I beg your pardon. He never promised you a rose garden.

[jenmito]

Obama ran as a "post-partisan" with his longest-running line being, "There is no red America or blue America. There is the United States of America." Did you LISTEN to his speeches? He ALWAYS said he welcomed the support of Republicans ("Obamacans"), that he WOULD have Repubs. in his cabinet, (that he'd even pick McCain if there was something he thought he'd be best for), that he did NOT want "yes men" but a variety of opinions (unlike Bush), that whoever he chose would implement HIS policies, and that he'd run a transparent govt. Whoever is upset with him wasn't listening.

[ruggerson]

1. there is no excuse for giving a podium to a bigot jenmito

none. never.

[jenmito]

3. It's an invocation. It's not a certain policy he advocates. n/t

[ruggerson]

13. it's an important symbol at his inauguration

the man thinks my relationship with my partner of eleven years is akin to a man with a dog.

Why is this difficult for you to get?

[Joe the Revelator]

15. YOU are making it much much more important of a symbol then it really is?

Quick, without consulting google, who gave Jimmy Carter's invocation? Richard Nixon's? George Washington?

[ruggerson]

19. I'm not making it more of anything

there are millions of people outraged by this.

But, since Prop 8 apparently didn't bother you in the least, your attitude doesn't surprise me.

[Joe the Revelator]

29. Sorry that I disagree with you on Gay marriage, but it doesn't invalidate everything I say

Like your support of it doesn't invalidate everything you say.


And I REALLY think you are overestimating the outrage. Most people see this as what it is, a guy giving an invocation.

[ruggerson]

40. there is no "disagreement" on gay marriage

one either believes in equality for all human beings or one believes in discrimination.

Warren is an anti-gay activist. He is a very widely known, important bigot. If you don't think people are outraged by this, you are mistaken.

[Joe the Revelator]

44. Of course there is disagreement

I believe that distinct church's have the right to decide if they offer gay marriages or not based on their reading of the bible. I think that civil unions should be legal in all states and that all employers/governments must recognize them as they do marriages in all facets of society.

However I am decidedly not in favor of the goverment telling churches,temples,mosques etc how to conduct their business in the same way that I am not in favor of places of worship telling the government how to go about their business.


Sorry, but thats my stance on the issue. You disagree. Nothing is black and white.

[ruggerson]

51. it's hard to have a reasonable discussion

with someone who doesn't even understand the basics of the issue.

Legal, civil same sex marriage would not affect churches in the least. It would only mandate that GOVERNMENT recognize those marriages and offer them at City Hall like everyone elses.

Churches could and would continue to make their own decisions about whom to marry or not. Catholics, Mormons, etc, all could continue to deny same sex couples church rites of marriage, if they so chose.

The fact that you confuse and muddle this issue EXACTLY the way the fundamentalists do is pretty disturbing considering you're not a stupid person.

[Joe the Revelator]

55. Then aside from the name....

what is the difference between "Marriage" and a "civil union"? Maybe I am completely wrong, I've never claimed to be an expert at all on this issue.

[ruggerson]

63. If you're not an expert on the issue

then maybe you're misunderstanding why so many people are so angry about this?

The difference is that civil unions are not recognized by the federal government. There is no federal civil union statute. Legal same sex marriage isn't either, but that's because of the Defense of Marriage act.

Full, federally recognized civil unions bestowing all the rights, privileges and obligations of marriage would be the same as marriage. A separate but equal institution.

[Joe the Revelator]

69. Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I didn't know that.

So is supporting civil unions a morally defensible position?

[ruggerson]

79. I don't see how it is

It's basically saying to one group of citizens, we will give you the rights and privileges of the institution of marriage, but we won't call it that because that would somehow be giving you moral equality.

People are defensive of the word "marriage" because then they would have to acknowledge that Tom and Jim down the street have a relationship that is equal to and has the same value as John and Jill. Civil unions gives gay couples the legal rights, but lets straights think it's ok, because it's an inferior institution and still not marriage. Thus, it gives them an out where they can continue to deny the equal worth of Tom and Jim's relationship.

