Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Defends Invocation by Conservative Pastor


In this Aug. 16, 2008 file photo, then Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., left, joins Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, for a discussion on moral issues. (Richard Vogel / Associated Press)

updated 3:39 p.m.
By Jacqueline L. Salmon, Debbi Wilgoren and Peter Slevin
President-elect Barack Obama this morning defended his choice of evangelical megapastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at next month's swearing-in, saying that although he differs with the conservative pastor on social issues, he wants to have diverse voices at the ceremony.

"I am a fierce advocate of 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 said at a morning news conference to announce several financial appointments. "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."

Gay rights advocates and progressives denounced the decision to associate with Warren, an outspoken opponent of abortion rights, same-sex marriage and stem cell research, immediately after inaugural organizers announced the lineup for the ceremony yesterday.

The Human Rights Campaign sent a blistering letter to Obama (D) in which it called the choice of Warren "a genuine blow" to gay Americans, who supported Obama overwhelmingly in his race against Republican nominee John McCain.

The letter noted Warren's vocal support of California's Proposition 8, a ballot measure banning gay marriage in the state that was approved by California voters last month. "By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table," the letter said.

Obama emphasized today that although Warren will offer the opening prayer at the inaugural ceremony, the closing benediction will be given by Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights icon who founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

As Obama put it, Lowery, 87, has "deeply contrasting views to Warren on a whole host of issues."

"During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented," Obama said. "And that's how it should be, because that's what America is about. Part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated."

Obama has appeared twice at Warren's Saddleback Church in California. The first was a conference in November 2006, when he joined conservative Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) to discuss HIV/AIDS. After antiabortion groups pushed for Obama to be disinvited because he believes in abortion rights, Warren said the church's goal was "to put people together who normally won't even speak to each other."

The president-elect sounded a similar theme today, pointing out that Warren invited him to speak at Saddleback "despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion."

Obama added: "That dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about: That we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."

Obama viewed his second trip to Saddleback as a chance to reach evangelical voters. Interviewed by Warren for an hour in August, Obama wrapped many of his answers in the language of a devout Christian as aides distributed a 12-page booklet that charted his "Christian journey."

McCain (R-Ariz.) also participated in that session, answering Warren's questions on a variety of faith-related issues immediately after Obama. During the interview, Obama ducked a question about when "a baby gets human rights" but said he defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Warren has been credited with helping to broaden evangelicals' focus on such social issues as gay rights and abortion to include global warming, poverty and the AIDS epidemic.

By Washington Post Editor  |  December 18, 2008; 9:03 AM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Inauguration Week  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: It's Still the Economy, Stupid
Next: Bill Clinton's Foundation Raised Millions From Foreign Governments

Comments

cdp326:

Incest "preps"? Besides, why can't an adult brother marry his adult sister?

Posted by: JakeD | December 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama must really hate gays to have given such an honor to Rick Warren. Warren is anti-science, anti-jewish people, anti-reproductive rights and so vehemently anti-gay that he compares them to child molesters and incest preps.

Posted by: cdp326 | December 21, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

LABC:

You still think Obama is not losing any support?

Posted by: JakeD | December 20, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I am a "bigot" toward incest and polygamy too.

Posted by: JakeD | December 20, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

So much for all that talk about change and hope and inclusion. Obama just proved that he is going to pander every bit as much to the extreamist religious leaders that Bush pandered to.

Posted by: cdp326 | December 20, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I commented on this once. It now occurs to me that my comment wasn't necessary, because the bigotry shown by some on this message board makes the point that obama made the wrong choice. He's a fool if he believes that people of conscious will accept this kind of nonsense as legitimate in our culture.

Posted by: Jordan12 | December 20, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Here's an idea, all LGBT voters can vote Republican next time. That will teach those bad Democrats and Obama something. Of course with his approval rating between 65 - 79% he has a lot to worry about.

Posted by: ProgessiveVoter | December 20, 2008 6:06 AM | Report abuse

Mainstream Christians voted for Prop. 8.

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama is pandering to the evengelicals. By choosing a leader of a mega church who teaches intolerance and hatred rather than a mainstream christian leader, Obama is letting us know that he is not really for "change." Moderate christians are concerned and angry too.

Posted by: cdp326 | December 19, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

P.S. -- I didn't use the Bible to justify my opposition to same-sex marriage (or bigamy / incest).

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

The previous writer does not know much of the Bible. Every time bigamists or polygamists are mentioned in the Bible, there are always severe repercussions, and it never turns out positive. God is very clear on His position. Sin always has consequences.

Posted by: ibgdub-washpost | December 19, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I think it's very funny that evangelists think that bigamy is not legal...after all, the Bible has many, many instances of polygamist marriages. Since the evangelists use the Bible as their only reasoning for standing against same-sex marriage...then they must, therefore, be FOR polygamy...

Right?

That and stoning adulterers...lol! Wonder how that would hold up in the courts?

Posted by: Chanc2g | December 19, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

I don't care. I'm telling you, and everyone else, that's lots of us will not acknowledge same-sex marriage even if you "overcome". As a side note, it is shameful that you would equate the abolition and civil rights struggle to deviant sexual behavior.

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I cannot express how disappointed I am that Barak Obama has selected Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. I am equally dumbfounded at his explanation that this is a decision of inclusion. While I will not equate evangelicals to the KKK or Islamic terrorists, the rigid inflexibility of their beliefs and their devout intolerance toward certain oppressed segments of our society have painful similarities. This event is supposed to be the culmination of a 150-year war against hatred and intolerance, the wounds of which I thought might finally be healed by this president.

I fear that Barak feels comfortable with the views shared by many of the church's (black & white) in this country; church's that teach intolerance and the "sins" of homosexuality. It is ironic that, as a black man in America, Barak is still able to act like the old white guy he ran against and impart this same intolerance on the GLBT community.

I donated to Obama's campaign, I voted for him. I got everyone I knew to vote for him. Now his Presidency has all but lost its appeal to me. After eight years of Compassionate Conservatism’s war on the gay community, this is our reward??? If Barak goes ahead with this and doesn't immediately do something to show that he actually believes the rights of ALL Americans (including GLBT), he will forever lose my respect, my support, and my hope. His next book,: "The Audacity of Intolerance".

Posted by: NYC45 | December 19, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:
|
Do I care if you never acknowledge the validity of same-sex marriage?

No! Believe what you want. I am in no position to lecture you on what you should think and vice versa.

Posted by: onehitwonder | December 19, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

HughBriss:

Let's protest Obama's Inauguration together!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

onehitwonder:

I will NEVER acknowledge the validity of same-sex marriages.

JMGinPDX:

You only answered as to bigamy, what about incest? It's not a "slippery slope" argument if people like you are already justifying incest and bigamy. If same-sex marriage is legalized, there's no rationale excuse for refusing to do the same for incest and bigamy.

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse


ask me no questions, i will tell you no lies. (big smiles)

One must file for a marriage certificate by law, correct? County clerks office of Anytown, USA.
So, whatever the circumstance may be,
they CAN get a resounding NO at the County
Clerks' Office. The law can tell them NO.

Then the blood test, correct?
Related blood? Hmmmm....maybe another NO at the County Clerks' office. I would have to research that one on the blood test relation to the issuing of marriage certificate.

Bigamists can then only get a certificate at the county clerks' office by lying and changing identity.
Alas, a crime.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 19, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Can you answer my questions?

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Please....why are whining over this?

Gay people have survived bigotry and discrimination through the ages...we shall overcome this one too. Remember that we have survived Fallwell, Helms, Reagan while we still have the likes of Robertson, Coulter and other Rick Warrens out there.

We will overcome...with Obama or not. To all my gay brothers and sisters: 2012 is just around the corner.

Posted by: onehitwonder | December 19, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"The point is not "moot" because bigamists will be the next group seeking special rights. What if consenting adults -- who just happen to be brother and sister, father and daughter, or mother and son -- want to marry too? None of our business, either?
Posted by: JakeD"
-----------------
Technically speaking, no, it's none of our business.
From a legal standpoint, consenting adults who are not violating the liberties of others can do what they wish.

There IS a fine line between cultural/societal norms and legal obligations, and of course it's not always easy to tell whether both adults in a bigamist situation would truly be consenting or if there was some sort of psychological abuse taking place (as has been the case with most bigamists who have been exposed/tried/convicted).

Regardless, the notion that bigamists might be next is no reason to deny rights to homosexuals. Give rights to homosexuals now, and we'll deal with the bigamists separately when and if they start yelling & screaming.

You're advocating a dangerous game of "slippery slope" politics that is usually trotted out by the party who wants to deny rights to another party. It's illogical and misguided, as was proven in recent American history when women and minorities didn't have equal rights.

If you look at the situation from a simple and scientific basis, the main reason gays are blocked from marrying is due to the religious/cultural beliefs of those who are not gay.

There is no actual threat to society, no harm to our legal or economic structures, no violation of individual liberties caused by gay marriage.

Gaybashers and the religious right INVENT all sorts of terrible things that will happen, but none of those has any real evidence to back it up, nor are any of their claims logical or reasonable.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | December 19, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I have come to the conclusion that a majority of the posts on this board are from people who don't yet understand or don't want to hear that Obama is truly acting like a centrist who will be inclusive of ALL.

Even those who disagree with you.

I, for one, am not threatened by this action.
I'm male, white, straight, socially liberal, and severely agnostic (I'm not an atheist simply because it's as stupid to deny the existence of God as it is to believe God exists - I simply don't know if God exists, nor do I necessarily care).

I do not fear those who are different from me, whether they are gay, evangelical, anti-abortion, black, etc. etc., nor do I believe that anyone should be denied an equal voice just because they have radically different beliefs from mine.

As long as you're not violating my rights or the rights of someone else, you're free to do what you wish.

For once I finally feel like I have a President who agrees with me.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | December 19, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

JMGinPDX:

The point is not "moot" because bigamists will be the next group seeking special rights. What if consenting adults -- who just happen to be brother and sister, father and daughter, or mother and son -- want to marry too? None of our business, either?

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

iAmerican

LOL

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

3WE:

Gays, knowing inwardly they are wrong
--------------
Most gay people don't think they are wrong anymore than you think you are or I think I am for being straight.
You make it sound like they're denying some voice in their heads - do you actually KNOW any gay people or are you just guessing? All the gay people I'm friends with are as proud of it as I am of my hetero nature.

They do this by judicial activisms (against the Constitution), and special laws just for their chosen behaviors.
----------------
Yes, and people said that about the civil rights laws, too. They're not asking for SPECIAL rights, they're asking for EQUAL rights. You can only ask for SPECIAL rights when you're already equal and are looking for more than everyone else.
Are you suggesting that gays already have rights equal to straights? You and I both know that's not true.

If gays really believed in their "normalcy", they would be totally silent, enjoying a happy and satisfied life. Are they?
----------------
Not true. When you're civil liberties are being violated, you don't stay silent, you speak up.
Do you think blacks in 1961, already believing themselves to be equal to whites, should have "stayed silent" when they didn't have the right to vote, eat at certain lunch counters, or sit in the front of the bus?

If gays are "normal" and "blame that 'God made me this way'", so those having relations with kids, and animals must, by default, be "normal" too.
-------------
Not true, and this a common and highly flawed argument by homophobes and gaybashers (of course it's flawed, your entire argument has to be flawed for you to try and make a point).

Gay people are adults in consenting relationships who want to live the same peaceful, contributing lives as their straight neighbors without violating anyone's civil liberties.
Pedophilia is child abuse.
Bestiality is animal abuse.
Homosexuality is not abuse of anything but your prejudice and self-righteousness.

Just because your morality is relative to your religious beliefs, don't expect everyone else to live by that code. It is your code, and the code of those who agree with you, but it has no relevance to and therefore should have no impact on the rest of us who don't agree with you.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | December 19, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

As a gay man I am annoyed that Rick Warren is being given a platform to speak at Obama’s inauguration. Why am I not outraged? Because there are other issues I agree with the Pastor on; such as, the environment, poverty and social injustice. In our partisan society knee jerk reactions often amount to socially condoned censorship, which often deprives us of the opportunity to listen to others who hold differing opinions from our own. Rick Warren represents a large swath of this country that is against abortion and against gay rights. Trying to silence him on the national stage is not going to silence his opinions, but it most certainly will sever any discourse between the opposing factions. How are we ever to enter a constructive discourse if every time we are presented with person holding differing views from our own we say “Off with their head!”. Obama said he wants inclusion and the price of inclusion is often having to deal with folks with whom you rather not see for the next eight years. It’s not like Obama put him in charge of nation’s health policy. He is going to be speaking to the American people on this momentous event and many will watch and listen because Rick Warren is speaking, and they just might listen to other folk, liberal folk, that they might never otherwise have heard. Inclusion cuts both ways.

Posted by: nottrew | December 19, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

EVERYONE:

"Why don't we also give equal rights to pedophiles and bigamists? Who are we to deny them their rights?
Posted by: everyone"
-------------------
The big difference between gay marriage and your two illogical comparisons above:
Pedophiles are violating the civil liberties of and abusing an unwilling innocent victim. Your point is moot.
Bigamists - I say, if consenting adults want to marry more than one person, it's none of my business, and it's none of yours either. Your point, again, is moot.

Oh, and posting the same thing over and over is considered trolling, I suggest you stop.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | December 19, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

It's entertaining to see all the intolerance displayed by those pushing the gay/destructive agenda.

Gays, knowing inwardly they are wrong, try their best to make themselves feel/think they are normal. They do this by judicial activisms (against the Constitution), and special laws just for their chosen behaviors.

If gays really believed in their "normalcy", they would be totally silent, enjoying a happy and satisfied life. Are they?

If gays are "normal" and "blame that 'God made me this way'", so those having relations with kids, and animals must, by default, be "normal" too. Gays cannot, with any honesty, claim "normal" anymore than those who have relations with kids and animals. It's either "all or none".

Posted by: 3we1100 | December 19, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

This is indefensible. Obama has offended millions of his most ardent supporters, and not just GLBT persons but also their straight friends. I was looking forward to his administration but now I am very skeptical and he will have to prove that he can be the kind of leader that I thought I was voting for!!

Posted by: AndyO2 | December 19, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse


well, this story has hit the press big time today.

Inaugurations are celebrations of
"We, the People"

all 2.4 million of them projected on the Wash DC mall.

Party On Wayne

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 19, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Focus people. Warren isn't that bad. He's against gay marriage and abortion, true. And he's vocal about it, true. But he's largely a pragmatist, and he doesn't really focus on those issues. I know James Dobson, Billy Graham, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker and the like have fallen out of the public eye, but don't forget them. That is what hatemongers and a charlatans looks like. Warren, to my knowledge, does not claim divine inspiration; does not advocate exclusion of those with differing opinions; does not enforce or request dogmatic uniformity on biblical interpretation. Those are really important things that make the difference between a hate-speach spewing wolf in sheep's clothing and a preacher who disagrees with you.

Posted by: CraigBettenhausen | December 19, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Rick Warren is just a bad decision on so many levels.
It does matter how the world perceives this. It does matter how many people are hurt by this decision.
I am straight, born-again, male, and Obama supporter; and I am shocked that this intolerant, ego-maniacal man is being given a platform.

Posted by: easysoul | December 19, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

By the look of Warren's mouth and the way he uses it...the stress/shape/false/unnatural manner, his "food problem," and the focus of his "ministry" on victims' seeking compensating happiness rather than the perpetrators of the overt, identified by America's Founder, Anti-Christ and its homosexual pedophile "priesthood," it is clear that he has "transgressed" (or pursues it like Ted Haggard - who is not an anomaly but merely a reflection of the false spirit attracted to Rome's false religion and its peripherals) and is over-compensating.

iAmercan:

You think that Warren is a homosexual?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 11:52 AM

Posted by: iamerican | December 19, 2008 7:23 AM | Report abuse

I campaigned and donated to the Obama campaign. For him to choose Rick Warren to invoke a spiritual presence at his inauguration is beyond belief. Mr. Warren "believes" homosexuality is a simple lifestyle choice. From his pulpit, with a reach of millions, he has equated gay sex and love with bestiality, incest, and child molestation, spreading lies and hate nationwide.

