Andrew Sullivan's got something to say about the Warren pick and Obama...

[ourbluenation]

I think the earnestness and sincerity of his campaign, and its generational force, have given us a chance for something new, and I fear that in responding too viscerally to the Warren choice, we may be throwing something very valuable away far too prematurely. There is no question that gays and lesbians have made enormous strides in explaining who we are in the last couple of decades. There is equally no question that Obama has substantively committed his administration to more gay inclusion and gay equality than any president in history. We absolutely do need to be vigilant on this. But we should also understand Obama's attempt to bridge some gaps in America that the Clintons, with their boomer baggage and Dick Morris cynicism, couldn't and didn't. This is what matters. Do gays and lesbians want to be a part of this - or sit fuming on the sidelines at symbolic slights?

I know the arguments against this, and if Obama delivers nothing on gay equality, the critics will have every reason to complain loudly, as they should. But I'm not going there yet. And the truth is: if we cannot engage a Rick Warren on the question of our equality, we may secure a narrow and bitter victory in some states (just as the Christianists won a narrow and bitter victory in California in November). But we will not win the bigger argument and our victories will lack the moral legitimacy they deserve.

The greatest distortion of our politics in this respect is the notion that gays are in some way opposed to faith and in some way that our cause is a function solely of the left. Neither is true. Gay people contribute disproportionately to the religious and spiritual life of this country and we seek no attack on free religion freely expressed and celebrated. I find the idea of silencing my opponents abhorrent. Many gays voted for McCain. I believe in family, which is why I have tried my whole life to integrate my sexual orientation with my own family and finally two summers ago, to become a full part of it as a married man. I love my church, however much pain it still inflicts on itself and others. And I am not alone in this, as I have discovered these past two decades.

If I cannot pray with Rick Warren, I realize, then I am not worthy of being called a Christian. And if I cannot engage him, then I am not worthy of being called a writer. And if we cannot work with Obama to bridge these divides, none of us will be worthy of the great moral cause that this civil rights movement truly is.

The bitterness endures; the hurt doesn't go away; the pain is real. But that is when we need to engage the most, to overcome our feelings to engage in the larger project, to understand that not all our opponents are driven by hate, even though that may be how their words impact us. To turn away from such dialogue is to fail ourselves, to fail our gay brothers and sisters in red state America, and to miss the possibility of the Obama moment.

It can be hard to take yes for an answer. But yes is what Obama is saying. And we should not let our pride or our pain get in the way.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/taking-yes-for.html

He is right about the narrow victories. To get federal recognition (my goal) we might have to cut our losses on some things, for the bigger and greater good in the end.

[Mimosa]

1. I'm no fan of Sullivan but I agree with him.

Back when I was working for progressive causes and especially gay rights nobody in 'the movement' would have imagined that gays would desire to 'get married.' Marriage was largely regarded by feminists and gays as an oppressive patriarchal institution. There used to many books published which advocated an end to marriage and the 'nuclear family.' I suppose all that folderol would be regarded as quaint now. I have no idea how many gay people really want the option of getting married and being so recognised by state and federal government. On TV no liberal network is going to put on conservative gays if they knew where to find any and I think conservative gays feel intimidated to speak out.

I've always been curious why some Democrats -including those here- have adamantly supported Hillary and Bill Clinton. It was Bill Clinton who signed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act>Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. He didn't have to. His oath was to defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States. If Clinton believed the provisions of the law were un-Constitutional he definitely should have refused to sign it into law. I wonder why nobody ever asks him about it? If I ever got the chance I would.

If Obama, the consummate politician, is reaching out to Rick Warren and his community it will be a good thing in the long run. I don't like Rick Warren at all. I don't care that he's an evangelical who opposes abortion either. America is in for some struggles ahead and Obama needs to forge alliances and make friends, not shun people the Left doesn't like. When I first began supporting Obama in early 2007 one of the characteristics I noticed about him was his laser sharp political instinct.

