 by Michael Jensen
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 22 members and 1033 guests online.
|
Obama picks bigot and Prop 8 supporter to deliver inaugural invocation
Earlier today we posted about the movement to get President-elect Obama to choose Mark Doty to deliver a poem during his inauguration next month. Alas, that honor went to someone else and now comes word that Obama has chosen the Reverend Rick Warren (pictured above) to deliver the invocation during the inauguration. Unfortunately, it's not a choice many gay folks are going to be happy about for good reason. Read why this is definitely a WTF moment after the jump! Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, has made a name for himself by moving away from much of the rhetoric of the far right to focus on issues such as poverty. Alas, when it comes to gay issues, Warren doesn't rate. Said Warren recently about gay marriage and Prop 8:
That's a line of BS we've heard plenty of times before. Even worse, Warren went on to spout the Sherri Shepherd line of reasoning that if Prop 8 didn't pass, then religions couldn't criticize homosexuality because it would be hate speech. This is a flat-out lie.
President Elect Barack Obama and Pastor Rick Warren at the Civil Forum on the Presidency at the Saddleback Church August 16, 2008 in Lake Forest, California Warren has also said being gay isn't the "worst sin" and that he recently had dinner with a gay couple so he can't be a homophobe. There is some solid reasoning for you. I have to say, I'm a little stunned by this choice. Given how the gay community got screwed over in California, the choice of Warren feels like salt in the wound and Barack needs to rescind this invitation post haste. Submitted by on Wed, 2008-12-17 16:47. |
 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
"If you're doing business with a Christian son of a bitch, ...
afhickman
"The mountain has wings."
...GET IT IN WRITING!"--William Burroughs
All anyone has to do is wave a flag or start passing out wafers, and politicians in America turn to mush. I hope this isn't a sign of things to come. Inclusiveness, yes, but there must be limits. This is entirely the wrong signal to send.
Congress, not Obama
Look...I think Obama is gonna throw us under the bus in the long run, however, the selection was made by a Congressional committee...not Obama. But! It stands to reason that Obama could easily suggest that he not be involved.
*EDIT* I'm kinda editing my comment but leaving it there. I just wanted to add that I'm now reading that Obama actually suggested the name to the committee. It wasn't the choice of the committee alone. Apparently Barack is close with Mr. Warren and is fine with the guy who compared gay marriage to pedophilia and incest, and helped lead the fight for Prop 8 in California. Salon magazine was reporting that it wasn't Obama's decision...they have since changed their info.
change..yea right
And there you have it,all his talk about change this and change that but in the end nothing much will change atleast not for gay people,we will still be considered second class citizens.Ooh i'm sure he will mention LGBT people in one of his little speeches but don't be fooled that is just to shut us up, any real changes will probably not come with this guy.I'm hoping for it but not counting on it.
I understand why you are
I understand why you are upset, but I see things a little differently in this situation. The first time that I really started to pay attention to the type of person that Barack Obama is happened the first time that he went to speak at Rick Warren's church. In fact, this event said a lot about Obama and Warren. Warren invited Obama not only despite the fact that they don't share the same beliefs, but because of this fact. He wanted Obama to talk to his parishioners about his stand on abortion and other social issues. He wasn't trying to change people's opinions, but both he and Obama wanted to start and encourage dialog on these issues. And, Obama didn't go to the church pandering to people, he stood behind his beliefs, and didn't alter his stance in order to curry favor with them. I've noticed that this is the type of person the President elect is. It may be his upbringing, but he doesn't shy away from working with and forming relationships with people who are different from him, regardless of what that difference is, or people who don't share his beliefs. This fact about him has angered progressives, conservatives, people who support him and people who hate him, but I think it's an aspect of who he is that he won't be changing any time soon.
Just so people won't think that Obama hangs around with homophobes, he also had a meeting with Gene Robinson, earlier this year. It wasn't a meeting that was meant to garner publicity or pander to the gay community, in fact it was Robinson who told the press about the meeting and he only did so after the election. Obama, according to Robinson, asked to meet him because he thought he was an interesting person and he wanted to talk to him about religion and what role he thought religion should have in society and government. Robinson said that he felt that Obama really cared about what he had to say, and that he actually listened to him.
