As Lousy As Obama's Choice of Rick Warren Was, Threads Here Rationalizing & Excusing It Are Worse.

Last night I was truly disappointed to see how quickly some felt compelled to rally behind a very hurtful decision by Barack Obama against the GLBT community in selecting an outspoken bigot to be honored and spotlighted in front of the entire world next month.

Let's clear the smoke and the bullshit, shall we?

Rick Warren is not just a homophobe who keeps his loathing of my GBLT sisters and brothers to himself.

Rick Warren has built his career making horrible statements about my community. His hateful comments inspire discrimination and violence against a vulnerable group of Americans who still are denied fundamental rights in employment, housing, military retirement benefits, and even the right to a fair trial.

Rick Warren has used his power and influence and money to systematically oppress my family and my loved ones.

The threads that have appeared here at the DU in the last 24 hours to defend Obama's choice have grasped at every straw to defend the indefensible. And the threads have been all over the map in offering knee-jerk "rationale" to honoring Warren, and thereby insulting GLBT Americans.

Let me clear some of the air about some of these threads:

1.) Rick Warren did not help Obama win the election or help him carry Virginia.

2.) Barack Obama did not pick Rick Warren to win him over from his loathing of my community or his underwriting hateful campaigns against us.

3.) Barack Obama is not "balancing" the Inauguration with Rick Warren. If that was his intention, then he should also honor a racial bigot like David Duke, as BlueBear has pointed out.

4.) It's not just a "little thing" that some of us are "whining" about as a surprising amount of posters have said.

Are you interested in knowing what's almost as bad as being fired from your job because you are gay, being beaten in a parking lot because you are gay, being evicted from your apartment because you are gay, being discharged from the military because you are gay, being thrown out of your home as a child because you are gay, being bullied every day at school because you are gay, being kept from your companion in a hospital because you are gay, being denied a funeral because you are gay, and more?

You want to know what's almost as bad as all of that? Coming to a "progressive" blog and seeing how quickly millions of gay Democrats are rapidly dismissed by a heterosexual majority of pseudo cyber liberals who never miss a chance to weigh in about how my community should "prioritize" our concerns, how we "over-react" to events, how we "should focus on the big picture" instead of our "narrow agenda". Such pompous "advice" which is usually replete with homophobic giveaways in your language is, at least, informative of where you stand.

eom

It's disgusting.

That's been apparent since the Democdatic Primary Debates. It amazes me that people are surprised at this behavior on his part.

Certainly he's head and shoulders above McCain or any potential Republican nominee. And he will be head and shoulders above McCain for the Gay community as well, in my opinion. But to have imagined he would be somewhat of a transformative candidate who would finally right all these wrongs, well when was that in the cards?

Bryant

but you can depend on the Republicans. They tell you what they're going to do and they do it. That's much easier to prepare for and fight against.

With people like Obama, you can't depend on them. You never know whether they're going to support you or kick you to the curb. That's a shitty way to live.

gay people are among the first he dumps under the bus.

(Straight woman here)

If so:

Rick Warren is the current "it" man in God circles and Obama *obviously* has decided that when it comes to choosing who he's going to piss off on this matter, has chosen to piss off the 10% and their friends and family. He will spend the rest of his presidency choosing who he will piss off, as well.

I'm so sorry for everyone who's hurt by this particular decision.

If he does spend his presidency, deciding on a daily basis who to piss off, as you suggest, then he is a man without principles -- someone we can't depend on.

I'm sorry, but I cannot support someone I can't depend on.

After all, if you're going to kiss up to Jebus-lovers at the expense of "the base" (hmmm, maybe we need a new word/phrase there?) in the name of unity, far better to do it on day one than year 4, going into another election.

On edit. That's looking close to an excuse, which is not my intention. Overall, I can only say that if you didn't imagine Obama was capable of such cynicism, you weren't watching very closely during the primaries.

I just thought he would wait until he was in office before he pulled this shit.

Oh well, it frees up my day on Jan 20.

He won't win over any of the "Jebus-lovers" until he adopts their platform. Republicans will run a Huckabee or a Palin and every fundie will do what they've done for over 25 years now: vote Republican.

