Obama's inauguration parade on Jan. 20, 2009, will be the first to ever include an openly gay marching unit... and it will include two! The San Francisco Lesbian Gay Freedom Band will march in the parade, along with the out gay San Francisco cheerleading group Cheer SF.

It's the first time in history an openly gay group has been invited to participate in the inaugural parade of an American president. In '92 and '96, Clinton invited the group to be on the sidelines in DC, but did not allow them to march in the globally-televised parade.

Good. It's about damned time. We are part of this nation just like everyone else. I just hope they wear something nice.

Here's a link from the San Francisco Chronicle.

What I care about is repeal of DOMA and other forms of discrimination, not parade acts.

And now president elect Barack Obama has selected Rick Warren to give the inaugural (sp) blessing/prayer. So you've invited a couple of gay marching bands, and given a gay person a second tier government post, and then sh!t all over the rest of the gay community by inviting a man that beleives we are not worth the same, and compares our relationships to serial killers and pedophiles.

In my eyes, Obama's score has dropped from a 10 to a 4.

And if you think that he's not going to throw us under the bus to cozy up the the Christianists, think again. It's the Clintons all over again.

I will never give up on this country or its people. But no one can stop someone else from giving up on themselves.

Oh my god! I saw on Countdown or Rachel Maddow last night that DICK Warren is to give the inaugural invocation. I had one of those Elle Woods moments....."I'm sorry I just hallucinated. WHAT?!!!!" Oh I am very upset about the selection of that son of a b*tch to give the invocation. I know he is trying to appease everyone but come on!! This is ridiculous!! And quite frankly, he didn't need the crazy fire and brimstone bible thumping Jesus freaks to get elected anyway. He built a coalition that involved enough pockets of everyone to help get him elected. I really need to know why he selected this man to give the invocation, one of the most important parts of the inaugural ceremony. This really does not sit well with me at all and everyone knows the hard on I have for Obama. I know the man is going to be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. There's always going to be a group out there who is going to criticize him, but I do feel insulted by this selection. He could've chosen someone respected who doesn't make a habit of bashing gays.

The ONLY thing I could be thinking because I truly believe Obama is a truly intelligent man is that this is all part of a bigger plan. By picking Rick Warren, and by taking it easy on Joe Lieberman he could be using both for leverage as part of some bigger plan. Hell the man won the presidency so there really was no reason to send Lieberman to the other side. That would be giving up a Senate vote. As for Warren, I don't know. Perhaps when it comes time for gay legislation issues, if the Jesus freaks start foaming at the mouth, he may call Rick up and tell him that he needs to minimize the cackling from his flock. I truly have to believe that there is a motive behind picking this guy to give the invocation.

Funny that it took a guy getting picked to say a prayer to puncture some folks' illusions about Obama -- or as I've been calling him for months, "Bill Clinton II." Didn't retaining Bush's Secretary of Defense wake you up? or does nothing get your attention unless it involves gay rights, and what gay marching bands are in the inaugural parade?

This president, from all indications, has to be pushed and agitated against by progressives starting January 20.

and I say this as a practicing-in-my-own-way gay Catholic -- prayer should HAVE NO PLACE at a presidential inauguration.

I have no problem with him speaking.

Agreed. I'm in no way happy with Obama's selection of Rick Warren for the invocation... however, there are tons of reports coming out now about how irate evangelicals are because Warren has accepted Obama's invitation. So it works both ways. Lots of right-wingers are saying that Warren has abandoned them. In many ways, it's a shrewd move by Obama. I think a lot of us may be realizing that a politician is a politician is a politician though. As much as we want to believe Obama is different, I am unconvinced. He sure seems to be starting out very Clinton-esque.

I can't stand Republicans but I do admire them in some respects. They don't give a f*ck what people think of them and they generally operate that way, pushing their agenda only and not caring about making anyone else happy. The Dems have always been the ones to try to create a 'big tent' feel and get everyone working together. It seldom, if ever, works.

