergy and entrepreneurs. One dinner was attended by a third of the Rwandan Parliament. Says Scott Moreau, a professor of missiology at Wheaton College in Illinois: "I've never heard of this level of cooperation in the last 100 years between any megachurch, mission agency or even a denomination and a national government."

.........

And then we have the diatribe about gays being less then human and abused women who should be "submissive" to their abusive husbands! This is referenced and laid out in the Untold Consequences: Rick Warren's AIDS Activism
Kathryn Joyce on December 19, 2008

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism

.........

And also this Time Magazine Article that lays it all out - it is all about power and having the faith-base shoestrings to do it:

The Global Ambition of Rick Warren
By David Van Biema Thursday, Aug. 07, 2008

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1830147,00.html

(snip)

"If Warren were content to be merely the most influential religious figure on the American political scene, that would be significant enough. He isn't. Five years ago, he concocted what he calls the PEACE plan, a bid to turn every single Christian church on earth into a provider of local health care, literacy and economic development, leadership training and spiritual growth. The enterprise has collected testimonials from Bono, the First Couple, Hillary Clinton, Obama, McCain and Graham, who called it "the greatest, most comprehensive and most biblical vision for world missions I've ever heard or read about." The only thing bigger than the plan's sheer nerve is the odds against its completion; there are signs that in the small country Warren has made a laboratory for the plan, PEACE is encountering as many problems as it has solved."

............

And yet it is going on and on and on.....My question is "Where will it stop - and WILL it?"

[bluedawg12]

204. Oh I do.

>>Warren: I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. 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.

Beliefnet: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Warren: Oh, I do.<<

"And yet it is going on and on and on.....My question is "Where will it stop - and WILL it?"-1776Forever

When we make enough noise to get their attention, silence isn't going to get us anywhere.

We see that with each passing day.

Good info. 1776Forever!

[Phx_Dem]

208. I don't know, but it certainly won't hurt to try

Millions of religious people like and listen to Rick Warren (though I am not one them). If his mind could be changed, it could go a very long way to changing minds of his religious followers. The religious community is the main reason gay legislation rarely passes.

I think just about any conversation is worth a try if it could advance civil rights or peace. If it doesn't work, the gay community is no worse off. In fact, they're better off for being tolerant enough to open a line of discussion with a man who would deny them their right to marry.

Edited to add: This is just about Rick Warren. The Catholic Church and many Baptist ministers hold the same, if not more severe, views about gays.

[yardwork]

213. Gay folks are now worse off in Cleveland, so the approach doesn't appear to be working so far.

[Phx_Dem]

226. But if you give up now, where will you get the votes to pass legislation?

[yardwork]

232. Who is giving up? I don't believe that appeasement works.

I disagree with the approach of appeasement. I don't believe that homophobic ministers are destroying gay people's lives just because they don't know any gay people. In fact, I think that the ministers do know gay people and have had ample opportunity to change their minds if they were really open to doing so. Instead, I think that homophobic ministers attack gay people as a way of building up the ministers' power.

I think that honoring homophobes like Rick Warren sets back the cause of human rights. I believe that honoring people who support human rights furthers the cause.

I think that people can be shamed into stopping their abuse of other people. I aim to shame homophobes.

[IndianaGreen]

222. ATTENTION: Rick Warren and Saddleback Church are Southern Baptist

An important fact that Rick takes pain to not advertise.

[treestar]

217. Yep

It really can.

I have right winger relatives who are completely PC on this one issue, just because they know someone who is gay.

I'm series. Right wing on the economy, Iraq, you name it. But they know one person, they like him, and to them, gay marriage is a right. Because of that one person. Because he's a nice guy, and to them. If he told them they were hate filled homophobes, who knows? But he treats them with respect, as if they are people, and so they like him. And end up supporting his cause.

People like RW just need exposure to actual gay people who are reasonable.

[yardwork]

219. The folks in Cleveland have exposure to gay people, and they're taking away rights.

Can you help me understand what is happening in Cleveland, as described in the article at the link in my OP? Both same-sex marriage and civil unions are already unconstitutional in Ohio. The city of Cleveland, like some other local jurisdictions, approved a registry for unmarried couples to obtain minimal benefits. The city council approved it but then a group of ministers stepped in and they've stopped it.

[Cleita]

218. I think Warren being in the news and the limelight certainly has to make him

think about his position on gays. Maybe it's the best way and Obama is a lot smarter than even we think he is. I'm wondering if he is going to ignore the controversy in his invocation, or maybe he may surprise all of us by addressing it directly, maybe even an apology? Am I too glass half full about this? I think Pruitt is full coward on this. If the ministers are preaching against him on the pulpits, it's time to fine them and take away their tax free status for meddling in government. End of story.

[yardwork]

220. Can you help me understand what is happening in Cleveland?

[Cleita]

228. I don't know but I do know that what is in the shred of our Constitution

there is still an article about the separation of church and state. If politicians are afraid to upset ministers because they might lose an election, then I think it's time to remind them of their tax free status. Two can play the threats game.

[IndianaGreen]

223. Yeah, Obama is so fraking smart, palling with Warren and tight lipped on Gaza

How can any of this be described as change?

[Cleita]

227. I don't understand it either.

I'm just trying to have some hope that things aren't what they appear to me. If they are then we are doomed.

[yardwork]

234. Politicians can, should, and must be influenced by the people.

Obama is behaving this way because he thinks that he has solid support from the left and can thus afford to pander to conservatives. Obama sees this as a logical way of increasing his popularity and power.

My role as a citizen of the U.S. is to inform Obama, in my small single-voice way, that he is making a mistake. I don't want him to move to the right and if he does, eventually he will lose my support and I'll support another Democrat in 2012. I don't want any of that to happen. Instead, I want Obama to be a successful Democratic president who furthers the causes of human rights.

Far from giving up on Obama, I intend to do everything I can to reach him with my message. Everyone else will be doing the same - trying to reach him with their messages.

If the left is silent, then the right will have their message heard.

[yardwork]

235. kicking for Sunday night

[Norrin Radd]

238. Warren is a turd. Not wise to reach out to turds.

[yardwork]

242. I like the earthy simplicity of your post on this.

[Norrin Radd]

254. Thanks. ;-)

[polichick]

243. Warren should be marginalized, not legitimized...

Is Barack going to honor this guy and then come out in favor of gay marriage? I doubt that's the plan.

The good part is activists are more energized because of this, so that could help ~ especially if we don't let our leader off the proverbial hook.

[LostinVA]

245. Did you see Tim Kaine was appointed DNC Chair?

[polichick]

247. I did see that. The first red flag for me came during the primaries...

...when Barack made an insensitive remark about "Hillary's generation" and the devisive issues of the 60s, which he later tried to make better. I can't help thinking that he really doesn't appreciate what people went through to get him where he is ~ both as a black in America and as the president-elect.

[bluedawg12]

248. Dismissing the social up heavel of the 60's as merely divisive

is exactly how the right wing sees it. All chaos and no merit. Interesting.

[polichick]

249. I found the remark disturbing at the time...

...and imo he has never revisited it in a meaningful or complete way ~ but I'm still hoping for the best.

[grantcart]

251. I don't believe that reaching out to Warren is helpful in any way

But I think that the Obama people just thought that it would be a nice gesture and not raise the level of controversy that it has.



I think that they just assumed that because of his big book sales on generally well received book that he was some kind of Billy Graham figure.

[Hepburn]

255. No, not even maybe.

All this "reaching out" is doing IMO is empowering the homophobic assholes.

Edit for typo

[bigwillq]

256. Not one bit.

:mad: