If there's anyone left who is still desperately smoking the Crack-We-Can-Believe-In, I would hope THIS will finally get that "Hope and Change" monkey off your back.
On Wednesday, the transition team and Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies announced that Rick Warren, pastor of the powerful Saddleback Church, would give the invocation on January 20th. [HuffPo]President-Elect Obama doesn't see anything wrong with that.
“I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency,” Obama answered but then defended his choice by making a broader argument for unity, “What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.”[ABC]This is not about a "disagreement". This is about a fundamental, ideological difference between Americans' rights and bigoted religions. How can Barack Obama be an advocate for gays while validating the bullshit opinions of Rick Warren? Oh yeah, yeah, I know Warren says almost nothing about homosexuals that isn't swathed in milquetoast doublethink.
Explaining his views about homosexuality and gay rights, he notes, "I don't think that homosexuality is the worst sin," and, "By the way, my wife and I had dinner at a gay couple's home two weeks ago. So I'm not a homophobic guy, okay?" [The Nation]Of course he isn't. He just rejects their equality under the law and subscribes to the same ridiculous position as the rest of the bigots.
And Warren says "there is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease two percent of our population." As Warren puts it: "This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."[OneNewsNow]So see, he isn't really homophobic, he just thinks that it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals. Just like having black friends allows me to say "nigger".
Wait, what was that again,Mr. Obama?
“...it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues."Rick Warren does not want anyone to "come together" unless it's under Jesus. These are not "social issues" to him or his ilk, but moral obligations. There's no discussion to be had. It's an insult to both sides to pretend otherwise.
Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are still try to play for both teams. He is now and always has been just a regular old pandering politician. There's your mandate for change - more of the same bullshit.
What an asscrack.
Posts
7 comments:
While I agree completely with the post, I must ask...didn't you vote for the other guy (and Palin)?
While this Warren pick was a typical political pandering move, I noticed it has Obama out there making statements supporting the gay rights movement that would otherwise not need to be said at this point. This would not have gone as similarly had the other douches won.
Miss me, haven't you?
...point well taken, but it's better than Pat Robertson or those other TBN clowns.
I supported McCain for one reason and one reason only: Windfall Profits Tax. That doesn't matter, though, because I'm not comparing Obama to McCain or bitch Palin or to the Christian Right. Those particular douchebags didn't run on a platform of hope and change and then shit all over people who helped them get elected.
My point is Obama's a regular douchebag politician just like the rest of them. Just a CYA, do whatever it takes to win asshole. If this doesn't convince people, I don't know what would.
DB - He can "support" gay rights all he wants, but it's actions that matter. He sold out the California gays on Prop 8 and now he's validating Christian bigotry.
I said this somewhere else: If he had Fred Phelps on that stage, no one would be able to argue that it was anything other than embracing hate. Except for his intensity, I don't see Rick Warren any differently.
JP - good to see you. How are you doing with your search?
Lol, not to go off topic, but "windfall profits tax"? Is that not what Palin supported in Alaska?? ;-)
Valid point on selling out with which I agree with the post. I was just pointing out the good that has come from this. The gay rights movement needs to stay loud and on the Presidents back otherwise they will be forgotten. This Warren pick is a prime example of what will happen if they be quiet even for a second and it was a great opportunity to remind Obama who he needs to be fighting for. While Obama sold out, I think greater good will eventually come from this display of intolerance.
Doing good man.
I am playing the apathy card which is more relaxing then trying to find all the answers to life.
It feels good for once to wave the white flag while not giving a shit.
I have to agree, it's a bad choice no matter which way one slices it. Choosing anybody to do anything on your behalf after they've outwardly called for unequal rights in any regard is a bad show and in poor taste. "Some animals are more equal than others." Any mouthpiece must be considered in the light of what's come from that mouth previously.
That said, I am an Obama supporter, and while not trying to defend the bad choice, I have to say, if it were me, the guy strapped with building bridges into "intellectual" enemy territory, that might be exactly how I'd start it. Give the enemies all the cushy, ceremonial tasks on a world stage and then legislate and execute in favor of like minds. Be showy with my hand shaking, but give substance to my platform. While this warped choice is an action, and people are complaining that actions speak louder than words, when we are talking about the future President of the U.S. of A. we are talking about a whole different level of actions and words. Warren at the ceremony, in this larger light, is just a bunch of words on the television, while whatever Obama may do or fail to do concretely with regard to LGBT rights while he is in office is a far greater action.
I’m just making it personal. I’m just picturing it as me. If I were that guy in that position, is there really any one positive thing I could do or say with regard to my political and intellectual rivals that would not be largely considered outright pandering or selling-out? I am not so sure there is.
It seems to me that when George W. Bush promised a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman if he were to get re-elected, he is the one who, by failing, managed to shit all over those who supported him in getting re-elected. That will be the difference, if there is one. If Obama passes equal rights legislation on a federal level to create/safeguard legal same sex marriage, having had Warren at his swearing-in will mean nothing. This first choice, this initial act, by comparison to a true Presidential act will be dwarfed, forgotten, nullified. If Obama oppositely succeeds where W. failed, that will be the difference between the hope/change politician and the pandering, douche-bag politician. Yes, if Obama fails at this, I’ll have to agree with Bullet. I’ll have to agree that my candidate shat atop the shoulders he stood on to take office. Yet, I’m at least willing to let the man get in the door before seeing which way this goes. This unsubstantial decision, while not inconsequential, is nothing more than a tipped hat. How else is a leader supposed to claim, “I hear you, I really do. Please recognize that I’ve heard you out as I go forward in doing my own thing anyway?”
My prediction, should Obama get around to it; I think we are going to see some unifying soundbite of wisdom, though likely not Obama’s own, carry through as a national rallying cry for federal same sex marriage rights. I think on the issue of marriage verses civil unions, you might see a President Obama recite some of the lessons learned in Brown vs. The Board of Education. “Separate, but equal, is not equal.” Such a recitation should readily deepen the connection between the “black President” and historically aware “black” constituents. At the same time it will be an American logic difficult for pundits to denounce. While still at the same time, it will have the effect of indirectly lumping the anti-same sex marriage camp in with racial bigotry, where, if you ask me, it belongs. Paint the argument in this way and, while a little cruel, the tactic would make it hard for people to oppose same sex marriage rights without sounding like they also oppose people of color in the same classroom with “whites.” It just shuts folks up. Even if man-woman marriage definers are in the vast majority, they’d have little left to argue with. The beauty of the tactic is that it would even hold true for the handful homophobic African-Americans who would then find it difficult to oppose same sex marriage without sounding like hypocrites.
Yes, I’m among the supposedly record-breaking 300,000 resumes the soon-to-be Obama administration has received.
Happy New Years fellas.
Post a Comment