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
hmm..
Barack Obama has said he also believes marriage is between a woman and a man....so i'm not sure why this is so surprising.
also, not everyone Barack comes in contact with is gonna be pro-gay or whatever. that's just a fact for him and for all of us. At the same time, it's a bit hypocritical i guess to have him there (since he has chosen to have a gay marching band to march in the parade)
I'm not gonna get upset over it, because what can I do? I'm not gonna force someone or try and tell them who they want to associate themselves with. Maybe Barack likes this man for a reason unrelated to his stance on gay issues. who knows?
I just think Obama is trying to reach out to everyone/include as many people with this inauguration...nobody will be completely happy for anyone. i am sure there are those who are like WTF about the gay marching band. we're like WTF about this guy. we just gotta deal with it. IMO.
Pretty much what I was
But imagine the outcry if Obama allowed someone who
But, Obama does have a very
Yes, but we're not seeing those folks given such
ok, ok...
you got me there. good point. there would be outcry alright.
I guess that's my problem with Obama. i voted for him for quite a number of reasons, but one reason did NOT include his views on gays, gay marriage, etc.
so, yeah....my problem is i don't understand where he stands on the whole gay issue. politicians in general confuse me a lot on certain topics. They all say what we want to hear, yet go do something different.
i have no idea why Rick Warren was chosen. i doubt it was because of his views on gay people.
the more i think about it, the more annoyed i get. what a double standard, eh? I guess the majority of people aren't racist, but at the same time, there are still lots of people who are anti-gay and that's easier to deal with. that's not how I see it, but i think maybe that is how others feel. *shrug*
Why is anyone surprised?
Why is anyone surprised? This is Barak Obama, not Mike Gravel. He does not care what you think, or what I think. He is going to do what he believes and the fact that he associates with bigots does not mean squat. From day one, this man has proven he doesn't give a damn about our issues until they benefit him. To believe other wise is to stand blindly on the train tracks and think that approaching light is the sun rising.
There is no new day, no change coming, and that is something you can believe in.
My expectations were low to begin with
Truthfully, I wasn't expecting a big gay breakthrough with Obama. As is too often the case it was a question of choosing the candidate who wouldn't actively set out to hurt us. McCain and Palin would have probably burnished their conservative credentials with some anti-gay activity. Obama was unlikely to push hard for gay equality, but he's also likely to throw us a few bones now and again.
That is, unfortunately, the best we could hope for. No really strong gay equality supporters were in the top tier of primary candidates (no, Hillary doesn't count any more than Obama does) and so we got someone on the fence.
I am expecting mostly minor, primarily symbolic gestures from the Obama Administration towards the LGBT community. By the same token, Warren's presence is likely a symbolic gesture towards the Right, as Obama needs them to keep quiet while he tackles the economic crisis upon assuming office. I'm not expecting social issues to top his agenda for at least the first two years. Economy and foreign policy are likely to predominate.
This should only serve to underline the importance of working on our members of Congress and our state governments. Anyone who is waiting for a "Gay Rights Messiah" is probably going to be waiting for a very long time.
Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
There is nothing wrong with debating the son of a bitch on his own turf, but invite him to give the invocation at the inauguration. WTF?
GayTVluver mentioned it, so I gotta ask what and who are on the Congressional committee who made the choice for the person to give the invocation at the inauguration? It seems weird that the President elect wouldn't have any say in the matter
Billy Graham gave the Invocation for both Bush and Clinton, Franklin Graham for Shrub. I didn't expect that Reverend Wright would be giving the invocation for Obama, but Warren is far more scary.
Warren in an email urging all of his massive congregation concerning Prop 8 just before the election, "This is not a political issue — it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about." Will his be an Invocation or our communities Last Rights?
Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
Here are the fine members of the committee who have a few questions to answer to the GLBT community about picking the very UNreverend Warren.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-CA Chairman
Sen. Harry Reid D-NV U.S. Senate Majority Leader
Rep. Nancy Pelosi D-CA Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives
Rep. Steny Hoyer D-MDU.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader
Sen. Bob Bennett R-UT Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Rep. John Boehner R-OH U.S. House of Representatives Republican Leader.
