I’m getting used to it.

Sincerely,

James

As you said – nobody was fooled by Obama, they merely fooled themselves into believing he’s something he has never claimed to be.

My personal opinion is that the gay community will see greater progress in its fight for equality under Obama than it would have done under McCain, and much greater success than it saw with Bush in the White House, but it still will not see the progress it so desperately needs and anyone who believes otherwise is, indeed, a fool.

However, I do think that many of us need to believe that things will get better. I live in the UK. Over here things are far from great and gay rights aren’t even on the political agenda. They’ve given us civil unions, an insult to the gay community, and consider that to be enough, so they’ve closed the book and forgotten about us. We have in power a political Party that is not opposed to change, but which doesn’t care enough to listen, let alone make it happen, and that’s what America faces now. The only difference is that in many States the situation is far worse than it is here in the UK.

Obama has the support of the majority of Democrats and he knows that as much as they might get pissed off with him most will stand by him come the next election. The only threat to re-election he faces is from the opposition. The only realistic way to counter that threat is to get the religious right on board, and to be seen by them, and those ignorant enough to care what they think, as the “moral” candidate.

Obama is playing the political game, and in his case that means doing enough to keep those currently on his side right where they are whilst simultaneously attracting support from across the aisle. Unfortunately, in doing so he is playing with the lives and rights of gay men and women in America, and his actions will also have an impact in other nations.

This situation with Warren and Lowery is an example of what we can expect from him – pandering to the right whilst doing enough to avoid alienating the left. If the gay community achieves any victories during Obama’s time in office, none of them will be thanks to his support or intervention, and when it suits his political goals I believe he will even make himself an obstacle to our cause.

He was the best candidate for the job, but being the best of a bad bunch is not the same as being a good candidate.

You are a funny man. Thanks for making my day with your humor. Here is a quick response for ya: 1) I’ve never presented myself as a “gay leader,” and 2) I’ve talked about Obama’s faults concerning gay rights and Prop 8.

Happy New Year to you and yours!

Sincerely,

James

Withers, you were one of those gay “leaders” who sold yourself, our community and our country’s future for some pretty words from Obama. Obama has never supported marriage equality, in fact there is little difference between his view and Bush’s. Yet you and others like you pushed Obama down our f*cking throats. Obama was complicit in Prop 8’s passage, his long winded qualifications against gay marriage(”I believe marriage is between one man and one woman”) were all that’s needed to convince the mindless lemming legions of followers in the African-American community to vote yes. Gay “leaders” like you were too busy lining up to lick Obama’s a*s that y’all virtually ignored all the important issues effecting the gay community(prop 8 in California, Amendment 2 in Florida, etc). Now, as soon as Obama is elected he chooses one of the most hideously homophobic architects of Prop 8 to the inauguration. While Rick Warren is very symbolic and not much substance, it is the feather that broke the camel’s back. Gay people have been sold a bill of goods, which doesn’t hold up, and it was “leaders” like you who shoved Obama down our throat. You and your Obamamaniac ilk, even to this day refuse to concede that you might have been wrong. You are an intellectual slob, you and those like you, who “lead” the gay community to oblivion should be loathed and detested just as much as that back stabbing HomophObama!!

Interesting you choose not to dwell on the fact that Lowery is not loved by the very folk who would admire Warren.

And you are right. Obama is looking for votes for the next election, but he is a pol. That’s what they do. And let’s be honest here sir: the number of folk who will give him props for picking Warren will outnumber those of us who are dismayed by Warren giving the invocation.

And even those who find Lowery as a bad choice will not match the numbers of those who see no problem with the man.

As I’ve said many a time before. Obama is a smooth pol. Now what this means for gay rights is another matter of course.

And by the way: you are part of a very large group of folk who disagree with me. I’ve come to expect it.

Sincerely,

James

Yes, calling you an intellectual slob is perfectly valid, because rather than considering arguments you pick holes, and rather than looking beneath the surface of a situation you cling desperately to the obvious.

You said:

“…it’s hard to accuse Obama of pandering to the right when he picks a firebrand many a conservative loathe.”

Nonsense. Obama has chosen a bigot to deliver his invocation, and his benediction will be delivered by a man who shares his views on gay marriage. He is pandering to the right, courting their support for the next election. By appointing Lowery to deliver the benediction he is attempting to APPEAR as though he is not pandering to the right, while at the same time avoiding any appearance of pandering to the gay community.

There are people he could have appointed who support gay marriage. There are people he could have appointed who have more fiercely advocated for the gay community. Instead he has found someone who is a fierce enough champion of civil rights that he can point to him as an example of how he’s not pandering to the right, while at the same time not alienating his new nutjob religious buddies.

The tone of the concluding paragraph in your blog entry suggests that you see the appointment of Lowery as somehow mitigating the decision to bring Warren in. It doesn’t. If anything it adds insult to injury, and anyone who takes the time to look beneath the surface and consider the implications can see that.

Still, I respect your right to your opinion. I simply join others in their responses disagreeing with you.

So calling an opinion wrong is not good, but using the phrase “intellectual slob” is? Mmmmmm. Sure. Okay.

As for your points about Lowery, I’m unclear what you would like to hear because your points only differ from mine in terms of emphasis. Yes he is against same-sex marriage and people will hold that against him; however, he also has argued for gay rights and unlike Warren is not going to block the door to same-sex marriage rights. That is worth applauding from where I stand.

As for Obama picking Warren, well I’ve made my opinion about that clear.

Enjoy your day sir and thanks for the conversation.

Sincerely,

James

Calling them wrong is inappropriate. Disagreeing with the opinion or attacking the foundation of that opinion, the facts upon which the opinion is based, is a perfectly valid debate technique. Merely dismissing an opinion as “wrong”, however, is not a “conversation” at all.

Regardless, I have no interest in debating the semantics here. I have not accused you of censorship. I have accused you of being an intellectual slob. By attacking my assertion that an opinion cannot be wrong rather than addressing anything I said in the other ten paragraphs of my original post, you have proven that accusation perfectly valid.

Many thanks.