For Obama to invite Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration is akin to JFK having invited a segregationist southern baptist preacher who publicly preaches that Blacks are inferior to Whites to give his invocation.

Obama has completed appointing leaders to major posts within his adminsitration. They include a couple republicans, racial minorities and women--all heterosexual. He has selected ZERO LGBT Americans. I suspect he will soon appoint one to a minor post, relegating LGBT representation to token status.

Obama preaches about representing all Americans.
WHERE IS OUR SEAT AT THE TABLE????

I, and all my friends--GLBT and non-GLBT who get it-- feel extremely hurt, angry, used, and hugely disappointed.

Kaleo Kaluhiwa

Posted by: elotrolado | December 19, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

In the eyes of the world, the minister appointed to perform presidential inaugural rites is the official face of U.S. religion -- and Rick Warren is not only a fanatical Christian fundamentalist (by definition a misogynist, a homophobe and an enemy of science) but an avowed theocrat as well. Obama’s choice of Warren is therefore both an outrage and a terrifying revelation of the extent to which the United States is sinking into fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

Our immediate peril is that we underestimate the significance of this appointment: it is nothing less than a presidential endorsement of the hatefulness and bigotry Warren represents. It is also the public repudiation of every civil libertarian, agnostic, atheist, secularist, feminist, homosexual, non-Christian and non-fundamentalist Christian who was conned into voting for Obama and his ever-more-obviously meaningless pledge of “change.”

Indeed the president-elect could hardly have dealt the cause of civil libertarians a greater insult had he selected the Grand Kludd -- the chaplain of the Ku Klux Klan -- to officiate at the inaugural rites. (Anyone who questions my metaphor -- or doubts the connection between domestic terrorism and fundamentalist Christianity -- should note the Southern euphemism for the Klan: “The Saturday Night Men’s Bible-study Class.”)

Nor would I be surprised if future historians regard the selection of Warren as the new administration's definitive moment of truth: its declaration to all that, beneath the seductive chanting of slogans, the status quo will be preserved as forcefully as ever. Even more emphatically than the legion of old-guard capitalists and lock-step militarists the president-elect has appointed to his cabinet, Obama’s choice of Warren tells us the oppression inflicted by "godly" plutocrats -- religion-sedated sweatshops, bible-thump politics and Crusader imperialism -- will not be the least bit diminished by the change of administrations.

Given Warren’s venomous opposition to birth control and abortion, his appointment as official inaugural pastor also suggests -- ominously indeed -- that there is no substance whatsoever in Obama’s oft-repeated pledge to reverse the wounds inflicted by the Bush Administration’s vicious war against women’s reproductive rights.

Alarmism? Hardly. The naming of Warren almost certainly signals forthcoming concessions both to the African-American community’s well-known hostility toward homosexuals and the Hispanic community’s equally well-documented antagonism toward reproductive rights. The question now, unthinkable before the Warren appointment, is to what (even greater) extent Warren might be a flag of surrender to fundamentalist theocracy -- and to hard right politics in general.

Posted by: lorenbliss | December 19, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

You want to see who is REALLY bent out of shape, go to the Obama Change website and read the article and comments on "Obama as the first gay pres." I got into a session with a few people (Look for me as Shadow 2) and got called a Fascist, a homophobe, a violent person, and a few other choice names. They were attacking me since I mentioned that the passing of the rule 8 in California may be OK. They were really supporting Obama, but guess what happened....

Now, believe it or not, they are throwing O under the bus.

Have a fun read: http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/barack_obama_americas_first_gay_president

Posted by: ShadowTwo | December 19, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Lev.18,22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Lev.18,29 For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people.
Lev.20,13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Rom.1,24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom.1,25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
Rom.1,26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
Rom.1,27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Rom.1,28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
Rom.1,29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
Rom.1,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom.1,31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom.1,32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Posted by: biblereader2008 | December 19, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

If god did not like gays, why did he create so many of us? The object of my sexual desire as someone of the same gender is no more a choice or changeable than any straight person's. Why that is so difficult for straight people to understand is beyond reason.

Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that people can be different without ascribing moral superiority to themselves?

What form of mental illness is there that thinks that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being needs pipsqueaks like them to do god's work? Invoke all the imaginary beings and friends you want, but there is can not possibly be anything your god wants from you but for you to be good to each other.

How people can make a sin out of love perverts one of gods greatest gifts of all.

But then again, didnt Romeo and Juliet commit suicide because their parents couldn't get along?

People fantasize that western love-based marriage has been the norm since caveman times. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just 4 or 5 generations ago, marriages were ARRANGED by the fathers and the kids made the best of it.

It's all so sad and stupid. How can people rationalize their hate toward love?

Posted by: ethanquern | December 19, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

You people are unbelievable, so Obama wants some guy to pray at the Inauguration...what is the big deal? do you agree with everything your parents did or say, do you still include them in your life? Obama is not going to please everyone, he told you that on the night he won, he is going to make decisions that will anger people even his base, how is choosing some preacher dude to say a prayer holding back gay rights? so you don't like one aspect of the man it doesn't mean the man doesn't have other good qualities, The GLBT community area a bunch of whiners, you want everything to go your way, well NEWSSFLAH... it won't, Obama can't be for one set of people in this country, he said he was for EVERYONE, and that's what he is doing, Some Americans make noise over the stupidest things and are always ready to throw you under the bus if things don't go their way, That why this Country is inthe state it is in,everyone is init for themselves, noone wants to listen to the other side, no one wants to compromise.. Mr President Barack Obama is trying to change that, he is the president for everyone, he is for the Rick Warrens and the Ellen Degeneres!!!!!!

Posted by: nandy_4l | December 18, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

john_starr:

You mean like all those other "1 term" Presidents from George Washington to George Bush? Besides, I will only refer to Obama as "pResident".

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that it should be a violation of church and state principals to have an invocation by a religous leader of any religious persuasion. I think Obama is setting himself up to be a 1 term president.

Posted by: john_starr_crouseyahoocom | December 18, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Rick Warren is a remarkably divisive choice to open the Inauguration.

If the invitation to him is not withdrawn, all who wish to register a respectful, silent protest to his appearance are free to stand and turn their backs to him as he speaks.

Posted by: HughBriss | December 18, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Gays are just as evangelical about their perverted sexuality as some Christians are about their religion. They are both obnoxious when they get in your face.

Posted by: Sigmonde | December 18, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

okay jake...leaving for the day....

religion and politics are hot topics ya all....

be friendly towards each other please....

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 18, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

LOL! :-D

Folks, when I said that the US should get ready for the proverbial "BOHICA" from the Dimocrat Socialist Victory;

It did include the Gays!

Sorry it was not the BOHICA you guys wanted! ;~)

It's simply "Figurative"! :-(

Posted by: SAINT---The | December 18, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Simply substitute "pull the trigger" with "have homosexual relations".

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Keep in mind that sociopaths "don’t have a choice on how their hormones are oriented" either.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

BasicInstinct:

Which one is it then? A) their homosexuality is part of their personality, or B) sexual orientation has nothing to do personalities.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote: “Does a murderer not make a a deliberate choice, either; killing is just part of their personality?”
--------------------------------------------------
I don’t know how else I can explain this. Murderers have a choice on whether to pull the trigger or not. If they choose to pull the trigger, they’re a murderer. If they don’t pull the trigger, they’re not.

Someone’s sexual orientation is something that just is… People don’t have a choice on how their hormones are oriented Moreover, sexual orientation has nothing to do personalities.

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

If you don’t see the wrong in homosexual behavior, you’re really a nutcase too.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Everyone:
Gays are not allowed to marry, and neither are bigamists or pedophiles. I think that it is wrong, and that they should be allowed to marry. Do you have any non-bigoted reasons why they shouldn't?

Everyone:
First of all; pedophilia has to do with one’s sexual preference in children. Children are not capable of understanding and making decisions for themselves. That’s just sick, and is also considered statutory rape. Homosexual sex is between 2 consenting ADULTS! If you don’t see the wrong in pedophilia, you’re really a nutcase.

In regards to bigamists; most of the women involved in it also don’t have a choice. Do your research before you compare such asinine atrocities to people’s sexual orientation. Do you even know the difference between “sexual orientation” and “choice”? “Choice” is involved in pedophilia, “choice” is involved in bigamy/polygamy; however, “choice” is NOT involved in anyone’s orientation.

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Basic Instinct:

Does a murderer not make a a deliberate choice, either; killing is just part of their personality?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Again, Basic Instinct, I answered your questions, so will you answer mine?
Gays are not allowed to marry, and neither are bigamists or pedophiles. I think that it is wrong, and that they should be allowed to marry. Do you have any non-bigoted reasons why they shouldn't? Of course you don't, because there are none.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

onisama:
Practically all psychologists now accept it as a fact. Through history, same gender sexual activity was universally considered to be the deliberate - and so culpable - perverted behaviour off heterosexual people. Advances in psychology, in the last 100 years have shown that not all people are heterosexual; some are homosexual, and their homosexuality is part of their personality, not a deliberate choice.

Evidence that homosexuality is unchangeable includes:
The thousands of young homosexuals who take their own lives each year, despairing of changing their orientation.

The thousands who consult pastors and counsellors, wanting assistance in dealing with their orientation.

The millions who remain "in the closet," not wanting anyone to learn of their orientation.

There is no scientific evidence that reparative or conversion therapy
is effective in changing a person's sexual orientation.

There is, however, evidence that this type of therapy can be destructive."

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Again, Basic Instinct, I answered your questions, so will you answer mine?
Gays are not allowed to marry, and neither are bigamists or pedophiles. I think that it is wrong, and that they should be allowed to marry. Do you have any non-bigoted reasons why they shouldn't? Of course you don't, because there are none.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

BasicInstinct:

The Bible does not treated slavery, genocide, or mass murder, as acceptable behaviors, and neither do I. Next question?

onisama:

Heterosexual desires WITHIN marriage are not sin.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse


if the thrown shoe fits

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 18, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse


hmmmm....let's see now...
can't be gay and be a Christian.

Can I be Catholic and take little boys to the back room for extracurricular activity?

Can I be Catholic and be a genuine pr*ck for 6 days...Mon. through Saturday...
then go to church and get redeemed for a week of sins? Only if I say 10 rosaries for taking the kid in the back room.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 18, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote:
“Homosexual sex within "marriage" is still a sin though. See the difference?”
---------------------------------------------

No; I don’t see the difference. Like I posted before: The writers in the bible lived in a pre-scientific age, which treated slavery, genocide, mass murder, and the oppression of women as acceptable behaviors. Do you consider that to be acceptable behavior?

Since meaningful scientific study of sexual orientation did not begin until circa 1950 CE, biblical authors had little or no awareness of the topic. When the Bible and science disagree, we have to give major weighting to the findings of human sexuality researchers.

And just for the record, I AM NOT A HOMOSEXUAL…just educated on what the bible says, and what Science says.

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Basic, but the word "homosexuality" has to do with behaviors and relationships as well, and is not exclusive to how you "feel".
If you are pursuing your own sexual desires whether homo or hetero, it's sin and you need to repent.

Posted by: onisama | December 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

(from SNL):

Biden: "As sure as I'm standing here today, during his first few weeks in office, this brilliant young President, is going to be tested. Tested by an international crisis, the likes of which this nation has never before seen. A deliberately manufactured crisis, designed to test his mettle ... Our military may invade Pakistan. Or surrender to the Chinese. We may sell Hawaii to Saudi Arabia...

[laughter]

We may cede Florida back to Spain, or Alaska to the Russians. We may blow up every nuclear power plant in the country. We may set fire to Washington D.C. We may round up all French-Canadians. But don't lose faith. It's all part of a plan."

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

BasicInstinct:

Homosexual sex within "marriage" is still a sin though. See the difference?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Basic Instinct, you never replied to me.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Biden already admit that "we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Onisama:
For you, I'll take it to Christianity 201.

Certain Christians relate homosexuality to the act of having sex with someone of the same gender (like "dressypink" below). Homosexuality is not SEX! One can be a homosexual, and still be Christian.

Now, equally, just as heterosexual sex before marriage is a sin, so is homosexual sex before marriage. But that doesn’t mean a homosexual (someone who is attracted to people of the same sex) cannot be a Christian.

Moreover, Christianity is a lifestyle. The word “Christianity” was NON-EXISTENT until Christ reigned on this earth. Jesus’ disciples were the ones who coined the word “Christianity”; specifically for people who choose to live like Christ (his lifestyle)…read the book of Acts.

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Onisama thanks a lot for responding to Basicinstinct with such gracious love.

These people need our love and prayers. Many of them are not bad people per-say. Some of them are stuck, some truely know they need help but pride and ego is preventing them. There are great men and women among them, very decent and intelligent, but the dirty spirit of sexual immorality is preventing them from living a life set apart for Christ.

By the end of this, the spirit of God will speak to some of them and bring them to full knowledge of Christ and his redeeming powers which is able to set them free from the shackles of this immoral, twisted and unclean spirit.

They shall be set free from all bondage of lust and immoralities, and shall no longer burn in devious sexual sins. The power of of our Lord is able and shall definitely help them.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Basic Instinct, that's what I thought.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Yes, basic instinct, I would. Gays are denied the right to marry, as are bigamists . "Sodomy" is outlawed in many states, as is pedophilia. I think that this is wrong, and that they should be allowed to marry. Do you have any non-bigoted reasons why they shouldn't? Of course you don't, because there are none.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Yes, basic instinct, I would. Gays are not allowed to marry, and neither are bigamists or pedophiles. I think that it is wrong, and that they should be allowed to marry. Do you have any non-bigoted reasons why they shouldn't? Of course you don't, because there are none.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I think this is a positive development. Obama will be able to add to his other questionable accomplishments bringing black homophobia out of the closet and into the White House.

Posted by: rbmyersusa | December 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

All gays on this blog, do you accept "Everyone's argument" that pedophilias and gay people should be given their "civil right" to marry kids?

All gays on this blog, do you accept "Everyone's argement" that those who rape farm animals should been given their "civil rights" to marry their sheep, cows, goats and donkeys just like gays marry their fellow men?

Where do we draw the line? Who else is asking for his civil right? Bahh bahh goat of course and the gays are the groomsmen.
What a bizarre world?

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

BasicInstinct: I think your Christianity 101 course needs a reworking...

Christianity isn't a lifestyle, it's a relationship with the true and living God through the person and work of Jesus Christ.

You can't be living a life of sexual immorality and call yourself a Christian. If you are battling with homosexuality, that is one thing. You can not openly live a life of sin and expect God to be alright with that.

Matthew 7:21-23
Jesus:
21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

Many people say they are Christians, but do not live it. Just because you say you are something doesn't make it so. It's whether your heart is right or not... if you believe in your heart that Christ is Lord, then you will want to please him. Living a life of double standards gets you no where.

We are saved by grace through faith, and if you do not believe that Christ has made provision for everyone, then it's verbatim. It's up to us to decide and make steps to repentance, for which God offers forgiveness.

Posted by: onisama | December 18, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Everyone:
Considering that 98% of pedophiles are “straight” men, and 100% of bigamists/polygamists are considered straight, I fail to see what civil rights for homosexuals have to do with your suggestion. Care to expand on your lame attempt to justify your 1/2-brained example?


Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Everyone,
Let's set the record straight.
1. Do you support pedophiles activities?
2. If yes, have you or anyone you know taken part in this your lifestyle?
3. Do you now compare pedophiles with homosexual lifestyles?
4. If yes, have you been a part of both lifestyles?

5. What other sexual deviance have you taken part in and in which state?

6. What about animal sex? Do you have pets and farm animals? If you support all these sexual deviances, is it safe to assume that your pet has right to get married to you?

Now you really need your civil right to rape kids and marry farm animals and pets. Answer my questions and let's find ways to get your rights debated and legislated. In your "everything goes twisted world", I bet you, we should not stop you from raping your own cat or dog. The slippery slop argement was hidden before now till "Everyone" has blow open the gay's hidden agenda.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Poor LABC is ashamed to be gay. It should be ashamed of it's stupidity.