I think that gays will eventually get what they want. I think Obama just won't make it his issue because he has bigger fish to fry.

[Captain Hilts]

3. The DOMA was an election year ploy to get Bible thumpers to vote against Dems, so even Barb Mikulski

vote 'for' it.

[DonEBrook]

7. Gee, thanks loads. See Post #4

:grr:

[AntiFascist]

30. So basically you are saying marriage isn't that important, we should concede on marriage for now...

sorry, but the issue goes far deeper than that in California. The Obama apologists may brush it off, but this is serious and, if anything, Obama can just stay the fuck out of it and focus on the problems he was elected to solve.

The CA Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a Fundamental Right. This not only strengthens the institution of marriage but it places it front and center in the arena of civil rights. California also ruled that sexual orientation is a Suspect Classification which means that, for the FIRST TIME, gays and lesbians are to be treated on the same playing field as other minorities subject to discrimination.

Rick Warren was a leader in the fight for Proposition 8, based in California, which basically takes this Fundamental Right away. For Obama to give Warren the spotlight at his inauguration is a major slap in the face to gay and lesbian rights activists in California, whether this was intended or not. This truly was a symbolic act, and one that we should not simply forget.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

49. how about cede the 'word' marriage for now and work to get all the rights associated with it?

You are likely to find a vastly larger amount of America on your side if you seek the rights without the exact word marriage tied to it, the word can be worked on later.

As an example, Here in Norway we have had same-sex civil unions since 93 which granted virtually all the protections, responsibilities and benefits of marriage, including arrangements for the breakdown of the relationship to those having it. Due to the work done by some groups as well as some of the MPs in our parliament same-sex marriage will be legalized coming January first in 09 mainly done by making our marriage laws gender neutral.

that bill also states that when a lesbian who is married to another woman becomes pregnant through in vitro fertilization, the other partner will have all the rights of parenthood "from the moment of conception".

My advise is to follow a similar path, aim for what is achievable now and build on that success, rather then try to force everything thrue at once before most people are ready for it,

[AntiFascist]

56. That may be fine for Norway, but not for California...

In California we have no such thing as a civil union, we have registered domestic parterships which are nowhere near being equal to marriage, despite what the Religious Right claims.

The best we could hope for is that the California Supreme Court rules that the definition of marriage may be changed to mean "between a man and woman" but their previous ruling still stands where, what was prevously defined as marriage for all relationships, is still a Fundamental Right. Perhaps all they would need to do then is add a few extra words to the 'marriage' certificates that are issued by the state.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

57. That is very true, however from what i've understood of Obama's views

His stance is more or less identical to the example i provided above, aka making civil unions equal to marriage with all the rights, responsibilities and such attached

From there it would likely take a few years of work by the LGBT community to get that again evolved from civil union to use the word marriage proper but atleast you would have all the rights that is well, your right while working to get the word aswell

[AntiFascist]

59. That is easier said than done...

in the United States the issuance of marriage licenses, and who can and cannot get married, is left up to the states. Also, some states do allow civil unions which makes the laws all the more complicated. For the Federal Government to invent something called a civil union, how does this actually get issued and will it override the states? It would be much easier if the Federal Government would mandate that all marriages and/or civil unions be treated equally, and that gays and lesbians at least be guaranteed civil unions.

However, the California marriage ruling went to great length to explain that separate but not equal is unacceptable for the simple reason that a separate designation would likely be considered a lower class designation, even if it were considered equal under the law.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Can we really say it was that "sincere" now?

He turned on FISA.
He turned on the DC gun ban.
He turned on campaign finance.
He turned on the embargo on Cuba.

He's now turned on: Gays, Jews, Catholics, Quakers, women, pro-Choicers, pro-science, pro-stem cell research.
He appointed a Sec. Transportation that think we finance transit through tax breaks.

I still think he'll be a good president. But, really, how is he more 'sincere' than any of the other candidates at this point?