PS - I altered the title of this thread to add the Rick Warren reference

I agree with those who are not bothered by Rick Warren being at the inauguration. He probably has many ideological reasons that he could use to justify turning down Obama's offer. We're all Americans first, and our country is made up of a lot of different people with a lot of different views. I found Joe Solmonese's public comments on this kerfuffle cringe-inducing--sort of reminded me of high-school kids who say "well, if you're my friend, then you can't be his friend too."

I don't see this as a Clinton-style betrayal like DADT or DOMA, but it is a total slap in the face to the LGBT community and a HUGE mistake by the Obama team. I think they are finally figuring this out today, because Obama seemed really uncomfortable answering the questions about inviting a bigot.

I totally get what Obama is trying to do here, but I think he picked the wrong person. It is one thing to be against gay marriage, like Obama is, but that is a difference in political method - what is the best way to ensure LGBT equality? We can differ on that, but Obama does not really think LGBT people are lower forms of life. Warren, on the other hand, is a total and complete bigot who lies about LGBT people, claims we are a threat to the very foundation of society, and denigrates our relationships. He does not believe in equality, and has shown himself to be venal in dealing with the LGBT community.

I think the good news is that there is a sh*tstorm over this. Because Obama knows and likes Warren, and because Warren appears to be a nice guy (although if you've seen the Dateline interview clip with him and Ann Curry, he comes across as an arrogant sh*t), he did not think there would be any controversy over this.

The question is, where do we go - how do we direct our anger? We have been shut out of all Cabinet positions, and there seems to be a slowdown on repealing DADT. I think it is high time that our alleged leaders do more than issue statements, but rather get on the phone and demand action from their contacts in the transition. We have seen with the JoinTheImpact movement that we can get lots of people into the streets if necessary, so let's play political hardball. Threaten to shut down DC during the inauguration (and that would be very easy to do if there are millions of people here - a few blocked streets, a couple of stuck Metro train doors, and you would have a nightmare) unless we get action on ENDA, hate crimes and DADT. The country is solidly behind all three and we deserve more than a slap in the face from the future Obama administration.

First, I read that Obama is considering appointing an openly gay man as Secretary of the Navy. If he does that, "we" wouldn't be "shut out" of all Cabinet positions. Who is this "we" anyway? The LGBT community? I didn't know Obama was picking Cabinet members based on sexual orientation.

Second, by threatening to shut down D.C. during the inauguration, the LGBT community would come off as two-year-olds having temper tantrums. Protesting is one thing, but there's a certain way to do it that gets the point across without being destructive or vindictive. Why not hold a rally that doesn't disrupt Inauguration Night? If you really want Obama to listen to the concerns of the LGBT community, shutting down D.C. might do more harm than good.

Great points, Falconpride.

Ok well lets clarify some things first up because you make a statement and people suddenly want to start speaking for you completely. I never said that this decision by Obama has "punctured my illusion" about him. I disagree with him on THIS POINT as I will probably disagree with him on other points. That doesn't mean my support of him has wavered at all, and that I suddenly have this different opinion of him because of it. It would take a lot more than this to do so. Ummm so no...there is no puncturing of anything going on in my mind. After hearing his explanation at his press conference earlier today, I'm more settled after hearing from his mouth why he chose Rick Warren. Its not who I would've picked, but I'm not the damn President Elect. So thats that. And TheOtherFSU....like I said in the latter portion of my previous post, perhaps there is a deeper reason none of us are aware of as to why he chose Rick Warren. It could be a shrewd move by him as you said.

You're spot on Terp.


I disagree with Obama on this point. However, objectively speaking, I see a lot of value in selecting Warren.


As the saying goes " Keep your enemies close", Obama is doing just this. By including Warren, he is appeasing some of the evangelical right's more moderate demographic and showing his maturity. This is huge for two reasons. He is injecting a refreshing energy back into politics by keeping his promise as the leader of all of the nation. Also, That's huge in defusing some of the negative energy by the far right ( birth certificate, muslim, terrorist) leading into the election.