LGBT people and their families, however, might just decide to withhold donations and not volunteer the next cycle.

I don't think Obama can afford to keep burning bridges in hopes of winning over the Right. Clinton made the same mistake and look at how his second term went. Give the Right an inch and they'll take a mile.

No one in my family is gay and if Obama throws gays to the wolves I won't support him either and neither will my wife.

You have more friends than you know.

This is one of the strangest political decisions I have ever seen. The public has thoroughly rejected the right wing, the religious right has lost its power over people and Reaganomics have been repudiated. The people are through with that nonsense, why aren't we? Other than a hard core, 30% at most, who will never come around no matter how much kissing up we do to them.

There is no political need to cater to the right. It can only revive and rejuvenate them, with nothing to gain in return.

There are people who are going to vote against the Democrats until and unless the Democrats adopt the religious right platform, as you say. They can't be won over, everybody else already has - they voted against the right wing. One would think that it was the Left that had been repudiated and banished to the wilderness, rather than the right.

How could I? I'd have to be insane.

And Obama is well aware of that.

That's an approximation of the gay population in the U.S. Add to that the multiple millions of "straight" Americans that actively support civil rights for the LGBT community and you're talking probably 50% or higher. The fact that this comes on the heels of Prop. H8 -- wounds that are still open and bleeding -- he could not have made a worse choice. Piss off a million here, a million there and pretty soon your talking one-term presidency.

if the LGBT community is 10% of the population, (is that data in a Census report?) factor in friends and family members and the 10% percentage has increased substantially. Smart Political Judgment? hmmm... Not so much .

I'm irritated by the number of posts telling me to shut up and sit down and wait nicely for my human rights.

My early responses to the Warren thing were fairly mild. I said I thought it was a mistake and I was ready to move on, until I encountered dozens of threads and hundreds of posts telling me that (1) I'm a pervert, (2) it's my own fault I have no rights because I could always pretend to be straight, (3) it's my own fault I have no rights because I'm not willing to move to the one or two states that currently give me rights, (4) I don't deserve rights because I haven't suffered as much as some other people in the history of the world, (5) it's rude and arrogant of me to suggest that my rights are important as other people's rights, (6) it's bigoted of me not to want to welcome bigots, (7) if I would just make nice everyone would give me rights, they promise, (8) if I wait a couple of years I'll have all the rights I need unless I'm rude and ruin the surprise, (8) it's understandable that people don't like queers because we engage in perverted sex acts, (9) the Bible says I'm an abomination and if I disagree I'm guilty of religious intolerance, (10) my needs aren't important as those of other people's, (11) my pet issue is going to have to wait while smart people work on the real problems facing the world, (12) I must be racist if I disagree with Obama on anything, (13) I must wish that McCain was elected since I disagree with Obama about something, (14) I must have been Hillary supporter and this is nothing but faux outrage on my part, (15) I'm an Obama hater because I disagree with him about something, (16) I'm ruining it for everyone.

Repeat hundreds of times. Every single one of those statements has been made here on DU - most of them numerous times. That's why I'm in a bad mood about this.

just sayin

If on the other hand you think issues and performance are important, well, you'd better STFU.

I worry about my son constantly. In a country with people who could do to Matthew Shepard (and others
not so well known) what they did, I do not see how Obama could invite this bigoted phony "Christian"
to have a place in his inaugural. It indicates a complete lack of sensitivity to the war over basic civil rights that is going on in this country between the smug, self-righteous, hypocritical Christian bigots and the gay community.

It was an extremely bad choice.

And your son is so lucky to have you as his mom. I didn't have that, but I honor it whenever I see it. Thanks!

was made so much easier when he finally came out to us when he was in 10th grade. It explained everything. I wish he had felt comfortable coming out sooner; it would have saved a lot of anguish
for all of us.

A straight mom looking out for her gay kid is doing the most important work of all. The worst thing about being a gay child is the sense of isolation. Knowing that a parent is behind you all the way means more than you can possibly imagine. I didn't have it, but your son is so lucky he does.