I don't know alot about
This is the way it always is
People just tend to forget.
Bill Clinton was seen as a savior by liberals and the gay community, but he proved to be very centrist. He also sold the gay community out when he needed to try and get the Right off of his back over his *ahem* cigar habit.
In fairness, conservatives get let down too. When Dubya first came in they were hailing him as "more Reagan than Reagan!". If they meant that he was going to blow up the deficit and trash the economy, like Reagan, then perhaps they were right. Bust mostly there was a belief that he would lower taxes, shrink the government and kill liberalism once and for all. Not even close.
Reagan was also another "messiah" (still is in many people's minds). In fact, when Reagan died one comedian joked about all the Reagan worship that was going on: "he's been dead for three days, shouldn't he have risen by now?"
The trend is that Americans often hope that in incoming president is going to be some kind of messianic figure that will radically "improve" the country (for the Left or the Right varies) and that eventually it becomes clear that this isn't going to happen. Bush got a free extended honeymoon thanks to 9/11. Otherwise his lack of real policy and penchant for taking vacations every few weeks would have probably sank him after one term.
The tone is a little more shrill around Obama because he is a) our first black president, which may help lay to rest a lingering racial problem and b) Bush was such an appallingly bad president that anyone would have been considered an improvement.
But as I said before, I don't think he's going to be the hero of the gay rights movement. Nor is he going to heal the nation in an instant with divine powers.
Barack Obama is DEAD to me!
As a gay African-American I am beyond enraged.
http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2008/12/17/fait-diver-respect/
Needless to say this is part and parcel of a larger subject that I plan to address ASAP
Working Title: Black is The New White.
I guess we should be happy...
...Barack is gonna let us provide the entertainment for the parade. God knows we love to do a parade.
I'm so over this f'in bullshit. You know what we're gonna get in the next 4-8 years? DADT revoked. That's it. He'll do that even though it's already on it's way out, claim it as a victory and tell us to be happy with it.
He won't even do that
Chenoweth, Warren and Obama and Why We Should or Shouldn't Care
Sorry for the Crossposting But It's relevant here as well.
I love that Kristin Chenoweth is so outspoken and I always enjoy her singing and acting and watching her interviews. I am very impressed at how outspoken she is about gay rights and supporting gay causes and even with the fact that she is anti abortion but would not presume to restrict the procedure for others who might chose it.
That said, why is it okay to accept Kristin Chenoweth's appreciation of “Rick Warren's book and his views about how to live life (separate from gay marriage and gay rights) but we should shun the president for inviting Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration.
I have always believe that it takes all kinds to make a world. Lions and Lambs (to get biblical about it). Obama's way of operating has always been, throw everybody in the pool. Gay performers and Conservative Christian Speaker. Just throw them all in the together. Isn't that what being bi-partisan is all about?
As a country we consist of conservatives, fundamentalist, liberals, radicals and everything betwixt and between.
I would NOT want a president to represent ONLY my issues and beliefs because I am a citizen in a country of diverse beliefs and views (right or wrong).
I strongly believe everyone should have a voice, be heard and we fight it out with our words and political activities until we work out a reality that works for us as a country.
Am I happy that Rick Warren is speaking at the inauguration? Absolutely Not.
But I also wasn't happy about Maya Angelou speaking when Clinton was Inaugurated.
There are folks that hate her and folks that hate him and some of those folks are going to be the same people with different reasons.
I just can care that much about who speaks at the inauguration and I don't think we should be spending all of our time worrying about how close Obama is or isn't to this that or the other person.
WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT HE DOES ONCE HE IS PRESIDENT. That is what will affect my life and the lives of those I care about and the country that I love.
I would prefer to wait until the man gets into office and see what kinds of policies he implements and what kinds of changes he makes regarding gay rights, health care, women's equality, figting poverty, improving education, etc.
Whatever issues we as the gay community have with this president, he IS going to be the president and we have to be very strategic and EVER VIGILENT in how we deal with this administration if we don't want to suffer through what we did with Clinton during his first term.
