 by Michael Jensen
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 13 members and 490 guests online.
|
Barack Obama/Rick Warren Update: Barney Frank issues a statement, Rachel Maddow discusses and more!
Fallout from President-elect Barack Obama's decision to have Pastor Rick Warren deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration next month continued this week with the story getting a great deal of ink from the traditional press. Earlier in the week, Obama issued a statement regarding his choice while yesterday MSNBC's Rachel Maddow weighed in and out Congressman Barney Frank issued a statement. Read all the details after the jump! During a press conference Obama answered questions about the controversy by again reiterating he wants to bring all Americans to the table so we can create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable. That's easy for Obama to say. I wonder how he'd feel if some other president-elect invited a racist to his inauguration so we could all happily disagree together. Obama also pointed out that he also invited Dr. Joseph Lowery to speak who has very different views than does Warren.
Ann Curry, Rick Warren As for Warren, he told NBC's Ann Curry that he's not homophobic and even has gay friends! Does every homophobe really think they can just say this and think that it somehow excuses their behavior? I guess as long as the traditional media doesn't call them on their BS they can. Curry also infuriatingly let Warren get away with the lie that had Propostion 8 not passed, he might be at risk of legal prosecution for speaking out against homosexuality. I guess that's the difference between being an actual journalist and a talking head. Dan Savage over at The Slog notes that Warren's Saddleback Church websites says that while gays can attend their church they can't be members unless they repent their lifestyle. Again, imagine the outcry if the person delivering Obama's invocation belonged to an organization that said the same thing about Jews, women, Hispanics or African-Americans.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow also weighed in:
Some folks hold hope that Obama will appoint a gay Secretary of the Navy, an idea being pushed by some Democrats, but not anything Obama has yet addressed himself. Finally, Barney Frank issued a statement stating:
Look, I'm not ready to write-off Obama as a turncoat, typical politician or as a fraud. Nor do I think the gay community should go after him guns completely blazing. Maybe this is some part of a deeper game and Obama plans to use Warren to cover his ass so that once he's in office he can rescind Don't Ask/Don't Tell, get rid of DOMA and enact other gay rights legislation. Or maybe Obama just goofed and feels like he can't back down. But whatever the reason for the choice of Warren, I will say Obama just cashed in a big chit. Once he's sworn in, he better actually do something to prove those of us in the GLBT community who put so much faith in him didn't make a big mistake. Submitted by on Fri, 2008-12-19 17:53. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
The writing is on the wall.
Phase I
Phase I: Keep anti-gay Republicans McCain and Palin out of the White House (completed)
Phase II: Ensure that Democrat weenie doesn't pull a Clinton and screw us over (pending)
Phase III: Wring equal rights out of Democratic weenie, even if we have to stop being nice about it (future)
I'm not writing Obama off yet, although I am very pissed. To be completely honest I'm more pissed that he didn't give us even one Cabinet seat than I am about Warren. Warren is just the straw that broke the camel's back.
The Latinos were less subtle. After Election Day they made it absolutely clear that they expected multiple Cabinet appointments as repayment for their support. They were livid when Obama gave State to Hillary instead of Richardson, although they have been mollified at receiving Commerce, Labor and Interior as consolation prizes. Obama also gave Defense and Transportation to the Republicans in a demonstration of bipartisanship.
We, in comparison, have been a cheap date.
The Inauguration is also a kick in the nuts, as this will help one of our worst enemies further raise his national profile. Sure, he "has gay friends". Many slave owners considered their property to be "friends" in a certain sense, even though they most definitely did not consider them to be equals.
We, in what amounts to ironic symbolism, are to be represented by a band instead. Flashbacks to days when blacks were allowed to entertain in white clubs and hotels but not actually eat or sleep in them...
Needless to say, as Michael puts it: Obama just cashed in a BIG chit. Perhaps more than one when you allow for the Cabinet snub.
So it's quite clear we're going to have to get in his face if we want anything. His efforts at "inclusion" are clearly focused on the other side of the aisle, so we are going to have make sure we drag his attention back to us. Neglect is not an option. With what he's done so far he owes us big time!
And the next phase...
YOU MUST BE KIDDING!
If anyone is under the mistaken impression that Obama is even quasi pro gay, think again. Does no one remember the campaign when Hilary not only agreed to speak with our representatives, but promised to support gay causes?
Obama on the other hand refused to even speak with us!
Obama is neither pro gay nor even a liberal of any merit - in point of fact, who is our Sec of Defense, why Rob't "keep 'em in Iraq" Gates. Need anyone say more?
I expect absolutely nothing from Obama and I will wager 10 to 1 that if he has a chance to select a Supreme Court justice, it will certainly be a pro-women's issues judge (& I applaud him for that), but the judge will definitely be anti-gay...I predict.
I have never felt so strongly....