[cboy4]

123. You lost him....It's like explaining something to a big piece of

tree bark.

[qwlauren35]

128. You are clearing a lot of things up for me. Thank you.

I appreciate your logic.

My only beef is that marriage is not part of the Constitution, and in fact, is offered by the states based on Christian dictates. Not the other way around. Otherwise, polygamy would be legal.

To me, marriage is one of those gray zones when it comes to separation of church and state. I think it is impossible to separate, certainly in the eyes of many citizens.

[Bjorn Against]

41. Deleted with apologies to Wolsh

[Joe the Revelator]

45. See my above response.

[Bjorn Against]

49. So you support gay marriage then?

If you believe that marriages between gay and lesbian couples should be legal and given full recognition from the state then you are not a bigot, and I apologize for thinking such a thing.

As far as religion goes, I agree that no church should be forced to marry any couple and I don't think anyone is suggesting that they should be. I will say however that churches that do refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples are bigoted institutions, and I will call them out on their bigotry.

[Joe the Revelator]

56. Agreed on all counts

Not to push you around again, but see my recent response to Ruggerson above this one. Maybe I'm more for "Gay Marriage" then I had assumed I was.

[Bjorn Against]

70. Thanks Wolsh, we are in agreement here.

And I apologize once again for thinking you were a bigot, and I deleted my post which suggested you were. There really is no difference between marriage and civil unions unless we refer to them as separate things. If the state refers to it as marriage for one group they should refer to it as marriage for all groups, if they refer to it as civil unions for one group then it should be civil unions for all groups. I have a problem with the state giving heterosexual couples marriage licenses, but only referring to civil unions for gay couples as that seems like a separate but equal policy. If marriage is a religious institution then churches should be allowed to marry gay couples and those marriages should be recognized by the state. I have attended a Quaker meetinghouse that does marry gay couples, but the state refuses to issue licenses for these marriages. That is wrong, and it needs to change.

[Joe the Revelator]

74. I was wrong then, and I to apologize for not knowing the issue before speaking up

I do still contend though that Rick Warren does not set the tone for Obama's presidency and that, while disgusting, its no different then Billy Graham, in my eyes.

[jenmito]

18. Why is it difficult for YOU to get that Warren is NOT Obama?

And just because he's doing the invocation does not mean Obama agrees with him on that issue. He doesn't.

[ruggerson]

23. "that issue"

"that issue" is one of basic equality to millions of Americans. I don't think we're ever going to be on the same wavelength, sadly.

[jenmito]

26. Did you not KNOW his position on "that issue" when/if you voted for him?

I don't agree with him not being for gay marriage but I KNEW how he felt.

[ruggerson]

33. Of course. And he was against Prop 8

Warren, however, was an activist FOR Prop 8.

Prop 8, and it's sister initiatives around the country, strips the rights and basic dignities of tens of millions of Americans.

No one, NO ONE, who supported Prop 8 should be anywhere near Obama's inauguration or government.

[jenmito]

48. You just proved my point, unless you think

Warren will change Obama's mind on Prop 8. Again-he always said all people won't agree with him on everything all the time. This is WARREN who disagrees with him on this issue.

[Karenina]

38. LOWERY will be there too! Does THAT count?

Rick Warren spouts pigshit. Clearly he's been tapped as Falwell's successor. I found that whole bit with the candidates gracing his "church" to recite catechism as foul as the McClurkin follies.

On the other hand, can the man get inaugurated first? :shrug:

[Skittles]

77. LOL

just what ARE you smoking?

[jenmito]

81. Nothing. What do you disagree with?

[northofdenali]

110. Ready to rumble yet, Skittles?

I'm getting really close :nuke:.........

Let's go kick us some Warren ass!

[Skittles]

129. I'm sick of these fucking apologists

they really do need their asses kicked

[Critters2]

2. He promised change. How is a fundie at the inaugural change? nt

[jenmito]

6. His policies are change. He spoke at Warren's church before to speak about things they

agree on, like AIDS and helping the poor.