Posted by: AugustWest1 | December 18, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Aside from Warren's political beliefs, isn't it problematic that they still have an invocation at all during the inauguration? This country is supposed to have separation of church and state, so they should have no invocation whatsoever, regardless of the person's beliefs. I recognize that the inaugural invocation is recognized as a part of ceremonial deism, which the Supreme Court has allowed, but I think that ceremonial deism opposes the spirit of true secularism.

Posted by: jade_action | December 18, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Dressypink, your anti-homosexual, anti-bigamy, and anti-pedophilia talk makes me want to vomit. You are simply a bigot from the dark ages. While anything that wasn't practiced by 100% of the population was discriminated against back then, in our enlightened times, we should embrace every belief, be it homosexuality, bigamy, or pedophilia.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

dressypink wrote: "No credible science supports born gay. So quit deceiving yourself.
You cannot be a gay and still be a christian. You are either one or the other and definitely not both at the same time."
------------------------------------------

WRONG AGAIN! There is credible science that supports people being born gay. Moreover, one can be a Christian and consider himself/herself to be gay. Christianity101 – Christianity is a lifestyle; therefore, if one chooses to live like Christ, he/she is a Christian…hence the word CHRISTian! Now if someone performs an unChristlike act (sex before marriage for example), then they are not living like Christ did. Gays ARE just as able to be Christians as the heterosexual.

Seriously; you really need to educate yourself...not only about homosexuality, but on what it means to be a Christian.

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

ya know...
any other time, we wouldn't give diddly squat on who the President Elect invites to the Inauguration.

No one ever cared before. Why now?
Did a smart & savvy Harvard lawyer, African American, brother from Cook County (thank god)
really make all of you so mad?

Criminey, do you all go home and kick your dog at night too?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 18, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

gay people should be happy that our nation has come a long away. Not too long ago, gays were burned in the public squares of Europe. But despite all the rights they have here they want more and more and more.

Their lifestyle is disgusting and makes me want to throw up. Couple of years ago, they were in closet guilty-filled, ashamed and patrified of their immoral activities and now they want to change local council members, congress men and senators with their homo people and extremist agenda.

We should not allow that. Let them do their immoral thing in their bedrooms but not shove it down our throat. Hate is hate no matter where it is coming from.

"The tyranny of the minority must not stand." Dresner Pinky-2008

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Dressypink, please shut up. Homosexuality, bigamy, and pedophilia are all natural. They are not "aberrations". You are showing the bigotry that plagues you right wing extremists.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Everyone,
You are right.
These gay people should be advocating for right of other abhorations in our society.
It is surprising that they are no longer saying it loud. Before, the gay community used to encourage rights for bigamy and pediphilers, till it becomes politically incorrect. Now they are claiming it is civil right. Someday they gonna say it's religious persecution. Watch the debate.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Bigamists aren't allowed to marry. Nor are gays and lesbians in most states.
Pedophilia is a crime. So is sodomy in some states.
These are all equally unjust.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

dressypink
i'll take scientifically-based research anyday.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Bigamists aren't allowed to marry. Nor are gays and lesbians in most states.
Pedophilia is a crime. So is sodomy in some states.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we also give equal rights to pedophiles and bigamists? Who are we to deny them their rights?

Posted by: everyone


what's wrong, you worried about getting caught?
------------
No, I just think that they also deserve equal rights, just as gays and lesbians do. Prove me wrong.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

everyone wrote: “If true equality is to prevail, then pedophiles and bigamists must get equal rights too. To do otherwise is just as ch an injustice as banning gay marriage.”
----------------------------------------

Considering that 98% of pedophiles are “straight” men, and 100% of bigamists are considered straight, I fail to see what civil rights for homosexuals have to do with your suggestion. Care to expand?

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

to "everyone"....

your last entry....depends on
if the law is broken.

pedophiles break law
bigamists break law (certain states-sans fundamentalist sects)

we haven't determined that the gay population is breaking law by their sexual orientation.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 18, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

The leaders job is not to try to bring people together, it is to establish a non-bias framework based on founded and tried beliefs and disallow unfounded beliefs to be imposed on others.

Posted by: Spatula1 | December 18, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we also give equal rights to pedophiles and bigamists? Who are we to deny them their rights?

Posted by: everyone


what's wrong, you worried about getting caught?

Posted by: newagent99 | December 18, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

No credible science supports born gay. So quit deceiving yourself.

You cannot be a gay and still be a christian. You are either one or the other and definitely not both at the same time.

I love science and masters in behavioral science and have extreme appreciation for scientific innovations and breakthroughs, but any science that counters God is no science but heresy. Gay people are on the same level with any other sin, such as lies, greed, prostitution, rapists, stealing, none of all these sinners can claim to be incurrable or un-redeemable.

Science does not have all the answers to human issues.

Science is a creation of human beings and limited to time and human development capacities, imaginations and impurities.

All Science is disputable and often unreliable, cannot be trusted and definitely subjective. No scientific theory is ever final.

Science is great but inconclusive, falliable, malliable, subject to manipulation and changes with time, event, place, object, politics, money, people, culture, race and lastly cannot be matched with God.

Any science that claim that gay people were born to be gay is fraudulent and criminal, to be kind to my gay friends.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

It is not fair that only gays and straight people should be allowed to marry. We also give need to equal rights to pedophiles and bigamists, as they deserve equal rights. Who are we to deny them their rights?

If true equality is to prevail, then pedophiles and bigamists must get equal rights too. To do otherwise is just as much an injustice as banning gay marriage.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Will no one back me up?

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

wapo9 wrote: What "church" would that be? Usually when people say "the church" they mean the Catholic church, which would be wrong in this case because the Catholic church never had any sort of ban on interracial marriage.
----------------------------------------

Well; let me educated you for minute. Not only was interracial marriage considered an abomination in Catholic churhes, it was preached against in Baptist churches as well. Furthermore; the Mormons STILL consider interracial marriage as sin.

How do I know this? Brigham Young taught: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109)

Go and research it for yourself...ie, if you don't believe me.

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I think it's an inspired choice. Obama has always said there is not a red and a blue America, rather, a United States of America. Now he is walking the walk. He is not afraid to expose himself to the universe of ideas with respect for the points of view of others.
If you want isolated, insulated people who are ideologically pure, non-pragmatic and closed-minded-you loved the last 8 years. Me? I'm ready for a change.

Posted by: whereareweandwhatarewedoinginthishandbasket | December 18, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

If true equality is to prevail, then pedophiles and bigamists must get equal rights too. To do otherwise is just as ch an injustice as banning gay marriage.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

It is not fair that only gays and straight people should be allowed to marry. We also give need to equal rights to pedophiles and bigamists, as they deserve equal rights. Who are we to deny them their rights?

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me....what are the liberals, gays and lesbians complaining about now? While advocating for THEIR RIGHTS this group repeatedly tramples on the rights of others. Mr. Obama has THE RIGHT to ask anyone he pleases to be present, and speak, at his swearing-in ceremony. This is AMERICA - the land of opportunity for all - or have the liberals, gays and lesbians in their NARROWMINDED BIAS forgotten this important fact - or do they just choose to discriminate against anyone whose opinion differs from theirs. As for gays & lesbians, maybe if they re-adopted the philosophy of "live and let live" and stopped clamouring for "their rights" there wouldn't be so much resistance to their acceptance as a part of the American mainstream. "Bachelors" and "Old Maids" have been a part of this country since its founding and no one ever objected to them and their "companions" until all the hoopla over "equal rights" and "same-sex" marriage. And liberals - Webster gives the definition of 'TOLERANT' to this term - maybe the liberal activists should start practicing what they preach.....and stop being hypocrits.

Just in case any of you readers want to label me as a CONSERVATIVE - I am probably the most LIBERAL person you would ever meet...I'll defend your rights and opinions until my last breath - JUST DON'T TROMP ON MY RIGHTS AND OPINIONS while I'm helping you to uphold yours ! !

Posted by: faithharrellrochester | December 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"I perhaps should point out that I am straight, and am highly offended by the choice of a bigot for this role... I would be just as offended by the choice of a racist. Bigotry is bigotry.Posted by: gwreusch


excellent post..

Posted by: newagent99 | December 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse


we could always go back to the Catholic Inquisition whereby for 300 years, free thinking independent women were massacred, tortured, drowned, burned, and be-headed.

Mind you.......keyword is
Catholic.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 18, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse


holy doughnuts batman !!!
in reading this article, I knew that everyone would comment. Let's roll!

Oh gee whiz...another reason for the Repulsive "bandwaggoners" to knock our President-Elect.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 18, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"Don’t forget; just over 100 years ago, the church considered interracial marriage to be a “sin” and an “abomination”…what changed?"

What "church" would that be? Usually when people say "the church" they mean the Catholic church, which would be wrong in this case because the Catholic church never had any sort of ban on interracial marriage.

Posted by: wapo9 | December 18, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we also give equal rights to pedophiles and bigamists? Who are we to deny them their rights?

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

The 14th amendment to the Constitution guarantees all Americans equal rights. Here it is almost 2009 and Americans still need to fight for their rights. Same on Barack Obama for giving the gay haters a platform. I doubt he would allow David Duke to speak at his inauguration. Afterall he's just another voice of the masses.

Posted by: madest | December 18, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I waiting for Obama to have a "Blacks are second class" minister speak.

then i'll believe the BS he puts out.

Posted by: newagent99 | December 18, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuals can not get married because marriage is defined as:

–noun
1. the social institution under which a MAN and WOMAN establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

This definition has been the same anywhere you look in history. Religious text, historical text, whatever. This is the religious mainstream view of marriage. The invocation is a religious portion of the ceremony. So I have no problem with Obama having the opening prayer begin with someone against gay marriage. After all, the closing prayer will be given by a minister who supports gay marriage. This is a matter for the courts not Obama, not even the voters. Courts traditionally decide on issues of civil rights.

Posted by: ne_voice | December 18, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

dressypink wrote: “Your sin is already an ahborent in the eyes of God now you want it to be proliferated and normalized.”
---------------------------------------------
First of all; “ahborent” is spelt “abhorrent”.

“Abhorrent in the eyes of God?” “Wanting to be proliferated and normalized?” Are you serious? What’s abhorrent is your claiming to be a “Christian”, but not knowing what the true meaning of Christianity is. I can’t believe you would sit there and try to portray Jesus as someone who’s non-tolerant, or non-accepting. You know what? I’m going to leave you to your vices. Judgment Day will be the decider for people like you (then it’ll be too late).

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Gays want Obama to exclude Rick Warren?

No suprise there. That's what hate groups do.

Posted by: cbl99201 | December 18, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we also give equal rights to pedophiles and bigamists? Who are we to deny them their rights?

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Well, you have taken your passage completely out of context. You quote from Deuteronomy which is a book dealing with Hebrew custom and law.
You interperate the passage as the woman having unclean behavior, or the man just getting over her.

Now we get to the key Hebrew aspect of the interpretation. The word translated by the NIV as "she has been defiled" or that phrase "indecent" is built from the root tm’ which is a stative verb when in the qal, meaning "to be unclean."

And you also fail to acknowledge that there is provision given to both males & females for grounds of divorce, though even still God is not pleased by it.

And no, it's no a sin to live your life unmarried, the apostle Paul was unmarried and offers us advice on the situation:

"I want you to be free from the concerns of this life. An unmarried man can spend time doing the Lord’s work and thinking how to please him. . . In the same way, a woman who is no longer married or has never been married can be devoted to the Lord and holy in body and spirit. . . I am saying this for your benefit, not to place restrictions on you. I want you to do whatever will help you serve the Lord best, with as few distractions as possible."
1 Corinthians 7:32

He's saying that whatever will let you serve the Lord the best, that's what you should choose.
And divorce is not pleasing to the Lord, but there is still salvation through Christ... you keep missing that part.

Posted by: onisama | December 18, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Yep, I'm liberal, not at all christian, and I voted for the president-elect. I'm really not that worried about Warren's invocation. What's being extended here is an olive branch to evangelicals that probably felt sure that the president-elect would be an enemy to them at worst, or at best not consider them as he goes about the business of the executive. I don't think it's a slap in the face to gays or pro-choicers, even though it may be a teensy bit off-putting.

Put this in perspective: it's one prayer, invoked on one day.

I'm more troubled by the influx of comments from the very proud "spiritually righteous" on this article. What person can speak for God? Prophets? Are there really so many prophets that comment on wapo? I doubt it.

Posted by: ninjagin | December 18, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

You can be respectful of other points of view without legitimizing them to this degree. Rick Warren hates gays, hates science, hates progressives -- he hates everything many Americans hold dear to their hearts. By having Warren deliver the opening prayer at his Inauguration, Obama has quite consciously legitimized Warren's positions on those subjects.

If Obama is right, and this is only about including other points of view with which he disagrees, then where are the Obama-is-a-marxist-terrorist-muslim people? Where's Joe the Plumber?

Posted by: simpleton1 | December 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

There is no God. It's a 2000 yo fairy tale. Get over it and give gay americans their equal rights.

Posted by: madest | December 18, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Dear godhimself1,
1. Bible talks about the judgement beginning in the house of God. So forget about that "don't judge" phrase.

2. Read 1Corinthian 5:12-13 (the utlimate book about sexual sins) It made it explicitely clear that we should judge one another. If you are living with a fellow man, you are sinner...1Cor. 5:13 say, we must remove such a sinner, that refuses to repent. Love the man but hate his sin and say so.

In the gay agenda, not only that they have been so comfortable with staying in some dead churches, but now they want their sin to be declared "unsinful" and "normal".

They even want to indoctrinate our kids. That is going too far, my gay friend. Your sin is already an ahborent in the eyes of God now you want it to be proliferated and normalized.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

How much heat will Warren take from the religious right for doing this?

Posted by: Garak | December 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I perhaps should point out that I am straight, and am highly offended by the choice of a bigot for this role... I would be just as offended by the choice of a racist. Bigotry is bigotry. Turn your backs during the invocation. Deny this moment.

Posted by: gwreusch | December 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

In all the talk about gay marriage, it seems what is most obvious about it is never discussed. What is a legal marriage anyway? It is merely a legal contract between two individuals - nothing more.

The law can be impartial with regard to the gender of the individuals entering into the contract with each other. For law to prescribe that marriage can only apply to a "man and a woman" is a clear intrusion of church into what should be a matter of state only.

A distinction needs to be made between "religious" marriage and "legal" marriage. No church should be required by law to marry any couple, whether gay or straight. Likewise, the church should have no right to determine who is or is not eligible to be married by a justice of the peace.

This issue provides an opportunity to further delineate and consolidate the principle of the separation of church and state. By not delineating the difference between religious and legal marriage we open law to the influence of religion, but, more importantly, we open religion to the influence of the law. If unchecked, this will lead to an erosion of the freedom of religion over time as it becomes diluted and compromised by secular concerns via the influence of the state.

Posted by: samonet | December 18, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Come on people. What'll be next, the schizophrenics complaining Obama or his Surgeon General don't recognize their alternate personalities? If Obama wants to have someone with a differing political view on a matter or two at his inauguration, then he should be praised for his bi-partisanship, and for his showing some spine to the disproportionately powerful gay / lesbian / bisexual / bigamist / trisexual / pedophile lobby.

At any rate, it is good to note that out of the 30 states where a marriage amendment has been on the ballot, it has been passed. The only states where it is legal are the ones where judges have legislated from the bench, instead of interpreting the constitution. If a majority of people are against gay marriage, which they are, then we should respect the will of the people.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a liar, a cheat, a flip-flopper that makes Kerry AND George Bush look like the rocks of Gibraltar, and also a white supremacist who threw his own best bud Jesse Jackson Jr. under the bus REFUSING to nominate him to take Obama's seat in the Senate, instead creating a list of white people with one token black woman WHO DIDN'T WANT THE JOB.

INSURING that America would go from ONE black Senator to NONE.

"Change we can believe in." Indeed.

Now, Obama's latest "shout out" to his lovely homophobic black bigot base in California who effectively legalized bigotry against gays.

Obama's a fraud and a fake. FROM DAY ONE.

And Hillary Rodham Clinton had the GUTS to read him the riot act on this latest reveal of his true self.

Fraud and a fake. This admitted crack smoker NEVER was and never will be worthy FOR A SINGLE SECOND of the Presidency of this country.