It's AFTER the election that really matters!
Thanks Dean! That's really nice of you to say!
There's this thing I call the "Orgasm Theory of Politics". It's basically people who erroneously believe that issues are settled in the voting booth on Election Day. This is a very widespread school of thought and many people genuinely believe that they are resolving issues the day they vote.
It's a very wrongheaded notion.
This is why people who talk about "protesting" by withholding their votes annoy me so much. That resolves nothing. Elections do not settle issues. They merely determine who you will be dealing with, not how things are going to go.
Hence the common complaint about politicians breaking campaign promises. Of course they do. When they're running for election they're trying to appeal to the largest possible chunk of voters. So naturally they're going to play the field. The voter/politician relationship is never a monogamous one. This is just as true for conservatives as it is for liberals and moderates.
Hence my above post about Phases. We've only gotten through Phase I. We have managed to keep anti-gay jerks McCain and Palin out of the White House, and cut back the number of Republican anti-gay jerks in Congress. So far so good.
Now comes the trickier parts. Once successfully elected a politician's polyamorous relationship with voters becomes too much to handle. They inevitably need to start trimming back on how many of their promises they deliver on. George W Bush chucked "fiscal responsibility" (one of his main original campaign themes) right out the window early on for example. "No more nation-building" (another major theme and one he used to criticize Clinton for) died a quick death not long after. Fortunately, Americans have memories that are only slightly better than goldfish, and so few people really noticed until it was too late.The question is what they think they can get away with chucking versus what will cost them too much to chuck.
Obama (and we) are in Phase II now. He's forming his administration and shaping his circle of advisors and agendas for the next couple of years.
We've already screwed this one up.
Example #1: LGBT Community: "Congratulations Mr Obama! We're all so happy you won! Here's a list people in the LGBT community that we think would make just super Cabinet picks. Please take whoever you like!"
Example #2: Latino Community: "Congratulations Mr Obama! We're all so happy you won! Now that you've been elected we're going to be expecting multiple Cabinet appointments in return for our support. You better deliver or we will make your presidency a living Hell! Two words: "constant protests". Think about it..."
The final score:
LGBT Community: 0 Cabinet appointments
Latino Community: 3 Cabinet appointments
Note the lesson to be learned. We've been awfully nice to Obama and it's getting us nothing. We must not consider it beneath ouselves to threaten public relations mayhem for Obama if he does not show us some love. We could very easily flood the internet, the press and other media with humiliating protests, revelations about any questionable attributes of his close associates (such as Rev Warren), place the Congressional midterm elections at risk through mudslinging (far more dangerous than vote withholding) and much, much more.
It's how Republicans operate, and they did very well by it. Their only problem was that the golden boy they were using these tactics to support was an utter imbecile and eventually no amount of media power could repair the damage his incompetence was causing in full view of the entire world. His proposed successors were a senile coot and an airhead. There are limits.
But now is the time when we need to start making it clear to Obama that we helped him get elected, not Patrick Warren, and that we have expectations. He is on a tightrope as it is. We could easily destroy his support in the liberal base. But we can't do it using our current methodology.
i keep reading...
I keep reading that Obama has not put a gay person into his cabinet. i don't know if people mean a gay MAN, but he definetely put a gay woman in charge of something and no, i can't remember it, but i remember CNN noting that she was the first openly gay something. maybe i am mistaking cabinet for something else. i don't know how the whole thing works.
I'll just wait for someone to either clarify it or something. :-P
Nope, she's not Cabinet
What really pisses me off
is this new (and maybe it's not so new, really) thing where people get to say, "Hey, I'm not homophobic. I have gay friends. I just believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." And we're all supposed to go, "Oh, gee, we have to allow people their differences of opinion and respect that, so it's all good." Bullshit! Do you think for one minute someone could say, "Hey, I like Black people and some of my friends are Black, but Blacks and Whites shouldn't be allowed to marry. There should be no mixing of the races." Anyone who said that would be lambasted, as they should be. But say essentially the same thing about homosexuality and it's all, we have to respect people's religion, and it's okay that we don't agree, and everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
And what really makes me sick, is how the media and the religious right play this as though anyone who doesn't "tolerate" the religious rights view point is actually the bigot. That us "militant" gays are actually the ones who are not being tolerant.
Well, who owns the media. Certainly not the gays.
Personally, I am not expecting anything different from Obama than we got from Clinton. If it's politically expedient to throw us under the bus, that is what he'll do. He is first and foremost a politician who has to do the bidding of the people who bought and paid for him. Sorry to be so cynical, but I think that's how the system works.
