You’re Likable Enough, Gay People
You’re Likable Enough, Gay People
Warren’s defamation of gay people illustrates why, as does our president-elect’s rationalization of it. When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.
It is even more toxic in a year when that group has been marginalized and stripped of its rights by ballot initiatives fomenting precisely such fears. “You’ve got to give them hope” was the refrain of the pioneering 1970s gay politician Harvey Milk, so stunningly brought back to life by Sean Penn on screen this winter. Milk reminds us that hope has to mean action, not just words.
By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history.
Since he’s not about to rescind the invitation, what happens next? For perspective, I asked Timothy McCarthy, a historian who teaches at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and an unabashed Obama enthusiast who served on his campaign’s National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Leadership Council. He responded via e-mail on Christmas Eve.
After noting that Warren’s role at the inauguration is, in the end, symbolic, McCarthy concluded that “it’s now time to move from symbol to substance.” This means Warren should “recant his previous statements about gays and lesbians, and start acting like a Christian.”
McCarthy added that it’s also time “for President-elect Obama to start acting on the promises he made to the LGBT community during his campaign so that he doesn’t go down in history as another Bill Clinton, a sweet-talking swindler who would throw us under the bus for the sake of political expediency.” And “for LGBT folks to choose their battles wisely, to judge Obama on the content of his policy-making, not on the character of his ministers.”
*Bold mine.
This article brings up some really good points and a note of caution that Obama may already be starting to waffle, backpeddle or modify some of his pre-election stances.
It makes me happy every time a special interest group complains they are not being catered to.
Here is Time's take on the same issue.
The Problem for Gays with Rick Warren — and Obama
About three years ago, a reporter at Fortune asked Rick Warren, the successful pastor whom the President-elect has asked to pray at his Inauguration, about homosexuality. "I'm no homophobic guy," Warren said. His proof? He has dined with gays; he has a church "full of people who are caring for gays who are dying of AIDS"; he believes that "in the hierarchy of evil ... homosexuality is not the worst sin." So gays get to eat — sometimes even with Rick Warren! Then they get to die of AIDS — possibly under the care of Rick Warren's congregants. And when they go to hell, they won't be quite as far down in Satan's pit as other evildoers.
But Warren did have a message of hope for gays: they can magically become heterosexuals. (He didn't explain how, but I suspect he thinks praying really hard would do it, as if most of us who grew up gay and evangelical hadn't tried that every night as teenagers.) Homosexuality, Pastor Warren explained in the virtually content-free language of the dogmatist, is "not the natural way." And then he went right for the ick factor, the way middle-school boys do: "Certain body parts are meant to fit together."
More recently, Warren told Beliefnet that he thinks allowing a gay couple to marry is similar to allowing "a brother and sister to be together and call that marriage." He then helpfully added that he's also "opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage." The reporter, who may have been a little surprised, asked, "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?" "Oh, I do," Warren immediately answered. I wish the reporter had asked the next logical follow-up: If gays are like child-sex offenders, shouldn't we incarcerate them?
Rick Warren may occasionally sound more open-minded than Jerry Falwell, another plump Evangelical who once played a prominent role in U.S. politics. But he's not. Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn't be surprised. Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot. He is far too careful and measured a man to say anything about body parts fitting together or marriage being reserved for the nonpedophilic, but all the same, he opposes equality for gay people when it comes to the basic recognition of their relationships. He did throughout his campaign, one that featured appearances by Donnie McClurkin, a Christian entertainer who preaches that homosexuals can become heterosexuals.
I find it ironic that those who profess to be "accepting" of alternate lifestyles seem not to accept those with opposing views.
Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerant.
Don't confuse lack of support with intolerance.
Not sure if that was directed at me or Ibby, but I am certainly not.
Lack of support for human rights for a group of people is intolerance of those people, as far as i'm concerned.
I don't buy the, "If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem" bullshit.
For example, the people that actively worked to pass proposition 8 in CA are intolerant, but those that did nothing for or against, can't be automatically labeled intolerant.