From the frying pan of Dubyah to the fire of Obama.

Light up, everyone. YOU voted for him, not ME.

Posted by: xbjllb | December 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I am a pastor who is liberal on almost every social issue yet I welcome Rev. Rick Warren to pray at the side of our new president. I think it is great of the President-elect to be open-minded enough to work with people that thinks different then himself. I applaud his decision. Liberals are always complaining that conservatives are not tolerant, well here is our chance to show that we are tolerant of other points-of-view. Walk the walk guys.

Posted by: kswsting | December 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Why should anyone be tolerant of a group that is itself intolerant, the "gays"?

Posted by: cbl99201 | December 18, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

dressypink:

The writers in the bible lived in a pre-scientific age, which treated slavery, genocide, mass murder, and the oppression of women as acceptable behaviors. Do you consider that to be acceptable behavior? Don’t forget; just over 100 years ago, the church considered interracial marriage to be a “sin” and an “abomination”…what changed?

Since meaningful scientific study of sexual orientation did not begin until circa 1950 CE, biblical authors had little or no awareness of the topic. When the Bible and science disagree, we have to give major weighting to the findings of human sexuality researchers. So again; go do your research…your ignorance is showing.

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

IT IS NOT JUST THE GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY THAT SHOULD BE OFFENDED. Warren has advocated asassinating the president of Iran. He preaches against evolution, and therefore science. He wants to establishment clause overturned. He wants right-wing judges. This is a broad and extremist ideology.

Will Obama control the invocation? My dime says there's a politically extremist message between the lines. This is an outrage, a smackdown of the people who made this presidency feasible.

Posted by: johnnytea | December 18, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

All the anger that Obama has generated by this action, could have been avoided if he simply didn't invite religion to his inauguration.

In this supposedly secular government,it is high time we dumped the prayers and swearing on the Judeo-Christian Bible (which un-Constitutionally favors one religion over others) and simply swear a simple oath to uphold the Constitution.

I think the reason for inviting Warren is Obama thinking ahead to 2012 and trying to woo the the evangelical voter, who would be voting for a Huckabee or a Palin on the GOP ticket.


Posted by: gillyala | December 18, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I am totally opposed to the choice of a bigot to deliver the invocation. Why not reach out to the white supremacists while we're at it and have the Grand Imperial Wizard of the KKK give a little speech? I urge anyone that attends the inauguration to turn your backs to Rick Warren during the invocation, if Obama persists in this wrong-headed move.

Posted by: gwreusch | December 18, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Onisama ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'

Does this mean that all men who seek a wife, but never find one are sinners? Does this mean that women who choose not to have children, but have sex are sinners?

Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, for as long as you both shall live?....

Deuteronomy 24:1
"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house..."

Interesting how fundamentalists judge by one law or scripture, but are excused by another.

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

My dear Grslighting,
You are redeemable indeed. The power of the holy spirit is already working in you and for you. For acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin, is the greatest thing you have ever done for your life and for your destiny.

Now that you know that you are living in sin, it is time to do something about it.

The love of Christ will comfort and welcome you with open arms. Come home brother, come home. I see you happily married to a beautiful lady and living a life of grace that pleases God.

Let me know if you need my help to begin your journey with christ. If not go straight to a credible pastor today and ask him to pray with you, please do it today.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama vowed to be inclusive and the Human Rights Campaign acts as if they didn't know that. EVERYONE needs to let the man get into office and have his honeymoon period. After we've seen his leadership in action then we can begin with the accolades or criticisms. Geez!

Posted by: pigfox | December 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Inauguration, that is the swearing in ceremony, paid for with tax dollars? An invocation or ANY religious aspect should NOT be permitted. Period.

Posted by: Rich393 | December 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

grslightng:

Jesus speaking about marriage & sexuality:
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

Hmm, man and wife, intresting... It seems clear to me what God's plan for marriage and proper sexuality is.

And you say Christ set no standard for sexuality, but how wrong you are.
Does every person become married? No... Marriage is not for everyone, but what Jesus did do was live a life of sexual purity. He never masturbated, never had lust in his heart, never had sex outside of marriage, never had homosexual sex... you see? He set the ultimate example for sexual purity.

He tells us to be fruitful and multiply because he wants us to have family, and to raise them up in the ways of the Lord, not to have as many sexual partners as we can, and have illegitate children.

To hate sin is to love God. In true repentance, there is not only the desire to escape the consequences of sin, but to be rid of sin itself as a thing displeasing to God.

John 8:11 "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

God knows we are not perfect, so it is impossible for people to stop sinning... the difference is in the heart. When you love the Lord you have a yearning in your heart to do the right thing, even though we mess it up. That's why it doesn't matter the sin we're struggling with, there is always a need for repentance.

So in the end, none of us are worthy...
But God has made a provision for us in Jesus, and offers a gift of salvation to all whom believe.

Posted by: onisama | December 18, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Oh yes and with John 8:1-11 the lesson was twofold.

First that we should not judge "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Something ironic that fundamentalists have seem to have forgotten as they elevate themselves above others.

Second that by following Jesus teachings and examples we are no longer BOUND to our lifes of sin, not that we are to never sin again.

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

dressypink wrote:
"Homosexuality is a lifestyle and a kind of social and psychological sickness that can be cured. It is definitely not natural."

My poor child, you are so misguided. When you pass judgement like this your are committing a sin against me. Be careful and stick to my one true tenet: LOVE
EVERYONE & JUDGE NOT.

Thanks.

GOD

(ps: I'd find another church if I were you. If your comments are in any way a product of their teachings, I would pray for my mercy)

Posted by: Godhimself1 | December 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

My Dear BasicInstinct,
1. Read my writings on Science below.
2. Googling homo behavior for foundational position is childish and indicates gross ignorance.
3. Any and all science claiming that you are born gay is deceptive, a fraud, a sham and indeed criminally intended.

4. God and God alone remains the ultimate and final arbiter of these things. If he says you are a sinner, you are a sinner that desparetely needs help. You can get a million friends to tell you otherwise, you are still a sinner that needs God's gace.

5. My friend, God has the final say on these things and not google or quark and criminal scientists. A scientist once said that earth was flat, less than 100 years later he was "dis-proooooved". Man's science is unreliable and definitely subjective. Hanging your hope and destiny to it, is unfortunate. Hang it on God and God's WORDS alone.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Inauguration, that is the swearing in ceremony, paid for with tax dollars? An invocation or ANY religious aspect should NOT be permitted. Period.

Posted by: Rich393 | December 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Certainly, the picking of Rick Warren is controversial and not pleasing to some. The message, I believe, is that we are to understand that Barack Obama is not your run-of-the-mill politician. I believe Obama picked Warren not to slight the GLBT community, but to try to bring together diverse communities under the umbrella of his administration. Hopefully, the politics of division practiced by Bush and co. has experienced a well deserved death.

I, for one, celebrate diversity. It would be a deadly boring world if everyone were the same. I am DavidGD620

Posted by: DavidGD | December 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Warren “Understandment” Principle

Think of “Understandment” as the principle that will help us (all of humanity) breakthrough the constraints of our cultural and social differences for the sake of realizing the goodness potentiality of our common humanity.

Let’s define “Undertandment” as “a level of social understanding that transcends and includes our cultural disagreements”

The principle, which is implicit by relationship established between Barack Obama’s and pastor Rick Warren, is the new model for all leaders of the world to follow.

THE EMERGENCE OF CULTURAL CHANGE BEGINS WITH THE EMERGENCE OF NEW LANGUAGE

This word of "Undertandment" can help every one realize that Barack Obama's is a new kind of leader with the capacity for breaking through what keeps us apart, so we can finally recognize we want to be and live in peace, love and joy TOGETHER.

Please pass this explanation to any one asking why Rick Warren...

Jeffrey Quintero
OurPresidency.ning.com

Posted by: OPCreator | December 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Warren to give invocation; ok. Pisses off the LGBT community; even better.

Posted by: scotttennant1 | December 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Wapo9

John 8:11

""Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

If you state that is evidence that we are never to sin again. Then can you honestly say you have never sinned since following Jesus?


Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

kalixmd: That's exactly the point, there is no definite proof. Not only that, but there is direct proof to the contrary. Studies of identical twins where one is gay and the other is not, ex-gays, bi-sexuality, lack of genetic evidence unlike racial and gender characteristics. It runs the gamut. And inclusion does mean that we must not discriminate or hate, but it does not mean we have to agree.

Posted by: lany | December 18, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

God: “Come as you are…”
Man: “Change first; and then come.”

The Constitution: “All men are created equal.”
Ignorant Americans: “If you’re not born like me, you don’t deserve to have what I have.”

Not allowing homosexuals equal rights makes this the last LEGAL oppression. Why should we ever allow a majority to dictate what a minority should do? It is unfair, unjust and downright WRONG!

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I have to hand it to Obama - this is a very intriguing choice and I applaud it.

By the way, I'm not Christian (though raised as one) and intensely dislike fundies who want to force America to live as a Christian nation, or at least how they envision one to be (which would actually be fairly antithetical to true Christianity). I also support gay rights.

Obama's choice is further evidence that he is pragmatic and into making choices that don't hew to ideology. He's not going to "get back" at the right wing by being just like them, only on the other side. He's not going to taunt "now I'm in power, so stuff it" to people who have the support of a lot of Americans. He's willing to work with Americans of different beliefs and values. He's every American's president, or at least he's willing to try to be.

Comparing Rick Warren to David Duke is too much. It's not as if he's Fred Phelps.

I supported Hillary initially because I thought she was the pragmatic choice, and Obama (or at least, his supporters) seemed too bent on an ideological agenda. By the time November 4th came around, I enthusiastically voted for Obama. I've been pleasantly surprised at how he's looking better than I initially imagined.

Posted by: hitpoints | December 18, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Onisama, quote to me again where Jesus said that homosexuality is a sin!"

-Quote me where Jesus said arson is a sin. He didn't? I guess that means that arson is OK with Jesus!

"Then quote to me again where Jesus said he never expects you to sin again once you devote your life to him."

-John 8:11

"Then explain why the lord commanded us to be fruitfull and multiply and why Jesus was not required to set such an example as well. Jesus himself set no standard for marriage or sexuality. He was celibate."

-Maybe he would have gotten around to having a family had he not been, you know, executed at age 30.

Posted by: wapo9 | December 18, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I think we've gotten a bit off track, imagine that.

The fact that Obama is using Warren for the invocation shouldn't be looked upon as harmful to gays. It's just the invocation, he's not making him his new pastor. Give him some latitude. I'm not a gay, an evangelist, a pastor, a bigot, a racist, nor did I vote for him.

Posted by: areukiddin | December 18, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Dressypink, if "it is an abomination in the eyes of God just like many other sins."

Then why do you make such a big deal out of this alleged sin. Is this the only one god will not forgive? What if a heterosexual Christian slips up and lies, steals, bears false witness, gambles, drinks, commits adultery or any other sin before dying? Are they too condemned? Seems like too many Christians feel that THEIR ongoing sins are forgiven, but Homosexuals ongoing sins are not fogiven?

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey y'all it could have been worse, it could have been Rev. Potty Mouth the Ego Maniac. Here's what I think. Evangelicals are people too. Obama is inclusive. That's the good news. All our silly egotistical urges to be superior and exclusive are just harmful and ugly. So we have a chance at being inclusive. Never mind that the evangelicals are not. Or that 20 million people listen to Rush. That's not enough people to make a president thank god for that but it is enough people to have a seat at the table. Y'all.

Posted by: GaiasChild | December 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Dressypink- If Hell exists, I would say it exists for people like you -and probably Rick Warren. I am pretty sure God doesn't want people who hate so much to speak in his name.

And you pleaded the cause of gay people like I pleaded the cause of Aryan Nation. Lying is also a sin.

Posted by: silverspring25 | December 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

it has been suggested that there is a direct correlation between insufficent levels of androgen production during pregnancy, and male homosexuality. (Excess androgen in utero and its correlation to the occurrence of lesbianism has also been studied.)

It is known that pregnant women produce less androgen during extended periods of anxiety or stress; and studies have shown that greater numbers of homosexuals were born during both World War I and World War II than during times of peace. (Hence the large number of "boomer" homosexuals during the Stonewall Era.)

That said, it is possible that homosexuality is indeed something one is born with. In the absence of definitive proof either way, I vote for inclusion rather than exclusion. And I would hope that all people of faith would do so as well.

Posted by: kalixmd | December 18, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"Dear fellow Liberals,

Listen up.

Obama's decision to ask Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration is not a slap in the face. It's not a betrayal. It's not an indication that Obama is a secret conservative who is going to force you to have babies with a non-same-sex partner.

It's a freaking prayer."

-- -- -- -- --

So THAT'S what whistling past the graveyard sounds like. I always wondered...

Posted by: wapo9 | December 18, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Onisama, quote to me again where Jesus said that homosexuality is a sin! Then quote to me again where Jesus said he never expects you to sin again once you devote your life to him. Then explain why the lord commanded us to be fruitfull and multiply and why Jesus was not required to set such an example as well. Jesus himself set no standard for marriage or sexuality. He was celibate.

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

We are all Americans and we all deserve to be treated with respect and equality. Until gays and lesbian are treated with the respect, dignity and equality under law that is their right, perhaps we should turn back the clock on the rest of the civil rights enjoyed by others in our country. No more marriage period.

Posted by: BethesdaDad1 | December 18, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

watchman1 wrote:
"So Warren is against homosexual marriage, so is God, Warren is against abortion so is God, and believes in Creation - so does God. How can anyone expect a Christian to believe and support what God is against? At least Warren stands up for the truth (by and large)."

Son, how do you know I'm against homosexual marriage, abortion and I "believe" in creationism? It is not your place to judge. Only I can cast judgement.

Keep this up and you will be denied salvation.

Thanks.

GOD

Posted by: Godhimself1 | December 18, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Dear fellow Liberals,

Listen up.

Obama's decision to ask Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration is not a slap in the face. It's not a betrayal. It's not an indication that Obama is a secret conservative who is going to force you to have babies with a non-same-sex partner.

It's a freaking prayer.

_________________________

The rest of this open letter is posted at Dagblog.com.

http://dagblog.com/politics/rick-warren-its-only-prayer-love-god-336

Posted by: Jenn_in_IN | December 18, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

To All My Gay Friends,
I love you all. I have employed about 7 gay people in my companies and I will never hate them. But I hate their lifestyle, it is an abomination in the eyes of God just like many other sins.

Iam glad that we are using this opportunity to discuss these issues that been elevated to sacredness by the far left lunatics and abused by far right lunatics.

I will insist that christians should love and pray for gay people that God will open their spiritual eyes to see that deliverance is possible and that God loves them but hate their lifestyle.

Come to Jesus today. Cry out to him for forgiveness and seek help. The same power of God that raised Christ from death is more than enough to deliver gay people from being attracted to same sex people.

It is disgusting to penetrate a fellow man from the rear end. I consider it dehumanizing and debasing of oneself to permit such and unholy act. So seek help. Homosexuality is curable.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Lany "grslightng: But Mormons would not consider themselves "evangelical" Christians."

Let us not forget who funded Prop 8! And as with the Mormons, even those who have been persecuted persecute.

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

grslightng: Do you believe polygamists have the right to be married by the state?

Posted by: lany | December 18, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

grslightng: It seems to me that you are the one with the limited view of scripture. You keep talking about the weight of sins, based on how many times it's stated in the Bible? If Jesus said only once that it's sin, then that's all it takes. All sin has the same consequence: Death. You are the one who is putting homosexuality on the scale, not me.
I have many gay friends, who's lifestyles I don't agree with, and I can accept that. And yes not everyone wants to hear the message of the gospel, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop giving it.
And you obviously don't understand the true meaning of being a Christian... once I put my faith in Christ, I surrender myself to him... I'm hear give the message of God's unfailing love, which a majority of the time creates division, just as Christ said it would.
I'm trying to show people God's love & provision for them. I don't see a better way to display friendship then caring about someone's life...
Also why would you take anything at face value??? There's always something more underneath. I hope you don't read books in that way.