Jon Stewart had a great response to that on "The Daily Show":
I WISH WE COULD CHANGE THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR GAY RESPONSE
QUOTE Again, imagine the outcry if the person delivering Obama's invocation belonged to an organization that said the same thing about Jews, women, Hispanics or African-Americans. UNQUOTE
Let's be clear, Rick Warren is a serpent-tongued, hate spewing snakeoil salesmen and I rebuke him and all his followers until they repent their evil hate-filled ways and come into the light. If it wouldn't make me a hypocrite, I'd light the first match on the biggest pile ever of his "purpose driven" waste of paper. I would have to hate every single part of my gay self to ever been a friend of someone like him.
That said, do we honestly think there won't be outcry and controversy from the rightwing bigoted fundamentalists about the benediction being given by a Black Christian civil rights leader who is overtly pro gay?
Do we really believe Obama chose Rick Warren because of his political/social and religous beliefs but he only chose Rev. Lowery because he's Black?
"We" as gays and lesbians are not special in the discrimation department and "we" are not the "last sanctioned group to be discrimated against" despite how often folks like to say that.
Every kind of bigot gets the national mic on a regular basis in this country (presidentially sanctioned or not). The inauguration is one day, AM Talk Radio hosts, FoxNews commentators, and some members of THE VIEW spew hate on the regular.
Plus, don't have to "imagine" what would happen if some racist, sexist, anti-semite got to speak at the inauguration. We already know. Billy Graham invoked until he could invoke no more.
We as gay people have to do exactly what every other discriminated against group continues to have to do on a daily basis, even in 2008.
We must be ever vigilant, keep our eyes on the prize, build meaningful alliances and coalitions, speak truth to power and cry out loudly when homophobes put their foot on our collective neck.
How is it ever useful to act like "everybody else has their freedom" . There is no everybody else when it comes to being gay because there is no "them" that doesn't also include gay people.
It is completely presumptuous to assume that those of us who are gay AND jewish, black, muslim etc are able to easily compartmentalized the ways in which we are offended and oppressed.
Hate speech does not scare me and if a KKK member was up on the inauguration podium, you'd bet your booties I'd want to know WTF! but I'd want some anti-racist activists up there too because the way to combat speech we hate is to attack it with speeh we like.We can't just banish everyone who hates us to the cornfield and think that's going to make them less dangerous or less influential over folks who are inclined to follow them.
I would prefer to never have to see or hear from a "Rick Warren", you know, EVER.
But if Obama wants to be all "everybody in the pool" with his politics, then we have to meet him where he stands and bend him to our will because he is our president too and will be for at least the next 4 years.
I resent that people's religious beliefs have such a strangle hold on our rights as gay people (or my rights as a woman). But this is what we are up against and if we pretend religion doesn't matter it will be Prop 8 all over again.
I say put Rick Warren's hate-backed Christian invocation up against Rev. Lowery's gay supportive Christian benediction and let the country juxtapose their very different kinds of Christianity and argue about what kind of country we want to live in and who we want our "leaders" to be.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)
That's what Obama was hoping for
that you'd look to Lowery and forget about Warren.
AS IF!!!!!
More likely
He was just assuming that he could get away with Warren because the main group that was likely to be offended, us, is too small and insular to raise a big stink. Or so the logic went.
The presence of a liberal preacher would be expected at the Inauguration of a supposedly liberal Democrat president. So this could almost be taken for granted.
A conservative Evangelical, however, is very newsworthy. Obama was looking to stack this on top of GOP Cabinet appointments to show that he is "reaching across the aisle" to the GOP and religious conservatives.
Did he think we'd let this pass? I don't think he really worried about it. He's been neglecting us pretty severely. We didn't make the cut for any Cabinet posts, or any administration posts that were especially high up in general. Clearly we are at the very bottom of the list of interest groups that he's looking to reach out to. Maybe it's payback for the perception that we were all Hilalry supporters. Maybe he just knows that our "activist" groups are far too submissive to really be a problem.
So in this regard I think that we are, in fact, justified in rasing a stink, no matter what some people say. This is the crucial stage where he lays down the foundations of his administration and agenda and it's looking pretty clear that we're not high on his list.
Inclusion of Warren has nothing to do with building bridges between diverse groups. Not only is Warren not likely to change any of his stances regarding gay rights, he cannot change them without losing credibility in the Evangelical movement. So I wouldn't expect Warren to suddenly have an epiphany after the Inauguration and start becoming more gay friendly.
Obama and Warren both benefit from their relationship but we do not. Obama can now deflect criticism that he's "anti-Christian" by being visibly associated with a prominent Evangelical. Warren gains access to the President, a major status symbol that none of the other major Evangelical power players can lay claim to. It will increase his mainstream appeal, help him sell books and expand his megachurch.
We're just a casualty of "friendly fire" in this exchange. Obama decided that the hurt to us was less than the benefit to him and so he went ahead with it. That he is so strongly defending the decision, and Warren, is all that need to be seen to know how invested in this deal he is.