[Critters2]

30. They also agree on opposing marriage equality. nt

[jenmito]

47. And you knew his position. And it's not the same as Warren's, BTW,

since Warren's not for equal rights for civil union couples, he's not for repealing DADT, and he's FOR a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

[Critters2]

52. I knew his position when I voted for someone else in the primary.

In the General, I had no choice.

[jenmito]

57. Of course you had a choice.

You chose to vote for someone whose views you obviously disagree with.

[northofdenali]

117. critters, there are many issues we disagee on.....

my kitty wants to type n0w.......

but on this one? We are in sync, completely.

[Mojambo]

4. And we never promised him anything more than our vote. n/t

[Solon]

5. But there is a gay and straight America, and Obama is sending a message to one of them...

saying they aren't welcome.

[jenmito]

9. He appointed at least one gay person to his cabinet, and he ALWAYS

spoke about EVERYONE being equal-straight and gay included.

[Solon]

10. Yeah, well, call me when he supports Same-Sex Marriage, until then...

he's just another asshole trolling for both gay and gay-basher's votes.

[jenmito]

14. He never said he was FOR it, did he? He said he was for giving equal rights for

same-sex couples and for repealing DADT.

[Solon]

17. He has said that, because of his religion, he can't support marriage, but rather civil unions....

Like I said, another asshole balancing both sides.

[jenmito]

20. Did you not KNOW that when you voted for him? n/t

[Solon]

28. Yes, and I voted for him because I had no other choice!

Jesus fucking Christ, I fucking HATE our electoral system, where we have to vote for the lesser of two evils, but its what we got.

[jenmito]

36. Then don't complain. You knew what you were getting. n/t

[Solon]

60. I never gave up the right to complain, just because I was served a shit sandwich...

doesn't mean I can't complain about the taste.

[jenmito]

64. But don't act like you didn't know what you chose to order. n/t

[Solon]

66. It was a choice foisted on me by others, I had little control over it...

and the second choice was 100 times worse. Should I be happy that this is the result of our lauded "democracy"?

[jenmito]

71. "(T)he second choice was 100 times worse."

So you know exactly what you voted for.

[Solon]

72. Your point? What, should I shut the fuck up because you Obama worshippers can't take...

a little criticism of your lauded leader? I swear, acolytes is too kind a word to use to describe you.

[jenmito]

78. You're as bad as freepers for calling those of us who voted for him in the primaries "worshippers"

and "acolytes." I don't know ANYONE who thinks he's perfect and I gave you an example. I demand an apology.

[Solon]

84. Stop defending the indefensible and you might get an apology...

Until then, bugger off!

[jenmito]

86. I am NOT defending the indefensible. I'm saying he never promised to

be something other than what he said when he was running. I disagree with his position on gay marriage. I don't worship him like you said. If you won't apologize, that's on you. But you're wrong.

[Solon]

99. Actually, your first line was "He never promised you the rose garden" which I took as a blatant...

dismissal and minimizing of GBLT concerns on this issue among others. Perhaps, if you want a more fruitful conversation and an apology, perhaps you should take a sensitivity course or two.

[jenmito]

102. You took it wrong. By saying he never promised you a rose garden,

I didn't MENTION GBLT concerns. That's what YOU read into it. I said he didn't misrepresent himself when he ran his campaign. I still await your apology.

[Critters2]

35. Except that the religion he was a member of at the time DOES support

marriage equality.

[Solon]

61. Yeah, I know, he's a hypocrite on top of everything else...

I was just paraphrasing what he said, and I'm well aware of it.

[liberalmuse]

7. Well, yeah. I guess you need shit...

to help the roses grow.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. If you really think about it, he never PROMISED much of anything.

He has some great proposals aimed at fixing up some bad shit, but no promises.

[jenmito]

12. So he never broke his word as some here are implying or saying. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. He'd have had to promise not to have the guy do it in order to

break his word on it right? Warren held that pretty well done forum prior to the election that didn't hurt Obama one bit. It could have been bad too. Probably didn't hurt Warren's standing with Obama. Warren has an immense following, perhaps they might move toward Obama. Who knows?