Posted by: onisama | December 18, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Lany,

We live in a country where church and state are separate. How does my being married as a gay male by the state, and you being married by a church supercede each other.

If your church does not recognize my gay marriage, then so be it. But I still have the right to be married by the state, without subscribing to one church or anothers religious beliefs!

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Dressypink wrote: “You are no seahorse and will never be. God in His infinite wisdom did not make you a homo. It is a personal choice.”

You are not God, so how dare you try to dictate what homosexuality is? FYI, homosexuality is not a choice. If you would just pick up a Science book, or do some online research, you would see that homosexuality IS NOT A CHOICE! Did you choose to be attracted to opposite sex? Or was it just something you felt? Study hormones…maybe you’ll have an ounce of education on the subject.

Posted by: BasicInstinct | December 18, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

grslightng: But Mormons would not consider themselves "evangelical" Christians.

Posted by: lany | December 18, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

My Dear Dressypink, on that same note god in his infinite power has the ability to bless you with site beyond this limited view of scripture. I pray he will bless you with an open mind.

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

bambianderson: As an evangelical Christian, I support your rights to do whatever you want without persecution or discrimination. I even support your right to marry. Most evangelicals do. The only political disagreement many evangelicals have is that there should be a marriage amendment, because they do not want marriage to be redefined for everybody (and yes, you have to admit that without a marriage amendment, the definition of marriage is redefined for everybody). But that is a minor political point that even gays agree with in some cases. In everything else (freedom from workplace discrimination/harassment, hospital visitation rights, gay adoption, civil unions, etc etc), most evangelicals would agree with you.

Posted by: lany | December 18, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Well as the old saying goes a skunk is a skunk even if you paint it to look like a rabbit. During the campaign Obama talked his way out of various sticky wickets without ever really answering the substantive allegations. From these posts I see that there are some still suffering from the rapture. As for the religious posters on here you're just using that to hide your bigotry. Religion is a made made mechanism invented to control the foolish and weak minded. As for those who can't abide the thought of two men or two women kissing, get over it. I'm sure many of you are stuck in loveless marriages with kids, mortgages and bills you can't pay not to mention no sex with the little wife or the husband who plays with himself while watching webcams. It will be a great day in this country when education is equated with intelligence.

Posted by: jamesbaie | December 18, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

lany... My friend who is Mormon LDS was turned away from her ward for bringing me to church with her, fully knowing I had no intention of converting the her church. While I find LDS beliefs intriguing, I certainly do not subscribe to them. And while the LDS church was most of the monetary support behind Prop 8, I still love my mormon friends for supporting me and standing behind their true beliefs despite their churches limited view.

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

This is too big to have shoved down our throats right now! It's like "O"is saying, "Thanks for your support, now bend over and let me drive home my point about diversity". I just can't swallow that much! It's a major blow. How much can we bear!

Posted by: cornholed | December 18, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Most of this country is in "the middle" politically. You have a fringe on the left, and a fringe on the right (how big a fringe is debatable).

Obama is intelligent, open-minded, educated, thoughtful, and understands that he can associate with people with whom he doesn't agree with 100 percent (or maybe even 50 percent).

People are sick of partisanship, and that means thinking that the person who doesn't agree with you is the devil, stupid, ignorant, etc...

Obama is calm, rational, and inclusive. The fact that the conservatives on here are so upset with gays, and gays on here are so upset with conservatives, just shows that people will disagree strongly about a lot of different issues. So...Obama can try to pick completely neutral people who are like oatmeal and jellyfish..and have no stated opinions on anything...or he can be inclusive and try to bring us all together.

Some people don't want to be brought together, though (on both sides of the aisle), and will complain about anything he does, or claim he's "pandering" to one side or the other, when he's just a person who is wise and knows not everyone will agree on everything.

As for the comparisons to having an anti-semite or a racist give the invocation, don't forget that people may be "wrong" in your view about what they believe, but ignoring them and pretending they don't exist will not help bring them to "the right" way of thinking (i.e., your way of thinking).

Obama...once again...is wise...and able to consider ALL of the people's views and beliefs without spouting off about how stupid or ignorant they are. We should be more like him...

Posted by: juraski | December 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

My Dear Grslighting,
You are no seahorse and will never be. God in His infinite wisdom did not make you a homo. It is a personal choice.

Your lack attraction, I can empatize with you. I will help you if you give me a chance. The power of our dear Lord Jesus is capable of restoring your attraction to females. They are very beautiful and wants you. All things is possible if only you can beleive amd make yourself available to the changing power of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

MarcMyWords: Contrary to what the right wing wants you to believe there are many Gay christians in this country and many christian churches that include gays and welcome their fellowship.
====================================
I don't know of any evangelical Christian churches that turn away gays from their fellowship. Do you?

Posted by: lany | December 18, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Dear lany,
You must be the smartest and most insightful person YOU know.

Posted by: areukiddin | December 18, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

FACE IT PROGRESSIVES, WE'VE BEEN CONNED.

This is just another in what is a long line of centrists (at best), corporate-friendly senators and former lobbyists that Obama has nominated, asked to do this or that, or is consulting. No president-elect has EVER had as much crucial left-wing support at such crucial times, and yet he has completely ignored his base. This is not just sour grapes. You can't govern effectively with principle-free insiders running the show. This is a looming disaster.

Obama is smart and he knows precisely what he's doing. We've been had, bigtime.

Posted by: johnnytea | December 18, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

areukiddin: lany, get over yourself, it was a joke. If you were SO sure someone would bring it up, why didn't you? Just waiting to pounce?
=====================================
Maybe it's because I've been through it before; if it occurred here it would have to be the umpteenth time I heard the spurious argument.

Posted by: lany | December 18, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Contrary to what the right wing wants you to believe there are many Gay christians in this country and many christian churches that include gays and welcome their fellowship. If Obama really wanted to bring people together he would not have chosen a divisive figure like Warren, but rather someone who uses their faith to bring people together, not to divide them. Never forget who signed DOMA, and Dont Ask Dont Tell, Bill Clinton, a DEMOCRAT, who also claimed to support equal rights for gays and lesbians. I think the only thing the Democrats really want from the gay community is their money come campaign time.

Posted by: MarcMyWords | December 18, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Regarding some of the comments, I am shocked at the incredible arrogance, and ignorance expressed in some of these writings. One commentary opens with, "In my humble opinion", and ends with "Stop throwing your abominable lifestyle in the face of reason and calling the messages against gay marriage hate messages". This is a far far cry from humility!! In fact, it expresses the absolute antithesis of it. What we as homosexuals do in our private lives is just as off limits as what herterosexuals do. Choosing to marry someone we love is our own affair as much as it is yours. If I choose to get married tomorrow, I'm not inviting the country to my wedding, nor am I expecting them to be there and suffer through it. When we ask for equal rights, we're not stuffing our "lifestyles" (as you call it) down your throats, so why do you stuff yours down ours!! I suppose we needn't pay taxes or take part in supporting the nation at all if we're going to qualify our rights. Yet the homosexual contribution in this society is substantial..We are everywhere, in every walk of life, and we deserve to have exactly what any contributing citizen in this nation deserves!! Another horrible misconception about homosexuals is that we are sex driven maniacs!! Research has shown that most child sexual abuse is committed by heterosexual men, not gay men, so do your research before throwing insults in a direction that may come boomeranging back in your direction. And finally... Obama's choice is fine with me because I know he appreciates and celebrates differences in a way that no other president before him has. He invites difference, and asks that we as a nation learn to do the same. Stop the narrow minded thinking and move to a higher, more elevated consciousness.

Posted by: bambianderson | December 18, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

My Dear Cornholed,
I love you and promise to pray for you.

Please do not quit. I will pray for you. I am confident that you can be delivered from your homosexual tendencies. It is an immoral urge just like any other urge. Like urge to steal, urge to lie, urge to kill etc. But the good news is that the power of our God is greater than that urge.

The power of our Lord Jesus can take care of all homosexual tendencies. Evidence of ex-gays abounds. Look it up Exodus.org. Please do not leave the country because someone loves you enough to tell you the honest truth: THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL AND SINFUL JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SIN.

Hence you should not shove this sin into our throat and demand that we tolerate it and allow you to make it normal or spread it to our kids.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Dressypink, I was born OF heterosexual parents, INTO a heterosexual world, taught BY heterosexual teachers, worshipped in a heterosexual church. Why then have I never had any attraction to a woman that I one day dismissed when I allegedly chose to be homosexual?

Did God or evolution create the seahorses that change sexual roles?

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I'd just like to congratulate Obama on his victory. I would have sooner had I not misunderstood whose side he was really on.

Obama/Palin 2012!! Woot! Woot!

Posted by: jeffsmyname | December 18, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

You can't be gay and a Christian?

If that is true, then you can't be a Republican and a Christian either. And if you continue to support the worst administration in history, you're going straight to Hell.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | December 18, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

DarkRubyMoon: I disagree with you. It doesn't mean I hate you.

Posted by: lany | December 18, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I love science and I am science major and have extreme appreciation for scientic innovations and breakthroughs, but any science that counters God is no science but heresy.

Science does not have all the answers to human issues.

Science is a creation of human beings and limited to time and human development and imaginations and impurities.


DressyPink,

That is absolutely the craziest,most isane babbling that I've ever read anywhere. You are well brainwashed indeed.

There is no God, especially not as depicted in the Bible. Religion is nothing more than mythology.

Posted by: F7711 | December 18, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

lany, get over yourself, it was a joke. If you were SO sure someone would bring it up, why didn't you? Just waiting to pounce?

Posted by: areukiddin | December 18, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I can certainly understand the gay lesbian transgender communities anger towards having Rick Warren speak, but I think it is probably a whole lot of hoopla over nothing. Lets face it, sadly there are not many pastors or leaders in the religious community that are supportive of gay rights. Too many are caught up in the dogma of false doctrines to see beyond this to truely understand how hatred toward the gay lesbian and transgender community harms decent loving people. If God is love, I can not see how anyone can judge the love between two people as wrong. Before such discussions can occur however, a hand must be offered accross the divide to reach out to those with a different view. If Obama is going to be successful at bridging the divide and winning basic human rights for the gay community, the first step may be to get others to listen by reaching out to the leaders in the religious community. One can be respectful of someone without condoning or agreeing with their beliefs. If God is the way the truth and the light, eventually even those in the religious community will have to open their eyes to the truth that the hatred they have towards the gay community reflects back upon themselves.

Posted by: DarkRubyMoon | December 18, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Onisama, you failed to answer my question! If homosexuality is such an obomination why does the bible not clearly state so more often?

Just because the old Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve argument avails doesn't mean your limited view of the bible is correct. If we were to take everything in the bible at face value, then why suddenly is polygamy a sin when it was practiced for so long? Who did Adam and Eve's children reproduce with... each other? Talk about incest. If we take the bible at face value women would be as property. Slavery would be just.

All things that have been rejected in modern interpretations. However when the interpretation supports your anti gay view it's fine?

When was the last time you reached out to a gay person in friendship and helped them, without the intent on saving their sole?

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Oh, come on. So this dude gives an invocation. Obama promised inclusion, so he's including the right wing christians. I don't see him giving them any real power. This is not that big of a deal.

Posted by: Roadbum | December 18, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I am a devoted Democrat, and always have been. I believe that they are the party of common sense. I am like most Americans, I do not believe in Gay Marriage. I do not consider the Gays inferior or anything close, I am not a religious person, probably closer to an athiest then anything. But just the sight of Two men kissing or two women kissing , almost turns my stomach, and the thought of them having sex has turned by craving for" Fudge" , into a lost cause. If I wanted to pack Fudge ,I would get a job at A Fudge Factory.

Posted by: orionexpress | December 18, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

lany: Equating gay rights with the rights of blacks or women is scientifically a non-sequitur at this time, because there is no proof that anyone is "born gay", and there are many people with gay orientations that have abandoned the homosexual lifestyle by choice, but you cannot "choose" to stop being black.
-----
areukidding said: Michael Jackson did. Sorry, couldn't help myself.
-----
areukidding, are u kidding? I just knew somebody would bring that up as a tangent...not to restate the obvious but, last time I checked Michael Jackson was still African American (aka black).

Posted by: lany | December 18, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

No credible science supports born gay. So quit deceiving yourself.

You cannot be a gay and still be a christian. You are either one or theother and definitely not both at the same time.

I love science and I am science major and have extreme appreciation for scientific innovations and breakthroughs, but any science that counters God is no science but heresy. Gay people are on the same level with any other sin, such as lies, greed, prostitution, rapists, stealing, none of all these sinners can claim to be incurrable or un-redeemable.

Science does not have all the answers to human issues.

Science is a creation of human beings and limited to time and human development and imaginations and impurities.

All Science is disputable and often unreliable, cannot be trusted and definitely subjective.

Science is great but inconclusive, falliable, malliable, subject to manipulation and changes with time, event, place, object, politics, money, people, culture, race and lastly cannot be matched with God.

Any science that claim that gay people were born to be gay is criminal, to be kind to you.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

So, in this big tent idea of Obama's:

When does David Duke get his invitation?

And is Hal Turner coming to the party too?

Posted by: Greent | December 18, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

This is too much to swallow! What a blow to the gay community! I'm leaving America and I'll have my sh*t packed before the day is out! And to "dressypink": you have it all wrong, most of us didn't choose to be gay; we just kind of got sucked into it!

Posted by: cornholed | December 18, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

With so much vitriol from both sides, I'm somewhat reluctant to add my voice.
I just want to say,that both as a pastor and a gay Christian I disagree with Rick Warren on just about everything...which is why I appreciate his selection.
If we really value diversity then we must learn to value those with whom we disagree.
Joseph Lowery is a hero of mine and I am grateful for his participation and confident he will represent my values and beliefs. Rick Warren will not represent me, but he will represent millions of Americans who also deserve a voice. After eight years of paranoia around diversity and dissent have we learned nothing?

Posted by: RevMikePiazza | December 18, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Equating gay rights with the rights of blacks or women is scientifically a non-sequitur at this time, because there is no proof that anyone is "born gay", and there are many people with gay orientations that have abandoned the homosexual lifestyle by choice, but you cannot "choose" to stop being black.

-----
Michael Jackson did. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Posted by: areukiddin | December 18, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dressypink:
"Any science that claim that gay people were born to be gay is criminal, to be kind to you."

I was their in reproductive research when we clearly learned that males who do not experience a burst of testosterone at about the time of birth (which binds to specific receptors of the thalamus) will not exhibit masculine sexual behavior.

Your ignorance of science is so marked, that I wouldn't trust your viewpoint about any other matters, including your arrogance in pretending to know anything about God's will.

Posted by: lufrank1 | December 18, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

grslightng: I am not elevating myself above these categories, though I am saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, I am still struggling with sin.
And that passage is not talking about rape... it's talking about the pattern of your life. If you are struggling with homosexuality and do not confront it as sin, but yet say that "this is how I was made" you are living out that lifestyle and you have a pattern of sexual immorality in your life. If that pattern is not brought before Christ and broken, then you will not inherit the kingdom of God. That's for any one of those categories, not just homosexuality.

Posted by: onisama | December 18, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

willandjansdad1 wrote:
Thoz...I'll overlook the childish nature of your rant, but I have a question. Do you like the Rick Warren pick? Does that mean you think Obama is on the right track? Are you actually FOR anything?

Reading your rants and the astounding amount and tone of the stuff chronicled in your profile, I honestly can't say that you are for anything other than divisiveness. You remind me of one of the inmates on Monkey Island flinging poo.


Posted by: willandjansdad1 | December 18, 2008 12:56 PM

I'm for anyone that gays and liberals are against.
I read eight years of drivel posted in this *cough* forum, chiding and insulting Republicans for the perceived ignorant actions of the Bush administration.
You're in for one hell of a wild ride with your messiah, Obama.

Now it's your turn and I'm loving it.
Does that answer your question?
You fruitcakes sure can dish it out but you can't take it! THAT is funny.

Posted by: Thozmaniac | December 18, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Gay people should repent and turn away from their immmoral ways. Change has finally come to America. Democrats are no longer going to be hostage to the extreme left wing of our party. We will embrace all people, but reject hate.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

NeverLeft wrote: "It's about time this angry little group learns that they don't get to dictate how the other 99% of the nation is going to live."