Now you're running into the idea of moral absolutes. If you see something as always wrong, irregardless of the situation with no "it depends" gray area, then it is easy to understand how people who recognize something as a moral absolute can equate inaction as equal to or worse than normal opposition. "Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men." (name that movie!).
....then it is easy to understand how people who recognize something as a moral absolute can equate inaction as equal to or worse than normal opposition.
Oh I understand them, I just don't agree with them.
Nor do I let them call me, or people that feel the way I do, intolerant, unchallenged.
I don't expect to change their opinion, just telling them they are not changing mine.
Oh I understand them, I just don't agree with them.
Nor do I let them call me, or people that feel the way I do, intolerant, unchallenged.
I don't expect to change their opinion, just telling them they are not changing mine.
Agreed.
I wasn't saying complete neutrals ARE intolerant, i'm just saying that people who 'dont accept' people who really are intolerant arent the intolerant ones, because intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerant. If youre intolerant of people who really don't care, youre just kinda a jerk.
Oh, so now we're "jerks" because we don't support your friend's campaigns?
I guess that makes you intolerant.
Wait, what? You're intolerant of people who don't have opinions?
cause people who are intolerant of neutral parties are the ones i was calling jerks...
Obama is not a savior. This was predicted by many before he beat Hilary.
OK, my bad. I misunderstood your statement.
Obama is not a savior. This was predicted by many before he beat Hilary.
Well, he did save us from Hilary.
The Cellar : We're tolerant, intolerant and jerks... all at the same time.
I say let's get Warren and his family in the room and have him talk with the amazing kids with two loving dads who says grace, then split some homemade lasagna. That'd be good.
Law forbidding equal rights for gays have their only argument based in religion. Since two gays marrying each other hurts no one else, the government has zero basis to deny it, because laws forbidding such unions are defacto violations of the separation of church and state.
If you agree with this, you are neither tolerant nor intolerant. You are rational. If you are against it, you are neither tolerant nor intolerant. You are religious.
If your church doesn't wish to sanction the marriage of same sex couples, your church has that prerogative. If your government doesn't wish to allow such a contractual union, your government is engaging in discrimination based on religion.
This is interesting -- and I'm not entirely certain what it means.
Obama's transition website, Change.gov, includes a section called 'Agenda' that outlines the administration's objectives in any of a couple dozen policy areas. For the most part, the 'Agenda' section is a near carbon-copy of the 'Issues' section on Obama's campaign website, BarackObama.com.
In the area of 'Civil Rights', however, there is a significant difference between the campaign website and Change.gov, the transition website. Specifically, the transition website makes a much broader range of commitments to the gay and lesbian community.
Whereas BarackObama.com includes a couple of items of interest to the gay community -- namely, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and expanded hate-crimes statutes -- that is the extent of it. The gay and lesbian community is not mentioned explicitly -- in fact, the word 'gay' does not appear anywhere in the 'Civil Rights' section of BarackObama.com. By contrast, the Change.gov website includes a section addressed explicitly to the gay community, and it covers not only ENDA and hate crimes, but also promises Obama's support for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, an expansion of adoption rights for gay couples, his backing of "full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples", and his opposition to a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
What to make of the difference? On the one hand, this would seem to demonstrate Obama's (over)sensitivity to the politics embedded in gay rights issues. A waffling, now-you-see-it, now-you-don't attitude toward gay rights is exactly what many in the community fear from the administration. On the other hand, one can argue that Obama is moving in the right direction, now willing to make a more explicit and comprehensive series of commitments to the gay community than he was while in campaign mode.
One consequence of the Rick Warren controversy is that Obama may now be under a greater amount of pressure from Democrats to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to pass ENDA, and to expand hate crimes statutes, and to do all of the above relatively quickly. As we have pointed out before, large majorities of the public are in line with the Obama position on all three issues. If Obama is not willing to expend the relatively modest amount of political capital required on those, then one can reasonably anticipate that he won't be willing to touch more controversial subject areas like adoption or civil unions.
UPDATE: Several readers write in to point out that BarackObama.com does contain some of the aforementioned text on gay rights, but it's buried about four clicks deep under the 'People' tab rather than under the 'Issues' tab. The point is, these are not exactly things that Obama was putting front and center.