I don't need my president to be "Practically Perfect in Every Way", I just need him or her to be open to the concerns of my communities and willing to DO SOMETHING POSTIVE AND PROGRESSIVE AND MEANINFUL about the issues that matter to me.
Beyond that, I could care less with whom he rhangs, worships, breaks bread or swaps spit.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)
Yes
I've been lurking for some time, but the recent posts regarding Obama have made me post for the first time. This is exactly the sentiment that Obama seems to portray.
Grant you, I'm a democratic partisan. Granted, I'll support him even if he isn't as blazenly pro-gay rights as I'd like him to be. Seizing a contentious, even unpopular social issue isn't the fast track to unifying a country (Roe v. Wade, anyone?).
Even if he "just" overturns DADT and opposes any constitutional efforts to disenfranchise us, he'll be a good President on gay rights. I'm not expecting a repeal of DOMA. If he appoints even one person to the supreme court in the line of Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, etc. it will be a great victory.
Many GLBT commentators have debated over whether or not our struggle compares to the civil rights struggle endured by blacks and other racial minorities. If we wish to truly compare ourselves, we must remember that every step, every advance was agonizing and hard. Even allies were dragged kicking and screaming into the light as supporters of black causes. The Democratic caucus was split on the Civil Rights Act, a filibuster had to be ended. This is how it is done.
I hope I, a twenty year old, don't have to remind the rest of you about these facts.
I Give Up On This Country. . .
. . .I think it's time to get the hell out of Dodge while we still can; before the troop trains come in and drag us off to the ovens.
Michael
The problem is that we haven't reached that point in society yet. I wish we had. It's going to take awhile still.
It's up to us I guess to move society in a direction where anti-gay sentiment is met with the same outcry as anti-black or anti-Jewish statements.
If Rick Warren had said faggot or something there would be an outcry but being against gay marriage isn't even considered to be bigotry yet. Even though it is.
Rick Warren was a smart choice
Okay, I'm sort of bummed that it will be Rick Warren delivering the invocation and not Mark Doty, but I hardly think this is a surprising choice and I'm not ready to burn Obama in effigy over it.
For starters, a lot of people STILL think Obama is a Muslim, or a pinko commie, or whatever. So it's hardly surprising Rick Warren got the nod over a gay poet.
For everyone's sake, Obama really needs to bring "moderate" Christians over firmly to the Democratic camp, and Rick Warren is a widly popular moderate Christian. (i.e. whatever his current views on gay marriage, he's not a crazy biblical strict constructionist in the vein of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.)
The more Fundies who follow him and NOT Robertson (and his ilk) the better, because at least he represents a move in the right direction for the Christian community. I mean at least he does not oppose same sex unions and that's something to start from.
So, yeah, I'm disappointed, but I'm not so sure I wouldn't have made exactly the same choice if it were me selecting the speaker.
I Question Warren's Moderate Cred
Thing is that I'm not sure he's really so moderate. I think he's more of a stealth conservative. Since Falwell and Graham died there has been an opening at the top of the Evangelical food chain that people like Dobson, Robertson and Graham's son have been unable to stake a clear claim to.
Warren is trying rather blatantly to move in and displace the "old guard" and establish himself as the de facto leader of the Evangelical movement. I firmly believe that this is why he has made such a point to reach out to Obama, who was clearly destined to be a major figure in the Democratic Party, while at the same time working the conservative base. He wants to be the next Graham and associating himself with the presidency, even of a Democrat president, elevates his stature amongst the pack of megachurch maniacs out there.
These megachurch ministers are every bit as egotistical as actors or rock stars, often more so because they believe that they're God's representatives on Earth. They're always looking for bigger audiences to worship them (in Christ's name of course).
Obama has just handed Warren exactly what he was looking for those times he so "generously" invited Obama to appear at his church. He was looking to set himself apart from the rest of the Evangelical pack, especially if the rapidly imploding Bush Administration led to a Republican rout in the '08 elections, which did in fact happen. Now Warren is in the best positioned Evangelical in America and appears to have the ear of the incoming president, something Dobson, Graham and Robertson cannot claim.