[EFerrari]

11. Wrong. Whoever is upset with him right now

is doing their job as as citizen who values equality.

[jenmito]

24. And they didn't listen to him for the last two years. n/t

[EFerrari]

27. Bullshit. I listened, I'm not surprised and I'm still mad as hell.

So much for your "ignorant" meme.

[jenmito]

Then you shouldn't be disappointed. You knew what you'd be getting when you voted

foe him. Right?

[EFerrari]

42. Free clue: It's not disappointment.

Disappointment means you expected different in the first place.

I can object to stupid @ssed choices no matter how far down the road I saw them coming. In fact, objecting to stupid @ssed choices is the way to get them changed. That's actually two free clues.

[jenmito]

50. What are you going to get changed by objecting to who's giving the invocation? n/t

[EFerrari]

53. The story is being covered now. And we'll have to see

how well Obama and his team corrects.

[jenmito]

58. Do you think he'll change his mind?

[EFerrari]

80. I have no idea. The point, though, has been made.

[jenmito]

85. I'm glad you acknowledge that.

;)

[EFerrari]

90. Acknowledge what? That there's work to do against the casual enabling of discrimination?

No problem. Obama has been horrible on civil rights. And I'm all out of patience with his repeated missteps.

This is not change.

[jenmito]

94. He hasn't changed his positions and you voted for him...

as did I. I can understand if you NEVER thought he was "change." But he hasn't misled anyone.

[EFerrari]

98. If he continues to do wrong, it doesn't matter what he promised.

What he does matters.

[jenmito]

105. You're missing the point of my OP. He didn't misrepresent himself

in his campaign.

[EFerrari]

119. No, you are missing the point of you OP, which is a justification for discrimination. n/t

[jenmito]

121. It is not. If you voted for him, you voted for everything he always campaigned on. n/t

[EFerrari]

124. And that is your justification for Warren. Thank you. n/t

[jenmito]

126. Wrong. My OP is about knowing the positions of who you voted for. n/t

[bread_and_roses]

89. A citizen's responsibilities AND rights do not begin and end with voting

No one around here is going to shut up, as you seem to wish. Nor should they. Nor should they wait till he's inaugurated. It is, in fact, our duty to make as much noise as we can with our objections.

[bread_and_roses]

87. exactly so. and exactly so to your previous (#11) as well (n/t)

[Yukari Yakumo]

103. Wrong. Whoever is upset with him right now

is picking their fights unwisely.

[EFerrari]

120. Because public gestures don't matter? Wrong yourself.

[jonnyblitz]

16. you hardcore Obama worshippers are truly a fucking SICKENING

bunch. there is nothing he can ever do wrong in your eyes. your ilk are as bad as the nutjobs on Free Republic who support Bush no matter what. you all should listen to yourselves and what you make excuses for sometime. you are a CULT of personality, issues mean NOTHING to any of you. :puke:

[jenmito]

31. You're F'ing DEAF if you didn't know his positions. Of COURSE he can

do wrong in my eyes. But he hasn't broken any promises so far. He's living up to the way he spoke during his campaign.

[LBJDemocrat]

39. In political speech, there is the stated meaning and there is the implication.

Obama's words were ostensibly "post-partisan" (a silly and pathetic term), but the nuance was clearly progressive. He owed his earliest primary victories to us. Now we get a chickenhawk as Secy. of State, a whore of ADM and the ethanol lobby as Secy. of Agriculture, and a fundamentalist bigot giving an address at the inauguration. Change, my foot. How about Bill Clinton part two.

[jenmito]

54. What you see as "a silly and pathetic term,"

many of us see as a GOOD thing that means he would appoint people regardless of their party/disagreements on SOME issues who would give him opposing views and, in the end, implement HIS policy decisions.

[LBJDemocrat]

65. A president can't make all the decisions all of the time

Cabinet appointments have a degree of independence, and end up being just as much representatives of their departments as they are representatives of the president to their departments. They are also difficult to control if they start going their own way. You can't fire a cabinet secretary without making a big show of it.