From
FiveThirtyEight.comIt makes me happy every time a special interest group complains they are not being catered to.
Here I'm in 100% agreement with Bruce.
Noting, though, that like Bruce, I favor some interest groups over others. Particularly ones that protect more interests of a wider selection of people than they say they do.
If your church doesn't wish to sanction the marriage of same sex couples, your church has that prerogative. If your government doesn't wish to allow such a contractual union, your government is engaging in discrimination based on religion.
If the government makes gay marriage the law of the land, then they are getting into the business of religion, because what happens to my hypothetical church if I refuse to perform ceremonies for gay couples because it's against the tenets of my religion?
See, the government should be totally out of the marriage business.
because what happens to my hypothetical church if I refuse to perform ceremonies for gay couples because it's against the tenets of my religion?
Same thing that happens now to the Catholic churches that refuse to marry non-Catholics: nothing. You can get married (according to the government's definition) without any church at all, and the church ceremony alone is not sufficient for your marriage to be recognized by the government. What the government really needs to do is just admit that they've ben in the civil union business this whole time.
Remember the printer who refused service to a gay couple or group because he was a Christian ... or the Christian pharmacists are resistant to dispensing the morning after pill? Or the Canadian minister who was accused of a bias crime?
It's not a simple as you believe.
Printers and pharmacies aren't churches though.... but, remember the
Boyscouts?
That problem will appear but those will be rare occurrences, not enough to make a valid argument against gay marriage. Also, when gay marriage starts to become legal in the state many religious peoples will then start banning it within the church, getting rid of that problem.
Marriage does not have an overall definition and is defined by each religion that practices it. If you want marriage to be a man and a woman, define it within your religion.
The point I'm trying to make is that individual religions will likely NOT be permitted to make a definition different from what the government legislates. If gay marriage is the law of the land, and a church denies that status, then the church would be liable to charges of discrimination, accused of hate crimes, etc.
If churches were able to define marriage as they saw fit, Mormons would still have plural marriage.
Would enforcement of gay marriage within a church also apply to Muslims?
"Eminent scholars of Islam, such as Sheikh ul-Islam Imam Malik, Imam Shafi amongst others, rule that the Islam disallows homosexuality and ordains a capital punishment for a person guilty of it."
Wikipedia on Homosexuality and Islam Would enforcement of gay marriage within a church also apply to Muslims?
Who said anything about enforcing gay marriage within a church though? The way I see it, gay people would like to enter into a contract with the state, and the church (that they probably aren't even members of) wants to interfere with that.
If the state defines marriage as a contract between 2 people, there is still nothing stopping Mormons (or anyone else) from plural marriages within their church, other than their predisposition towards pedophilia. You can still be married to one person and (ie.)"handfasted" to whomever else you want.... they just don't get the perks that come with government contract. The government is still not legislating morality to the church.
I don't think it's the government's job to protect churches from the wishes of the People.
If a church refuses to marry a gay couple, that's religion.
If a JP (or the US equivalent) refuses to marry a gay couple, that's politics. A JP is supposed to represent the state and if the state says it's ok, then the JP has no alternative. If they're not comfortable with the duties of their office, they should step down.
If a gay couple are members of a church community, then most likely that community would have no problem with the church performing the ceremony. If they just pick a church and blow in off the street, then surely they must expect to be rejected on the basis of religious belief just as a lot of other non-denominational couples are if they happen to choose a hard line church.
The point I'm trying to make is that individual religions will likely NOT be permitted to make a definition different from what the government legislates. If gay marriage is the law of the land, and a church denies that status, then the church would be liable to charges of discrimination, accused of hate crimes, etc.
Nah.. But it doesn't really matter. Religions have ALWAYS changed to fit the changing beliefs of the cultures around them. They can try to lead if they like, but if they can't lead, they can only follow... or disappear with all the other belief systems, into the sands of time.
If churches were able to define marriage as they saw fit, Mormons would still have plural marriage.