I get it's a slap into the face of the proponents of Same Sex Marriage- especially in California. However, like Terp said, there is a lot more than meets the eye often in controversial decisions like this one. Let's give President Obama the benefit of the doubt. Our country needs to heal from the previous 8 years. Obama's reaching out while at the same time demonstrating a lost art form in politics- the ability to transcend all demographics at a time when we're only use to politicians dividing instead of uniting. What we nee d to keep in mind is He has eight years to work on changing/advancing social issues. He won't get us there by playing the divisive leader just to appease the left who wants revenge. That would only create more of the same. Shouldn't we be bigger than that?

Also, FalconPride stated there is a chance we might see an openly gay or lesbian appointed as Secretary of the Navy. In being prior Navy, I can assure you that won't happen. That's not Obama's style. He will appoint a gay and lesbian to his cabinet in the next eight years, but it won't be this go around and at that time it won't have any affiliation with the military.

Obama is on our side. He is also very smart. He knows gay civil liberties won't happen overnight. He knows there is a bigger picture and sometimes it best to appease the opposition in order to gain momentum in order to cross the finish line a winner.

I'm surprised that anybody's surprised about this. Almost everything with Obama is a mile wide and an inch deep, with two exceptions: unrestricted abortion on demand and political expedience. This isn't the first time Obama has chosen to slap gays in the face for political expedience. When he and Hillary were still in the thick of the primaries, Obama needed to appeal to socially conservative blacks in South Carolina (can't imagine there are a whole lot of socially liberal blacks in SC) and had gospel singer Donnie McClurkin sing at a rally, despite McClurkin's view, far more offensive than anything Warren has ever said, that homosexuality is a curse that can be cured by prayer. But Obama needed SC blacks far more than gays, so McClurkin remained on the bill. In response to gay outrage, Obama later expressed that he was "disturbed" by McClurkin's views. Yeah, sure he was.

Selecting Warren for his invocation is, again, all about political expedience. The gay vote won't change much in 2012. No matter what Obama does over the next 4 years, most gays will remain "yellow-dog" Democrats, voting for anybody besides the Republicans whom they despise and mistrust so deeply. A voting bloc that remains untapped for Dems is the Christian moderates, which believe it or not number in the tens of millions. Warren is an enormously popular figure in the Christian Center, a leader who agrees with Obama on many other issues like "social justice," poverty, AIDS, and the environment. Winning over the Christian Center could have a huge impact on the 2012 election, not to mention on the political battles in the 4 years leading up to it.

As for Warren, it seems like he and Obama are birds of a feather. The Christian Right is up in arms that Warren agreed to the invocation, and understandably so. Obama is one of the very few politicians who staunchly supports the denial of medical care to infants born alive after a botched abortion. It is unconscionable for a religious leader who claims to be pro-life to support a politician who will work to legalize the death of infants born alive. I don't know much about this Warren guy, but it seems that like Obama, power and political advantage matter more to him than his principles.

In the navy! Is Obama considering an openly gay secretary of the navy?

I don't really care who says the prayer at the inauguration. I also don't expect Obama to surround himself with people who agree with him on every single issue (and he's told us that). I like that about him.

I can't stand Warren, but he and Obama agree on a whole lot of other issues. Warren has been outspoken that Evangelicals need to focus on issues other than gays and abortion....like poverty, the environment and AIDS. I don't see this as a slap in the face to gays because to me, that would require that he did it on purpose and I'm SURE that's far from the case.

The HRC dropped the ball on Prop 8 just as much as anyone, so I can understand them taking the stand they are taking. Prop 8 was a crushing blow to the gay community, but we're still a hell of a lot better off with an Obama presidency. Gays need to remain vocal on these issues, but also need to be careful not to cut off their noses despite their face. We have ENDA, DADT and DOMA to worry about.

It's a f**king prayer people, not a referendum on gays. Let's not be so quick to use the "throwing us under the bus" accusation.

