Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: What the Warren Appointment Will Cost

By: Toni Van Gogh

Toni Van Gogh — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:50:13 +0000

From Teresa K

“There are over four thousand comments on the site and a good 90% relate to Warren. What this shows is not that the country as a whole supports or opposes LGBT rights. IT does show, however, that Obama’s inauguration will be a divisive event, and event many of us will not be able to celebrate. That is the real loss this decision will cause.”

Toni: I say celebrate the innauguration while booing at Warren. When you’re absent, no one notices

By: Toni Van Gogh

Toni Van Gogh — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:47:18 +0000

If Obama really felt he HAD to have a pastor do the deed, a better choice would might have been Joel Osteen. I’m not privy to everything he’s said publicly, but at least he flatly refused (when pressed)to come out against anything gay when he was on Larry King some months ago.

By: Anne Hart

Anne Hart — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:28:36 +0000

I am so tired of being disappointed by the Democratic part, and of being taken for grant as a LGTB voter. The appointment of Warren was indeed the last straw. But I felt powerless to do anything. I have been a registered Democrat since 1972 when I was an 18-year-old, first time 18-year-old voter. So, I decided one thing I could do was change my party registration and did so. I am no longer a registered Democrat and now a registered “party of no choice”. When a Democratic president actually does something, like repeals Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, or DOMA then I may reconsider.

By: ousslander

ousslander — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:13:30 +0000

Reaching out across the aisle, is lame excuse. I notice there are no other bigots being invited. No klansman will be in attendance.
the gay community will forget this slight along with all the other betrayals. As long as he speaks pretty words, the community at large will goose step along with him and not hold any one accountable.

By: JSQR

JSQR — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:56:14 +0000

Ramsey : Yes, I understand about context, and things like that, and that all those against gay marriage aren’t necesarily evil…but there’s so much more about Warren I hate. His ex-gay work. His sticking his nose into supporting homophobes in Africa, etc. I know what you’re saying, but still…Anyway, I guess we’ll see if Obama keeps his promises to us.

By: Ramsey

Ramsey — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:45:56 +0000

JSQR: In all fairness, Warren was slightly taken out of context on the “pedophiles and bestiality” quote. What he said was that he was not for a man marrying an underage girl, or a man marrying an animal, or a man marrying many women. He was not exactly equating homosexuality to pedophilia, but comparing gay marriage to other “unwanted”/illegal marriages (a subtle but important difference). This is a very common stance amongst people against gay marriage; they point to other types of banned marriages and say that gay marriage should be no different.

Ask yourself, if a brother and sister wanted to get married, what would be your initial reaction? You may say, well…we ban incest because of the genetic consequences. But what if both siblings were sterile? Would you object to them being married? Most people, gay, straight, or otherwise, would still object, based on an indoctrinated and perhaps outmoded sense of “morality”. And that’s what we’re up against. People against gay marriage aren’t necessarily evil, overly religious bigots. They just see things differently from a “moral” standpoint. And let’s face it, there are a LOT of people like that. Every state that has put gay marriage to a vote has voted it down, even reliably “blue” states like Oregon and Michigan. Polls suggested that even Massachusetts gay marriage bill may not have passed if it was voted on. We’ve got a lot of people to convince out there. We need to accept that simply demanding that no one listen to them is not going to work.

By: JSQR

JSQR — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:21:05 +0000

Ramsey : Yeah, Lowery’s a good choice, but….that doesn’t negate or equalize the choice of Warren. I’m not anti-Christian or anti-religion at ALL, but this Warren really IS close to being the worst. He compares gays to child molesters, for goodness’ sake! If Obama wanted a more conservative preacher, he could have chosen a less blatantly homophobic one. And what’s especially bothersome is that Warren is an up-and-coming religious leader (whereas, Lowery is a retiree).

By: Mercedes

Mercedes — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:54:30 +0000

I unsubscribed from the Obama websited.

By: Ramsey

Ramsey — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:42:48 +0000

JSQR, I’d hardly call Rick Warren the worst of them all.

But, as I’ve said elsewhere on this site, the flame-fanners are glossing over the fact that Obama picked Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a stalwart of the civil rights movement and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Gay Marriage SUPPORTER, to do the benediction. This is the guy who dissed Pres. Bush at Coretta Scott King’s funeral, while Bush was standing behind him! He is not one to tolerate injustice, and his invitation is just as important as Warren’s, if not more so.

Given the blame that so many placed upon the “black community” for Prop 8, isn’t having a pro-gay black preacher give the benediction incredibly powerful?

By: JSQR

JSQR — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:35:14 +0000

Michael : Alan Katz isn’t stupid. I hear what he’s saying. He’s just being too much of an Obamapologist for me. Republicans would never get a pass for dealing with certain religious fanatic characters, so Obama doesn’t deserve a pass either (for choosing the worst of them all! Warren!).