Special Classifieds Feature

Buy Washington Post Inauguration newspapers, books, and more

Human Rights Campaign President Rips Obama in Post Op-Ed

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, chastizes Barack Obama in Friday's Washington Post op-ed page for his appointment of pastor Rick Warren of the evangelical Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., to deliver the invocation at the inaugural. Solmonese notes Warren's support of Proposition 8, the measure that banned gay marriage in California, and calls on Obama to illustrate his support for the gay and lesbian community by naming an openly gay official to his Cabinet. Solmonese writes:

... inviting Warren to set the tone at the dawn of this new presidency sends a chilling message to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. It makes us uncertain about this exciting, young president-elect who has said repeatedly that we are part of his America, too.
We understand that the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights icon and a dear friend of LGBT Americans, will close the inauguration ceremony. But would any inaugural committee say to Jewish Americans, "We're opening with an anti-Semite but closing the program with a rabbi, so don't worry"?
It is likely that one of two scenarios played out during behind-the-scenes inaugural planning, both of them equally troubling. The first possibility is that it was suggested that Warren is the correct voice to lead the inauguration because his selection would send a message of inclusion to evangelicals. And when someone at the table said, "Gay America will be offended by that choice," the quick answer was, "That's fine, we'll deal with it. We invited the gay marching band."
The second possibility is that no one at the table had a clue about Warren's anti-gay views and that the Obama team has been stunned by the broad and loud objections to the choice. That's not encouraging, either.

By David A Nakamura  |  December 18, 2008; 6:42 PM ET  | Category:  Swearing-in Ceremony
Previous: Inaugural Ball Watch: Heroes Red, White & Blue Ball | Next: A Different Kind of Inaugural Ball




Add Inauguration Watch to Your Site
Stay on top of the latest from Inauguration Watch! This easy-to-use widget is simple to add to your own Web site and will update every time there's a new installment of Inauguration Watch.
Get This Widget >>


Comments



you couldn't please these through the looking glass clueless if you outlawed breeding, except for more gay's but, first they must find the elusive gene otherwize called the desire for the perfect bj and tight hole.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | December 18, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I think angriest's comments here are just one more clue why the choice of Warren is so wrong.

Giving further cover for the homophobic bigots of the world is a bad move. Enough with dehumanizing others. Out with the abusers.

Posted by: pm1nyc | December 19, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Why give a jerk like this public recognition ? Evangelicals preach hate, they hate everyone that doesn't believe like them. Obama' buddy, Rev Wright would be a better choice. Bush & his buddies would be proud of this guy.

Posted by: gatorsn09 | December 19, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Listen: let's be blunt: let's be honest: a lot of people in society are not yet comfortable with men that suck each others' penises, and stick their penises up each others' rectums. What do you not understand about this? We certainly do not live in a perfect world: so why expect of President-elect Obama that he is going to be able to live up to your personal idea of "perfect". A lot of people who do not think that your perfect is so perfect at all... put up with you... and your expressed ideas. What makes you unable to put up with their expressed ideas. Hmm???

Posted by: DarylAtamanyk | December 19, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Hey Daryl,

You're right. That's why we call such ignorant people homophobes, people with a FEAR of others disguised by relentless bigotry. And we don't celebrate bigotry by giving it a national platform on a day for all Americans.

This choice is atrocious and Obama's first great political mistake.

Posted by: pm1nyc | December 19, 2008 5:30 AM | Report abuse

A time--this historic inaugural--that should have involved unity and goodwill will now be defaced with this divisive bigot. Thanks, Obama, for marginalizing some of us before you even got into office. So much for "hope" and "change"!

Posted by: uh_huhh | December 19, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

At least this minister likes white people. Better than his 20 year minister that was full of hate for just about everybody. And how about relationships with Ayers, Rezko and worse? Where were the complaints then? Civil Rights? Give me a break.

Posted by: Texan2007 | December 19, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

So Obama is willing to include someone whose views he may personally find repugnant is his inauguration?

Lincoln was willing to dialogue with and include in his government people who thought that slavery was good and necessary, a position he himself felt was deeply wrong. Ending slavery was not the first condition of his presidency, but a last resort.

Was Lincoln morally repugnant for placing his country's overall interest above any particular issue, even one which he himself deeply believed was wrong?

Consider this as you discuss Obama's including, as one of the TWO preachers who will offer blessings at his inauguration, ONE who holds difficult beliefs shared by a significant and influential bloc of the nation's citizens. Not a fringe element, mind you, but a substantial number of citizens and an absolute majority of citizens in large geographic areas of the nation.

Obama was elected to be everyone's president. He, at least, takes that seriously.