You may not realize it, but you're making a HUGE difference in your son's life, both present and future. I can't praise you enough.

Our community knows who stands with us.

You have no idea how powerful it speaks to my community when "straight dudes" and straight women stand with us. It is an honor to have known you all these years here. You've never felt a need to "lecture" my GLBT brothers and sisters: You just stand with us. Thanks.

This issue is far too important to be poked fun at or downplayed as I have seen here on DU of all places. It burns me up when I hear words like 'lifestyle' or 'choice'. Just a few days ago two brothers were attacked and one was killed because some hominids thought they were gay. Rick Warren is one of those guilty of planting the seeds of hatred that lead to such crimes and by catering to his ilk, Obama signals a lack of concern for the oppression of homosexuals, even though I'm sure he isn't a homophobe himself. This was not only a very dumb move, but also a cowardly and despicable one.

When I read someone on DU saying it isn't important or that gays should get their priorities straight, I hear, "Shut up and get to the back of the bus!".

We really still have a very long way to go as a species.

And a very, very well written OP.

he also did not work against him. That is a big improvement over the likes of Fawell and Robertson.

Obama and McCain. Was that is your idea of not working against Obama?

inflated, caustic, hate provoking, intolerant, self grandiosity, overweight and full of puffery, tv type Evangelical, manipulative, hoping to convert Obama, untruthful, fake, hoping to get more power. ALL of these struck me in regards to Warren's physical, facial and body language observations. This comes from someone who has done a ton of portraits and photographs people. I am straight, married and swing progressive on many things. I think Obama meant well but should have given this more thought. I hope to heck this man does not hang around the White House. Very sad. Is there not another Evangelical that could be found somewhere? Someone who is not power hungry??????

I think Obama wanted someone who was not super critical of the Right but I think Wallis would have been a better choice for sincerity.

Major recommendation

He would have done much worse without the cheating.

I understand Obama wanting to make the "right" moves as far as cabinet choices and the political chess game that he is constantly playing with the right and their media. However, I loathe Rick Warren and what he stands for. Warren's support for Prop H8 sickens me. I cannot help but think that Obama and his staff thought that they had made a political coup with this choice and were willing to upset their LGBT supporters. I will wait until Obama is in office to see what kind of a job he and his administration does before I say anything about the job that they are doing. However, that does not mean that anyone should be silent and not critical about the selection of Warren.

I am with the OP in my dismay, disgust and anger over this choice. I am straight, married and have an eight year old son. If my son were to tell me that he is gay one day I will not turn my back on, or be disappointed in him. He is my son, always will be, and the love that I have for him would not alter in any way. I believe that the LGBT community are entitled to all of the rights and respect that their heterosexual brothers and sisters have. To me Warren and his ilk are the antithesis to my beliefs and an affront to me as a human being. No excuses should be made for this decision IMO.

DU has been over run by a herd of "Centrists".
What do you expect from people who are proud to claim that they are Half-Republican?

I just don't get how the inauguration is a place for his whole reaching-across, etc. If he wanted to invite Warren as part of a group of religious leaders from across the American spectrum, that would be one thing, and I could go with that. This, however, just makes no sense.

I've been finding DU a less meaningful place to inhabit recently, but have read a few threads in recent days. What I read last night was troubling. There are many comments that I could make about Rick Warren and why he should not be participating in the events in January. I also have been tempted to respond to some of the more thoughtless things I've read here from others, including people that I have grown to both like and respect over the years. Instead, it's probably better if I just remain silent for the most part. However, your OP deserves an appropriate response -- and so I thank you, very much.

We know who our friends are and you are one.

If some people have a different, even wrong, idea, they need to be debated, and set on the better path. This should be done using their words. Not undermining the whole conversation by denying debate.

This is not one of those fabled political "grey areas" full of "nuance" that Democrats are so famous for. This is a straight-up, binary question: are GLBTers human beings, or something less?

I just don't understand how that's debatable (and I'm a straight white male, BTW). Maybe the HOW of the issue is debatable, as in "HOW does the government allow for the full spectrum of human rights to apply to the GLBT community in terms of legal documents, legal standing, etc.?" However, as far as I'm concerned, the WHAT, the WHY, the WHERE, and especially the WHEN (i.e "right fucking now") of the issue are not up for debate.