Not just "this" but *every* "angry little group," including fundamentalist Christians and conservative white heterosexual males from rural areas.

Posted by: nodebris | December 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

As an evangelical Christian, I would like to set the record straight about certain misconceptions most people have of our homophobic chauvinistic backwardness, if you will. (You will have to pardon the long sermon here, but a prep course is in order because too many Americans seem to be in the dark about what evangelicals truly believe about these things.)

Rick Warren, like most evangelicals, is an avid, strong supporter of equal rights for all people. Gay or straight, Christian or not, blue or red, ALL people are commanded by Jesus to be loved unconditionally. As some of you may know, Christians are even commanded to love their enemies. You will not find a single scripture in a single version of the Bible that condones hating anybody, period.

Now, the dilemma is that evangelical Christians do not condone homosexuality, but the political translation of this is broad and variegated, and it does not mean that Christians must hate gays just because they disagree. Equating gay rights with the rights of blacks or women is scientifically a non-sequitur at this time, because there is no proof that anyone is "born gay", and there are many people with gay orientations that have abandoned the homosexual lifestyle by choice, but you cannot "choose" to stop being black.

Similarly, evangelical Christians have the right to believe that the fetus is a baby worthy of constitutional protection. This is America. We all have different opinions based on our life experiences, our understanding, and our world view.

So unless you want to turn this into China and "prohibit the free expression thereof" (of religion), Warren ought to have the same rights that pro-choice citizens have, or pro-gay marriage citizens.

Posted by: lany | December 18, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I had a good friend who was gay. He was a true friend in good times and in bad. So, I speak as a Christian and as one who is not prejudiced. I do not necessarily agree with every nuance of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life" because it relies too much on self. Yet, his views are similar to mine on many issues. I cannot even begin to equate the "gay uproar" with the movement of the 60's that brought civil rights to Black americans. Gays have civil rights. When one chooses to function in that life style the choice made is one that automatically negates certain functions...for example, having children. You simply can't. And as far as I'm concerned the problem is that what is being demanded (marriage rights) will spill over into "adoption rights". If someone's family wants their child raised by a relative or friend they know to be gay, then that is their choice and my friend would have been a great Dad. However, government is already forcing this belief system on me by teaching it in some schools and my fear is, that if something should happen to me there would be nothing to keep social agencies from recognizing this "marital status" as a home and placing my children, or other children who have suffered the loss of parents, in a situation we would not choose. To disagree with this lifestyle does not make one bigoted or hateful. I believe you live your life according to your choices and, while the gay populace has become more visible in expressing their choice, it does not diminish my right to express mine. You can declare yourself married and get civil paperwork to cover your properties. But don't force laws to make people marry you on threat of losing their jobs who simply do not agree with your choice. Believe me, I understand persecution. Try being a Christian in this country.

Posted by: lmiller3 | December 18, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

This is awful. Obama is legitimizing bigotry by having Warren speak at the inauguration. Would Obama let a racist, anti-black pastor speak? Why not? According to him, everybody should be welcome. With Warren there, a big stench will hang over the whole ceremony.

And the media needs to quit saying that only gays are upset by the choice. I am not gay and I am upset. I oppose all bigotry.

Posted by: sunnyday1 | December 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

onisama, If we all fall into that category, then why elevate yourself above others (judge not) by saying that gay christian is an oxymoron? The "homosexual offenders" referenced to was referring to the homosexual rape that was performed as an act of hatred and dominance over enemies. If homosexuality is such a sin above all others, why does the bible not specifically in no uncertain terms condemn it more often?

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Gotta laugh at the folks who think Obama's views on gay marriage are any different than Warren's. Oct 2, 2008 VP debate:

IFILL: Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

"I am a fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans."

Right...

Posted by: whizler | December 18, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Prop 8 Lost because it wasn't presented Properly. The Church Groups did the Leg Work to Biblically support their side. The Gay Rights Community did virtually nothing to educate the Public to their Constitutional Right which they virtually never argued. All they did was hold feel good rallies. Both sides had equal finance. N.J, Mass, and Conn have Gay Marriage and other States will follow. Because Prop 8 was miserably mishandled by its' proponents the Courts will have to do the work for them. Thank G'd for the Constitution and G'd Bless those who exercise and demand their Rights under the Constitution. Aside from that we have no Rights. Moral of the Story, get Your Rights Right and you will be Right. It is called being American, an identity that makes us all equal under the Law. The Leaders of the Gay community should have been meeting with Pastor Rick Warren and voiced they are leaving it up to G'd to decide who is Scripturally correct and that they are demanding their Constitutional Rights only. The same Constitution that supports the Pastor. President Elect Barack Obama is showig us how it is done (by the Constitution) after all he is a Constitutional Attorney and Scholar. Lets Play Nice and by the Rules (Constitution). Pastor Rick Warren was an excellent choice. No one has shown why he shouldn't give the invocation; although, we have heard much noise why those disagree with him on various issues.

Posted by: dmscontractor | December 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Ihummer,
Great to read from you. Thanks for resonding.

I love science and I am science major and have extreme appreciation for scientic innovations and breakthroughs, but any science that counters God is no science but heresy.

Science does not have all the answers to human issues.

Science is a creation of human beings and limited to time and human development and imaginations and impurities.

All Science is disputable and often unreliable, cannot be trusted and definitely subjective.

Science is great but inconclusive, falliable, malliable, subject to manipulation and changes with time, event, place, object, politics, money, people, culture, race and lastly cannot be matched with God.

Any science that claim that gay people were born to be gay is criminal, to be kind to you.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

kwerderman, I understand your anger. But don't feel abandoned by Obama simply because he has reached out to someone who we do not agree with. To abandon him this early on, without giving him a chance would be to jump ship at the first sign of trouble. True progress cannot be made without sacrifice, in this case sacrifice of who you feel Obama should not have had dealings with.

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Why do so many Gays think that everything always has to be about them ? Just because Obama isn't kissing your butt doesn't mean he's against you. It gets tiresome, you people are not the center of the universe. Are you only Gay or can you be anything else as well ? I work with a couple of Gay guys and every single thing that comes out of their mouth is about being gay. We get it, you are gay,so what ? Be something other than just your sexuality.

Posted by: F7711 | December 18, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"Gay Christian"... now that's an oxymoron.
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I'm sure we all fall into one of those categories, anyone for repentance?

Posted by: onisama | December 18, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Come on people. What'll be next, the schizophrenics complaining Obama or his Surgeon General don't recognize their alternate personalities? If Obama wants to have someone with a differing political view on a matter or two at his inauguration, then he should be praised for his bi-partisanship, and for his showing some spine to the disproportionately powerful gay / lesbian / bisexual / bigamist / trisexual / pedophile lobby.

Posted by: everyone | December 18, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Hey there, kwerderman: at 46 years old, you should also be smart enough to realize that you're posting at The Washington Post and Obama and/or his team is unlikely to unsubscribe you from all the email with a note here. Try that "unsubscribe" at the bottom of every email. It's gross and offensive to me that you are four years younger than me and yet are posting a whiny, stupid post like this. Ugh!

Posted by: SMB-IL | December 18, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Well said, SMB-IL

Posted by: forward70 | December 18, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The Obama horse isn't even out of the gate yet, and in my opinion, he has already lost the race for change. The appointment of so many backwards-leaning conservatives to his cabinet has been disheartening. But the selection of homophobe Rick Warren to give the entirely unnecessary religious invocation is the final straw. Needless to say, I now have no plans to watch the inaugural celebration on television. This is not the kind of change for which I voted. Is it already too late to get my campaign donations back? We can only hope that Obama will now turn out to be a one-term president, and perhaps in 2012 we will finally get the change for which we voted and desperately need.

Posted by: hgheiss1 | December 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"Poor gays and liberals (I thought gay and liberal meant the same thing)...go cry to mommy now...wahhhh! Hahahahahaha!"

Thoz...I'll overlook the childish nature of your rant, but I have a question. Do you like the Rick Warren pick? Does that mean you think Obama is on the right track? Are you actually FOR anything?

Reading your rants and the astounding amount and tone of the stuff chronicled in your profile, I honestly can't say that you are for anything other than divisiveness. You remind me of one of the inmates on Monkey Island flinging poo.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | December 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Wow, such vitriol here from both sides for such a non-issue. As Patrick said, it's a blip -- are gays going to turn against Obama now because he's keeping his promise of diversity? I am a 50 year old gay man who supports Obama and to most of the gay posters here: grow up, get some life experience and move on from non-issues like this and concentrate on what's really important.

Posted by: SMB-IL | December 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Far right lunatics have used this gay issues to instal the worst president in all of human history in the last 8 years. Under the anti gay agenda, GOP has destroyed our constitution and environement, collapsed our economy, weakened our military, killed millions of people around the globe and shredded our civil liberties and inidividual rights. I think that Obama is doing the right thing by disarming the far right extremists of their most potent weapons (gay rights and abortion obsessions).

Finaly a decent coalition will emerge to protect our civil liberties, ensure our social-safe-nets, promote social justice and fight for the common good which has been overshadowed by the obsession over gay rights and abortion rights. Neither of these obsessions has advanced the cause of the poor in this nation. But chalatans has used it to push immoral agenda from the left and vengeful and divisive policies from the right. Enough is now enough on all sides.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Dressy Pink - You are so ridiculous. Do you really think "those people", that scary group of conspirators, are out to get you? People who are not like you want to have rights, no more, just rights to certain things. Scary stuff? Not really.

What all the gay bashers need to understand is that homosexuality is not No. 1 on some ranking of sins in the Bible. Every sin is a sin. So, if you guys are so determined that we will somehow harm our heterosexual marriages by allowing gay marriage to exist, we need to also be wringing our hands over allowing heterosexual marriages with adulterers to exist. I don't see men and women who choose to be unfaithful being villified quite like our gay brothers and sisters.

Why is that? I wonder.

Posted by: MMB42 | December 18, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Dressypink wrote: “A claim that one is born gay is deceptive religious heresy…”

This statement flies in the face of all scientific evidence. If what you say is true—that we all have a choice in how we are, all males would be six-four, be able to tap dance and play the saxophone. All females would be blonde and incredibly gorgeous.

Posted by: lhummer | December 18, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

As of today, December 18th, 2008 - YOU HAVE L-O-S-T MY SUPPORT...during your presidency, and should you decide to run again. WHY? I am...or rather I should say WAS one of your gay supporters. I marched for you, and said "Yes We Can: many a time...and I was SO proud AGAIN to be an American - part of a country that despites its past mistreatment of Blacks, would come in 2008 to elect a Black as President. Well, I wish you would RESPECT GAYS AS MUCH AS YOU DO THE COLOR OF YOUR OWN SKIN...that is to say: your "Yes We Can" has shown itself to be lamentably SKIN DEEP. In selecting "spiritual" people to speak at you inauguration, you decided to have a "big tent" (ya right..) and include someone like Rick Warren - who likens supporting gay marriage to supporting bestiality, incest, polygamy, marriage with a child...and a host of other ignorant unaccepting points of view. My partner of 16 years works VERY hard for his money, and he touchingly and generously took out a pen and wrote you a very big check...he changed my mind and convinced me that MARCHING actually DOES do some good sometimes...I retreat in discouragement sometimes - and he convinced me that something is changing in this country right now...this Presidential election is AMAZING - like nothing in our lifetime!!! I believed him...and so did much of the entire gay community...think about just HOW MUCH MONEY WE GAVE YOU...and now you S-L-A-P us in the face with Rick Warren. Why didn't you pick someone who SUPPORTED BLACK SLAVERY to round out your "big tent"....I suppose that would have gone just a little too far, now wouldn't it have. I respect you no more...you're just another politician who wanted to get elected. I should have known. At 46 years of age, I shouldn't have been so naive. Well, live and learn. (A gay marching band in the inauguration doesn't quite placate my soul, and I am insulted that you think that including one would have - you piss me off). You WILL NOT get my vote next go around. My email address is kwerderman@yahoo.com...STOP SENDING ME THOSE STUPID EMAILS that try to keep me invigorated with Obama plates, coffee coaster, foot warmers...the emails from David Plouffe asking me to "stay tuned". I am tuning you out now. REMOVE ME FROM YOUR LIST OF SUPPORTERS and REMOVE ME FROM YOUR LIST OR NEXT TIME POTENTIAL SUPPORTERS. Enough. Happy politicking.

Posted by: kwerderman | December 18, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama's pick for the invocation is not going to have the slightest impact on policy. That is why I'm surprised at the outcry from the far left. But as I say it, I shouldn't be surprised. If there's one thing that was made crystal clear this past fall, it is the complete lack of tolerance that those at the fringe - both right and left - have for competing viewpoints. Obama is not on the fringe. Get over it, people. It's an invocation, and likely the last time you'll see Warren connected with the Obama administration.

Posted by: forward70 | December 18, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

For all you who voted for and supported Obama....HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!

I (along with millions of others) tried to warn you!
Now it's time to reap what you have sown.
LMFAO!!!
Poor gays and liberals (I thought gay and liberal meant the same thing)...go cry to mommy now...wahhhh! Hahahahahaha!

Posted by: Thozmaniac | December 18, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Religion is divisive, evil and hate. Doesn't make any difference who gives the prayer, it is all crap.

Bush allows narrow minded religious people to determine my health based on their narrow religious beliefs, we are a third world country.

Bin Laden must be saying "we got em where we want them".

Posted by: COWENS99 | December 18, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Dressypink is certainly filled with a lot of anger!

Being an openly gay christian man who voted for Obama, my first reaction to the news that Warren was chosen was of discomfort.

JohnnyU2Berry nailed it right on the head,


" Given all of the possible choices of religious leaders to give the invocation at the Inauguration, I understand why the gay community would be outraged. The Jewish community would be outraged if Obama would have chosen someone antisemitic. The black community would have been outraged if he had chosen a racist to give the invocation. And on and on.

Conciliation with the religious right is a good thing. But why have Warren and his politically divisive opinions in the midst of this historic Inauguration?

Obama's message is one of healing and togetherness. Warren does not stand for that. It's a bad move on Obama's part."


I don't expect the entire straight community to understand the push for gay rights. But just as I am taught by the bible not to judge (an keep an open mind) and to embrace (in them midst of anger), so too must we all. I am not pleased by Warren's choice but I must pray that from this we may all benefit by at least being brought together in diversity.

Many centuries ago a Jewish Rabbi who reached out to the romans and jews who persecuted him was seen by many at the time as foolish for having done so. Today when the leader of a nation emulates that valued behavior, reaching out to all in an effort to unite, we forget so quickly who it was who modeled that behavior.

As a gay christian I must appeal to both the gay christian and straight christian community. Intolerance and hatred are the joys and temptation of Satan, and not the message preached by Jesus. It is possible to disagree on sexuality, and still love your brothers and sisters as you would love yourself.

May the lord bless us all in his infinite wisdom.

"I know the plans that I have for you...plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope"
Jeremiah 29:11

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Dressypink is certainly filled with a lot of anger!

Being an openly gay christian man who voted for Obama, my first reaction to the news that Warren was chosen was of discomfort.

JohnnyU2Berry nailed it right on the head,

" Given all of the possible choices of religious leaders to give the invocation at the Inauguration, I understand why the gay community would be outraged. The Jewish community would be outraged if Obama would have chosen someone antisemitic. The black community would have been outraged if he had chosen a racist to give the invocation. And on and on.

Conciliation with the religious right is a good thing. But why have Warren and his politically divisive opinions in the midst of this historic Inauguration?

Obama's message is one of healing and togetherness. Warren does not stand for that. It's a bad move on Obama's part."

I don't expect the entire straight community to understand the push for gay rights. But just as I am taught by the bible not to judge (an keep an open mind) and to embrace (in them midst of anger), so too must we all. I am not pleased by Warren's choice but I must pray that from this we may all benefit by at least being brought together in diversity.

Many centuries ago a Jewish Rabbi who reached out to the romans and jews who persecuted him was seen by many at the time as foolish for having done so. Today when the leader of a nation emulates that valued behavior, reaching out to all in an effort to unite, we forget so quickly who it was who modeled that behavior.