Posted by: nodebris | December 19, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

again, the Gaystapo think's they can force the world to accept their bizarre expressions of love for their own image... In a world of disease initiated by their activity it is best to try and tamp this down as much as we can till they all die off from the various diseases they infect each other with.

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

Marriage Bible Style:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

The charade is over!

You can no longer deny your fellow citizens equality under the law (even if you don't like them) while hiding behind your religion. Is it okay to own slaves? Says so in the Bible! People who believe in freedom and equality are sick of it, and increasingly disgusted watching our gay friends and family members being dehumanized and thrown under the bus. Marriage is constantly being "redefined" and that's a fact. The so-called "Christian" traditional marriage is a lie. We all deserve the same rights and freedoms.

ENOUGH!

Posted by: inbox_blues | December 19, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse


angriestdogintheworld wrote: "again, the Gaystapo think's they can force the world to accept their bizarre expressions of love for their own image... In a world of disease initiated by their activity it is best to try and tamp this down as much as we can till they all die off from the various diseases they infect each other with."
______________

You are sick, and you highlight the evil fanatcism that people who understand freedom and equality are fighting against. We will win, and you will lose. We are right, and you are wrong. We support love, and you support only hate and ignorance.

Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of STDs are spread heterosexually (including over 90% of HIV/AIDS worldwide), or that gay people don't do anything that straight people don't do. Nevermind the fact that gay people are a natural part of human sexuality and aren't going anywhere. Nevermind that there are no reasonable arguments against equal rights for gay people.

But ignore these facts at your own embarassment. One day we will look back at evil like you with shame and disgrace that you had a voice.

Posted by: inbox_blues | December 19, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

DarylAtamanyk wrote: "Listen: let's be blunt: let's be honest: a lot of people in society are not yet comfortable with men that suck each others' penises, and stick their penises up each others' rectums. What do you not understand about this?"
___________

Listen: let's be blunt.

Homophobes' OBSESSION with gay sex says more about them than gay people, and their OBSESSION with man-on-man action in particular is no reason to oppress gay people. I bet you jack off to women getting it on.

Do straight people have anal & oral sex? Yep, absolutely. Do many gay people NOT like anal sex? Of course, absolutely.

YOU need to start thinking about gay people as human beings and not as sex acts. What is up with that? It's so bizarre.

Posted by: inbox_blues | December 19, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

inbox.... you will never be happy, but maybe that is part of being gay. I am indeed a homophobe, in particular because I was nearly molested as an 11 year old and I got hepatitus a from my nephew, visiting with his "lover" over the Holiday's when they made the salad for Xmas feast. At the time my nephew also had AID's. (I did not know this). Anyway... destroyed my liver. I use to care less what you dingalings did... now I am very reluctant to engage homosexual people around food. My problem, not yours obviously.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | December 19, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

angriestdogintheworld wrote: "inbox.... you will never be happy, but maybe that is part of being gay. I am indeed a homophobe, in particular because I was nearly molested as an 11 year old and I got hepatitus a from my nephew, visiting with his "lover" over the Holiday's when they made the salad for Xmas feast. At the time my nephew also had AID's. (I did not know this). Anyway... destroyed my liver. I use to care less what you dingalings did... now I am very reluctant to engage homosexual people around food. My problem, not yours obviously."
__________________

I am not gay. I am happily married to my wife. I am just not a bigot and I believe in freedom and equality for all law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens.

Fact: Most children who are molested in the US are little girls, molested by heterosexual men. I'm sorry for what happened to you, but stop pretending that's a gay thing. It's absurd. It's bizarre and it's flat out wrong.

My very good female friend was raped on the street several years ago, but neither she nor I hate & fear heterosexual people now.

To blame all gay people because you contracted hepatitus is clearly intellectually bankrupt.

I know I can not talk sense into you, but it's you who isn't happy and you never will be with so much illogical hate in your heart.

Posted by: inbox_blues | December 19, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I get it... like a little girl get over it, pretend that YOUR life experience is all that matters and shall define as it relates to me. I'm just a statistical abstract without an ability to preserve my well being for the greater good of people like you who sail through life somewhere over the rainbow. As I said... use to be like you, despite my unfortunate event as a child, but losing my liver spoke to my own inner sense of preservation. No illogical hate.... just caution and part of the vast, vast majority that question the agenda of the Gaystapo.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | December 19, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