Liberals who loathe Warren are nonetheless too scared to really challenge Obama too loudly here, and so many are conceding, on TV, that he's doing the "right thing" by "reaching out".
It's time start publicly humiliating Obama. Diminishing his messianic stature drains his political capital. Nobody else is going to do it for us. Except maybe Jon Stewart.
I was born at night , BUT NOT LAST NIGHT
Obama must be a really crafty devil. He totally got me. PLEASE!
It's not about Lowery or Warren or even Obama. It's about what will serve our best interests as gay folks.
I voted for Obama because it made sense to do so. Period. I'll believe the change when I see it and not one second before.
And even if I wanted to ignore FEAKING Rick Warren (not to be confused with Rick "Man On Dog" Santrom) how could I possibly?
Every single media outlet gay, straight, mainstream and otherwise won't shut up about him and what chosing him means and how he may or may not reflect Obama's presidency. Warren's getting as much press from this as he ever did from his stints on Oprah, etc.
Do you really think Lowery and Warren are getting equal play or coverage in the gay or straight press? How could Lowery be a smokescreen for Warren when nobody seems to give a crap about anything but Warren's invocation.
We are always so willing to give all of our energy to people who HATE US.
Rick Warren is not Moses coming down to speak to the people who will then turn on a dime to follow him. There are always going to be "Rick Warrens" . Since when are we so afraid of what some bigot is going to say about us in a prayer?
Then it will be the next day and we won't be any better or worse off then we were the day before and we as gay folks will still have Obama as our president.
Until Obama gets into office and does something to or for us, we have no idea how his presidency is going to effect our right to marry or anything else.
I just don't want people like Rick Warren to set our agenda which he can only do if we let him.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)
No, he's a cold-blooded politician
Obama is playing the game, pure and simple.
He has determined that there are no consequences to alienating us, and so he is not worried about doing so. We have proven far too ineffective at dealing with public relations over the last few years.
Even now, more articles are claiming that we're whining because Warren simply doesn't support same-sex marriage and arguing that Obama's inclusion of him is all about "civility".
The fact that Warren has openly equated us with child molesters is something that most of the coverage is overlooking. That he has long since cast aside "civility" in dealing with the LGBT community is not even being discussed. Warren is willing to exercise "civility" in dealing with Obama himself, and that's all that matters.
This wouldn't be so irksome except that it is part of a trend. For all that Obama name checks us in speeches he is evasive on when, exactly, he intends to actually do anything for us. We lost out in the big race for Cabinet posts, not being as important to appease as Latinos, Asian-Americans or Republicans.
In fact, his Administration is shaping up to be bastion of centrist, maybe even center-right straight people. It's certainly not the Left-wing, socialist Red Brigade conservative commentators issued dire warnings about during the campaign. Indeed, it's barely to the Left at all. And we certainly have no voice in it.
So now is the time to stop playing nice. The Latinos managed to strongarm Obama by making clear that they would not tolerate anything less than solid representation in his Cabinet and they got it. We've been all friendly and cheerful and he's relegated us to the lower ranks.
If getting some real results from him, of the sort that other groups are getting, requires that we threaten to tear down his iconic image as a liberal messiah and reduce it to that of just another political reptile then I think we should do so.
His support seems to be wherever the power is. It's sickening to see him defending Warren harder than he's defending us. But he does so because we let him. We need to attach a political cost to his behavior because if we don't, and don't do so now, he will carry on this way for the next 4-8 years.
I have a different take on Obama
Boy, does this sound familiar?
Obama is Playing "The Game " ? What POLITICS
"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.".....
Well, looks like Obama has been playing this "game" for a while .... It's just politics to some but it's OUR LIVES !
I was never able to bring myself to trust Hillary
I was never able to bring myself to trust Hillary. The memories of how her husband played us were just too fresh in my mind. In addition, I didn't believe that she would have been able to beat McCain. A lot of people have this weird, irrational, obsessive hatred of her and Bill.
Obama playing the game should not surprise us. Bill Clinton played the game too after all, and Hillary would likely be playing it now if she had gotten the nomination and managed to win the election.
The main issue is that we're not playing the game. Other groups appear to be taking a much stronger tone with Obama behind the scenes than we are. Instead, we're buying into the hype about him from his PR and waiting patiently for him to lead us to the Promised Land.
However good he looks onscreen, we cannot allow ourselves to lose sight of the fact that he is a politician, no more, no less. Politics is a messy game, and friendliness has less value than dirt in that game. Obama is not going to do anything for us if he has no respect for us. And he's not going to respect us if we look like a bunch of lapdogs.
Joined at the waist?
I'm not so sure about that. First off, as much as the right-wingers wanted to say that Hillary was in charge -we all know how much control she has over her husband. Hillary is not Bill.