I don't mind the "keeping your enemies close" strategy, and I don't mind the idea of building bridges and all of that. But check out a passage from a blog at Philly.com:



I have to say that this Warren is utterly despicable, and this decision by Obama is almost as despicable. What he is doing by allowing Warren to participate is giving this scumbag the one thing he clearly doesn't deserve: credibility.

It's the wrong time to push a far left agenda down the throats of America. We're simply not there as a country. I think a lot of gay peopleforget we've still not won over our own party and need to understand it would be unrealistic for him to champion our cause exactly the way we expect him to as president. That's a fairy tale. Our time is coming. It's inevitable. I have confidence he will help us get there, but it won't be under his watch. He'll play a major role though.

No, actually it's a slap in the face to anyone who thinks that all human beings have value. This has nothing to do with equal marriage rights, it has to do with basic respect and dignity. Rick Warren has compared our relationships to child rape and incest. The clips of his interview tonight on Dateline with Ann Curry show exactly how arrogant and disdainful he is of LGBT Americans - after all, he's not homophobic because he's lowered himself to actually eat off dirty faggot plates and gave the protestors of his bigotry water and donuts (apparently gluttony is not one of this sins this "religious leader" care about).

I have a political difference with Barack Obama over equal marriage rights. We both believe in the full equality and full humanity of gay people, but he wants to be overly conciliatory to the religious in this country by avoiding the word "marriage." Rick Warren is a bigot who thinks I am a second-class human being. That is not a political difference, that is a denial of basic human value. By elevating Warren to this position of honor, Obama is implicitly stating that thinking we faggots and dykes are sub-human sh*t is a legitimate political position. That is why people are angry.



That is a total and complete lie. Obama has NEVER supported the denial of necessary medical care. He did vote against a bullsh*t, unnecessary (existing law was more than sufficient to deal with this incredibly rare occurrence) piece of social conservative propaganda when he was in the Illinois state house.

But I think we need to look at this from different sides. It's clear Obama can both gain and lose by having Warren speak, but what about Warren? Does this put the evangelical leader on side with Obama? Should Obama do something that the Right opposes, will they still stand with him (Obama)? This may be a way for Obama to drag the Right along his path, as opposed to building fences.

Similarly, the gay community will have to tolerate people that they don't like, and sit down with them, rather than demonizing them (just as they have done to us).

I've read somewhere (I can't find the link) that Obama actually got less support (as a % of votes) than John Kerry did, so gay people shouldn't think that we are somehow responsible for his victory and he should somehow be beholden to us.

We're all in line behind the Obama parade. And I think Obama would rather have all sides in line behind him, than have them standing on the sidelines throwing shoes.

Duh! Nice to see you woke up. As I said a year ago "the only change we'll see with Obama is that he'll stop using the word change."

I believe I read that Bush got 23% of the LGBT vote in '04 while McCain got 27% in '08, this making the LGBT vote one of the few areas where the Republican party did better this year than four years ago. Amusing, and sad, to see that Obama, like Clinton 16 years ago, has his first big public faux pas with gays after knifing a group that supported him. Even sadder to see Democratic apologists still fall over themselves making excuses for someone who takes their money and runs. At this rate DOMA and DADT will be repealed by about 2084 or so.

Would this be the same Democratic Party that prohibits anti-abortion people from speaking at the convention? The same party whose liberal members have been trying to get fired from their jobs those people who gave money to the Prop 8 cause?

This is why I've said the Democratic Party left me; I didn't leave it. Just when I had thought the Republicans were filled with hypocrites and ideologues, the Democratics have shown me they're loaded with just as many, if not more. I've been more appalled by the intolerance exhibited by my fellow Democrats than I have by Republicans, perhaps because I expect it from the latter and not the former, when, in fact, the former has been writing the book on it.

There has been absolutely no move to get people fired. What has happened, in exactly three cases, are that people who work at organizations that are tightly entwined with the LGBT community who have found out that their support for the anti-gay hate campaign launched by bigots has cost them LGBT friends and colleagues. I don't see anything wrong, for instance, for openly gay people to refuse to have anything to do with those who have financed slander, lies, and hate speech. The fact this made these people ineffective in their jobs, and they felt the need to resign (no one has been fired) is the price they pay for taking a stand.