What constitutes full civil rights?
What constitutes equal civil rights?
What are civil rights?
What is full equal civil rights?

Is NAFTA for example attempting to step us into giving more civil rights to people from poorer countries, rights to a civilized wage compared to the rest of the world? If that could be a civil right, then is there to be no more debate because: "Either you're FOR full and equal civil rights for all humans, or you're a bigot."

EDIT ADD: I miss your coolzip dance videopic.

if someone isn't offended by Rick Warren, or even likes Rick Warren, it doesn't mean they are a bigot. Imho.

I agree that there is no room for debate about whether GLBT community is a community of human beings, however, the "debate" is about whether we are going to enforce civil rights. So far, the country has failed. Ironically, this is an issue of religious freedom as well as sexual freedom. As a UU, my religious freedom to participate in a wedding of two same sexed couples that is recognized by the state as marriage is violated. This is a powerful argument for the GLBT community. Why should the state allow a certain set of "Christians" define marriage? My church defines marriage as a union between two adults. Why should that union, and label, not be recognized? Why is the state getting involved in defining marriage?

It is commonly overlooked that not all Christians believe that marriage is between a man and a women. It is also commonly overlooked that not all religions believe the same. Thus, those religions should be allowed to practice their rituals and beliefs without state intervention. What we have here is the state establishing religion via the institution of the family. It needs to be exposed as such.

If any organizers want to holla I have some tactics and arguments that will be effective. I can model them to specific conditions. I am pragmatic and issue specific in my tactics and arguments, so don't expect any abstract heady rhetoric. Real organizers with appropriate information and goal specification only, please. I can't work miracles and will tell you if I don't see a viable solution. I won't be testing ideas or new tactics.

?

Live it up.

...Therefore no comparison.

Perhaps you're reading faster than you can comprehend.

You can show me the way!

There are people who will say anything. Our air is a solid, not gaseous. We don't torture. Saddam has WMDs.

There are others who through logic find common ground and build better unions.

You're one of the former, and hopefully falling out of a state of confusion.

"If some people have a different, even wrong, idea, they need to be debated, and set on the better path. This should be done using their words. Not undermining the whole conversation by denying debate."

But now you say "When one debater invokes bad logic, as you do, then it's not good."

Let me know when you decide which position of the two you're adopting.

And yes, bad logic is not good. Does this seem remedial to you, at all?

Right now, for example, we're not having a good debate because of bad logic. I'm only continuing, not for the sake of debate, but for the sake of helping you discover your need for further help.

Alas, I must leave my computer connection for a while.

Night.

You are being schooled.

As to that second part, I'm only too happy to play the part of the teacher.

Night night.

Normally some presence of logic on both sides would be required for that.

which we can reach with real human feelings.

It helps to know their facts, and some facts they seem to ignore, but most especially, how to remind them of those facts. Then it can be a breeze.

The real problem is that political money has entered the mix behind the scenes in insidious ways.

If you disagree on even the most base issues, how can there be rational discussion? Hell, fundamentalists disagree on the idea of debate itself! There is no open inquiry allowed, so how would you even begin?

Referring to this as being a 'breeze' tells me that you've likely never had any real experience in it.

1. base issues
Sure, there can be discussion-ending issues, unless you realize there are really many paths to continue discussion. For Christians, the belief of in-errancy of the Bible for example might stop some people. But, instead of arguing errors, why not go to a rich book full of other points, some of which can support your position. Deeper example concerning gays, the story of Ruth, or "It is not good for man to be alone", and others.

2. debate itself, not open
Yes, they don't want to hear certain things about errancy ad naseum. Look at DU. We don't allow the CON posters who could start with.. That Bill Clinton, but instead start with.. That stupid, slime bucket, sex addict, .... (need I include more?). And so we ban them. Our debate is not open. Neither is theirs. (For the record, I'm a big fan of Bill Clinton, faults and all.)

3. doubt my experience
Fine. I doubt your sincerity in saying that.