If I remember rightly, Hillary was the one trying to appease and make concessions after DOMA. She played the job of first lady very well, which was keep from over shadowing her husband.
The difference I see is that Hilary is more like a Democratic Libertarian and Obama is more like a Republican Libertarian
HOW DID IT HAPPEN?
First, I am so proud of the fact that I voted for Ralph Nader and no, I do not believe I threw my vote away. Second, how in the world did it ever happen that Obama was EVER linked to left or liberal causes? Well, let's see, he railed against the Iraq war as criminal and unjust - duh, and then of course he kept on Rob't Gates. Go figure - except it's all too easy. Psionycx has already explained it exceptionally well, Obama is a politician. I would only disagree in the degree to the right we shall find Obama. I predict he will be far right of center, though let's give him credit, not quite as far right as Bush. Another slight disvergence of perception between Psionycx and me, while we agree that Bush is an imbecile, I believe for most of his administration, Cheney was president, Rumsfeld was Veep, and Candi Rice was in bed with Bush.
Well, Psionycx, from my point of view, is the most considered, educated, intelligent and perceptive voice on this blog. Our slight POV differences are only of a slight degree and I am encouraged and heartened that there are people out there who see through the sham of Obama and "politicians" in this country. Where have all the statesmen gone? Alas, gone to graveyards everyone. That Obama knows very well he need not take any serious note of us is all too obvious, in spite of darcolover's "O let's hope for something good," in his selecting Warren to give the invocation. It could not be a greater insult or slap in the face to all gay people in this country.
Finally Barney Frank spoke up, though as it's been pointed out, Obama will take no notice because he knows he doesn't have to. I am grateful for this dialog, even for darcolover to give his/her POV. Darcolover, are you gay or str8? Male or female? Just curious.
Thank you!
That's very kind of you to say amadeus27. I think you raise an excellent point about Obama's "liberalism" as well.
I think his opposition to the war in Iraq was easy. As a senatorial newbie he had no deep alliances to preserve by going along with it, and he's enough of an intellectual to realize that it was going to be a debacle, as many sociologists warned.
His perceived "Leftist" stance has always been dubious to me. I have always seen him as Centrist, though you may be right and he could prove to be further to the Right. Time will tell.
We simply need to avoid the trap the Republicans fell into. They became so fixated with being the ruling party that they became unwilling to challenge Bush & Co, no matter how irrational they got.
The LGBT community needs to start wokring the non-gay Left and building some bridges. I suspect that dissatisfaction with Obama on the Left is only a matter of time. And while he is able to draw members of the Right to appear in public with him, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't actually vote for a real conservative in an election. He may be chummy with Warren but Warren, and likely most of his flock, were on the McCain/Palin bandwagon. So Obama needs to be reminded that the Left and Center are his base, not the Right. If he is going to persist in throwing bones to the Right while neglecting us I think we need to get the Left all riled up.
As I've said for a long time, we need to stop being so incestuous and focusing only on our own community. We have more leverage if we have more allies. We also need to work on the African-American and Latino communities. Based on my dating history alone I know that there is no shortage of gay Latinos. They need to start working on their families more. If my predominantly Italian and Polish Catholic family can be pro-gay rights then so can their's.
The Non-Gay Left Had its chance and FAILED!
bridge" that We are supposed to build while they stand around and sneer.
As unpleasant as you may find it...
...we have absolutely no chance of ever winning equality if you people like you persist in being pissy towards everyone else.
As I have mentioned before, we as a group are weak because we are so incestuous, and often hostile to other groups, even on our side of the political spectrum.
For example, the absolutely vicious insults that I see many LGBT people routinely make against all religious belief are guaranteed to alienate even Left-leaning people of faith. It is a well-documented fact that a solid majority of Americans are religious. Yet a lot of gay people provide free ammunition to the Rick Warrne's of our nation by going off on hateful tirades where they proclaim that all religion is "superstition" or "fairy tales" and that we need to ban all religion and the like.
While it's understandable reaction to the abuse we get from the religious Right, that kind of bigotry coming from our side does not win us friends. Why would a liberal Christian want to support if we're just going to stand around and insult them and their faith?
Unfortunately we do this sort of thing a lot. And then we turn around and wonder why we don't have more support.
The fact of the matter David is that we almost never actually try to build the "invisible bridge" you're complaining about. Quite the opposite. Our community is often working extra hard to piss off as many other people as possible.
This is why Rick Warren has that smug look on his face. All the anti-Christian spew that gay folks are spouting off right now are proof points for his arguments that we are against Christianity. Which raises his credibility and reduces our's.
How To Make A Watch
amadeus27, you had to ask...