Yeah, it kind of bothers me, too. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if McCain had won (thank all that is good that he didn't) and had asked a guy of Warren's ilk to recite a prayer at the inauguration there'd be an absolute fury about how homophobic the presidency and administration are going to be, etc..., etc... but when Obama does it, it's "no big deal" and "the country's made up of all kinds of people."

Amazing.

I don't need convincing that we're better off with Obama than the likes of McCain, but I agree that he's starting off like Clinton, too, and it's kind of disappointing. He appears to have gone to the same school of: "Say what you need to get elected, then back-peddle and waffle as necessary." And you're apologists will allow you to.

Politics is the art of compromise. Obama has followed this maxim by including both "gays and anti-gays" in the inauguration. Not everything can go "our" way. Why get so hysterical over Rick Warren's participation? Wouldn't it be a good move for our "community" to react with dignity, strength, and emotional intelligence to perceived set backs, rather than throwing a public temper tantrum?

Bingo.


The essence of politics is compromise. We have a lot of growing up to do as a community and this is a test. It's very important we play the cards we've been dealt. Some of us are acting like Obama has attempted to take some of our civil rights away. He hasn't. In fact, he has been the best advocate we've had at this level. Not every pitch, pass, shot, serve, or catch is going to go in our favor. Let's not cry about it. I am confident eight years from now we will be posting about the huge shift on social issues that happened under Obama's watch. Let's quit crying and take our place in society. We act as if the gay community sometimes is perfect and don't understand why we're met with criticism. Every group has criticism and is on the wrong end of decisions. Relax. Take a deep breath. We're on the verge of getting there.

Very well put. I couldn't agree more.

You mean like PA Sen. Bob Casey? Oh wait, he SPOKE at the convention. And supported Obama early on in the campaign, while most other state Democrats were supporting Hillary.



Why is speaking out against his decision a "temper tantrum"? I see nothing wrong with this. And I see nothing wrong with people putting him on notice that he won't get their support again if his record doesn't live up to his campaign promises. As the blog quote I posted said, Obama has argued that words matter. So, why didn't Warren's despicable words matter in this case?

At which convention was that? The DNC banned any anti-abortion people from speaking at the convention. I may not agree with their opinions, but telling such people that they're officially not welcome smacks of hypocrisy from a party that purports to be "one big tent."

This year's.

And here's why his father really wasn't allowed to speak in 1992.

Funny. Because I never saw him speak. What I saw were typical restrictions that demanded speakers be of like mind and philosophy, something I used to think applied only to the Republicans.

I was in the process of editing my post above to add some links because somehow I knew you'd want proof.

I'm not one to never admit I'm wrong. Hell, I'm human, but I stand by my statement that the Democratic Party is in no way as inclusive as it claims to be, and that it is far more intolerant of opposing viewpoints than are the Republicans.

Of course, my comments should not be construed to be endorsing the GOP, before somebody here starts screaming at me.

BTW, the fact that Casey wasn't permitted to speak because he was going to deliver a pro-life speech--so what? Must every speaker goose step to the party line? The party wasn't going to change its platform, so who cares if he delivers some words about which he's passionate.

"a total and complete lie"?? Yeah, the Obama campaign called those conservatives who made this charge "distorters of the truth" (that's politespeak for LIAR), until Obama aides acknowledged that the wording of the state and federal bills was virtually identical. In fact, the Obama camp changed its story about this issue three different times, every time new facts came to light. They were mercifully saved because neither the Dems nor the GOP wanted to touch the abortion issue with a 10-foot pole, and the press were even more afraid of it than the two parties (remember how Tom Brokaw said in the town meeting debate that they didn't get any emailed questions about abortion? like anyone in their right mind bought that). Here's just one article about Obama's Clintonesque parsing skills on this issue; if you do a search on the site, you can get the whole sorry timeline of events.

