Yes, we can.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by mousepod

I'm not saying that it doesn't annoy me, but why is everyone surprised? Wasn't Warren the guy who held the "Faith Forum" and sat down on TV with both McCain and Obama? Obama capitulated to the religious right then, just as he is now.

Yes, where he lied to Obama about keeping McCain in "isolation" while questioning Obama first so as to prevent McCain from getting the unfair advantage of hearing the questions and answers first.

There are hundreds of pastors that the religious right could have been perfectly happy with that have not gone out of their way to support something Obama has said he's supposedly against (amendment against same-sex marriage). There are options out there that have not said things controversial enough to draw angry protests. By choosing Warren, he's saying more than "I'm not going to ignore the beliefs of religious people," it gives the impression that he's saying that the protests don't mean anything and that Warren's lies are perfectly valid.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by mousepod

I'm not saying that it doesn't annoy me, but why is everyone surprised? Wasn't Warren the guy who held the "Faith Forum" and sat down on TV with both McCain and Obama? Obama capitulated to the religious right then, just as he is now.

Yes.

RW disgusts me on so many levels. I work right by his mega-churchpound. A large percentage of my co-workers go there and spout his drivel. For me, to hear that RW is going to be speaking to the entire country makes me want to claw my ears out.

MBC has made an excellent point. It is really just a speech and I would be much more worried if he was appointed to a position that has power. That isn't to say that RW will not have influence over this administration. I know Obama personally isn't pro-SMM but it's enough that he's anti-banning amendment. Yet, to have someone who promoted such lies and hatred in their congregation in the name of god be given a prime-time pulpit in the name of the country just makes me so disgusted.

I'll be sending a letter tonight.

[Strangler Lewis]

I sent my two cents:

"Subject: Rick Warren

You've got to be kidding.

Preliminarily, I don't know why we need an invocation at a constitutionally mandated civil ceremony. I also realize it's hard to find an evangelical who's not anti-gay. Still, I think you could have picked one who was not in the forefront of a campaign to denigrate the lives of a good many of your supporters.

This calls to mind the two occasions I wrote to President Clinton. The first time was when the pastor leading the invocation solemnized the proceedings in the name of Jesus Christ. The second was when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Both times "he" wrote back saying that he agreed with my positions and opposed discrmination and divisiveness, but that he had done what he had done. No principled defense whatsoever.

Inviting Rick Warren to speak strikes me as similarly unprincipled and indefensible. It is bone throwing for the sake of bone throwing. It is easily seen through, and it is not encouraging."

[BarTopDancer]

Obama Defends Invocation by Conservative Pastor

"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 at a morning news conference to announce several financial appointments. "What I've also said is that it is important for American to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues."

Obama told reporters that he appreciated Warren's invitation to speak at the his church "despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his" on gay rights and abortion. "Nevertheless, I had the opportunity to speak," Obama said. "And that dialogue has been part of what my campaign is all about."

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm angry, I sent my 2 cents in, I even posted it on my my.barackobama site.

That said, I am resigned to the fact that Obama wants to talk to everyone, and wants to alienate no one. Remember how angry people got at his willingness to talk to enemy heads of state? This can be seen as a similar conundrum. Interesting perspective. Can't say I totally agree but there's some truth in there to Obama's MO.

I'm not happy, though.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm sorry, there's a difference between acknowledging and talking to everyone vs. affording someone a place of honor. You can do the former without doing the latter.

[JWBear]

To me, it's like inviting a KKK leader to speak. Completely unacceptable.

[wendybeth]

I agree that this is an incredibly poor choice. I hope people make that loud and clear for Obama and his team of advisers- this is no more acceptable than it would have been were Rev. Wright chosen for the task. Very, very disappointed here.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Well since I've already offered an unpopular opinion, I'll go ahead and offer another.

The day will come when gay people have the right to marry, I'm sure of that. It will not come by way of anger though. It will not come by way of shouting at and insulting those that disagree. Nobody has ever changed their opinion after being yelled at. Rather, it gives them further justification for their opinion, misguided as it may be. It gives them the ability to band together even more fervently and grind everything to a halt. And until people realize this, change is going to be an excruciatingly slow process.

I know plenty of religious people that found it in their heart to vote against Prop 8, because they understood that it was the right thing to do, even if their religion told them otherwise. And I heard many of these same people say, once the protests started, that they were no longer sure that they had voted correctly. For regardless of their vote, they were all demonized just for belonging to a church that, in many cases, they disagreed with on this issue. And I have to wonder, if the vote was held again today, would the votes for prop 8 decrease or actually increase, based on the subsequent anger that was shown towards anyone who dared to belong to one of these churches.