If Mormons still had plural marriage, Mormonism would be a highly suspect cult and nobody would be able to admit being Mormon in public. And then Mormonism would just dry up and go away.
That's also why, in 1978, the Mormon church stopped preaching that blacks were cursed, and started allowing them in their priesthood. It's not that they aren't allowed that belief or that discrimination. Ha ha, you and I have surely spent enough time in Amishland Lancaster County to see that really ugly discrimination and terrible behavior is quite permitted. It's that eventually they are such a horrid backward laughingstock that they can't participate in the rest of society; and unlike the Amish, the Mormons are friendly joiners, and they don't like that.
Ha ha, you and I have surely spent enough time in Amishland Lancaster County to see that really ugly discrimination and terrible behavior is quite permitted.
By whom? Against whom?
If the government makes gay marriage the law of the land, then they are getting into the business of religion, because what happens to my hypothetical church if I refuse to perform ceremonies for gay couples because it's against the tenets of my religion?
Nothing. Any church can refuse to marry anyone they want.
The point I'm trying to make is that individual religions will likely NOT be permitted to make a definition different from what the government legislates.
They already do. Churches refuse to marry plenty of people. Catholics, in particular, won't marry divorced people. The government will.
If gay marriage is the law of the land, and a church denies that status, then the church would be liable to charges of discrimination, accused of hate crimes, etc.
Liable, perhaps, but only in the court of public opinion.
Would enforcement of gay marriage within a church also apply to Muslims?
There would be no "enforcement of gay marriage within a church". There would be recognition of gay marriage, whether it was performed in a church or not. And if a progressive Mosque performed gay marriages, then they would indeed be recognized.
If the government makes gay marriage the law of the land, then they are getting into the business of religion, because what happens to my hypothetical church if I refuse to perform ceremonies for gay couples because it's against the tenets of my religion?
See, the government should be totally out of the marriage business.
This works for me, except on the level of maintaining records that are useful for geneology purposes.
However, allowing anyone who wants to get married to legally do so doesn't strike me as the government getting into the business of religion. By restricting contractual unions solely on the basis of religious tenets, they are already *in* the religion business, so by removing such restrictions, it is a step *out* of that business from my POV.
By whom? Against whom?
Well
Hard to document a closed society. But I'll wager you never saw a black Amish person. Black Mennonites, that I've seen. Blacks in Lancaster town proper, like 25%, I'm guessing. I saw an Amish guy stare down a black guy once and it gave me the heebie jeebies.
You'll never hear about Amish sexual abuse of children but that's because they keep it hushed up so well. You'll never hear about Amish physical abuse of children but you will admire how sullen and quiet the kids are in public and wonder how they got that way. When the stories come out they are appalling.
I'll guess about half the shitty dogs in this state were puppy milled out of Amish dog farms.
I'm just not a fan.
This issue has already come up with miscegenation laws. Some states even wrote those laws into their constitutions. Some churches actually kept a second set of books for interracial marriages in those states where they were illegal.
There were
two attempts by Democrats in Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. If that had happened, the Supreme Court would have been unable to nullify the existing laws with
Loving v. Virginia. This is why the bar has been set so high for constitutional amendments. Now we do not look on interracial marriages as the death of civilization as we know it and most Americans would not support these kind of laws today.
Of course the question becomes, is a person who officiates at a gay marriage (or officiated at an interracial marriage when they were illegal) committing an illegal act or is it simply that the marriage is not recognized?
In 2004, there was an attempt to charge a mayor in New York for marrying gay couples. The legal excuse created was a Catch-22 similar to that used to catch Al Capone. The state did not allow gay marriage and would not accept applications. In essence, they were attempting to charge him for not filling out paperwork that they were not going to accept.
Well ~snip
Ah, gotcha... I agree.
There were two attempts by Democrats in Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages.
What irony.
What irony.
Not really irony. The Southern Democrats mixed racism with populism. Racism was widespread, so the majority condoned institutional racism.
With the Civil Rights Act, most of the bigoted *******s got fed up and changed their party allegiance.