As a gay christian I must appeal to both the gay christian and straight christian community. Intolerance and hatred are the joys and temptation of Satan, and not the message preached by Jesus. It is possible to disagree on sexuality, and still love your brothers and sisters as you would love yourself.

May the lord bless us all in his infinite wisdom.

"I know the plans that I have for you...plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope"
Jeremiah 29:11

Posted by: grslightng | December 18, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Where are the racists? What racists are speaking at his inauguration? Who among those he honors have said that God views blacks as inferior? Which persons are he including that use the bible to condone slavery? Doesn't he need to reach out to them as well? Shouldn't they be up there with him at his inauguration? Can't we just all agree to disagree, but still honor those individuals?

And how about the Jews? Shouldn't he include people who view Jews as Christ killers? How about anti-Catholics? What about people who despise immigrants and consider Hispanics to be vermin? Why is it that he keeps reaching out and including people who spew vile lies about gay people, but doesn't include these others?

Posted by: toq999 | December 18, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Efforts by Democrats to be centrist and seek bipartianship are seen only as signs of the continued weakness of Democrats by Republicans.
--------------
That's because Republicans believe the only way to get things done and the only way to implement your agenda is to polarize, criticize, circle the wagons, put up your dukes and fight to the death.

They're wrong, of course, as is evident by the magnitude of the failure of the last 8 years of GWB.

Maybe one day America will be able to check the box on the GOP's report card that says "plays well with others," but for now, they're nothing but schoolyard bullies of limited intellect.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | December 18, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse


Hate by the Jewish people with apatheid policies against the Palestainians should be condemned by all. Both are the children of Abraham and should be brought together under one nation living in peace without segregation just like the new South Africa.

Hate by Homosexual people against the rights of the christian folks, should be condemned by all. Gay people should not be allowed to push an immoral agenda into our schools, governments and churches. The tyranny of the minority must not stand. What they do in their bedrooms should not be regulated but to shove that evil and immoral lifestyles into our public policies, public institutions and churches, that we must condemn in the strongest terms.

Gay people are humans too, except that they have no right to demand that we adopt their lifestyle in our school, courts and churches.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

willandjansdad1, I agree with you that inoculation is the best rationale for Obama's move here, but sometimes there are unintended consequences. I'm just saying it's important to think through what they are.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | December 18, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Follow-up.

Obama's "explanation" of diverse views at the Inauguration is garbage. All views and opinions are NOT of equal weight and merit, and in any event there is no rational rationale for bringing in a notoriously divisive figure.

If he meant it, then he should also have booked an Aryan Nation "minister" to counter Rev. Lowery, plus a biologist or geologist or astronomer or physicist or physician to counter Warren's rejection of science. Perhaps also a Native American traditional religious leader, who would likely have religious views at variance with Christianity, regardless of the flavor. And to stir up the mix more, how about also a Holocaust-denier?

Perhaps Rick Warren will do the right thing and decide to bow out, recognizing that he is no more appropriate than would be Jeremiah Wright or Eugene Robinson or Cardinal Bernard Law or, if he were still alive and I'm glad he's not, Rabbi Meir Kahane. And maybe, if need be, Obama can add someone who does not represent only Protestants.

Posted by: edallan | December 18, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Hate by christian right extremists against moslems or gay people is a horrible hate and must be condemned by all.

We christians should love the gay people and pray for them. Hating them is not of God. Any gay man can be delivered by the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is possible to stop being a gay, hence this sickness has nothing to do with civil rights as some have tried to confuse and deceive the public.

In fact Jesus died for gay people too. His blood is more than enough to wash away such sin no matter how long any gay has been practicing and enjoying their lifestyle, there is hope in Christ Jesus not just for me but for all gay people as well.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

This is the best we have and Obama is a committed christian who cannot promote gay agenda and still be a decent christian.
------------------
Uhhh, DressyPink, I think you missed this part of the article:

'I am a fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on in my presidency,' Obama said"

And, weren't you one of those in here during the campaign questioning BHO's religious credentials?

And, are you really that deluded, or are you just being stupid for the sake of entertaining yourself?

Posted by: JMGinPDX | December 18, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Efforts by Democrats to be centrist and seek bipartianship are seen only as signs of the continued weakness of Democrats by Republicans.

Posted by: Patriot3 | December 18, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

We now see the rewards of the balkanization of America. With all the special interest groups in the Democrat party, Obama is not going to be able to do one thing for one group without alienating another. This is just the beginning. If Obama wants to lead with programs that are good for the nation, he is going to have to say "no" to someone. With all the diverse special interest groups in the Democart party, I do not see how he can lead the nation. If his approval rating is higher than 50% in 6 months, I'll be surprised.

Posted by: saelij | December 18, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I think I hate you dressypink. Because you are an idiot.

Posted by: anonymous36 | December 18, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

If you all go back into history to find out where "anniversary" came from, it was before you needed a "license" to get married. So every year you took your vows before clergy, hence the anniversary was created. I was a celebration of your union.
Then the Gov. got involved. A license was created so the Gov. in essence could control you.
Why would someone want the Gov., by getting a license to marry, controling them?
To get a license to do something, back in the 17 & 1800's was to get a license to do something that was not approved by the Gov. In other words, it was to justify doing something wrong.
There are awesome books out there about how all these things came about that we all should read. Including when your child is born and you register them, they become a ward of the state.
Do your homework.
If you are gay, celebrate your union every year with an anniversary. If something happens to either one of you; what happens to the others estate? Who gets a percentage of it? Think about it?
In your will, sell it to the other party for a $1. with a bill of sale. Done deal.

Posted by: weidgate51 | December 18, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

For the last 8 years, we have sacrificed all our rights under the auspice of shunning gay rights and abortion rights. It is time to put these obsessions aside and fight for the common good, social justice, poverty, financial and social inequities whose gap has widen farthest in 8 years than at any other time in our history.

Obama is bringing everyone to one big table, instead of repaying hate for hate. Gay people and abortionist have no other place to turn to. They should quit making noise and learn to tolerate others religious rejection of their immoral lifestyle. A claim that one is born gay is deceptive religious heresy and must be condemned by all, but definitely not to hate those that practice this lifestyles.
They are humans that need our help and love.

All I ask all is not to hate, deal with gay people like any other sinner that need repentance. Pray for them but never allow them to include their lifestye into school curricullums and church hiring policies. Gay activities should be limited to ones bedroom and not interferred or infringe on or with freedom of speach of anyone including condemnations from the pulpits.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

dressypink,
thank you!
signed,
proud ex-CA voter

Posted by: mloaks | December 18, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"It is absurd to push the gay agenda down the throat of christians."
------------
It is equally absurd to push the Christian agenda down the throat of gays and those who support them.

Of course, no one is trying to shove a gay agenda down your throat. Gays are simply asking for the same freedoms you enjoy.

You, however, ARE advocating the practice of shoving your values down the throats of gays and those who support them.

I am amazed at how willing you are to prove you are a misguided hypocrite.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | December 18, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"That is the problem with America today. We are too willing to let those who shun religion make us think there is something wrong with bringing God into our celebrations and our sorrows. If you don't want to listen to the religious parts of the ceremony, turn your TV down, leave the room to refill you drinking glass, or take a pottie break but quit your crying. There are those of us who welcome God back into our nation's ceremonies.
Posted by: OHREALLYNOW"
-------------------------------
Exactly!
A very logical position.
That same logic applies if you believe gay marriage is immoral.

We are too willing to let those who shun homosexuality make us think there is something wrong with allowing gays to marry and enjoy the same freedoms as straight people.

If you don't like gay marriage, then ignore it, don't have one, and don't participate in them, but quit your crying.

There are those of us who welcome individual civil liberty and freedom in this country.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | December 18, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

More genius from Big "O"...

The theory of vaccination is that you take small non-lethal doses and build an immunity. Big O is brilliant. Defanged Hillary, coopted Gates, just enough middle-right in the cabinet to "wet-blanket" the wingnuts and make them look foolish. This IS change...Change in method! No ideological straight-jacket for Big O!

I'm an amazed Leftie...Glad I worked so hard to get this man elected and frankly...a little awestruck in spite of the fact I don't always agree with his picks.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | December 18, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a lifestyle and a kind of social and psychological sickness that can be cured. It is definitely not natural. When we start telling the truth about this sickness, maybe we will have an a solution to it. It is absurd to push the gay agenda down the throat of christians. I am glad Obama is not hostage to the gay or abortion right agenda.

If the gay people do not like Obama's centrist policies and bridge building, reconciliation and tolerance, let them form their own party or join the GOP. This is the best we have and Obama is a committed christian who cannot promote gay agenda and still be a decent christian.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

In truth I believe that Obama needs to engage with folks like Warren who have wandered from evangelical orthodoxy to some less orthodox positions on global warming, AIDS, and stewardship of the environment. Any improvement, is appreciated.

On the other hand, I do have my doubts about his role at the Inauguration especially since in The Nation article of December 17th there is the quote by Warren that the only thing different between him and James Dobson is "tone." I applaud Warren's absence of total tone deafness (compared to Dobson), but his stance on evolution (he's against it), in particular, is troubling to me. The challenging of evolution at this late date, coupled with his Dobson remark, makes me think that he may feel that he and his followers are doing more of the coopting of Obama, than the other way around.

On a related note. Warren's characterizing of the Social Gospel as Marxist (or close to it), again in The Nation article, was insulting and stupid, and makes him seem more like a Big Business Christian entrepreneur lobbying against government regulation or one of those orthodox religious leaders that the brilliant "Great Agnostic" Col. Robert Green Ingersoll (from Chicago) railed against in the 19th century.

While I certainly would meet Warren in other venues, this may not be the ideal one, given its symbolic legitimizing of closer church-state relations. At least without thinking it through more. Put me down as dissatisfied, but feeling it's too late to do anything about it, without doing more harm than good. It's always possible to place more distance after more sober reflection.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | December 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

We voted for change, here it comes.
The coalition between librals, blacks, moderates, conservatives, hispanics and progressives will be more than enough to:

1. Cut down our abortion rate, make it as rare as possible and most importantly encourage ADOPTION if not replace it with adoption all together. Women has rights but that should not including killing the unborn if they can persevere, have the child and gave them up for adoption. This is the least they can do if they chose to enjoy the sex that conceived the child in the first place.

2. End the sword of darmacle aka gay rights. The hidden agenda by this group is frieghtening. They are boistrous and outspoken, They are secretive and strategically coordinated, They are relentless and funded with deep pockets. They must be stopped from indoctrinating our kids, adopting children and propagating their lifestyle on our public policies, institutions like schools and churches.

If they have rights it should be limited to their bedrooms and not in our schools and church services. Can you imagine a gay man demanding to become a pastor and suing when rejected? That is the agenda we must not allow as a nation of free people.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

PATRICK286, I couldn't agree more.

With all the problems we're facing, BHO's choice for the Invocation during the inauguration ceremony is a tiny fraction of a blip.

I think people who are already fearful of losing control tend to lash out at even the smallest things, no matter how relevant they are, like an overworked, over-stressed mother in a crumbling marriage who explodes when her 4-year-old can't decide what cereal he wants for breakfast.

Little do they know they are giving up even more control of their situation by approaching life with wringing hands, trying to duck the falling sky.

The same is true of the gay-bashers here who are using this opportunity to vomit their hipocrisy all over this board.
Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | December 18, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

LOL. Surprise, surprise.....

I didn't vote for Barack Obama. I voted for Ralph Nader.

Kudos to CA and MA. (Shame on CA)

Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington CT 06793 USA

http://www.justicesofthepeace.blogspot.com

Posted by: cornetmustich | December 18, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama is trying to teach us to be tolerant of the intolerant. Unlike Republicans and neochristians, who hate the word diversity and tolerance as evil hates the light, this is an opportunity for inclusion rather than the traditional,partisan exclusion of the last eight years.

Posted by: coloradodog | December 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

That is the problem with America today. We are too willing to let those who shun religion make us think there is something wrong with bringing God into our celebrations and our sorrows. If you don't want to listen to the religious parts of the ceremony, turn your TV down, leave the room to refill you drinking glass, or take a pottie break but quit your crying. There are those of us who welcome God back into our nation's ceremonies.

Posted by: OHREALLYNOW | December 18, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

It is quite sad that many members of the LGBT community are the ones taking the true radical approach to advancing their views. Here in California, many have turned to violence and a scorched earth policy, to draw attention to their issues. I see the opposition to Obama, as the same, in-your-face and careless approach used by some. This will not help others support your cause, only further drive a wedge and galvanized those like myself, who want to support you. I am a heterosexual, married Black man who opposed Prop 8, yet I do not agree that trying to force people to accept your views is a sensible approach.

Too many people want Obama to focus only on their concerns, and are ready to jump ship when he reaches across the other side. I am a life long progressive democrat, and sick of all the partisan politics. As Barack once said, "ENOUGH! It is time for politicians to unite this country and stop dividing it along partisan lines. It stands to reason that the best approach to change, is begun by opening a dialog with the other side. Allow them to see your are not a threat, and not force feed them your dogma.

For those of you who are angry that the Black community do not support your cause is because, what we endured for almost 400 years was state sponsored Genocide. For most of that time we as a group were Murdered, Raped, Mutilated, Repressed and Oppressed on a systematic and massive scale. I do agree that the LGBT community has a right to exist, the right not to be discriminated against, and the right to determine their own course in life. But not to be forced into submitting to your demands.

I agree with Paster Warren that this issue is a moral dilemma, and not a political agenda. And I also agree with the premise of the New Testament with respect to those standing opposed to you, is to show love, respect and leading by example. In that sense one who more readily accept your beliefs. Whether it is a conversion to Christianity, or changing a negative view of the Gay agenda, the wisdom is universal.

Yes President Obama is being radical with bringing in the other side. Yes, he can't be all things to all people, and yes it is about time we had a leader to use common sense, inclusion, and acceptance of all views to LEAD.

Posted by: walkertechie | December 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

NeverLeft, where are you getting your statistics that African-Americans overwhelmingly supported Prop 8? They may have in California but not nationwide!!!!

Posted by: OHREALLYNOW | December 18, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Hate, Hate, Hate from the homos.
I have pleaded the cause of the gay people for a very long time, but to read them viciously attack a posible bridge building by Obama to the far right lunatics, is absurd and unacceptable. We cannot continue the hate and fear monger, we need to embrace change and all its limitations.
Change is coming to our discuss about these sacred cows including the gay people and abortion people.

Let us not hate, but let us accept change.

Posted by: dressypink | December 18, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

AugustWest, you get the response you deserve. You are bigot and bad loser.

Posted by: LABC | December 18, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Lemme see if I got this straight:

Rev Wright was "too radical" for conservatives and those who oppose abortion or same sex marriage ... Obama should have "walked out Wright's church" ... now Rev. Warren is "too radical" for liberals and those who support abortion and same sex marriage ... Obama should not have Warren as a speaker. If Obama had named a speaker who was supportive of gay marriage, the gay rights community would have thought this was okay and sung Obama's praises. But then the conservatives would have been angry. When Obama had a pastor that "damned" America after 9-11, the liberals and progressives thought Wright was the cat's meow and the conservatives were angry.

Are the extremists (both liberal and conservative) listening to themselves talk? Does they hear their hypocrisy? And do they care that most Americans really do not know or care who the speakers will be at the inaugural?

"During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of views considered," Obama said. "And that's how it should be. That's what Americas all about."

HELLO? ARE YOU LISTENING?

Posted by: akilah68 | December 18, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

iAmercan:

You think that Warren is a homosexual?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

«Lose the invocation. We are a nation founded on freedom of religion.»

Well said!

If gays want to marry, I don't care. I don't understand it, but I don't care.

My issue with Warren is that his is a weido cult following and that the USA has no need to bring "religion" into the inauguration.

I don't care that the "Founding Fathers" brought god into the mix. They were also the landed aristocracy, slave owners, racists, and pompous asses.

Posted by: AbolhassanBaniSadr | December 18, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

This vocal minority group apparently doesn't know their candidate very well. Obama essentially supports Prop 8 because he has said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. It's as simple as that.