[noamnety]

9. Don't forget Iraq and NCLB.

I'm sick of people acting like the problem is that I'm a purist who is bent out of shape because Obama doesn't agree with progressives on a single issue.

Seems to me it's EVERY damn issue, it's his votes, it's symbolic actions, and his stated plans. I am beyond disgusted. He met "better-than-bush-or-mccain" but I was hoping for a higher standard than that.

[Gabi Hayes]

47. same here

[Liberal Veteran]

11. I'm not sure that delivering an invocation indicates turning on gays, women, choice, catholics....

...quakers, jews, stem cells and science.

Maybe if he appointed this man to a position where he is in charge of those things, that might be true, but hyperbole is not helpful.

[Mimosa]

34. He hasn't 'turned on me' and I'm in more than one of those groups

People should simmer down and not make mountains of molehills.

I agree with you Liberal Vet. Obama's turned on no one and it's silly and untrue to say he has.

[DonEBrook]

4. I get it. I need to STFU for sixty MORE years.

Problem is, I don't have that much fucking time.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Well...

make more time for fucking!

[DonEBrook]

8. When you get to my age, that's more a memory than a plan

:D

[CTyankee]

6. I am waiting for the next shoe to fall here.

For instance, what if Obama chooses to join an "open and affirming" congregation of the UCC in Washington? What if he and his family go to church every Sunday and pray with, sing hymns with and talk with gay couples and singles all around him?

That would go a long way to showing his sincere solidarity with gay people...

[noamnety]

10. Would he be singing and praying with them

while deciding that the time's "not right" for repealing don't-ask-don't-tell?

[CTyankee]

13. I realize I left out the other part of the deal. Yes, he must walk the walk

as well as pray the pray and sing the hymn, to paraphrase badly!

I think he knows he's being watched closely on this...I don't think he could have come this far with a spectacularly excellent political campaign without being fully aware of his position...

[noamnety]

21. He's already said he's got other priorities than walking that walk.

"Obama's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal To Be Delayed"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/21/obamas-dont-ask-dont-tell_n_145494.html

According to the article, 2009 is about sucking up to fundie right-wingers and bigots, not about granting equal rights to people who are discriminated against. He's got priorities, you know.

[CTyankee]

48. I think he should do it a helluva lot earlier than that report says.

Once he gets into it, he will find SO MUCH wrong!

This and DOMA are two of my three biggest problems with Bill Clinton's administration. The other is Rwanda...

[Maraya1969]

12. Delete. Wrong person in my mind.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. What?

" fear that in responding too viscerally to the Warren choice, we may be throwing something very valuable away..."

Throwing away what? This country must swallow bigotry to have something good happen to this country?

And does he really really think that evangelicals might one day vote for him IF he has a homophobe be the speaker in the invocation?????

This has gone beyond ridiculous. The arguments being used to defend this choice are beyond the pale insane.

If he had picked an unknown preacher that is not known for being anti-gay, people would've been fine with it and so many people wouldn't have been livid as they are.

[ourbluenation]

18. The very valuable thing he's talking about is a federal recognition

of gay unions. As opposed to state by state (where some states will NEVER go for equal rights for gays). It can't happen at the federal level without getting by in from enough people on the right.

I'm sorry you missed this point.

I also think Obama has an agenda of bringing this to the federal level as well that will make this warren business a distant memory.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. And he cannot do all that without having that anti-gay, anti-woman bigot in the invocation?

:(

[Mimosa]

41. Some people can't figure it our, OBN

SOME people can't see the mountain for the trees.

[acmavm]

26. You've brought up something I'm curious about but don't have a clue as

to an answer. That something is, why do you think he didn't take the SAFER choice and pick someone else who wasn't so in-famous? I mean, this is the guy who make a mockery out of the first debate, turned it into some Maxwell Smart not-so-funny joke. He's offensive in MANY ways. So, why do you think he picked him?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. I honestly think Obama thought he could get this one past everyone

I do NOT think he wants liberals pissed off. He understands we're the base and that without us, he won't be elected a 2nd term. I just think he f*cked up, made a bad judgment. He thought he could get a few evangelicals on his side by choosing Rick Warren as his main speaker in the invocation, and that we liberals would be very understanding about Rick Warren being given a speaking position of HONOR at the inauguration, despite being a gay-hater, woman-hater and all-around fascist Republican who urged evangelicals to vote GOP.