Not really irony. The Southern Democrats mixed racism with populism. Racism was widespread, so the majority condoned institutional racism.
With the Civil Rights Act, most of the bigoted *******s got fed up and changed their party allegiance.
Some changed, but not all. They just changed their bigotry to something else.
Some changed, but not all. They just changed their bigotry to something else.
Hence the war on gays.
Hence the war on gays.
Hence the war on anyone who opposed gays.
I just got a message from God, he told us to take your moral inventory. It's nothing personal, strictly a formality. We'll be over in about 20 minutes to make sure you are all right in the eyes of God. Mkay?
By the way, just in case, not that I think we'll need them, but is there a large pile of grapefruit sized stones in walking distance to your house, or should we bring our own?
I still don't get why anyone cares who someone is boinking as long as it doesn't involve kids or scare the livestock.
I don't understand why religious people don't think, "God made gay people, who am I to judge?"
Because they don't believe that, they think it's a choice and blame it on free will.
I don't understand why religious people don't think, "God made gay people, who am I to judge?"
Riiiight,
you're one to talk Jesus.
That sweet and innocent act ain't fooling no one, Mr. Man.
How do religious people think?
Riiiight, you're one to talk Jesus.
That sweet and innocent act ain't fooling no one, Mr. Man.
Huh. Yeah. That guy thinks he is the symbol of all that is pure and good, Mr High and Mighty Man. We see right through you, HLJ. :p
Because they don't believe that, they think it's a choice and blame it on free will.
I have always been puzzled that something that disgusts many people (esp men) is considered a prime lifestyle choice by the same.
On the one hand they act like being gay is fun and exciting and groovy and fantastic, and only their love for Christ stops them from sinning in this way. On the other hand they feel disturbed by it on a visceral level. I guess it proves their sanctity in some odd cyclical argument. Except that does not explain gay Christians. Or (usually) men who fight their homosexual impulses all through their lives.
Or (usually) men who fight their homosexual impulses all through their lives.
Because they are not
properly gay. (I know it isn't as funny in British as it is in American)
[youtube]fu2OS0vqv7g[/youtube]
lol. I love that show.
The guy playing the judge is brilliant. Not in that sketch obviously...but elsewhere
Man stroke woman. Really brilliant, off the air, all over youtube. I think the guy who produced it was also the producer for Gervais's "The Office."
The cast and production team on ManStrokeWoman are all involved in a bunch of other projects. There's like three or four ensemble groups, or regular working partners, who mingle and work on each others' projects. Nathan Barley, No Heroics, Garth Marenghi, Dean Lerner's show etc. Plus a whole bunch of others i can't think of.
How do religious people think?
Well, one of the first things is we assume fairness comes from the Divine, and that practicing fairness would be godly.
The idea that homosexuals may not only enter into a committed relationship, but also have that commitment have status under law and under a church too, is one that strikes me as fair. Homosexuals damage far fewer marriages than heterosexuals do. Infidelity presents far more dealbreakings than fellatio does.
Homos married up, whether it is formally called "marriage" just now or not, in effect means homosexuals acting, with the blessing of law, like hets. Who's got a problem?
"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men." (name that movie!).
Boondock Saints. :D
Gay Funny:
So gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robbinson was on the Daily Show on 1/20, commenting about the inauguration and Jon opened by commenting that with all the people in Washington for the event, with the gridlock, that it must be difficult for him only being able to move diagonally. Without missing a beat, Robbinson reminded him that there is also a queen on the board.
lo @ warch. that was very good.
That's probably why the Diocese of Vermont picked him. They've not had a reason to be unhappy with their choice.
This article brings up some really good points and a note of caution that Obama may already be starting to waffle, backpeddle or modify some of his pre-election stances.
Surprise!
He's a politician. Of COURSE he's going to waffle, lie, cheat, steal, philander, and "modify" the living dogshit out of everything his people thought they believed in.
Funny thing is, he was the lesser of two evils, which kinda begs the question "Why did we have to choose between two pieces of human filth? Why can't someone honorable run?"
Of course, the answer to that is because
you wouldn't have anyone who did.