If empirical knowledge is completely discounted from the start, what basis do you have to continue on? Once you start arguing over bible passages, you've accepted their faulty framework (as an attempt to 'reach' them, yes, I understand). It's like when people argue that the Iraq War was wrong because it was handled incompetently - that accepts the framework that the war would have somehow been okay if things 'went well'.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you don't argue the base issues (which are really what you disagree on in the first place), no real progress is going to be made.

"...you've accepted their faulty framework ..."

Well, you don't need to accept their faulty framework... You can, however, acknowledge it instead and treat as their empirical knowledge or dispense with further empiricism as unnecessary. You can even acknowledge it as false, but that you understand that it is theirs to hold. It's harder to debate that way, but no one promised it would be easy.

Who will be debating Rick Warren at the inauguration?

nwmhtt

I voted to exclude certain ideas from government, to exclude the people promoting those ideas from having access and influence, from having a platform, from being given any legitimacy at all.

I voted to exclude bigotry.

I voted to exclude torture.

I voted to exclude war crimes.

I voted to exclude corporate domination of the government.

I voted to exclude off-shoring of wealth and jobs.

I voted to exclude bailing out the wealthy and powerful.

I voted to exclude Reaganomics.

I voted to exclude privatization.

I voted to exclude the war on the poor.

I voted to exclude the destruction of organized Labor.

I voted to exclude profiteering on medicine and food.

I voted to exclude neglect of the homeless and the suffering.

I believe this is what the people voted for, as well.

"Inclusion" means welcoming in those who have been previously excluded, not welcoming in those who have dominated the media and the government for years.

Whether we like it or not, half this country are at least LGBT ignorant, if not downright homophobic - either on religious grounds or by simple bigotry.

What a bunch of people seem to be saying here, is that these people and groups of people like evangelical Christians for example, should have no place and the new president should not be "their president too" as he said he would be in his acceptance speech.

I guess some people feel like exclusion and disengagement is the way to move forward -- a huge number of people have wrongheaded and ignorant ideas, so let's just completely shun them, push them to the fringe, and marginalize them and expect that to lead to a social structure in which we really do move past homophobic ignorance and toward greater unity and acceptance.

I don't think that works. I think the more you disenfranchise people, rather than gently bringing them along in a process that they might even be resistant to, the worse divides become. Of course we look at prop 8 and other horrible acts and say "what do you think that was?" Well, it was disenfranchising, of course! Terrible. But guess what, we are the enlightened ones. And I know it sucks, and I know that we would like nothing more than to treat these assholes the exact same way they've treated us, and exclude them form everything, never try to dialog, never try to bring them along, never try to work together, never gently try to move them into less ignorance. But we know better. And we need to act better if its ever going to work. It's the only way it does work. Period.

Rick Warren may not have been the right call to represent the attitude that I've just described above. But because I strongly believe that the attitude above is what Obama is all about, I'm willing to give him a break. I also believe we have far more deeply serious matters to worry about than who gives a prayer at a ceremony. I say that only because I believe I understand what Obama wants to do - and even if this was an inexperience "noob" move, I still think his intentions are good. Therefore, I'm ready, if not eager to move back to the substantive and crisis issues that face us right now. Like economic catastrophe, and the big three among other things....

I would have no problem with working with people on the other side. This is different. This isn't work. This is symbol, and it is bad as a symbol, politically speaking. See what I mean?

For example, if Warren wanted to start a construction company, I think it would be OK if he paved roads under federal contract. That is, unless he used discriminatory hiring practices - which is not all that far-fetched to imagine. That is work. That is a contribution. But showcasing him - as a personality and as a symbol - and giving him a platform - he gains, and we lose.

This is a tacit legitimization of his views and career as a leader of the religious right. Giving him a contract to pave roads would not do that. The second is "working with all sides." The first is inviting the fox into the hen house.