I think that achieving gay rights is a vital cause. But, at the risk of offending people, I think the way people are going about it is too often misguided at best, harmful at worst. It's kind of like what I tell some of my religious friends - when you get in people's faces and tell them they are horrible, you alienate and turn off far more people than you convert. Often, I think we are guilty of the same thing.

For left to their own devices, the church was doing a piss-poor job of keeping their bigotry alive. Each year, more and more people were supporting gay rights, because their heart told them something different than the church was telling them. In my opinion, change was moving more quickly than it is now. And then, when Prop 8 failed to be defeated, things got mighty ugly and through their anger and disappointment, many opponents of the Proposition began going way over the top in their insults towards religious people. I honestly think the nasty reaction to the aftermath of Prop 8 potentially set progress back by 5 years. And that really sucks.

As far as Obama goes, rumor has it that he is considering appointing the first openly gay man as Secretary of the Navy. He also made a campaign promise to rescind the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of our military. And should he succeed, it is going to royally piss off plenty on the other side. On the flip side, Obama is giving a man with an opposing viewpoint the time to say a three minute prayer. Sounds like, overall, one side is going to eventually make out far better here as a result of Obama's presidency and it isn't the pastor's side I speak of. I will wait before I demonize Obama on this issue. I want to see what he has in store first.

Finally, my intention honestly is not to demean everyone who was involved in these protests. I understand where their hearts were, I understand their disappointment and anger, of which I most certainly shared. And most importantly, I understand and dearly appreciate that the reason they stood there with those signs was to help me achieve the same rights as everyone else. But I don't think that the specific signs that ridiculed people with religious beliefs, or boycotts that had the potential of hurting good employers, or refusing to be a guest at a straight person's wedding are the answers. I think they are reactions based on anger and pain alone, rather than ideas that are ever going to be truly effective. I see some of this as a massive PR failure.

Again, I agree with the cause; I don't agree with many of the tactics that I've seen, even if I sympathize with the reasons behind them.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

As far as Obama goes, rumor has it that he is considering appointing the first openly gay man as Secretary of the Navy. He also made a campaign promise to rescind the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of our military.

This from the Washington Times yesterday

Washington Times
December 18, 2008
Pg. 6

Gay Man Backed For Navy Secretary

Foes cite 'Don't ask, don't tell'

By Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times

Some top retired military leaders and some Democrats in Congress are backing William White, chief operating officer of the Intrepid Museum Foundation, to be the next secretary of the Navy - a move that would put the first openly gay person at the top of one of the services.

The secretary's job is a civilian position, so it would not run afoul of the ban on gays serving in the military, but it would renew focus on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as President-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office.

"He would be phenomenal," said retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001, pointing to Mr. White's extensive background as a fundraiser for veterans' and military causes.

Retired members of the Joint Chiefs have contacted Mr. Obama's transition team to urge them to pick Mr. White, and members of Congress said he would be a good choice for a service secretary.

"He's very capable," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat, whose district includes the Intrepid Museum, a retired aircraft carrier berthed on the Hudson River in New York City.

Mr. Nadler said Mr. White has become a friend of the military, and particularly the service members and their families, both through the Intrepid and through Fisher Houses, which offer a place to stay so families can be close to military members who are receiving medical care.

A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign said they won't comment on personnel decisions.

Others are in consideration, such as Juan Garcia, a former naval aviator who was defeated for re-election to his seat in the Texas House. Mr. Garcia is friends with Mr. Obama from their Harvard Law School days and was chairman of Mr. Obama's Texas campaign.

Democratic members of Congress from Texas sent a letter to Mr. Obama earlier this month supporting Mr. Garcia for the position.

A spokesman said Mr. White would not comment.

If Mr. White were nominated, he likely would face questions during a Senate confirmation hearing over how his nomination would square with the military's policies on gays.

In 1993, President Clinton signed into law a ban, and White House and congressional leaders settled on a new policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." Under it, gay service members must keep their sexuality private or face expulsion. About 12,500 people have been discharged under the policy.

Supporters of the ban said nominating Mr. White would send the wrong signal.

"It's a matter of judgment, and I think that would be very poor judgment on the part of the commander in chief," said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, which opposes gays serving in the military. "It would be very demoralizing to the troops."

But Mr. Nadler said the military policy that says gays are a threat to unit cohesion is "nonsense," and it shouldn't apply to Mr. White anyway because as secretary "he's not in the foxhole, he's not on the ship."

Gen. Shelton called Mr. White's work at both the Intrepid Museum and the Fisher House Foundation "legendary."

"He has always been a staunch advocate of our men and women in uniform," Gen. Shelton said