There is more to me than my being long-winded, a terrible speller and my undying loyalty to Noah Mayer)
I think it is great to know someone's demographic but I think it sucks to then think you can know some specific thing about that persons experiences, politics or beliefs based ONLY upon what they are
That said, I will now fully disclose all my "whats" and expect to be mocked for taking to long to say this. ;)
I won't just say I'm "gay/lesbo" and "female" because I what does that really tell anybody?
No one wants to be reduced to just their gender and sexuality when folks are considering my opinions and intentions.
Perhaps my lezzie feminist training has made me sensitive to such things
Why am I here on A.E.
I just feel lucking no on has banished me back to AfterEllen for talking too much. ;)
i'm not a gay man and i don't even understand "fag hag" so I do wonder sometimes whether or not it is appropriate for me to run off at the mouth so much on site specifically about and for gay men.
If have learned that if I "overstep" or offend, some one (probably DavidE) will snatch me back.
Who/What Am I
I'm very grrly but not a"Lipstick" lesbian (a term that I can not stand and that I think exists only to titilate straight men) Seriously, I'm devoted to my lipstick but just grrrr! Enough already. There is nothing sexy about the lezzies of AMC and most on The L Word because they ALL look the same. WTF.
I'm African American/Jamaican and 40 years old and a Capricorn
I use "us queers" or "we gays" mosting when I want to be inclusive of issues that effect gays and Lesbians and bisexuals as a group (in terms of talking about sexual orientation, not necessarly gender identity)
I'm a lesbian activist, an archivst and former university librarian in nyc. I am currently a returning graduate student and freelance researcher.
I came out when I was 8 to myself and my family (in Jackson Mississippi) I've lived in New York City since I was 14 and I came out publically at 17 and I've been an activist and volunteer in the gay and lesbian community of NYC ever since my teen years
I'm from a poor/working class family, (mostly undereducated). I am ridiculously over-education and definitely not living up to my potential
Who Made Me This Way
Only my decesed father and his mother (my grandmother) have ever been supportive of my politics and my being an out lesbian (everyone else are shunning, self-righteous baptist homophobes)
The only "family" I've ever really had is my gay and lesbian family. Every holiday, every major life event, since I graduated from high school. All queer, all the time so I'm definitely biased.
I don't think any particular one of the above bits of info means any one specific thing about how I think or feel about political issues or the representation of gays/lesbians in popular culture
I think ALL of it probably influences my filter and beliefs and perspectives and opinions in ways I could never imagine to try to delineate
What I Look Like
In all my geeky glory.
Why I Care So Much About "The Gays"
The gay men in my life picked up where my father left off in the raising me department when he died (literally) so I guess I do have kind of a father figure thing about gay men who have lived longer than me. Who I am as an adult woman is completely influenced by the angry, mouthy unabashed Act Up/Queer Nation NYC gay men who made me.
I come to A.E. because it gives me an opportunity to break out of my lesbo/feminist everyday headset and talk to gay men who don't necessarily agree with everything I think and who haven't known me most of my life.
I am very lucky and very priviledged to have never had even a moment's embarassment or shame about being a lesbian. I've never been closeted at work or school or in my private life and I KNOW that can't be said for many many gay folks (particularly men) and I never want to forget how fortunate I am in that respect.
I hope I will continue to get to have these conversations with folks here because it really does inform my understanding of how some gay men see the world in a much more diverse way then just grilling my gay male friends/family all the time (only two of whom even care about pop culture and media representation)
I love AfterEllen too but please don't banish me back to talking only to the lezzies cuz none of them care nearly as much as i do about what Noah's going to give Luke for Christmas.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)
Darcolover
It's very cool having you here! While the site is about
Yay!
totally
Agree with Cat and Michael, you probably didn't expect that from me because we have butt heads before. I think it's more important that we are judged by our words in a comment section, rather than some preconception of who we are.
In case you are curious and haven't seen it, here's a close up photo of Luke's Gift.
Well, him digging into the box. It looks like his fingers are about to pinch a wedding band. But I bet its a locket, like a little key and a heart with "forever" engraved on it.
Obama is a Bastard
It makes me think there is a little kid somewhere in the U.S. with gay or lesbian parents today, a kid who is destined to grow up and lead this country. With his inauguration Obama wants to invoke for that future leader that not only is the poor kid a bastard and should be consider as much by everyone everywhere but his parents are perverts as well -because that is what Warren has said and worse.
Give me a break!
I just love (not) how everyone is so ready to dissect every move Obama makes, judge his motives without knowing what he's thinking, and then crucify him because he did something we don't like. No, I don't like Warren and I wouldn't have chosen him for my Inaguration. That said, most people probably wouldn't like the person I would choose either, because it would be a traditional American Indian medicine man. Most of the country would swear I was a Satan worshipper just because of that.