It backfired. MILLIONS in his base are really pissed.

[acmavm]

29. Not to beat the subject to death BUT there was a stink the first time around

for the debate even being in a church let alone a fundie church. People were really wondering about that one. And weren't happy about it either. And then after the Prop 8 vote, one would have thought that Warren would be untouchable.

Well, I know you're right, that's what he tried to do. It just seems that he seriously underestimated the crowd that put his ass, against ALL ODDS, into the White House.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. He interpreted our HUGE sacrifices to elect him as meaning he could do anything he wanted

And never be criticized or rejected by his base.

[acmavm]

32. Yeah, probably. Thanks.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. DELETED - accidental double post

[charlie]

16. Battered wife syndrome

Sully spent years talking himself out of darks nights of the soul as Republicans used gays as bogeymen. He's used to hoping for a brighter tomorrow while being pissed on.

[ourbluenation]

19. as a dv counselor i'm not quite sure your comparison fits. n/t

[readmoreoften]

17. Well, hey, if the neoconservative gay man says so, then we should all listen...

"Many gays voted for McCain" (yeah and many African-Americans voted for McCain too. A few does not many make.)

[ourbluenation]

20. if you think he's a neoconservative I have a some swapland I'd like to show you. n/t

[readmoreoften]

23. Oh, right, sorry. He's just a LIBERTARIAN HAWK. My bad.

I failed to make the tender distinction between right-wing opponents.

[jonnyblitz]

25. Bareback Andy is a fucking WINGNUT. i have been reading

and following his bullshit since he ran "the new republic" in the 90's. you all think he is just peachy keen because he supports your precious Obama.

[ourbluenation]

60. I've thought he was peachy keen since he supported Kerry in 04 and has been taking *

to task over torture and, his words, "war crimes", and illegal wiretapping of americans, and illegal firings of justice officials. Yeah - what a wingnut.

That actually made me giggle.

on edit - he also has taken the HRC to task for years. And I hate to tell you this but as a gay rights activists from California I can tell you that the Prop 8 folks ran a horrible campaign, horrible, which Sullivan also made clear on his blog. This state was ripe for gay marriage. Prop 8 should have been defeated handily.

[Malikshah]

39. If it barebacks like a neocon, condescends like a neocon, and whores itself

out like a neocon. Then it's a neocon.

Wake up and smell the astroglide, sparky.

[mondo joe]

54. Andrew "Bareback" Sullivan is many things, but most of them are self-abusive.

So I'm rarely surprised by such things.

[kevinbgoode]

22. I hardly think that inviting a lesbian and gay band to perform

and march in the parade is "engaging" the presence of Rick Warren in a SPIRITUAL capacity. That itself is insulting to our community. Are we just house faggots good for redecorating and "entertaining" the heterosupremacist massa so he can point and say he's so "inclusive?"

We've already been listening to many Democrats who have told us to shut up because Obama can't afford to spend any capital on securing OUR rights until at least the start of his second term. Bullshit. We do not exist to endure indignity upon indignity while our birthright as citizens of this nation is trampled on by some nutcase televangelist who uses persecution for profit.

And we are mindful that Obama is, ironically, a marriage segregationist - a "separate but equal" candidate who some people say we should appreciate because it's better than what we've had in the past. Excuse me? Is THAT our idea of equality?

I'm sick and tired of being told that I have to shut up and recognize some insecure nutcase minister's "opinion" of my life as worthy of elevation on the national stage. It is an outrage and a continuation of the attack upon my very citizenship - and the opposite of what President "Separate but Equal" Obama spoke about in terms of the dignity of all Americans.