But this thread isn't about the Born Alive Infants Protection Act or partial-birth abortion -- as if the latter, which Obama enthusiastically supports, were really any less barbaric. This discussion is about the need to compromise. Of course you don't get everything exactly the way you want it, all the time (unless you're Teresa Heinz Kerry). But get real!! There is a clear line between compromise and selling out. Our country is blessed to have some truly inspirational black ministers. If Obama had called upon one of these men for the invocation, and this minister also happened to be opposed to gay marriage, I would have absolutely no problem with that. For the inauguration of the first African-American president, it is only fitting that an African-American minister do the invocation, and frankly, there are probably few if any out there who are pro gay marriage. A significant fringe benefit would be the exposure given to a lesser-known or unknown inspirational leader from the black community, thereby taking the spotlight off the undeserving likes of Wright, Jackson, and Sharpton.

But none of that was going on with the selection of Warren. By the way, I find his "I fed them donuts" comment particularly loathesome. I know it's a cheap shot, but it doesn't look like the gays got many of the donuts there, Ricky-boy. No, Obama's pick of Warren, a virulent homophobe, is nothing other than a naked power grab. And the supposedly pro-life Warren is all too willing to cozy up to Obama, an abortion extremist, for the exact same reason.

Look, if you were/are an Obama die-hard because Bush, McCain, and all the Republicans were so unspeakably horrid to even think about, much less vote for, I totally get that. Truth be told, I never really cared for McCain. But I rallied for him so hard because liberals like Obama cause me visceral repulsion. But if you are still feeling thrills going up your leg every time you hear Obama speak ... wow ... you might want to see your doctor about that condition.

If Colin Powell wanted to speak at this year's GOP convention and make the comments that he's made recently about the party (in his Obama endorsement, the recent stuff about Rush Lie-baugh), do you really think they'd let him speak?

Apples and Oranges, Joe. Colin was attacking an individual. Casey was attacking a policy. Besides, like Powell's a Republican anyway. Anyone who really believes he's a Republican in any form is naive. I just wish he'd come out of the closet already and admit he's a Democrat.

Obama is a politician. He makes promises and will break promises, especially those made to interest groups with a lot of money and little popularity among the general population. I support Democrats over Republicans on gay issues because at least they have promises to break. McCain promised nothing and would have given us nothing. The jury is out on what Obama will do and I will reserve judgment until he gets sworn in and has a chance to govern. (People seem to forget that, you know, he's not actually the president yet.) This invocation thing is a transparent, symbiotic case of rank political expediency for both Obama AND Warren, arguably more so for the latter. The proof will be in the policy pudding.

The GOP does have a real opportunity here, though. The Democrats control everything except the Supreme Court; there is no excuse not to act on a lot of these issues. If they disappoint and a viable social moderate/fiscal conservative/competent government type emerges from the 2012 Republican primaries, that candidate will definitely improve on McCain's 27% showing. Republicans could make huge inroads with the gay vote if they do things like come out for civil unions, support ENDA, and so on. But clearly that's going to be hard to do as long as Christian fundamentalists form the base of the party.

I wouldn't have believed something like this unless I read it for myself. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd rather know where I stand with a candidate. There's no question in my mind that Obama will be, by default, a better president than McCain, but to say something like "well he at least makes broken promises to us" (translation: lied to get our vote) "which are better than no promises" is a deplorable argument at most, utter nonsense at least. "He's just like all politicians" is very quickly becoming an unwelcome mantra already, as well as a pre-emptive excuse. We don't need, nor want, Clinton II.

Call me silly, but I'd like a politician (from any party) to actually support us, not one who will outrightly oppose us, nor one who will lie to our faces claiming he will just to curry our favor and get our votes, and then turn around and abandon us once in office.

Considering Obama hasn't taken office yet, I don't think we can know (much less pass judgement) on his presidency. As much as I disdain Bush, I do appreciate that he is trying to help smooth the transition... before he gives Obama the keys to the burning building. I certainly don't envy Obama taking office with the U.S. and world economy in peril, with terrorism and war still rampant, and so many interest groups making demands of him. Good night and good luck!

