R-E-S-P-E-C- oh nevermind
Obama. Buddy. Remember me, the gay guy who voted for you in the California primary? The guy who donated money to your presidential campaign? Yeah, yeah, THAT Michael McAllister.
Really? Of all of the ministers you could have chosen to do the invocation at your inauguration, you had to choose Rick Warren? The guy who urged his followers to vote Yes on Prop 8? The guy who equated gay marriage with incest, pedophilia, and polygamy?
Really?
You couldn’t have chosen a politically moderate or even right-of-center minister who took a neutral position on Prop 8? I’m not even asking for someone who took our side, all I’m asking is for someone who took no position whatsoever.
Could any minister oppose marriage between African Americans and whites, for example, or between Chinese, and still be chosen by your transition team to handle the invocation? Isn’t it time for gays to lose our bottom-of-the-political heap status? Isn’t it time for you to actually stand up, strongly, against this ongoing discrimination?
Will you listen to all of us who send messages through Equality California, asking you to reconsider your choice, and the message that it sends on your first day in office? You know, pick a new minister, someone who could stand on stage at your inauguration next to Aretha Franklin, the diva who first sang R-E-S-P-E-C-T, without irony?
I felt my heart sink a little when I heard about this. It is truly a slap in the face, maybe not intentional, but a slap none the less.
December 18th, 2008 at 8:35 pmRegardless of my personal feelings about who I would rather see up there, I am not at all surprised about Rick Warren. The inaugural bill is filled with lefties, artists, creatives, progressives, activists – I’ve never been happier.
But remember, when Obama gave the “acceptance” speech, he said to the Right Wing Republicans he would be their president too. He had to put someone for them in this inauguration. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a preacher/leader/speaker “they” love who isn’t voting down gay marriage/rights.
Like he promised and like he did during the election – he’s trying to bring all types of folks together. An inauguration with no right-wingers would completely alienate that final group of citizens.
I think this desire in him to bring people together, in the end, is actually why we voted for him.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:27 amI have a hard time buying that argument right now. Where are the racists and the anti-semites at the inauguration? Why are those biases unacceptable, and homophobia still acceptable as an “alternative viewpoint?” I’m really fucking sick of our accepted status as punching bags, and I think it’s entirely within our rights to protest this decision, loudly and often.
I’m holding out hope that there will be, two or three moves down the game, a benefit to us for this choice, i.e. compromises on civil rights issues from folks like Warren. But the “big tent” argument still falls flat with me. Today I’m hurt, today I’m pissed, almost beyond words.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:35 amM – it’s not an argument. I just think big tent is what Obama is doing, because he said he would – and it isn’t going to be the last time. I feel bad for all of us who have put Obama on a pedestal and set our expectations really high. We’re going to be hurt, more than once over the next four years.
But I am glad we’re finally mobilized as we are. And on that note this is funny.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:17 pmObama singled us out because it’s still ok to. Just like it was ok to do so at the debate. We’re the one population he can agree with the Right on because he has before.
Other liberals often put the Clintons up there as having thrown us under the bus, but I never felt that way. I felt like the Republicans plowed over the Clintons and we got buried, too.
This feels different. This was a choice by Obama to find common ground at our expense.
Then again, did you know that Kay Warren invented the fight against AIDS in 2006?
December 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pmRick Warren is profoundly bigoted. He says all Jews are going to hell. His church only allows ‘non-practicing’ and repentant gays to become members (although they’re happy to have you attend without membership, so they can, you know, save you from yourself). People seem to be willing to put up with his bigoted self because he’s polite and cordial when interviewed. To which I say, sweetly and with utmost gentility, “FUCK THAT SHIT.” A polite bigot is still a bigot. He’s a horrible choice for this duty.
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_49
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/14/weekend-preview-obama-and-mccain-at-saddleback-church.aspx
[This info from http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com
December 21st, 2008 at 11:49 amMy personal suspicion is that you’re correct, Dogpoet. It IS possible that Obama will come through during his term with some of his promises, but this choosing Warren (a very nasty ambitious character, the more you find out about him) and giving him such worldwide “credibility” is not a good start. I voted for Obama, but I’m relieved I’m not one of those unrealistic idealists (or goofballs) who did it with a tear in my eye or expected his Presidency to mean anything much to advance gay/lesbian rights. I’d feel too foolish if I had.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:48 amMerry Christmas to you…
December 24th, 2008 at 5:55 amIt’s a slap in our faces, and it’s wrong. But I’m really not all that surprised. He’s clearly a skillful politician, and that means he’s certainly not all about ideals.
I hope he’ll make us happy more often than he upsets us. In this case, I thought he wouldn’t go quite so far to placate the right. It’s not like any of those people will ever treat him with respect. But these things are going to happen.
December 25th, 2008 at 6:38 pm