He's an opportunist and a power broker. He's offering to help keep the Evangelicals off Obama's back in return for enough recognition to make himself the most prominent Evangelical figure in America. It's good old-fashioned politics.
Sadly, there's no "change" involved.
But what can I say? McCain would have probably opted for someone even worse.
Obama made the choice, not Diane and the others
AmericaBlog is reporting that Obama was the one who made the selection.
This is all very unfortunate. I'm hoping that Obama isn't like this on the other issues I have hope for him with -- education, healthcare and the environment. He's gonna cut us on gay issues. Any advancements we make are in our hands.
If he honestly thinks that a cornerstone of the anti-gay marriage movement isn't a huge slap in the face then he doesn't understand the gay community and the issue of gay marriage. This man compared us to uncle touchy and perverts.
I expect Christian leaders to be anti-gay, but did he have to pick someone who is a leader in the anti-gay fight?
Rick Warren was a Cunning Choice
I am afraid that this is the obvious harbinger that it appears to be.
Of the three poets ever reading at an Inaugural both Robert Frost in 1961 and Maya Angelou in 1993 shared the stage with Billy Graham who gave the Inaugural Invocation those years, as he had done since the 1940s. In 2009 Elizabeth Alexander, who teaches African-American studies at Yale, will read her poetry.
Perhaps we should be organizing GLBT poetry events on January 20th?
America Blog
As in "Animal Cunning"?
huh?
I don't even know what that means. Sorry, I don't always get your humor.
cunning:
–noun ; skill employed in a shrewd or sly manner, as in deceiving; craftiness; guile. also applies to the adjective.
Bottom line
What About The Choice of Joe Lowery for the Benediction
When it comes to Conservative Christianity (and if you are anti-gay in any way, you are conservative in my book) religion trumps all other alliances for folks too much of the time. Not always but often enough for me to be vigilant.
I have no expectation that the election of a consciously overtly Christian man like Obama isn't going to be problematic for me in real ways as a queer person who is not religious (even while Obama's general leftines might actually do a lot of good for the country as a whole).
Obama may prove to be much better for gays and lesbians then Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagon. I want to believe he will. But it is all just theorhetical until he gets into office.
Obama is going to be our president and he's going to be theres (however you define them). Some of that them are the Rick Warren Christians of the US (like Kristen Chenoweth and Oprah Winfrey, et al)
Maybe this is just the initial reaction from gay folks but it feels like we're allowing the choice of RickWarren to over-shadow everything else about the inauguration and to overshadow Obama's presidency before he even gets into office.
Obama also chose others to participate in the inauguration that I think are just as meaningful. What about Joe Lowery give the closing prayer?
Do folks think that having both Warren and Lowery (among others) sends a particular kind of message that is not just about Warren's kind of Christian perspective?
Or do folks just think Lowery doesn't count because Warren is there?
Here's one very interesting take on Lowery versus Warren by "dmac" on the Oxdown Gazette that I think is worth reading for an additional perspective
Joseph E. Lowery Will Get the Last Word at President Obama’s Inauguration
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)
Joe Lowery, so what.
Seriously, so what? Is this going to be Obama's entire presidency? Not having the balls to stand for the people who actually got him into office while trying to court the people he didn't get?
It's lovely that Mr. Lowery will get to speak. But it's tainted and virtually meaningless because it's just pandering. PE Obama has elevated Mr. Warren's anti-gay marriage message to a new level. He's given it a national platform. He's placed Mr. Warren in demand with all the major news media. I know that PE Obame is anti-gay marriage. But for the love of God I just wish that one reporter, JUST ONE, would ask PE Obama "So what are these issues that you and Mr. Warren differ on?" It's in the talking points but no details are mentioned. What do they differ on? It's not gay marriage, they are both anti-gay in that aspect. Mr. Warren "has some gay friends" and likes them, so does PE Obame. Do they differ on CUs/DPs? What is it? Why is the gay media letting the national media get away with not asking the question? Back up the claim already.