I think you're confused about "change" ... domething different --

Bush could have had Warren ... any Repug could --

I notice a common pattern to those who try to defend Obama's choice of Warren, you tend to group everyone who opposes your point of view together. I, for one, am nowhere near to throwing Obama under the bus, but at the same time I see no point in remaining silent about how I feel. I hope Obama has not been deluded into thinking that he can do no wrong because this clearly should count as a mistake.

since I've seen a lot of people state that his on his own from now on, that he is a traitor, that he is this, that he is that and so on

So i am well aware there is a fair number here who hasn't tossed him under the buss, I'm simply saying Obama would have good company with himself since so many here have tossed him under it as well(and since you are not one of those tossing him under the buss then i was not referring to you

You said it much more clearly and rationally that I could have at the moment, since I'm still sputtering with outrage.

here, and I feel we should be saying something about it.

For some reason it seems fashionable to say "I'm straight but I agree with this." There's some pathetic part of me that still says it too, but you are one hundred percent dead on right.

Who can argue with this?

We learn who our friends are in times of adversary. Thanks.

but maybe we have to - maybe it will make other people understand that this is not a Gay issue, it is a civil rights issue. If GLBT can have their rights limited, we could backslide to denying rights based on sex, race or religion or some other reason that makes no sense.

During the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s whites who were involved didn't have to say "I'm white and I support..." - people could see they were white. And I bet seeing some white people involved in the marches and other demonstrations made other whites take notice and join the cause. With this fight, we may have to declare ourselves verbally to help wake other straights up.

in the first place and enjoy being here.

Bookmarked for printing out.

i don't get it, either, but truth be told there has been a LOT of weirdness (even more than usual) on DU after the Obama win...it's looking like bizarro world sometimes

It seems that rationale on DU to excuse Obama is ever present. Obama may make a great president; he certainly will be a good one. However, he makes mistakes, sometimes egregious ones. This decision, regarding Rick Warren, was a very poor and in some ways thoughtless one. According to a report tonight on NPR, Obama and Warren have a history of respect for each other in certain areas of thought...assistance for AIDS victims in Africa, for example. FINE! After Obama is sworn in, he can invite the bigot to dinner at the White House. This so-called minister is no Christian; Christ went out of his way to cultivate the ones others despiseed and to salve their wounds. By placing Warren on the platform at his inauguration and allowing him to speak for the great founder of the Christian religion, whatever one's personal beliefs or non-beliefs, is offensive to me. Whether one is Christian or not, one is likely to agree that Jesus Christ's philosophy was/is one of great care and concern...as are most of the world's religions. It is man that perverts religion. Rick WARREN IS SUCH A MAN! It is irritating for sure for Duers to excuse anything Obama. Yesterday some were saying it wasn't Obama, but the Inauguration Committee of Feinstein, etc. that made this horrendous choice. No, DUers, this is the choice of Barack Obama and it is a hurtful one. He will not win one Evangelical vote with this ploy, but he may just lose many progressive ones. Progressives worked tirelessly for him and do not expect to be discounted. I may not be gay, but I understand the battle, and I am adamantly pro-choice. Note where the Warren idiot stands on that and many other significant issues. DUers need to stand united with each other on this despicable decision, and we need to let Obama know our dissatisfaction. Otherwise he will continue to ignore our ideas.

I also appreciate you mentioning the various knee-jerk rationalizations that 'Obama didn't choose Warren, but his committee did." That was yet another lame attempt at defending the indefensible.

Your comments were spot on and I appreciate them very much.

if there were a legitimate debate on the showcasing of promoters of denying basic human rights to a minority we'd be seeing much more interesting and debatable points coming from the other side.

it is that simple.

K&R my brother.

Much appreciated.

I don't think that the Warren choice helps those of us in the south who are trying to change hearts and minds either when it comes to treating EVERY American equally.

I saw a post yesterday, I think, and the author of the post mentioned trying to not be offended if a southerner was elected president and chose to play Dixie at the Inaugural. My brain short circuited for a while, and I thought of the hate groups who use that song as an anthem, and it would just set a horrible tone, as does Warren, IMHO.

We can NOT have the ""morality"" of this Rick Warren asshole be the guide by which we live our lives - and the fact that some DU'ers here are making excuses for it shocks me. I apologize for my other DU'ers and please know that me and my family stand AGAINST Warren and behind the GBLT community 100%!!