Posted by: jdkoenig | December 18, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

1) seeing as God did not elect Obama, the people did, perhaps people should bow their heads and thank the electorate for this grand event.
2) homophobes on capitol hill are like easy women in a dive bar, a dime-a-dozen. Warren will surely get a warm welcome.
3) george w. bush will be watching the inauguration (perhaps while cleaning out his desk) with the biggest sh*t-eating grin on his face, whistling dixie as he prepares for the most relaxation he's experienced in 8 years.
4) obama is just a man. a man who will be the next president of a bankrupt, corrupt, grossly-hypocritical, power-mongering, influence-peddling, dying giant nation.

AND WE'RE RANTING ABOUT A GUEST SPEAKER?

Posted by: patrick286 | December 18, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.
Stop gay apartheid.

Posted by: boarderthom | December 18, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"Marriage between people of the same gender is not Biblical or socially accepted by the "normal" majority."

This is wrong on so many levels. First, a democracy without minority rights is mob rule, "Three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". We have individual rights for a reason and your rights are not subject to the whims of others. To amend the US constitution require a super majority of the senate and house and the states as it should be.

Our laws are based on the notion that they apply to all adult citizens equally. That is, you can't say that laws apply differently to you based on your gender, ethnicity, religious views, etc. Marriage is a legal contract and denying it to someone based on gender is just as appalling, unfair, and gross as denying it to someone based on their 'race'.

Posted by: tweldy | December 18, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Caesaropapism was rejected by our Whig Founders. Whig means anti-Roman Catholic.

Monarchists and fascists rule America today...though their lead candidates, Hillary and McCain, lost to Jay Rockefeller-backed Obama's "overture" to the supposedly sovereign People.

"Annuit Coeptis" (Viz. "Creator"/"Divine Providence": un-named) AND "The New Secular Order" for - "E Pluribus Unum" - all, is that which the old sectarian order, now in control through its Fifth Column pseudo-aristoi/Organized Crime can't handle. Hence the spiralling concentration of wealth based on fiat money, fractional banking leverage, concommitant debt bondage, credit enslavement of the People...and the present state of economic affairs brought on by the false rich's condoning and profiting from Bush's 9/11 treason and false war draining of our Treasury (Ergo - no sympathy for Madoff's victims).

Until "the real Anti-Christ," as Our Founder referred to Rome, and its traitors and perverts are successfully re-educated or run out of America, non-pederastic gay marriage is a reasonable step for victims, to whatever remove, of Rome's institutionalized homosexuality, pedophile priesthood, and its closeted servants Bush, Warren, et al.

Posted by: iamerican | December 18, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Barbara Hearon,

I could not have said it better myself.
Gay's can do what they wish, just do not
expect me to accept your lifestyle.

Posted by: Paulina1 | December 18, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

The whole idea was to stop the polarizing ideology. Work together on the things we can agree on and don't let the disagreements paralyze us. Am I angry at the radical right-wing evangelicals for blindly supporting baby-Bush, absolutely. Do I think a serious discussion about church-state relations is long overdue, yup! But after 30 years of political polarization and culture war ideology, IT's TIME FOR A CHANGE!

Posted by: thebobbob | December 18, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I just saw the press conference in which Obama said he would make mistakes; admit them, and move on. So, Rick Warren was a mistake, admit it and move on!!!!! Otherwise you are tainted with a Bush Brush.

Posted by: linda_521 | December 18, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

TRIDENT420, I applaud you on your extremely lucid and logical post - I couldn't have said it better myself!

I'm fairly liberal, but I have no patience with the far left (or the far right for that matter).

Obama ran, and won, as a centrist.
Being a centrist means you reach out to BOTH sides of the aisle, the right-wing evangelicals along with the GLB community and the left-wing atheists.
Everyone is in for a rude awakening who thinks BHO is always going to act in accordance with their specific beliefs just because they voted for him.

I voted for BHO.
I don't care for Warren or his kind (I was raised the son of an Assemblies of God minister, so my tolerance for far-right fundies is particularly low).
I support abortion rights and gay marriage.

And I think this is a brilliant choice, too.

So, to extremists on both sides of the aisle, I say...suck it up. We finally have a President who seems to be actively reaching out to all sides rather than simply paying lip service to centrism.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | December 18, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

One would hope that in this climate of a polarized nation, these evangelicals a cause of lot of hate, fear wrapping themselves in the flag, farting patriotism, dividers not be the people Obama would turn to and leave behind over a 100 million non Christians. The issue is not of the left, right or in between but rather the State VS religion Clause, a controversy that Obama should have avoided.

He should TAKE DUE NOTICE THAT THE REST OF US ARE NOT STUPID.

These are same evangelicals who have been by hoards have labeled, called him a Muslim and for that reason did not vote for him and will never.

President of all the people and CHANGE is just talk.

Posted by: winemaster2 | December 18, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Lose the invocation. We are a nation founded on freedom of religion.

It seems, however, we are not free 'from' religion.

Does separation of church and state mean anything? If it did, there would be no 'So help me god' - invocation or otherwise. And don't get me started about the legality of a church-sanctioned marriage in this country.

Any basic civics classroom knows the difference. And yet we continue to embrace 'the almighty' while espousing our secular state.

It's pure bull, and we all know it. We just fail to recognize it, or do anything about it.

As for Warren, the 'mute' button works just fine for me.

Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | December 18, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Rick Warren is an excellent choice in my humble opinion.
Why are the gays so outraged?
Marriage between people of the same gender is not Biblical or socially accepted by the "normal" majority.
Further, Obama would have won the election without the gay vote.
My youngest brother was gay and totally loved by all who knew him.
He often regretted his life style and had renounced it prior to his death. His choice.
He could not help his tendencies, but could control his choices.
He believed gay marriage was a ridiculous idea given the turbulence & suspicions associated with most gay relationships
The problem that I have is this...What gays choose to do in private is your business. Why are you demanding that our country accept what most believe and know to be so against nature.
Stopped throwing your abominable lifestyle in the face of reason and calling the messages against gay marriage hate messages.
We love you, accept you and will fight for your civil rights ...but not when you demand that we accept a position that flies in the face of tradition & family values.
Should we then accept the position that exist in the Caribbean that a father should be his daughters first sexual experience?
Or that its o.k for men to have little boys as love interest.
Get a grip ...just like gay marriages... none of these practices are morally acceptable. And should be assailed from the pulpit.
Thank you Obama for choosing Rick Warren. A man who loves gays,as people, but honors God by not accepting your lifestyle.

Posted by: barbarahearon | December 18, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I think what saddens and sickens Democrats about Obama's apparent strategy to this point is that after the extreme, extreme partisanship which has oppressed and nearly destroyed this nation over the last 8 years, the expectation was for the political pendulum to swing back to the liberal extreme. As whyohwhy1 said, at least Republicans admit to being opinionated and biased: despite the disarray the overall conservative party may be in, their core identity is intact. They don't compromise their hate: they shove their narrowminded viewpoints down everybodies' throats...or at least they try. The hope was that Obama would match words with deeds when he speaks of America and concepts like freedom, equality, respect, and peace. I have to wonder whether or not Obama's all-inclusive strategy is an indication that he believes that a more liberal stance is inappropriate, or whether he has been "advised and directed" by the captains and the kings to govern this way if he wants to govern at all. Maybe that was Dubya's word to him when they first met in the White House a few weeks ago. Maybe that's the reason that the Democratic Party may be in real trouble like the Repubs are and a new Independent Party or Hybrid Party may be in the offing.

Posted by: iphoenix | December 18, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Is Obama also going to include a prominent racist in his inauguration program, just to reach out to people he doesn't agree with???
Hurtful and disappointing to all people who supported Obama and that believe in civil rights for all Americans.
Shows that it is still OK to politically disenfranchise and show disregard and disrespect for gay men and women in America!

Posted by: yukondutra | December 18, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

During the general election campaign, I spent several weekends canvassing in Virginia for Obama. The meeting place prior to hitting the streets was a house where a gay couple lived; they were kind, generous, helpful, and dedicated to electing Obama. Now Rick Warren, an overweight bigot who thinks their love is similar to incest, is going to be giving the "invocation" at Obama's inauguration. How truly sad.

Posted by: consumer_dave | December 18, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Rick Warren, like James Guckert's White House lover George Bush, is obviously "in the closet." Any who can't see that needs his or her spiritual "gaydar" recalibrated.

Obama certainly is a potential improvement, and makes us look better right off the bat, but until we recognize that no real progress will be made until Bush and Cheney hang for 9/11, Bush's father for Kennedy and King, and the unconstitutional fiat-money Fed and its false-elite Anti-Christ pyramid removed (Viz. "cast into the Pit"), "Annuit Coeptis" shall not pertain, and we as a nation shall not be blessed by G-d...not that too many have a clue as to the Creed which made America great.

Posted by: iamerican | December 18, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

LOL!

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

«Imprecation»

I learned a new word, thank you!

It will also be a provocation, and retromingent as well.

Posted by: AbolhassanBaniSadr | December 18, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

I was not an Obama supporter but anyone who believed he was going to make everybody happy every time is blinded by the fairy (pun intended) dust.

Posted by: areukiddin | December 18, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Was John Hagee already committed elsewhere?

In addition to his rejection of civil rights for all Americans, Rick Warren also rejects science in areas ranging from astronomy and physics to biology and medicine as well as reproductive rights for women. For someone who has been claiming one United States of America, selecting Rick Warren to perform at this otherwise memorable event is as divisive and inappropriate as would have been the selection of Jeremiah Wright or Eugene Robinson. Moreover, to have the only religious presenters be two Protestants is offensive to over 100 million Americans. Maybe Sarah Palin would consider this person appropriate to deliver an imprecation. But I for one did not vote for a third term of George W. Bush.

Posted by: edallan | December 18, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

People who are in deep sin and imminent danger of hell-fire will choose who also supports their adopted lifestyle. They care not for Warren or Gene Robinson for that matter, as individuals - as long as the person of choice supports the deviant lifestyle and gives people an 'out' for Gods true judgement and accountability - then, yes, anyone will do except the man who follows Godly principles. It's all about who will tell them what they want to hear not what they perhaps ought to hear.

Posted by: watchman1 | December 18, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

With so many pastors, ministers, priests and rabbis why choose a best selling author of a mega-church?

Will this be an invocation for help and guidance for America during this crisis or a request for help and guidance for the 2012 re-election campaign?

Posted by: jccrandell | December 18, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Warren is a charlatan and a quack who has sucked the gullible public into his brand of hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo.

I read his miserable "Purpose Driven Life" book and anyone with a PC, electricity, a Bible, and a week off could have written that drivel. What a colossal waste of time!

God is phony baloney, a mere figment of mans' imagination. Warren, as so many others, seek to profit on the weakness of the flocks of sheep that come to his feedlot begging to be shorn, and paying it as well.

Warren is an embarrassement and anyone who believes in his brand of fiction is a fool.

Posted by: AbolhassanBaniSadr | December 18, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

As a firm Obama supporter, a staunch supporter of civil marriage for homosexuals, and a devout Christian, I have to admit that I'm very much disappointed with the President-elect for this choice. It is clear pandering to conservative evangelicals, mostly because it flies in the face of Obama's own belief about religion and public life. Obama has always said that there should be a separation between church and state, and it is incumbent on the faithful to convert their religious beliefs into universal ideals when they enter the public square. Pastor Rick Warren is antithetical to that precise view. There are millions of heterosexual Christians who support same-sex marriage and there are lots of well respected clergy who support it as well, Obama could have selected any of them who share his view of religion's place in the public square.

Posted by: johnnyspazm | December 18, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Sorry to inform you, AugustWest, but your d**chebag commentary is of little importance. President Obama is doing just fine and we couldn't be happier. And by we I mean humans - something you would know nothing about...

Posted by: LABC |
____________________________________________________________________________________________

See you lack of intelligence prevents you from writing anything of substance. Only imbecile have to resort to profanity. Look up the definition of imbecile and your picture is next to it. Who's "we?" Are you a spokesman for the intellectually challenged? Sorry to rattle you, but I didn't know you were gay. Obama already threw you under the bus. Just another fool played by Obama and still being played.

Posted by: AugustWest1 | December 18, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Wonderful choice. I dislike Warren myself. I agree with him on very little... but my father had a saying:

"A well executed compromise leaves everyone a little pissed off."

Obama is a great centrist. I know its tough for the opposition (and currently the Democratic base) to swallow, but the guy actually cares about this country and is determined to usher our return to greatness. It will require incredible compromise and the synchronized efforts of many Americans who disagree with one another.

Brilliant. If you disagree with Warren, tune him out. He's there for someone else anyway. Its a new chapter for ALL Americans - not just yourself.

Posted by: trident420 | December 18, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Given all of the possible choices of religious leaders to give the invocation at the Inauguration, I understand why the gay community would be outraged. The Jewish community would be outraged if Obama would have chosen someone antisemitic. The black community would have been outraged if he had chosen a racist to give the invocation. And on and on.

Conciliation with the religious right is a good thing. But why have Warren and his politically divisive opinions in the midst of this historic Inauguration?

Obama's message is one of healing and togetherness. Warren does not stand for that. It's a bad move on Obama's part.

Posted by: JohnnyU2Berry | December 18, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

So Warren is against homosexual marriage, so is God, Warren is against abortion so is God, and believes in Creation - so does God. How can anyone expect a Christian to believe and support what God is against? At least Warren stands up for the truth (by and large).

Assasinate Ahmedinejad - well, when the guy is planning to destroy Israel, has the means and the will, what would any reasonable person think? To commit a homicide to prevent a genocide - justifiable eh?

Posted by: watchman1 | December 18, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

I've held silent about all of Obama's Cabinet picks and other key choices so far - but this is disgraceful.

He may consider it outreach to the evangelicals, but I consider it an Obama endorsement of a hatemongering religious tyrant. THIS is what he thinks will "bless" his administration?

I'm very disappointed.

Posted by: ankhorite | December 18, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

It is past time for prayer at an inauguration be eliminated.

Posted by: pstenigma | December 18, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Sorry to inform you that Obaby needed gays for their votes. Now he could care less about gays. Just another group that Obaby play with his BS.

Posted by: AugustWest1
****************
Sorry to inform you, AugustWest, but your d**chebag commentary is of little importance. President Obama is doing just fine and we couldn't be happier. And by we I mean humans - something you would know nothing about...

Posted by: LABC | December 18, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I have to agree with Phil6. I tend to be more of a Democrat and I support Democratic values, but it annoys me when Dems get duplicitous ("oh, we promote tolerance and we're the people of change...but only when the change is towards the direction we want"). At least Republicans admit they're opinionated and biased.

Posted by: whyohwhy1 | December 18, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

While I agree with Pastor Warren's positions on gay marriage and abortion, I also know Obama does NOT support those views. Obama is a conciliator; his style is to include everyone, even if they have views that are different from his. Obama is NOT a staunch ideologue, and special interest groups are going to be disappointed if they expect Obama to hold singularly to their views.

Posted by: Seneca7 | December 18, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

WAPO is playing defense on this one....buries story on homepage.

Posted by: EliPeyton | December 18, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I thought homosexuals always promote tolerance?

Posted by: Phil6 | December 18, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Sorry to inform you that Obaby needed gays for their votes. Now he could care less about gays. Just another group that Obaby play with his BS.

Posted by: AugustWest1 | December 18, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

fr NeverLeft:

>It's about time this angry little group learns that they don't get to dictate how the other 99% of the nation is going to live. ...

It's about time the fundies and right-wingers who swallowed "dr" dobdork's purple koolaid about Prop HATE realized they were brainwashed.

Wouldn't YOU be "angry" if someone walked up to YOU and told YOU that YOUR marriage was invalid because YOU married an opposite-sex person?

We are working to overturn Prop HATE. It WILL be overturned, and we WILL regain our legal RIGHT to marry the legal, consenting, adult partner of our choice. We are not looking to marry farm animals, siblings, or children.

Posted by: Alex511 | December 18, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

It's about time this angry little group learns that they don't get to dictate how the other 99% of the nation is going to live.

Perhaps they haven't noticed that African-Americans overwhelmingly supported Prop 8?

Posted by: NeverLeft | December 18, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company