But back to Lowery. Again, so what? It only shows how far he's willing to go to court the Reds while quelling the displeasure of the liberals at the expense of the gays.
The whiney gays again
Let me add to that - why are we allowing the main stream media to even frame the debate for us? They're painting this as a black and white oh the gays have their knickers in a twist about gay marriage again thing. That doesn't even come close to telling the whole story. It makes us look whiney and petty and oh so PC. But it sure is a simplistic and convenient way to sum up the reaction to Rev. Warren. By making it about gay marriage they don't have to deal with his loathsome statements about gays and lesbians. Which is exactly what they don't want to do. Where are our media reps in all of this? Time for us to start steering the debate because you just know the gay thing is going to come up repeatedly in the Obama presidency.
We're never good at framing the argument
It's like during the endless fights over the Boy Scouts and their discriminatory policy. They always manage to make sure that the media focuses on the idea of gay scout masters and doesn't talk about gay scouts who may have been in the BSA since before they were old enough to understand their sexuality.
Here, not enough connection is being made between Warren and Prop 8. Nor is enough emphasis being made on the things Warren has said about gays or the blatant lies he told as part of his Yes on 8 arguments. Instead they're making him look like a principled religious figure simply clinging to his faith's teachings in a friendly, but firm way.
Furthermore, almost no mention is made of all the other anti-gay measures besides Prop 8 that passed on Election Day, which might help people understand exactly why we're feeling so persecuted right now.
Also, not enough emphasis is being made on the lack of gay representation in Obama's White House, his Cabinet or at that stupid Inauguration! Obama is being depicted as this wonderful champion of gay rights while we're being made to look like ungrateful whiners!
The fact that he hasn't actually done much for us yet is not really being dicussed as it should.
Has anyone got Anderson Cooper's email? I want to send him some expose ideas!
Well we better get better at it
Getting better means connecting the dots
The main problem is that we are, for the most part, liberals, and liberals generally aren't willing to play dirty the way that conservatives are.
As the talented Ms Maddow pointed out on her piece, for example, Patrick Warren claims "civility" even as he directly insults us. He is an outright liar,saying things that are quantifiably untrue in order to advance his goals. Plus he is apparently pro-assassination, which is morally, politically and diplomatically problematic to say the very least.
All liberals should hate this guy, not just LGBT people! Smiling face and pleasant demeanor aside he's got all the same values that Jerry Falwell did. He just bundles them with more "liberal" causes so as to appeal to younger Evangelicals who don't wake and sleep on the abortion and gay issues alone.
But as a rule we resist pointing the spotlight on what scumbags some of our opponents really are. We often don't even bother to contradict their lies. We just sit around quietly talking about why want equal rights for ourselves.
So when Rick Warren tells concerned Christians that he and other clergy face arrest if gay marriage isn't outlawed well, they believe him. We certainly don't contradict him very loudly! We just assume that all straight people read the Advocate too and know our side of the story.
Anti-gay folks are masters of spin. They rely on spin to win arguments because the truth is a lot less compelling. We rarely challenge their spin. We just assume that it's stupid and that other people must see through it just as we do. But the truth is that they don't. In conversations with straight people I have been amazed at how many misconceptions they have about what rights we do and do not have, where we have those rights and where we don't, and what impact our rights have on people and churches.
Unfortunately, we want Barack Obama (or someone like him) to do all of this for us. Isn't it bizarre that the loudest voice for supporting same-sex marriage in California was a (very) straight men, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom? Why is that? Why do we keep looking to straight political leaders to be our voice? Why are we so inarticulate on our own?
My personal opinion is that this is because we've become too focused on the courts as the path equality. Our movement has become so focused on getting lawyers to sway judges that we have forgotten how to communicate with the general public. We've really forgotten that we even need to communicate with the general public.
And so people like Rick Warren own the public debate. As a preacher he's much more competent at swaying the masses, even if he must resort to lies in order to do so. Our cold, courtroom-oriented technique doesn't work well on the public. Judges may want to stick to "just the facts", but public opinion is shaped by notions as much as simple factual statements.