That IF Obama is doing this in order to get them to come to the table and begin ending the acrimony and begin restoring GLBT rights then it would be a good thing.

Having said that your post makes a lot of sense. Were Obama to withdraw his request, I would fully support that. But as a follower of politics I really do believe it is Obama's way of reaching across the divide in order to bridge it and end the divide. But I could be wrong, eh?

you know. The ones who will write self important screeds on almost any subject. But when it comes to GLBT rights ----- ((( crickets. )))

We know who they are.

As you say it perfectly: "The ones who will write self important screeds on almost any subject. But when it comes to GLBT rights..."

They are always absent and occasionally weigh in with their "advice" or with some idiotic insult that they don't think we pick up on.

Your post says it all.

And then, on the other hand, there are a number of straight DU'ers (men and women) who have no dog in the fight and yet, jump in on our side every single time. Those are people here that I have come to love.

You are a precious soul, ruggerson.

Maybe a proposition should be put on the ballot in California that gluttonous people cannot marry.

add sloth...

Think he maybe the proverbial Pharisee? I suspect a fair number of these evangelical ranters are modern day Elmer Gantrys--and possibly worse.

Excellent post.

It is outrageous.

The man is a hate mongerer in the vein of the Falwells of the world.

I am so angry at Obama right now I could spit.

peace~

There should be no place in this nation for bigotry to be applauded, much less on this grand a stage. Political points be damned, some things are not a game for votes. It's about the rights of all. For the same reason that it wouldn't be right to have a racist speak on this stage, back at a time when blacks weren't allowed to vote, this is so obviously wrong I am shocked that it is even being debated. And I feel silly saying so, but I must add that I am straight myself, and have been a big supporter of Obama.

Thanks for the reminder that this is about humanity, not politics.

The contortions and rationales are disgusting. I wish I could say I was surprised.

I've been reading on line but only saw a minute of some woman telling David Gergen that he was an idiot (in the nicest possible way) for defending this choice of Warren.

Can't wait for a thread bashing threads bashing threads bashing threads...

Rationalizing the actions and decisions of Obama just because he's Obama -- when he has clearly demonstrated a shallow, opportunistic side of himself -- at the expense of the rights of our fellow human beings is contemptable.

I stand with you, David Zephyr, and adamantly stand against those who would dismiss and trivialize the utter offensiveness of Obama's choice to give that smarmy asshole Rick Warren a place at his inauguration.

There's no covering up the stench of it, no matter how many DUers scramble to mask the odor with their "hope and change" scented oil dispensers.

sw

By what blithering delusion do people think that this guy is going to do anything but more of the same elaborate dancing and serial appeasement?

Having said that, the point is well made that callous as this act was, those who would justify it as either tactical brilliance or permissable cozying up to swing voters are fools or just plain mean. Whether enabling the ugliness is worse than the ugliness itself is something I have to take issue with, though: flaks and beards are disgusting, but leaders who make broad and smiling gestures of this sort aren't cut from very fine cloth themselves.

I'm glad I've been very busy of late; this is all just too revolting.

Who woulda thought that insisting on a "historical" candidate instead of a liberal one would cause this?

I object to any suggestion that ONLY homosexuals are protesting Warren ...

we are ALL protesting it I hope --!!

And hasn't Skinner committed the website to supporting homosexuals --

including gay marriage--??? That's my understanding ---

Posters here are frightened of criticism of Obama and Democrats ...

and that needs to change --

Thanks, David. Well said.

You don't have to be GLBT to be madder than hell about the Warren choice. Don't just ASSSUME that heteroes aren't pissed, too! I'll never give the s.o.b. another dime or another minute. Warren = HATE = I'M OUTTA' HERE! Just when he had a chance to show he really believed in diversity, the rotten, sleezy pol proved he's no different than the rest of the scum in Washington. I just KNEW I shouldn't give my heart away...and by God, I was right! Not another dime - not another minute!

This asshole is bigoted against women and Jews, etc. Being lesbian, I'm two of the three....

And a LGBT military veteran to boot!