My point is, he's not even in office yet and already the Christians slam him for one thing, the conspiracy theorists slam him for another, the uber Liberals for another, the uber Conservatives for yet another, the gay community for another and so on... all based on who he's putting in what job and who he has speaking at the Inaguration. Does the man not get to actually take residence at the White House and have a little time to show us what his intentions are before we start throwing tantrums? Jesus, people... calm down!
Is he a Messiah? No. Can he fix everything we want him to fix? No, and neither can any other one person. And the stuff he can fix, won't get fixed in a day or a month, and certainly not before he takes office. It took Bush and his cronies 8 years to do all this damage, after all. Does this hurt my feelings that he's chosen Warren? A little... but getting my face bashed into the side of a brick building by fag-bashers hurt a lot worse. Warren's role, just like his words, have no more importance than we give them. Pre-judging Obama's motives at this stage of the game is an exercise in futility. There well may be a "method to the madness" of which none of us are aware. Let him get in office and then we'll see what he does... and if he doesn't do what's right, vote him out next time.
Finally, to touch on what darcolover said several posts back... "we" as gays, are not the last sanctioned group to be discriminated against. Long before I ever had to deal with the discrimination and hate-speech about the fact that I'm gay, I was (and still am) dealing with it because I'm a Native American... who looks white, speaks his mind, and doesn't have a BIA card. The day after the inaguration will be the same as the day before the inaguration... except that we'll have a new President in office, who has set forth a platform, been elected by the people on that platform, and has the burden of proving us correct in electing him. I hope he does that, but if not, I'll be ready with my vote in four years.
~Peace~
NativeDude
It's no time for gay martyrs
Yes, it hurts more to get your face bashed into the side of a brick building, but Warren and his ilk provide - in part - the justification those fag-bashers use for their actions. Instead of constantly waiting to react to slights and damages done by an Obama administration in the future, establish from the start that gay martyrdom is not how the world works any more. Get your defence in early. Politics is increasingly a full-contact sport - simply waiting round for the final score, instead of trying to influence the game, is no longer an option.
The importance of being proactive
You're absolutely right. This is why I keep referencing the way that the Latino community has been dealing with Obama versus the way we have been dealing with him.
The fact that he's not in office yet is not a trivial thing, in fact it's very important. Now is when he sets the tone and structure for his administration. We've been very patiently waiting for him to show us some love in return for our support in the election and we're not getting any. He's reserving it for other groups that are being a lot more demanding about getting some recognition.
We're being nice, and sweet and very, very passive. While other groups were threatening retaliation if he failed to recognize them in Cabinet appointments we were just standing there smiling and gazing hopefully at him. We didn't get even one.
Unless we want to be the Cousin Oliver of this Brady Bunch then we need to start acting like Marsha.
We have him on video claiming to be a "fierce advocate of gay equality". I say we need to hold him to that. We also need to see if any of our media bretheren will be a little more helpful about airing clips of some of Rev Warren's less temperate remarks.
It stinks
Obama will soon take the position of the most powerful, arguably, elected official in the world. If he steps in doo-doo now, or 4 years from now, I have a right to tell him it stinks, we're still allowed to do that in America.
I am sorry, but I find this a tad bit silly....
The man will be giving a speech at an event, period. If he plans on invoking his bigotry during this speech, that is one thing but otherwise I really do not care too much who gives the nice little presidential 'faith based speech'
Obama has made it very clear that he does not agree with minister on this issue and has a solid record when it comes to gay rights legislative issues, which is a tad bit more important then a speech.
Yes, by all means express our disagreement with what the minister believes. But let us not confuse this with substantive policy issues. Equally silly was the rather elitist notion that gay people should not show up to work....
If we are going to change people's minds on something like gay marriage, then we need to learn a bit about tact and stradgey.
http://www.geocities.com/edwardtjbrown
Tact?
Tact. Really? To be tactful implies not wanting to offend. To be diplomatic. Here's my take. We already offend, to a greater or lesser degree, simply by being who we are. The ew ick factor lives. If being tactful means white washing and down playing count me out. And if by tact you mean being careful of the opposition's feelings - when are they ever careful of ours? Rick Warren certainly isn't. He just speaks out what he believes and damn the consequences.
No he has not made it clear at all
His "God is in the mix" remark re his opposition to same-sex marroage genuinely galls me. Rick Warren is a cheap and very sleazy huckster.
It's not about "changing people's minds." It's about TAKING POWER! WAKE UP!!!!
Disappointed
However, Warren was a major player in the campaign for Prop 8 in California. That campaign in total was the 2nd most expensive race in the nation next to the presidential campaign. People's rights were actually taken away. His response? Millions were spared hurt by taking away rights from 2% of California's population. Spared! He has publicly equivocated my relationship with my partner to incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.
I ask this last question of you all. What is Louis Farakhan were chosen? The anger you are feeling about that is our feeling now. The Bible warns about silver tongued prophets too.