We need to paint Rick Warren as a hypocrite that claims to be "Pro-life" even as he advocates murder when it is convenient. We need to challenge his lies, in public and in front of audiences, not just in private. We need to remember that public opinion matters even more than judicial rulings in a democracy, and that we cannot ignore the public discourse.
Otherwise we're stuck.
Absolutely correct....
...Psionycx...Even in my country where gay marriage is totally legal, I can't believe the supposedly intelligent people that get sucked in to the anti-gay rhetoric full of outright lies, half-truth and spins. The only way to combat this is to continually stand up and repeat the truth, over and over...
It's exhausting and sometimes seems hopeless, but what can you do but keep trying. Every right is hard fought for, and needs to be held tightly, lest it be taken away while you blink.
A lot of Americans have said in disgust that they would like to move to Canada, but I have to tell you, our own damn PM is a born-again conservative and would throw us all to the wolves if he could get away with it. And we as a country have not yet signed the UN declaration apparently because of the transgender inclusion.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
Our debate technique
The lies Warren told about how he and other clergy face prosecution for saying same-sex marriage is wrong if it is legal is a prime example of how we don't handle this well.
In front of a bunch of judges that story would never fly. Being legal experts they would know that it is patently untrue and that there are heaps of precedent for why it is untrue. The Catholic Church has been saying that divorce and remarriage after divorce are morally wrong for centuries. The fact that both are presently legal does not open the Church or it's clergy up to prosecutions, and even civil lawsuits would fail utterly.
But the general public is not a bunch of judges. They're used to talking heads on TV telling them what to think. When that nice, saintly Rev Warren, who wrote that wonderful book and cares about so many causes, issues dire warnings about the threat to Christianity and society that will occur if "2% of the population" is allowed to "redefine marriage", well, they're hardly likely to fact check him now are they?
This is why our court-oriented strategies have done us such a disservice. We've forgotten how to deal with open discourse with the public. We think that lies that would never fool a judge won't fool an average voter.
This is why you're completely right. You have to keep shouting the truth. Because anti-gay folks sure aren't going to be good sports and do it for us!
Given what
@ Janet :Given what Harper tried to do to the other political parties in his recent economic statement--cut their funding--something that was not even in the Conservative platform in the recent election---and that he tried to do it with a minority government--- my fear of him and what he would do to same-sex marriage / gay rights with a majority government grows. I believe all it would take would be to use the notwithstanding clause and as you say those rights would be taken away in a blink of an eye.
@ Psionycx :You can look at Canada to point out the lies about how ministers would be charged for preaching against gays. We have had gay marriage for a couple of years now, we have our rights protected by the Charter and we have strong hate speach laws that include/cover gays and yet not one minister/priest/clergy has been stopped from expressing his/her beliefs or forced to conduct a gay marriage.
In Canada...
and the irony is
... our own damn PM is a born-again conservative and would throw us all to the wolves if he could get away with it. And we as a country have not yet signed the UN declaration apparently because of the transgender inclusion.
And the irony is that while this UN decleration is not signed our beloved PM is busy in Winnipeg turning the sod for the brand new Canadian Museum of Human Rights.
I'm sorry but what...
What UN declaration has Canada not signed? If you are talking about the UN Decriminalization of Homosexuality then we have signed it and the US has so far refused! Please read the following article:
U.S. Doesn't Sign U.N. Decriminalization Of Homosexuality
If it is a different UN declaration, please inform me so that I can learn of it and badger my member of parliament. Thank you.
Yep, that's the one...
...when I read this story 3 days ago, Canada had not yet signed (though "supported" in principal) because of the inclusion of transgendered in the bill. If Canada has signed now, then yay. I cannot find a list of the countries that have definitively signed it.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
Okay, thanks for clarifying...
The following article says explicitly that, "Mexico and Canada, our North American counter-parts, have signed the declaration."
The UN Declaration on Decriminalization of Homosexuality
Also, the Globe and Mail has written, that "ALONE among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality." So, that obviosly means, as a major western nation, Canada has already signed. I'm sure, as a major Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail would have mentioned if Canada didn't sign.
U.S. balks at backing condemnation of anti-gay laws
Peace. :)
.
I told you so...