I am sympathetic to this stance but we basically agree--you say that Obama will 'by default' be a better president than McCain. I just spelled the situation out a little more explicitly. He makes promises to gays to get our money and then breaks them. (Or, more generally, Democrats make vague promises and then don't follow through, for a number of reasons both good and bad.) It's indicative of the state of the GOP that this was still the better candidate on gay issues. And of course, it's not just an Obama-Democrat-gay thing; the Republicans do the same thing on abortion, for example. They have been promising to overturn Roe v. Wade for decades but it hasn't even come close to happening yet. Bush has been AWOL on the issue except for occasional behind-the-scenes maneuvering.


I'd like that too. Unfortunately we didn't have that choice in the McCain-Obama election, and wouldn't have had it with McCain-Clinton or Romney-Edwards or Giuliani-Richardson or any of the other possible permutations.

And like canmark said, let's give him a chance to actually become president before getting too pissed off. Who knows, maybe he won't backtrack on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Ken Starr and the others trying to nullify 18,000 gay marriages in California are a better target of ire at this point.

*deleted* link was rerouted. Thanks fwg.

Barney Frank finds Warren's views deeply offensive, too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28349798


From that MSNBC article, above:

"Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said in a broadcast interview.

also, Warren has the age old "some of my friends are gay" defense:

"I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church," he said in a recent interview with BeliefNet. But later in the interview, he compared the "redefinition of marriage" to include gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse, and polygamy.


Again, I can only imagine if a Republican had asked him to speak at the inauguration.

Melissa Etheridge, at Huffington Post:
And vice versa, maybe?

One caveat to Etheridge's essay:
He needs to state this publicly, and apologize.

There has been so much bashing of born-again/evangelical Christians on this board (please don't ask me to do a search; it will embarrass a lot of board members), and in liberal gay circles, Christians are apparently one of the very few groups it's always safe to trash. Yet when The Messiah picks a virulently homophobic Christian minister for the honor of delivering the invocation, all of a sudden gays do a schizo-180 and start pleading for tolerance, unity, and reaching out. This is why I derisively refer to liberal gays as "the Sheep & Lemmings Set."

Obama's crass insensitivity on this issue reveals his true colors when it comes to gays. He would never EVER select a minister who had made Tancredo-style remarks about illegal immigration because he knows that the hispanic vote and hispanic political donations are still very much up in the air between the two parties. Yet he doesn't think twice about honoring a man who compares gay marriage to incest and pedophilia (btw, if Donut Boy didn't mean it, then why the F*CK did he maintain that argument all throughout the Prop 8 campaign?). Obama knows he can defecate all over gays and ~70% of us (the aforementioned Sheep & Lemmings Set) will still vote for him in 2012. Sadly enough, pit Obama against someone like Sarah Palin (eek! a Christian!!) in 2012 and gay donations to his campaign won't drop off either. When you look in the mirror, how many sets of tread marks is it gonna take before you figure out you've been thrown under the bus??

If McCain had won and selected Warren to deliver the invocation, would any of you be insisting that we wait until McCain had at least spent some time as President before we pass judgment? Had McCain won, would any of you be calling for tolerance, unity, and reaching out toward evangelicals? Of course not. The Sheep & Lemmings Set needs to wait until they hear "Simon Says."

Milk it BoSox! I doubt you'll get over yourself anytime soon.

I'm not a sheep or a lemming thank you very much. I'm also not worried that Obama will throw gays under the bus. What I DO know is that McCain and his party (apparently YOUR party) has not only thrown gays under the bus, but they continue driving it backward and forward over us again and again with GLEE.

IT.IS.A.f**kING.PRAYER. Warren is not making, shaping or influencing policy concerning gays with Obama. If that starts to happen, I will take to the streets. Otherwise, this is much ado about nothing. Until then, I remain completely confident that gays are in better hands than they've been in years.

Supreme Court nominees BABY!!!!!

I think you could interpret it as Obama being dragged to the right.... OR the Right being dragged to the center.

And why must we gays think that it's only about us?