Adolph Hitler touched a lot of people personally too
And let us not forget the Rev Jeremiah Wright scandal
When Obama seemed to be cozy with a black preacher that seemed to espouse anti-white and anti-American ideals, Obama quickly dropped him like a hot potato. After all, Heaven forbid he should be too closely associated with a religious figure that espouses a theology that might be considered hostile to such a large segment of the population.
However, apparently, it is okay to be associated with a religious figure that espouses a theology that is unequivocally hostile to a small sgement of the voting population.
This double-standard shows where Obama is coming from, and we, amongst many other groups, gave him the benefit of the doubt in the Wright debacle. But now he has almost immediately turned around and found another hate preacher to hang around with. The message being that his desire to be seen as strongly religious by America is so great that he will keep seeking out such alliances. However, he is opting to be more careful this time, selecting one whose hate speech is mroe narrowly focused at an already unpopular group, the LGBT community.
Obama is naturally not bringing Wright back to do the inovcation because of course that would reawaken the anti-white controversy. One cannot antagonize such a large group. A smaller group though, and one which Obama has already demonstrated, by way of our lack of key administration appointments, that he does not feel is in a position to make any demands of him.
Jeremiah Wright got thrown under the bus for one reason only
I AM SORRY, ETJB, BUT I FIND YOU & YOUR THINKING THE REAL DANGER
Dangerous because you simply do not understand that "The Media is the Message," as Marshall McLuhan voiced decades ago! BTW - that goes for Nuke on ATWT too. If you do not recognize the direction till after it's taken, you simply lose - as many on this blog have already pointed out.
Obama never fooled me and I applaud Ralph Nader for attempting to recast the election debates, though not a recognized candidate & essentially barred from the mass media, to the real problems & culprits infrecting modern day America, to include corporate greed - especially bankers & Wallstreet types, and the loss of any sense of responsibility or integrity from our financial community.
Special "Thanks" should go to Amy Goodman and her efforts to get "our" message out!
Ralph Nader is a repulsive closet queen
Let's look at the big picture
Let me start off by saying I do not like Rick Warren. In my view, Warren is a pompous, self-serving idiot who would rather see his own name in lights than the one of the God he name drops so much it makes me want to wretch.
With that being said, Warren is not going to be making any policy decisions and (even with the amount of cynicism I normally have) I do NOT doubt Mr. Obama's sincere commitment to be a leader for everyone, including gay Americans. Remember, even though Clinton had a Democratic Senate when he tried to lift the gay ban in the military, he had Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) to deal with. Now Obama has an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate (With Minnesota actually favoring Franken for now) and has Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) as the chair of the Armed Services Committee.
Obama wants to bring people together. We all knew this meant the inclusion of people we would not like. But Obama wants to unite the whole country around a bigger picture. Rick Warren is a good photo to have for those people who probably didn't even vote for Obama. Hell, it's not like he owes them anything. Yes, he could have picked someone who is not a pompous douchebag (Jim Wallis for instance) to do this, but he's seeking unity.
Let's give the man a chance to lead first before we criticize him, because if we don't then we're no better than the far right loonies like Limbaugh and Hannity.
The Policy DecisionS have Already been made
Isn't that obvious?
To Obama we're just a bunch of fags and dykes who need to "know their place."
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!
I have a different take on Obama and what to do about it
i'm one of those..
yeah, i'm one of the people that think this rick warren thing is a non issue.
darcolover- i too, am a well educated lesbian in my 40s. and with your 'over' edumcated self- i would really think about a dictionary or spell check. perhaps it's time to go plant another tree in the name of activism or something... just sayin'
It's the Cabinet thing...
It's the Cabinet thing that I'm actually really angry about. To be completely honest if Obama had shown some commitment to our community and given us a seat at the Cabinet table I would not be particularly annoyed about this whole Warren deal.
But the message so far is that we are not going to be having much of a voice in his administration. We may be given a handful of lower appointments and told to feel good about them, but we are obviously not a group that he takes very seriously.
It must be kept in mind that Obama has not yet done anything significant for the LGBT community. Voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment is not a significant demonstration of commitment when most of his fellow Democrat senators voted likewise.
So his argument that he is a "fierce advocate of equality" for us is an exageration at best. He has yet to demonstrate even a fraction of the support he is giving to other groups.
Under these circumstances, I don't think that anyone should be surprised that we're upset over Rick Warren. It's not like Obama has this great history as a champion of LGBT rights to stand on. So he's reaching out to Warren, and Evangelicals, more than he is reaching out to us. That justifies some upset in my mind.
John Cloud gets it
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1867664,00.html
Follow religion and politics in America, but
For the life of me, I can't recall any of the people who've given invocations at previous inaugurations during my lifetime.
I will be more concerned about who President Obama appoints to the Supreme Court and/or other federal benches as individuals who might actually wield some kind of power.