[jenmito]

73. He stressed more than once they'd be implementing HIS policy decisions...

and he very well CAN fire a cabinet secretary. So what if he makes a big show of it?

[LBJDemocrat]

32. There's no one they wouldn't sell out in order to protect their Leader

Most people judge whether something's right or wrong by determining whether it violates the rights and dignity of someone else. These cultists define right or wrong according to what Obama says or does.

[jenmito]

59. You sound like a freeper calling those of us who always knew his positions on the issues "cultists."

You sound ignorant.

[totodeinhere]

46. Oh yes, excuse me for supporting the first African American president and only the...

second Democrat to be elected to the White House in the last eight elections.

You know, if Obama joined DU and then expressed his opinions on all of the important issues, I'm sure there would be calls to tombstone him because he isn't "pure" enough on some issues. And this is the same Barack Obama that many of us worked our hearts out for, and now at DU there are more threads attacking Obama than supporting him. Go figure.

[Yukari Yakumo]

111. Please enjoy this, 'cause this is the path you're on...

[IndianaGreen]

21. But by treating LGBTs as second class citizens he contradicts himself

when he said that "there is the United States of America."

Even Dick Cheney supports marriage rights for gays and lesbians!

[jenmito]

62. He is not treating LGBTs as second class citizens by having Warren speak at his

inauguration. He always said he feels LGBTs deserve the same rights as straight people.

[LWolf]

25. I agree with this.

I never misinterpreted or misunderstood what I heard or read.

Of course, that's also why I never wanted to see him as the nominee.

To be frank, many of his strongest supporters and biggest fans DID promise me a rose garden, if I'd just "give him a chance." I knew better, but they didn't want to hear it, and still don't.

While I'm not a fan, and am not pleased with the cabinet he's put together or with the agenda he's going to move forward with on my key issues, I don't blame him for being who he is.

As one of the left that he has distanced himself from, I stand in opposition to his center-right agenda. I have all along. No change there.

If there is any betrayal on his part, it's in the "bring everyone together," "work together," represent "everyone." I see that he wants to work with republicans, conservatives, centrists, corporatists...everybody BUT the left. I don't believe he is leaving a place at the table for the left, and I don't think he's listening to the left.

The real betrayal, from my pov, is from those who nominated him to begin with. I see it as a betrayal of labor, health care, and education, not to mention the cause of peace.

[jenmito]

43. If you never wanted him as the nominee,

you shouldn't be surprised. But I don't see how he betrayed anyone on the issues you posted in your last paragraph.

[LWolf]

130. I'm not surprised.

He's simply proving me correct.

As for "betrayal," it's the rhetoric about representing ALL, and bringing ALL to the table, while spurning the left.

The left is part of ALL, but gets short shrift from Obama. He values and includes republicans, conservatives, and the right while spurning the left.

That's counter to his message.

[Lilith Velkor]

68. There you go again

taking the words right outa my keyboard. :thumbsup:

[LWolf]

131. Well, some of us have to say it.

;)

[northofdenali]

34. As I said in another post -

Bull. Shit.

He does have a choice of nonpartisan folks who are of a religious bent who would be better/more than Warren (who supports Prop. 8, and is anti-choice). HE HAS A CHOICE.

All he has to say (it's HIS inauguration, NOT repuke-righters for once)- ALL he as to say is

NO

.

Simple word. Simple meaning - I will not tolerate your bigoted bullshit.

[jenmito]

67. I am not a bigot and I resent you calling me one.

I don't agree with all of his positions. Then again, HE doesn't agree with all of WARREN'S positions. I'd like an apology.

[northofdenali]

100. You won't get one from me.

Ask some of those on this board whose marriages were negated by Prop 8 for an apology.

Bet you won't get one there, either.

[jenmito]

107. This has nothing to DO with Prop 8 which I'm against and Obama's against.

If you want to be stubborn and call me names I don't deserve to be called, you have to live with yourself-I don't.

[northofdenali]

104. BTW, if you can interpret the written word -

I called YOU nothing at all.