[Mari333]

24. amen! kick just for your post n/t

[EFerrari]

33. Someone needs to point out to Andrew that Warren will not pray with HIM. n/t

[Mimosa]

35. That's BS.

I don't care for Warren or Sullivan but I know enough about Warren and evangelicals to know they do 'pray with gays'. And pray for gays. And have gays in their own families. And have grieved at losing gay relatives to AIDS. They just don't believe that the Bible sanctions homosexuality.

[EFerrari]

36. Gays cannot become members at Saddleback. n/t

[Mimosa]

40. How do you know that?

And why would they want to anyway?

next you'll be saying gays can't be Catholics. *rolleyes*

[EFerrari]

42. Because it is posted at his website and was discussed here yesterday.

And yes, gays can be Catholic.

[readmoreoften]

38. BULLSHIT.

Unless putting people in sexually abusive ex-gay centers constitutes 'care'. I suppose abusive parents love their kids too though, right?

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Ok you made me tell this story

but in the 80's I saw many fundie families leave their own children to die alone because they hated the fact that they were gay. Dozens of them. Ministers who refused to pray over them as they died. I found them actual ministers to do so, but the majority basically spit at the idea. Them's just the facts, ma'am.

[mondo joe]

53. They love us when we're entertaining.

Less so when we want our rights recognized.

[zazen]

37. all I know is that this kicked all of the Chicago/Blago corruption talk off the front page

and it sure will soften the blow to the RW when he nominates the first gay man to be Secretary of the Navy.

[kevinbgoode]

43. But it ain't going to do anything to change my mind.

Appointing the best qualified person to a position isn't earthshaking change in this country, is it?

[Terran]

44. He's been reading DU?

"...fuming on the sidelines at symbolic slights." That's very much how I see it too. Emotion, not logic, is driving this.

[Neshanic]

46. Andy has a big gap to stradle on this one, and he pulls it off.

As the resident religious nut/gay man that loves to be conflicted, he really does write the propoganda and still maintains his legit for the "lets wait" Democrats and the Democrats that are under the assumption he really is one of us.

He's Gumby.

[mondo joe]

50. Andrew Sullivan loves to be abused, so this is no surprise.

What else can you expect from someone who was a Reagan and Bush supporter, and a conservative who is SHOCKED every time his Republicans screw him over?

[Neshanic]

51. So true, so true.

[mondo joe]

52. It's almost hard to see someone so desperately wanting to be dominated, and all

while wanting to seem to be independent.

[Orsino]

55. Sully still contorts himself to justify his loyalty.

Does he think that giving Warren the Inauguration platform will "engage" the pastor on equality? Does he expect Warren to do some sort of about-face on the issue, and that insulting millions of Americans in the meantime is okay?

Must we suffer the humiliation while we wait for Warren to acknowledge the Constitution at his leisure?

This strikes me as a lousy deal.

[BeFree]

58. Ummmm

It's called being a pro at politics. Obama is the real pro.

Sullivan nails it. One should not be immoral when fighting for a great moral cause.
If it's love you want, you have to show love. Jesus said love thine enemy. It wasn't a command, it was just great advice on how to get love.

Now, if'n ya don't want love, too bad, I still love ya! _{in the general sense = everybody}

[ourbluenation]

61. thank you - you catch more bees with honey. always.

:hi:

[BeFree]

62. Yup

My problem is the bees I've been attracting are stinging me, even with all the honey I can muster.
Shoot, just look at some of the responses to your thread. Ouch!

[HamdenRice]

63. "If I cannot pray with Rick Warren, I realize, then I am not worthy of being called a Christian"

Wow, Sullivan gets better and better!

That was pretty much the philosophy of Bishop Tutu in South Africa. He might not be able immediately to persuade every white South African that majority rule has to come right now, but in the mean time, they could pray together.

And that's what he did as Archbishop of all Anglican churches, black and white.