If Rick Warren had been anti-Black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Asian, anti-Jew, anti-any other minority other than gay, then he would not have been given a place at Obama's inaugural table because it would have been wrong to give such a person a platform in which to give validity to their bigotry. But since Warren is anti-gay, Obama tries to defend his choice by saying he wants to listen to differing viewpoints. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what rhetoric you wrap it in. If we are to use Obama's failed logic on this issue, then white supremacists should have a chair at Obama's inaugural table (but they won't because we know their positions on social issues are wrong, just as Rick Warren is wrong). Obama blew it with this one. It is painfully obvious to anyone with a brain that this is simply pandering to the radical religious whack jobs who have held this country hostage, via the Bush regime, for the last 8 years. With this most egregious of decisions, Obama has flushed his credibility down the toilet. This is not change we can believe in. This is just more of the same garbage that gay people have had to deal with the last 8 years. And it stinks. Obama benefitted greatly from gay people's, their friends', and their families' financial donations and their votes (including financial donations and vote from this gay person). And how are we repaid? We are thrown under the bus. The hearts and minds of a huge segment of the U.S. population are lost by such a purely political maneuver, and we cannot be one people/one country because of it. Here's hoping Obama wises up. If he wants to fix this country, he's going to need everyone's involvement, and right now, gays, their families, and friends are feeling like their involvement in cleaning up this country is neither wanted nor desired. Not a good message. Not a good way to begin Obama's presidency. Not good at all. And there's no excuse for it.

Posted by: Russell4America | December 19, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse


angriestdogintheworld:

The "agenda" of the "gaystapo" is just to have the rights and freedoms YOU enjoy. It's not that hard to see or understand, and the level of hate you express (let's hope all gays die of diseases? come on - that's sick) is clearly immoral. It's just wrong to say such things. These are human beings and your fellow Americans you want to DIE.

The "vast, vast majority" do not question gay rights. People are becoming more educated on the issue and more open all the time. People are pretty much split on this issue, and the younger generations support gay marriage. You can not defend hate by saying "most agree with me". It doesn't work that way. Most Southerners supported segregation. Does that mean it was right? Of course not. It was wrong. And you are wrong on this issue, but you don't realize it yet or refuse to open your mind and see it. And of course, the vast vast majority don't want gay people to die from diseases.

Why would you come to a website and write something such nasty, cruel, and inhumane things? I don't understand.

Nobody has an easy life. I am sorry for the unfortunate things that have happened to you. I really am. Though one who has had a disease should be more compassionate towards those who have it, too. You got hep through food (so you say). Maybe the person you contracted it from did, too. Have you considered that? Are you aware that if gay people have a disease, they are also victims of a disease? Or that straight people get the same diseases the same way?

You don't find that illogical? It certainly is.

I don't expect you to answer these questions. You can't. You are blinded by hate and irrational, illogical thoughts and can't think properly.

I wish you well. I still love you.

Posted by: inbox_blues | December 19, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

imagine getting a call from the "clinic"... your nephew has hepetitus. Anyone who has had contact (food or otherwize) with this individual is advised to get a "booster" shot, especially older and the very young. I'm not sure I knew what hepetitus was, but the next day I found out. Ever had jaundice? No I'd never wish that on anyone period. But I did look into it. Caused by the contact... ingestion of ... said bodily function number II. My nephew, a teenager I might had, had numerous sex partners. Hepetitus is epidemic in the gay community, but you get it once and then you are immune. Anyway, as you say... you can make me comprehend your higher plane of understanding. I'm a simplistic cave man, but if I was hanging out with a guy who liked to have anal sex with women... nearly exclusively, it would seem that the statistical abstract would say that this could lead to sexually transmitted diseases. I would keep my distance as far as dinner parties. Maybe it is a clean thing, but I just don't think the discharge shoot was meant for engagement. I have no doubt you are correct and the gay agenda will prevail, but a certain percentage will pay the price in integrating your desires with that of the general biological function of human kind.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | December 19, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Didn't we vote for change? Haven't we just had 8 years of ultra extreamist religious pandering by our president? Obama should never have given such an honor to Rick Warren. Warren is anti-science, anti-reproductive rights, anti-steam cell research. Warren likens gays to pedophiles and child abusers. Come on team Obama, couldn't you have picked someone better? Don't try to tell me we need a dialog with Warren's mega church because we don't.

Posted by: cdp326 | December 19, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

I guess Sarah Palin was right. Obama does pal around with terrorists... they're just her type of terrorist. The problem is that after 8 years of Bush division, in order to start coming together we need to show we can work with people - other Americans especially - that we don't really like and who don't like us.

Posted by: Robguy1 | December 20, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Even if Warren's views don't match Obama's policies, he still doesn't deserve to participate in this historic inauguration. His anti-gay stance is just one objection. Wouldn't a more ecumenical choice have been appropriate? Why continue the 'Billy Graham tradition' that insulted many Americans even in the 1950s? What does this choice say about Obama's troubling campaign pledge to support public financing of religious charities, which erodes separation of church and state? Isn't this just a cynical grab for right-wing support, which undercutsObama's claim to being a 'new' kind of politician, and is stupid to boot, since it won't work

Posted by: Miri2 | December 20, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company