I called Warren a bigot.

I could call him worse that that, but it might offend your delicate sensibilities. How about an apology for your misinterpretation?

[jenmito]

109. You should've put it in quotes, since you said all he has to say is one word-

"NO." But I DO apologize for misinterpreting your post. Now I see what you meant.

[last_texas_dem]

37. I agree about the pick not necessarily being a surprise, but what a

missed opportunity. FTR, I am a non-religious person who would just as soon get rid of prayer at inaugurations altogether, but Obama has not shied away from professing to be a liberal Christian. So why not pick a liberal Christian to give the invocation at his inaugural? What is the value in picking a man who would have been more comfortable giving the invocation at one of Bush's inaugurations and was obviously biased towards McCain in the forum he held for the candidates? I know it's a symbolic issue, but it seems to me that picking Warren for the purpose of "building bridges" will do more to hurt Obama with pro-gay liberals than it will help him with the religious right, who aren't moving away from the Republicans anytime soon; even if they are eventually the only American demographic supporting Republicans, they'll still be supporting them.

[jenmito]

101. At least you agree with the point of my OP, and FTR,

I am an atheist with agnostic tendencies. I don't agree with his choice of Warren, but I'm not at ALL surprised by it. Obama is as pro-gay rights as he always was. Warren doesn't change that.

[LeftCoast]

75. By your post I can tell you didn't have YOUR right to marry taken away.

Would you be so glib if Obama had invited a pastor who was an activist against interracial marriage? Somehow I doubt it.

[jenmito]

91. Yes, I would...

because I know that's not HIS belief. You can doubt me all you want. Just because I'm not gay doesn't mean I don't feel strongly about people who are so against gay marriage like Warren is.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

76. Are you trying to say he ran on a....

PRO-GAY America and an ANTI-GAY America?

[jenmito]

92. No...

you know exactly what he's been saying and what his position is on the subject of gay rights. He's FOR them as much as any other Dem. candidate was (or more). Having Warren do the invocation doesn't change that.

[Clio the Leo]

82. Thank you! His two books should be required reading....

..... because some of us dont get it.

[leftofthedial]

83. he has yet to appoint a progressive to a significant post.

he now has asked a bigot fundie piece of crap to give the invocation that kicks off his entire presidency.

There is "post-partisan" and then there is playing for the other team.

I wish him well, but I feel more like the victim of a bait and switch every day. I don't see ANY evidence of change, other than that he is selecting mostly competent repukes and repuke-lites daily.

[jenmito]

95. What position did he "bait and switch" on you? n/t

[DCBob]

88. Two thumbs up Jen!!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[jenmito]

96. Thanks, DCBob!

:hi:

[DCBob]

106. Those criticizing Obama now were not paying attention.

He is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. Your post is spot on.

[jenmito]

112. Thank you for being one of the few who

seems to recognize that. It's getting pretty tough on this thread-but I can handle it. I know I'm not wrong on this. Thanks for the back-up. :)

[DCBob]

116. Jen, the vocal minority has taken over this site.

I guarantee most of DU and most of America is totally supportive of Obama and how he is handling the transition. Hang in there. We will prevail!

[jenmito]

122. Thanks for that...

I'm sure you're right. :)

[mmonk]

93. Nope. He promised change.

[jenmito]

97. What promise has he gone back on?

[mmonk]

114. None yet. I just don't see any change agents.

I will reserve judgement until he starts governing.

[jenmito]

125. Good. Reserve judgment to see if his policies implement change. n/t

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

108. How hard is it to avoid giving a platform to a BIGOT?

[jenmito]

113. How hard is it to understand that OBAMA is NOT a bigot?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

115. Yep, and he should have chose any of a number of non-bigoted clergy

You're a woman, you should be pissed off about this just for that. Warren is just as sexist as he is homophobic.

[Binka]

118. That is not what Haruka3 said

She asked about giving a platform to a bigot. Difference. Reading comprehension is your friend Jen. You are not mine. PLONK.

[jenmito]

127. The feeling is mutual.